• How social media can change your business
• What makes you stand out in the social media crowd
• How to deal with negative customer feedback
• How to integrate social media into your overall marketing plan
• How to develop a successful social media strategy

Can you think of someone who would benefit from this type of conference? Maybe they have expressed a desire to get their business into social media but have no idea where to start, or perhaps they really aren’t convinced it is right for their business. Maybe its your business that would benefit from this type of conference.

This is where I come in. I have a ticket to give away (face value: $249) to the conference. All you have to do it tell me in the comment section why you think I should give you the ticket. On Nov. 18, 2011 I will choose the person who I feel is the most deserving. I get to choose, this is not a democracy and chocolate and wine are gladly accepted as bribes. And it should be noted that if you post this contest on your Facebook page, tweet or retweet it on twitter, I will notice and I will probably put an extra pretty tick mark next to your name on my marking sheet – I’m just sayin’

Having said that, you probably don’t need to devote hours and hours a day to it either. Generally speaking, once you have a basic social media strategy in place, you can keep up with the day-to-day maintenance with as little as half an hour to an hour a day.

2. You Don’t Know Nuttin’
Each social media platform has its own unspoken rules and etiquette. Jumping into a conversation without taking the time to learn what is expected serves only to annoy and alienate people.

Finding out the best use for a social media platform is as easy as quick google search. The web is full of helpful information such as 15 Twitter Netiquette Rules You Must Know or 32 Ways to Use Facebook for Business.

3. You’re Trying to Keep Up With the Jones’
Starting up a social media account of any kind just because everyone else is doing it is stupid. Period. If social media doesn’t make sense for your business, your goals or financial or human resources then don’t bother.

One of the worst things you can do is to get into the social media world just because you think you should and then find out you have nothing to say and nothing to contribute. Or, numbers one and two above apply but you think number three is a good enough reason and after a couple weeks you leave your account dormant.

Appearing to be involved in social media but not responding makes people think you are ignoring them.

On one side are those who feel that Councillors communicating with their residents, whether it is during a council meeting or not, is fine. They feel Councillors shouldn’t be held back from letting people know what is going on during the meetings.

On the other side, there are those who feel that tweeting during council meetings is a distraction and keeps the Councillor from paying the kind of attention that is required.

This is a conversation that is happening all around the world. In fact, Council members in the UK found themselves in the midst of controversy when they were caught tweeting during a council meeting that was discussing Councillors allowances. Of course, elsewhere in the UK, the tweets of Councillors were winning praises.

With such a divide, what’s a Councillor to do? I put the question to local Councillors and the Mayor. The responses I got varied, with some choosing not to respond. I also received feedback from the twitter community. I have edited the responses for brevity when necessary.

Hmmm. Tough to answer in 140 characters or less. I don’t have a major issue with it if they’re paying attention, and not leaking info. – Brian Botterill – Ward 3 (@bb4ward3)

… a Tweet…it is a distraction and not appropriate behaviour when you are actively engaged in making decisions on behalf of your constituents. – Roxanne Carr, Ward 2 – @councillorcarr

Yes to tweets during breaks. It is a welcome change in focus during a long day-like a conversation instead of a performance. – Jacquie Fenske – Ward 5 (@jacquiefenske)

No we shouldn’t be. Only during breaks/recess. – Jason Gariepy, Ward 8 (@Jasongariepy)

Elected officials need to concentrate on the matters at hand during that meeting – no matter how boring or contentious. That means reducing distractions as much as reasonable… I don’t think politicians should tweet (or post facebook updates, blog entries, etc) during those meetings. Go ahead and tweet during breaks. – Ian McCormack (@Ian_mccor)

I like council meeting tweeting. I prefer tweeting to be done by third party, not someone paid by gov’t. – Mike Engbers (@mengbers)

Not sure the #yegcc (Edmonton City Council) folks have time to tweet and do council… but if they do, why not? – Gary (@commonsensesoc)

No. They need to focus on their job and not have tweeting as a distraction. After or before is fine. – Brittney Timperley (@BTimps)

YES! – Katy Plesuk (@KatyPlesuk)

So what advice would I give a councillor if I had one as a client? I would suggest that if they want to tweet to make sure they only tweet during breaks and make it very clear that they are not in an active council meeting. Although they might innocently tweet during a break, if their audience doesn’t realize that is what is going on, it won’t matter. Those who want to know their councillor is paying attention will assume they aren’t. Unfortunately, perception is reality in the political arena. This compromise allows the councillor to use social media to stay in contact with residents, provide useful, timely information and engage while still giving all their attention to the business at hand.

The first encounter was with a fellow communications person. This person worked for a local organization and contacted me regarding some interactions I had online. They asked me if I could please delete one of my tweets. It was a tweet that was made two days prior. I explained to them that deleting the tweet would do little to no good as it was far down on my profile and that is the only place it would be deleted. She said she understood, but could I please delete it anyway, thanks!

Now, just to clarify a couple things. The tweet was not offensive and in fact, it was not even incorrect. I was trying to correct some misinformation that someone else had tweeted. But it wasn’t worded the way she thought it should be.  This tells me a couple things:

1. The person is going by old school style communications of trying to control the message.
2. This person does not understand the culture of twitter.
3. Because of #1 and #2, the organization this person works for has probably not done a great job training their staff.

I asked around a bit and discovered, much to my surprise, that I wasn’t the first one who had been asked by a communications person to delete tweets. The problem is, people who are involved with twitter know that asking someone to delete is equivalent to saying “shut up!” – it is considered a bit of an insult.

The second incident was much more disturbing. It happened while I was covering the Strathcona County Council meeting.

As I always do, I sat in the media section with the local media. I was sitting in one of three seats available to media. The only time I have covered a council meeting and not sat there was when the newspaper was training an intern and needed extra seats. That time, without anything needing to be said, I sat down in the public section to tweet.

This meeting was like many others and after chatting with the reporter and exchanging jibes about his choice in hockey teams, the Council meeting started.

I began tweeting the highlights of the meeting, including the motions before Council and who voted for and against them. I also tweeted my observance that the Mayor and one of her Councillors always voted the same way.

It is all speculation on my part that what happened next is connected to what I was tweeting, but I have no other explanation that makes sense to me.

A few minutes later a break was called. I heard that a couple of the councillors had been following my tweets on their smartphones during the meeting (we can deal with that in another post!) and chuckling about my commentary.

The Mayor came up to the media area and straight towards me. She asked me if I was media. I told her yes, social media. She said no, was I paid by a media outlet to cover the Council meeting. When I said no, she said that I needed to move out of the media area.

I explained to her that by moving out of the media area I would have no table to type on and would have to use my lap. That’s ok, she said, but we can’t have the public sitting here.

I collected my stuff and started to move. Before I moved I asked the reporter if he had a problem with my being there. He responded that no, he definitely didn’t, in fact he liked the company.

Now, please understand, there are no crushing crowds at these meetings and there are extra seats at the media table. There was absolutely no reason why I should have been kicked out of that area. That leaves me with only one answer to the question of why I was asked to leave. The Mayor didn’t like what I was tweeting. She decided to try and control the message, or at the very least, make it uncomfortable for the message to get out (ever tried to juggle an iPad, a Bluetooth keyboard, an iPhone and papers while sitting on a folding chair?)

The thing that is baffling to me is that this is the Mayor of a municipality that just spent several months coming up with a social media policy. A municipality that just opened multiple facebook pages, a twitter account, flickr stream etc. This is also the Mayor who used twitter to campaign and broadcast her election blog. This is a woman who should know better.

How does a municipality or any organization for that matter, stand a chance in the world of social media when the people who should know better…don’t? It is becoming apparent that having someone read a social media policy or showing them how to use the tools is not enough. Many people, including some of those who are on various social media sites, don’t get it.

Yes, it is a communication tool. But it is not just a tool, it is a completely different way of thinking. This is where things start to fall apart. It is easy to teach someone how to use a new tool, it is a lot harder to teach them a new way of thinking.

When I received my formal communications training about eleven years ago, we were taught all about controlling the message and developing key messages. Then social media came along and threw all of that out on its ear. It brought to light the fact that not only can we not control the message, but we never could. It was an illusion of control. Social media hasn’t taken control away from anyone, it has shown us we never had it.

Unfortunately, some people and some organizations are still grasping frantically, trying to grab hold of that illusion. Until they change their approach and begin to think about engaging people, interacting and exchanging thoughts and ideas, until they begin to realize that information, messaging and facts don’t belong to them, they will continue to run around trying to grab hold of any sliver of control they can find.

Am I out to lunch? Can the message be controlled? Am I a Polly-Anna to think organizations don’t need to have control if they are transparent, forthcoming and engaging in their dealings?

Always one to see things just a little bit differently than anyone else, Wojtek had mentioned that we have so much control over our brand now. This brought me up short as I have always bought into the notion that we need to give up the idea that we EVER had control.

As our conversation progressed, it became apparent that this wasn’t quite what he meant. Yes, it is true that we can’t control our brand once it is out there in the public realm. With twitter, facebook and the myriad of other social media networks, it is impossible to control how others represent your brand. People can talk trash about you, spread information about your company that hasn’t been vetted by the communications department and make you look very good, or very bad.

As you dig deeper, however, you quickly start to see that there is more to it than just control. Never before have we had the ability to define our brand the way we can now. In the past, our brand was represented by an ad in the paper, a sign on our door or maybe even a billboard.

In today’s market, a brand has much more substance and depth. Your brand is conveyed by profiles, contests, games, apps and dialogue. Now, short bursts of 140 characters or in-depth blog posts can convey a brand. Your brand is even conveyed by the tone of a tweet – if you doubt that, try to image a staid, humourless @westjet tweeter. Organizations would do well to embrace the ability to add depth to their brand, rather than being afraid of losing control.

Do we have more control? I don’t think so, but never before have brands had an opportunity to gain a depth, complexity and dare I even say it, maturity?

In social media, people police themselves. People will self-select those they trust, people they view as ethical and reliable and the others they will tune out, disregard or even block.  You can act like an obnoxious spoilt child, but like real life, you will find it has consequences.

Most of the unwritten rules in social media are very similar to other forms of communication and interaction. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Don’t dominate conversations, listen to people respectfully, don’t lie, don’t shout, don’t spit and put your toys away when you are done.

But some of the other rules are less obvious. Like disclosure. Is it ok to let the people you are interacting with think you are someone you aren’t? Is it ok NOT to tell whom you are working for or what your affiliations are? All of these things are possible to do in social media, but like many other things in life, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should.

When in doubt, ask yourself this question “would this be ok or ethical if it wasn’t social media?”

Would it be right to extol the virtues of a particular product to your friend without telling them you would derive financial gain if they buy it? Is it appropriate to use your good name and reputation to influence someone’s behaviour without telling them how it benefits you? To quote Michael Cohn “Having hidden agendas will only count against you”

When I wrote a blog critiquing municipal election candidates from a communications perspective, I was upfront in saying that I would not be addressing the rural candidates because one of them was a client of mine. Could I have gone ahead and done it without saying anything? Definitely. I wouldn’t have been breaking any laws, but it wouldn’t have been ethical and if it came out, it would hurt my reputation and credibility.

This has become such an issue that the Federal Trade Commission in the US has put into place guidelines that tell advertisers how to handle disclosure.

Have you also noticed how in the United States political candidates who run TV ads have a tagline saying which commercial was endorsed by which candidate? One reason is to stop people from purchasing advertising and saying whatever they want, with no accountability.

Disclosure is about playing fair. Without all the information, like who is telling you something, people can not make informed decisions or opinions. Taking into consideration who is sending the message is part of deciding how much credibility that message has.

More Links

Social Media Ethics to Keep You Out of Trouble

Tweeting Under False Circumstances

The phrase “online reputation” implies something separate from your offline reputation. Many people make the mistake, sometimes unconsciously, of assuming their online reputation is not related to their reputation.

Let’s start with a definition of reputation:

1. The general estimation in which a person is held by the public.
2. The state or situation of being held in high esteem.
3. A specific characteristic or trait ascribed to a person or thing: a reputation for courtesy.

What I get from these definitions is that someone’s (individual or organization) reputation is a sum of many parts. You do not do one thing and subsequently have a reputation for it. It is something that suggests a pattern, trait or commitment.

If your reputation is built up over time, and is a sum of all your actions and words, then to say you can have an online reputation divorces it from your overall reputation.

In a nutshell, how you behave online will directly affect your reputation offline. Your reputation is your reputation, whether you are online or off.

I have seen time and time again examples of people behaving online in ways that would horrify those around them if they were done in person.

Sadly, there have been many times when I valued someone’s opinion and felt a great deal of respect towards them, only to lose that regard when I see them lash out online, calling names or oozing anger and nastiness towards others. All too often people forget there are real people behind profiles and text postings.

The only way to protect your “online” reputation is to treat it the same as you would your offline reputation – walk your talk, be true to who you are and realize that people are watching and formulating opinions.

If you allow your employees full access to social media sites during work hours, will they fritter away valuable time playing Farmville or Mafia Wars while your company slowly goes bankrupt?

Will banning social media sites during company time cause a riot in your company with employees banding together to poison your coffee – or at least steal your favourite mug?

Are these your only two options? Or is there a middle ground somewhere? (no, the answer is not to just ban Myspace – no one would really care anyway).

In an October 2009 study, it was found that 54% of companies ban social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Linkedin and Myspace. Only 10% grant employees full and unlimited access.

In a world that is being driven by open and transparent communication, a world where people’s thoughts and opinions have greater influence and power than ever before, where is there a place for “The Man” to block websites, cyber-watch and dictate employee’s actions?

The answer is that if you want to attract brilliant, interesting and engaged employees – there is no place.

In a world where information is king, where a single tweet or status update can topple a company’s or a person’s reputation, you can no longer cling to the illusion that you are in control.

Take a deep breath. Exhale. Let go. Got that? Ok, lets take it one step further… Embrace your lack of control. No? ok, one step at a time.

How can allowing access to social media sites during work hours actually be beneficial? Something to embrace? Simple. It can work in your favour. Don’t think of social media as a productivity drainer and time waster, think of it as your own secret cadre of brand agents let loose on an unsuspecting world.

You already know that people form opinions on your company based on every interaction they have with you, whether it is through your sales staff or your receptionist. But what if your entire staff was out in the world talking up your company? Would it be easier to attract valuable employees in the future? Would you have greater brand awareness? Increased revenue?

What if you could hire a group of people to spread your corporate message? How much would that be worth to you? Is it possible that banning social media could actually hamper your brand?

What if you armed your staff with the knowledge and understanding they need to participate in social media while helping to support your brand?

But what if my staff goes crazy and wastes hour after hour feeding their cows on Farmville???

Well, there is always that possibility. But that will very quickly make another benefit of social media access apparent – discovering who your most valuable employees are. As someone once said “if you cant’ trust your employees to use their time wisely, then you are hiring the wrong people.”

Useful links:

Alternatives to Facebook Censorship at Work

Why Your Company Can’t Afford to Ban Social Networking

We are getting our house ready to sell. This involves emptying our house of about half of our possessions, cleaning every nook and cranny and making sure any minor repairs are done. One of the things we wanted to do was something that has been on our to-do list for about 2 months. Get Shaw in to fix a cable outlet. I won’t bore you with all the history and details of said outlet, but suffice it to say that my husband’s hero is Tim The Toolman Taylor – the end product being some cables hanging out of the wall that are taped together to ensure we get to watch HBO in our bedroom. Effective, but not visually appealing.

My sweetie is a smart man and decided we had best call in the experts to fix things. He sat on hold for 30 minutes during his lunch break before hanging up. I took up the charge the next day and was lucky to talk to someone after 25 minutes. During the time I was on hold, I filled in a customer survey that I found on their website. I let them know that I wasn’t overly impressed with their hold times. Once I did get to talk to someone, we set up an appointment for between 2 and 4 the next day.

The next day, I received a very nice email from Shaw responding to my survey. They said all the right things in their email. They acknowledged my concerns, took responsibility and explained how they were working to correct the problems. I was impressed. But not for long.

The appointment time came and went. When it was a half hour past the time the technician was supposed show up, I went online and started up their online chat program. After 25 minutes online, I was informed that there was no record of my phone call and there was no service call scheduled. But don’t worry, we will re-book it for you. Gee, thanks.

I had now spent 3.83 hours with the potential of adding 2 hours more as I waited for a technician to arrive for another appointment.

Throughout all of this, I was tweeting on twitter about my experience, using the hashtag (a tool for tracking topics) #Shaw. A helpful gentleman named Jay Baron (@action_Jay) noticed my tweets. I presume he monitors twitter for mentions of #shaw. As his twitter profile states, Jay is a “Frontline Tech Support at Shaw Cable. Huge on customer service and social media. Not an official liasion, but happy to help all the same” – I translate that to mean his monitoring of #shaw is something he does on his own time, because he is huge on customer service and because he believes in the company that gives him his paycheque.

Jay contacted me and expressed concern regarding the service experience I was having with Shaw. He asked questions and then tried to see what he could do to help reimburse me for some of my time. I don’t know if his efforts will yield results, but I appreciate his diligence and his passion.

Now here is the kicker for me. Jay works for Shaw. In Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. He doesn’t work out of the same branch I was dealing with at Shaw (Edmonton). He works one province away.

Here is an employee who went out of his way to help a customer. He listened. He responded. He went above and beyond his job description. He believes in the company he works for enough to look out for its brand and reputation.

But my question is this. Where is the official liaison for Shaw? I checked out their website and they have all kinds of ways for me to approach them. I can email, phone, online chat, check out their 24/7 virtual helpdesk or even visit their office. All of these methods are great, but it assumes that the customer will take the initiative and time to go to their website and initiate communication. At one time, this would be been enough. In fact, they would have been seen as cutting edge. That time has come and gone.

The time when a company or organization can sit back and wait for people to come to them has long come and gone. Now, the organizations that are listening are considered cutting edge. They use the various social media tools that are available. They keep their ear to the ground and listen. They listen for talk about their company, their product, their sector. Then, they proactively respond and show they are concerned about their customers.

As I have heard said so many times – the conversation about your company or organization is happening through social media – the question is, will you be there to participate in the discussion?

The real head-scratching began when they started to share with me that they have found the best way of generating business is to network. If you get out there and let people know who you are, they assured me, you will see results.

Um. But. Um.

As I asked more questions, it became apparent to me that they were making a very critical error in their thinking. They see online social media as technology.  Something for the geeks or those with no life and plenty of time on their hands. What they were missing is that tools like twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn are not primarily pieces of technology but rather methods of interacting and networking.

 If you find that most of your business is the result of networking, then social networking is probably a really good fit for you.  It is just another way of meeting people – yes, even online – and having an opportunity to forge relationships.

Do you have any stories to share about how social media has influenced or affected your business? What is your biggest deterent, if you aren’t involved?