When brands try to control social media through heavy-handed legal or PR means, the outcomes are rarely positive. Clumsy brand actions that evoke social media backlash occur with such regularity, there is even a term for it: The Streisand Effect. 

In the past, we have explored the negative impact on brands caused by the Streisand Effect, but not all brands stumble into this trap. Some brands, when faced with similar tricky situations, take smart actions that not only avoid the negative PR and social backlash but strengthen the brand's reputation and relationships. What do these brands do right where so many others err? Here are two great examples of brands that got lemons and made lemonade:

Pitbull and Walmart Make the Most Out of Exile

A year ago, Walmart and Sheets Brand, the folks who make those dissolvable energy strips, launched a contest with rap star, Pitbull. The contest was simple: The Walmart store with the most new "likes" would win a Pitbull appearance in its hometown.

As so often happens in social media and on the Web, nothing is ever simple once the crowd gets involved. David Thorpe, a writer with the Boston Phoenix, started a viral meme when he suggested that people send Pitbull to the most remote Walmart, in Kodiak, Alaska. Thorpe's idea became a hashtag, #ExilePitbull, and sure enough, Kodiak was the easy winner of the brand's contest.

At this point, many brands might have freaked out or the "star" might have revolted, but Pitbull proved to be a great sport and made the most out of his trip to Sarah Palin's neighborhood. The rapper posted a video addressing the prank and committing, "You have to understand I will go anywhere in the world for my fans.” He got the key to the city, visited the US Coast Guard base and, of course, stopped at the local Walmart where he received a care package that included bear repellent.

Pitbull not only saw Thorpe's prank, he raised it. The recording artists invited Thorpe to join him on the trip, turning Thorpe into the biggest influencer of the campaign. Thorpe's tweets and pictures helped send word of Pitbull's trip to the Kodiak Walmart bouncing around the Internet.

Walmart and Pitbull came out of this potential PR disaster with a slew of new fans--both of the Facebook and real-world variety. Comments posted to YouTube, Twitter and Facebook were overwhelmingly positive, and both Walmart and Pitbull earned a lot of good press. Lost in the shuffle, however, was the brand this promotion was designed to boost, Sheets. It is easy to find dozens of blog posts and articles that praise the rapper and the discount chain, but I can find no evidence Sheets itself got a boost from the promotion. Still, faced with an unexpected and potentially unpleasant outcome, Walmart and Pitbull built credibility and gained authentic social media attention with smart moves and follow through.

Jack Daniel's Turns a Cease-and-Desist Letter Into Positive PR

The term "Cease and desist letter" should cause instant anxiety for anyone responsible for reputation management or social media. Sometimes these letters work as intended, but often they become fodder that turns a small, ignored issue into a giant, publicized problem. (In fact, the original 2003 incident that resulted in the creation of the term "Streisand Effect" was initiated with a cease-and-desist letter.)

It does not have to be this way if the brand uses some common sense before firing off legal threats. This tactic might may had few risks in the days before social media, but in the social era consumers are no longer powerless nor are brands protected by a mass media firewall. Brands must first determine if siccing the Law Department on someone is really the right step to take, but assuming it is, then the lawyers have to be reasonable. I know, I know, that's asking a lot, but Jack Daniel's has given us a blueprint for how to do it right.

In 2012, novelist Patrick Wensink published a book, "Broken Piano For President," with a cover suspiciously similar to Jack Daniel's famous label. The brand needed to protect its IP, so Wensink quickly heard from Jack Daniel's Properties. The brand's cease-and-desist letter went viral in social media, but in this case the word of mouth was positive.

Jack Daniel's achieved this by sending, in the words of Wensink, "the most polite cease and desist ever written." The letter says, "Because you are both a Louisville 'neighbor' and a fan of the brand we simply request that you change the cover design when the book is reprinted." Then Jack Daniel's goes on to--get this!--offer to pay for the book cover to be changed.

The book author noted, "If it wasn’t signed by some lawyer, I’d imagine ol’ Gentleman Jack penning it himself, twirling his bushy mustache." How's that for on-brand messaging? Thanks to a considerate cease-and-desist letter, Jack Daniel's turned a dangerous situation into something positive--hundreds of complimentary blog posts, articles and social media posts ensued.

Now, really, how hard was it for Jack Daniel's to achieve its goals and garner positive PR?  Not every negative situation may furnish the opportunity for your brand to create what Jack Daniel's achieved, but too many brands unleash the lawyers without giving consideration to alternate approaches and outcomes.


Jack Daniel's, Walmart and Pitbull demonstrate how brands can react when something unexpected occurs. Rather than push the panic button and create an even worse problem, these brands kept their word, lived up to the brand promise, stayed on message and let their actions speak louder than their words.

That is how you avoid the Streisand Effect and turn social media lemons into lemonade!

Much is being written about Progressive Insurance's "social media crisis." I will not go into great detail about the situation other than to say that a young woman, Kaitlynn Fisher, was tragically killed in an auto accident that was apparently another driver's fault. She carried insurance from Progressive that protected against the danger of an accident with an under-insured motorist. Because the driver who caused the accident was under-insured, the family sued, and Kaitlynn's own insurance company, Progressive, acted in the defense of the responsible driver.

The company says "To be very clear, Progressive did not serve as the attorney for the defendant in this case," but an article on the Mail Online states, "Court documents clearly show that Progressive filed as an 'interested party' and was 'allowed to intervene as a party defendant' and 'granted all rights to participate in this proceeding as if it were an original party to this case.'" Over on Consumerist, a Maryland attorney attempts to shed more light on Progressive's actions, and it is noted that "it's not unheard of for this to happen." And while some tweets and posts claim Progressive paid for the defense of the man responsible for Kaitlynn's death, this is not the case--the driver's attorney confirms Progressive did not do so.

Since I am not a lawyer and this is not a law blog, I am not going to weigh in on the legal merits of this situation one way or another. I do, however, wish to explore if this situation is really a "social media disaster." That term gets tossed around a lot, and it is beginning to irk me. It carries with it the implication that social media is responsible for brand and corporate reputation damage. Perhaps it is time that our view of social media matures and we begin to put the blame where it belongs--not on the medium where people discuss, share and criticize, but on the corporate actions that cause these discussions, shares and criticisms.

Source: PRBreakfastClub.com

The evidence for this being a social media disaster may seem quite clear: This incident was instigated with a blog post by the victim's brother, Matt Fisher, and rode a wave of more blog posts and tweets until mass media paid attention. Now, thanks to articles on CNBC, CNN, Gawker, Huffington Post and others, this situation is garnering worldwide attention. To make matters worse, the company has responded to critical Twitterers with a single, identical response, and a blog on Progressive.com features a safe six-sentence response that reads like it was written by a lawyer (because it was). Progressive's social media actions have been called everything from robotic to soulless. (And many have pointed out the repeated cut-and-paste responses appearing next to Flo's smiling face hardly helps the company appear compassionate.)

Social media disaster: Case closed? Not so fast. While this is not exactly a case study for how to handle a sensitive PR crisis, did Progressive's tweets and blog post make matters worse? And while this situation was exacerbated by social media, was the problem truly created by social media? To use an analogy: If you jump off a cliff, do you blame gravity for your situation or trace the problem back to your decision to leap from the cliff in the first place?

No, this is not a social media disaster. Social media is not responsible for the tragic accident, did not create Maryland's liability laws, and did not decide on a legal course of action. Progressive is not suffering because of social media; it is suffering because its actions in this case seem contrary to the public persona presented by the company's ads and brand communications. If a mistake was made, it was not a social media error but a blunder of judgment and corporate culture.

Social media is not the cause, and neither is it the cure in this situation. Nothing Progressive tweets or posts to a blog is likely to change many minds, because actions always speak louder than words. Don't get me wrong, Progressive could accelerate the brand healing with a more human and candid response, but healing will happen in time anyway. Soon, this crisis will blow over, just as it is already doing for Chick-Fil-A and did for Nestle, Delta, United and many others before. Time heals all wounds, even social media ones.

The fact reputation problems shared in social media have a relatively short half-life does not mean companies should take them lightly--they come with real costs. Some sales are lost, costs for PR and marketing are increased, executives lose focus on other priorities to deal with reputation issues, expenses increase as changes are made to prevent recurrence of similar situations, and brands may suffer some long-term loss in trust and value. Look at BP: The BBC estimates that the Deepwater Horizon disaster will cost BP shareholders "some £40bn in lost income" in the long term, even though the actual costs of the disaster are estimated at £26bn. Since the disastrous oil spill (and BP's CEO's slightly less disastrous public relations missteps), BP stock is down 31% while the Dow is up 19%. A lot of that is obviously due to fines, cleanup costs and changes in safety procedures, but some of this loss in value is due to the fact BP today enjoys less trust among investors and consumers.

Progressive may face real costs as a result of this situation, and if it does, who is to blame? The social media team? No, it is stuck between a rock (the consumers) and a hard place (the demands of a sensitive legal situation). The real source of this PR crisis is, instead, the Legal Department at Progressive.

Matt Fisher and his sister, Katie Source: Huffington Post

Again, I am not going to criticize the legal decision in this complicated situation, but I do think we can question whether this decision was made with full consideration of the social era in which we live. Today, it is very possible to make a decision that is the right one from a legal perspective but very much the wrong one from the social, brand and reputation perspective.

In this case, the costs Progressive faced were a mere $100,000. That is the amount Kaitlynn Fisher's policy covered in the event an uninsured driver caused injury or death, according to an attorney for the Fisher family. Was this worth $100,000 to Progressive? The company spends around half a billion dollars every year telling consumers it is fun, caring and trustworthy--just like Flo. This single $100,000 claim represents 0.02% of the company's annual ad spend, and now social media is speaking louder than Progressive's advertising. So, was it worth it to fight the claim in this case?

I cannot count the number of times I have said this, but in today's social era, every employee is a social media employee. Your delivery driver can become an overnight YouTube sensation. The employee who makes burgers in Ohio can become an inadvertent anti-hero. And an attorney who decides to deny a claim, forces a grieving family to pursue a lawsuit, and files papers in support of the person responsible for the death of the insured may, indirectly, become a social media influencer. We do not know who the man or woman is who made this decision, but today, he or she speaks louder than Flo on behalf of Progressive.

If every employee is a social media employee, then every decision is a social media decision. Watching this situation develop reminded me of another case from many years ago involving a Walmart employee, Debbie Shank. She was injured in an auto accident and left brain damaged. The family was awarded $1 million by the trucking company involved in the crash, and then Walmart chose to file a file a $470,000 lawsuit against the family to recover the expenses paid for Shank's medical care. Walmart won in the court of law but had to reverse its actions after online reaction threatened to harm the company's reputation. (When I share this story with audiences, I sometimes become choked up when I recount that Shank is unable to form new memories, so she frequently asks about her son and relives anew the anguish each time she is reminded her son was killed in Iraq.)

Like Walmart before, Progressive is dealing not with a social media problem but a legal, reputation and brand problem. Social media did not cause it, but now that the Fisher case is a cause célèbre, Progressive will perhaps be forced to handle the outcome differently. In addition, it is likely this situation will bring a change in how Progressive (and other insurance companies) deal with these sorts of claims.

So let's stop calling this a "social media disaster." This is not a result of social media but of corporate actions and culture. Once again, I am reminded of the words of Ralph Waldo Emerson--a quote I have shared more than once on this blog:

“Who you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you're saying.”

Your tweets may help your brand's reputation, but they cannot speak louder than who your company is or what its actions are.

Despite numerous examples of employees losing their jobs due to dubious social media activities, many continue to harbor misconceptions about free speech and employment law in the U.S. Simply put, your employer is under no legal obligation to respect your freedom of speech. Failing to recognize this can cost you your job and hurt your career as it has for people ranging from celebrities and pro athletes to job candidates and interns.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution secures your right to free speech, but only from Congress. The amendment establishes limits as to the laws Congress may pass that abridge your freedom of speech, but it offers no protection should your employer send you packing over a post or tweet. A variety of state laws and National Labor Relations rules may offer some protection under certain circumstances, but an ounce of prevention is worth a metric ton of cure when it comes to your job and career.

The attitudes of younger professionals are particularly dangerous. While many older folks have a tendency to approach their social media activities with a bit of caution, today's young adults just entering the workforce have grown up with the transparency of the social era. They tend to think everything and anything is in bounds when it comes to "personal" social profiles. They are wrong, and there is a trail of lost jobs and broken careers to prove it.

Here are seven ways people have found to lose their jobs because of their activities in social media:

1. Post Insensitive Ethnic and Racial Comments: Just yesterday, Voula Papachristou, a Greek Olympic athlete set to compete in London, was bounced from the team. Her offense was a single tweet; a bad, racially insensitive joke: "With so many Africans in Greece, at least the West Nile mosquitos will be eating food from their own home." This 23-year-old woman has spent her entire life training for an opportunity she will likely have only once in her lifetime, and she trashed it in the time it took to broadcast a stupid 140-character tweet. It is likely 2012 was Papachristou's only Olympic opportunity--in 2008 she competed in the World Junior Championships and in 2016 she may very well be too old to make the team--and now she will be watching the 2012 Olympics on television rather than representing her country. The head of the Hellenic Olympic Committee said something every employee should heed: "She made a mistake and in life we pay for our mistakes."
      
2. Post Party Pix: We all love to share photos of good times, but you should consider potential ramifications before uploading that photo of you doing a beer bong. In 2009, teacher Ashley Payne resigned after an anonymous email claimed that a student had seen her vacation shots, including ten pictures of her drinking alcohol, and that this set a bad example. In 2008, 18-year-old New England Patriots cheerleader Caitlin Davis was fired after some offensive party photos appeared on social sites. Combining the first and second bullet points in this list, Davis was seen leaning over a passed-out friend whose body had been covered with graffiti that included swastikas and comments such as "I'm a Jew."
      
3. Use Social Media After Calling In Sick: If you call in sick, just remember that your boss and coworkers use Facebook and Twitter, too.  In 2009, a Swiss insurance worker lost her job after surfing Facebook while off sick. She told her boss that she needed to miss work because she was unable to work in front of a computer but was then seen posting on Facebook. (She claimed it was on her iPhone from bed, but her employer was not buying it.) In 2007, intern Kevin Colvin told his boss that he needed to miss work due to a family emergency, and then he posted a photo of himself partying in a Tinkerbell outfit. If there is anything worse than getting fired because your employer catches you in a lie, it might be doing so while having your embarrassing photo shared worldwide.
      
4. Post Evidence Of Rule Violations: Breaking your employer's rules is dumb; doing so and then sharing the evidence on a social network is insanely stupid. Just last week, three employees at a Mayfield Heights, Ohio Burger King lost their jobs because one thought it would be funny to post a photo standing in tubs of lettuce. The picture was uploaded to 4chan, an online community, and 15 minutes later community members had tracked down the restaurant location using the GPS data encoded in the file. This is hardly the first time Burger King has faced this sort of problem--in 2008, several employees of another Ohio Burger King lost their jobs after a video appeared online of an employee taking a bath in the restaurant's kitchen sink. And in 2009, two Domino's employees not only were canned but also arrested after posting a YouTube video of themselves despoiling customers' food. (Imagine the luck they will have landing jobs in the future, since they not only have to admit they were fired but also reveal they have police records). Even well intended posts can get you terminated if they violate employer policies. Earlier this year a restaurant dismissed an employee after he posted an image of a receipt revealing a particularly bountiful tip from quarterback Peyton Manning. The server obviously intended this as a positive shout-out to Manning's generosity, but as the restaurant owner noted, "This goes against every policy we have."
       
5. Dump on Your Employer in Social Media: The people who pay our paychecks tend to get a tad grumpy when we return the favor by bad-mouthing them publicly. Biting the hand that feeds you is never a good idea. Just ask Connor Riley, who found a way to lose a job before she even started. Upon receiving an offer, the 22 year old tweeted, "Cisco just offered me a job! Now I have to weigh the utility of a fatty paycheck against the daily commute to San Jose and hating the work." Cisco promptly rescinded the job offer to save her the effort of making that difficult decision. And, proving you are never too big or too famous to be canned for shaming your employer, Kansas City Chiefs running back Larry Johnson lost his job after attacking his coach and fans in a vulgar tirade on Twitter. Fans petitioned for his release, and the team complied. In another NFL incident, Dan Leone, an employee of the Philadelphia Eagles stadium, lost his job after criticizing the team on Facebook for losing safety Brian Dawkins to the Denver Broncos. He called the team "retarted" and his employer called him "unemployed." (Leone did, however, receive two tickets to the Broncos/Eagles game, courtesy of Dawkins.)
     
6. Embarrass Your Employer in Social Media: We all know that in the age of social media, an organization's reputation is one of its most vital assets. No surprise, then, that companies seek to protect those assets from employee lapses. An Arizona Daily Star reporter tweeted a criticism of a headline in his newspaper and was asked to refrain from social media activities that could damage the paper's reputation. Later, after a local TV station complained when the reporter mocked the spelling in one of its tweets, the reporter was dismissed. He appealed, but the National Labor Relations Board upheld his termination. Those of us who are responsible for corporate social media are in an especially risky position when it comes to protecting (or harming) our employers' brands. Last year, an employee not only lost his job but got his agency fired when he mixed up his personal and corporate Twitter accounts, resulting in Chrysler tweeting, "I find it ironic that Detroit is known as the #motorcity and yet no one here knows how to (expletive) drive." And, in yet another example that demonstrates even celebrities are not immune to these dangers, comedian Gilbert Gottfried lost his gig as the voice of the Aflac duck when he posted truly insensitive tweets following Japan's tragic tsunami. One such tweet read, "I just split up with my girlfriend, but like the Japanese say, 'They'll be another one floating by any minute now.'" A bad joke is not when no one laughs--it's when you lose your paycheck.
     
7. Insult Your Employer's Customers: Everyone can get frustrated with customers every now and then, and we all know the customer is not always right, no matter how the old saying goes. It is the way you choose to deal with those natural frustrations that can mean the difference between your job and unemployment. Two years ago, 22-year-old server Ashley Johnson stayed late to wait on a table and then felt slighted by the small tip. She took to Facebook with a vulgar post calling the customers cheap and mentioned the restaurant by name, resulting in her dismissal. People took to the restaurant's Facebook page to protest the action, but the company stood tall (and did the right thing), noting "As an employer, it is necessary to enforce policies for the benefit of all our hardworking employees and valued customers... We welcome your comments, but please keep it clean!" In 2008, Virgin Atlantic fired 13 cabin crew members after they posted messages on Facebook referring to passengers as "chavs," an insult used in the U.K. And back in Facebook's infancy, seven employees of a Canadian grocery store chain lost their jobs for deriding customers in a Facebook group. One employee said, "instead of talking in a locker room, we are talking on this." (Note: Unless your locker room is broadcast to the world and contains a search function, it is safer than Facebook.)

I am not suggesting you avoid social media out of fear for your job security, but it should not be news that posting and tweeting come with risks. What can you do to diminish these risks?

• Be aware of the risks.
• Do not post anything you would not say to your boss (or your mom).
• Never, ever criticize or make "funny" observations about your boss, your employer or your coworkers.
• Know your employer's policies about communication, social media and protecting customer data.
• Filter yourself--if you have a moment's doubt, don't post it!
• Protect your friends--if they are doing something stupid on a social network, tell them quickly.
• And if you fear you are unable to filter yourself sufficiently to protect your job, build a social media firewall between you and your employer:
• Lock up your account and make it private
• Remove your employer from your Facebook and Twitter profiles
• Separate your LinkedIn account from your other social media profiles
• Do not post frequent check-ins at your employer's location
• Do not friend and follow your boss and coworkers

These are not blanket recommendations, because my social media experience has been very positive, resulting in strong working relationships and an enhanced career. But if you fear, in a moment of weakness, you will let a sarcastic post fly or post an embarrassing picture after one too many, then take action now. We live in a world where your missteps can haunt you forever (Thanks Google!), and there is no "fixing it" after the damage is already done to your career.

Image via Wikipedia

The long-awaited new guidelines from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) were published today, and they aren't much of a surprise. While addressing blogs, message boards, and other forms of new media, the FTC didn't stray from its traditional commitment to ensure that consumers know when they are seeing paid advertising.

What does today's FTC update mean to Social Marketers and bloggers? You may find it interesting what the FTC did--and didn't--say:


1. Sponsorship = Advertising:

Given marketers' and bloggers' use of the term "Sponsored Conversations" to refer to paid blog posts, it is probably no coincidence that the FTC uses the term "sponsorship" in the following statement: “The fundamental question is whether, viewed objectively, the relationship between the advertiser and the speaker is such that the speaker’s statement can be considered ‘sponsored’ by the advertiser and therefore an ‘advertising message.’”

A blogger who posts a product-based statement independently and without commercial arrangements with the brand is not making an endorsement by the FTC's definition and thus needs not be concerned about the rules governing advertising. But as we'll see, a blogger's post that is sponsored can become an advertising endorsement and may trigger legal requirements with respect to factual information and disclosure of commercial arrangements, under certain conditions.


2. The FTC is furnishing guidelines, not rules:

The FTC has the power of Federal law to enforce legal advertising standards, but today's document defines guidelines and not rules. The Commission recognizes that the marketing and communications world is changing and is too complex for hard and fast rules. The FTC notes that it will have to “consider each use of these new media on a case-by-case basis for purposes of law enforcement, as it does with all advertising.”

So, what factors will the FTC weigh in determining if a given relationship between brand and blogger meets the standard for an "endorsement"? Today's FTC document lists the following:

• Whether the speaker is compensated by the advertiser or its agent;
• Whether the product or service in question was provided for free by the advertiser;
• The terms of any agreement;
• The length of the relationship;
• The previous receipt of products or services from the same or similar advertisers, or the likelihood of future receipt of such products or services; and
• The value of the items or services received.

In other words, the FTC is not tightly defining the legal standards for bloggers and brands, but it is telling us enough to advise caution with respect to paid blog posts, endorsements, and disclosure.


3. Independent consumers are still free to share their praise of brands:

Some more histrionic observers felt the FTC's guidelines would limit consumers' ability to compliment and recommend products via ratings, on blogs, and in Social Networks. This is nowhere near the case; the FTC notes that “a consumer who purchases a product with his or her own money and praises it on a personal blog or on an electronic message board will not be deemed to be providing an endorsement.”


4. It is not necessarily an exchange of value between brand and blogger that triggers an endorsement but the existence of a material relationship.

The FTC furnishes three similar examples of a blogger writing about a brand to draw distinctions between what is and is not an endorsement.

The first example is a simple and obvious one--the consumer buys the product and then praises it; this is clearly a legitimate, unsponsored communication.

The second example involves a blogger who posts praise after receiving free product. The key in this example is that the blogger who praises the brand is not targeted by that brand but instead receives a coupon for free product generated by a store computer based upon the consumer's past purchase patterns. In this case, the FTC notes "given the absence of a relationship between the speaker and the manufacturer or other factors supporting the conclusion that she is acting on behalf of the manufacturer (i.e., that her statement is 'sponsored'), her review would not be deemed to be an endorsement."

The last example should be considered carefully by marketers who have established networks of consumers to whom product is regularly distributed. The example involves a consumer who joins "a network marketing program under which she periodically receives various products about which she can write reviews if she wants to do so." Says the FTC, "If she receives a free bag of the new dog food through this program, her positive review would be considered an endorsement." As we'll explore later, the Commission suggests that endorsements made via blog posts require disclosure and adherence to the legal requirements of paid advertising.


5. Giving product to bloggers for the purpose of posting reviews may or may not make the bloggers' recommendations an "endorsement" (but it probably does):

The FTC takes great pains to try to address the issue of brands that disseminate free product for the purpose of garnering positive product reviews in Social Media. The Commission states that a blogger who "receive(s) merchandise from a marketer with a request to review it, but with no compensation paid other than the value of the product itself" may be considered "endorsed" by the brand depending upon "among other things, the value of that product, and on whether the blogger routinely receives such requests."

The FTC clarifies that last portion of their statement in this way: "If that blogger frequently receives products from manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular demographic group that is the manufacturers’ target market, the blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed to be 'endorsements.'" In the view of the FTC, "Although the monetary value of any particular product might not be exorbitant, knowledge of the blogger’s receipt of a stream of free merchandise could affect the weight or credibility of his or her endorsement."

In other words, someone who maintains a review blog and regularly receives free product for the purpose of authoring and posting reviews is more likely to be considered an "endorser" than a blogger who only occasionally receives products to review. Some find this curious, because it seems contrary to established practices in traditional media. There are, of course, journalists--such as movie reviewers or food critics--who frequently receive free product, but their articles in newspapers and magazines are not considered "endorsements" per the FTC.

To those who want to make the case that bloggers are being treated differently than journalists in traditional media, the FTC has a response: "The Commission acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media." In other words, get over it!

Regardless of whether you find this guidance puzzling or not, this much is clear: The FTC is putting brands on notice. Giving free products to popular bloggers or recruiting networks of consumers into "word of mouth marketing programs" for the purpose of distributing free products for review will likely be considered and regulated as paid media.


6. The fact that compensated bloggers are free to say whatever they want does not prevent their posts from being considered legal endorsements:

It doesn't matter that a brand pays a blogger and then permits him or her to express anything s/he wants, without editorial control or rules. And it also doesn't matter that bloggers compensated by a brand feel they are expressing their true and honest opinions, unbiased by the commercial arrangement. The FTC notes that “an advertiser’s lack of control over the specific statement made via these new forms of consumer-generated media would not automatically disqualify that statement from being deemed an ‘endorsement’ within the meaning of the Guides.’”


7. The fact that compensated bloggers are free to say whatever they want does not protect the brand from the legal responsibilities that come with paid advertising:

The FTC understands that marketers may not have control over what bloggers say, but "if the advertiser initiated the process that led to endorsements being made – e.g., by providing products to well-known bloggers or to endorsers enrolled in word of mouth marketing programs – it potentially is liable for misleading statements made by those consumers."

The risks to brands also include the risk that a compensated blogger fails to disclose the material relationship. Notes the FTC, "In employing this means of marketing, the advertiser has assumed the risk that an endorser may fail to disclose a material connection or misrepresent a product, and the potential liability that accompanies that risk." The Commission promises, should legal action result from a blogger's failure to disclose, that it will "exercise its prosecutorial discretion" and "consider the advertiser’s efforts to advise these endorsers of their responsibilities and to monitor their online behavior."

In short, marketers must understand they are accepting certain legal risks by entering into Sponsored Conversations. These risks can be mitigated by carefully apprising bloggers of rules for disclosure and accuracy and then monitoring them for compliance, but this does not completely eliminate all risk.


8. Because Social Media is a vehicle for authentic peer-to-peer dialog, the presence of sponsored speech (i.e., advertising) is suggesting a greater need for disclosure than may be required in other media.

The FTC recognizes that the medium matters; consumers are more likely to recognize advertising as advertising in some media more than others. A TV ad is clearly "sponsored" and thus does not require any special disclosure on the part of advertisers or networks. But in Social Media, the distinction between earned and paid media is far less evident to consumers.

The nature of Social Media and the FTC's greater expectation for disclosure is evident in their revised example pertaining to a video game blogger who is sent a free game system by a manufacturer, along with a request that the blogger write about the system. Notes the Commission, "Because his review is disseminated via a form of consumer-generated media in which his relationship to the advertiser is not inherently obvious, readers are unlikely to know that he has received the video game system free of charge in exchange for his review of the product, and given the value of the video game system, this fact likely would materially affect the credibility they attach to his endorsement" (emphasis mine).


9. If your organization doesn't have Social Media guidelines in place, create and communicate them ASAP!

The FTC notes that employers are liable for the actions of their employees in Social Media. For example, if an employee participates in a Facebook forum or bulletin board by praising his or her employer's brands but fails to disclose his or her relationship to the brands, that could trigger prosecution.

The FTC notes that legitimate efforts to create and enforce rules that protect consumers from injury "would warrant consideration in its decision as to whether law enforcement action would be appropriate." Moreover, the FTC notes that "although the Commission has brought law enforcement actions against companies whose failure to establish or maintain appropriate internal procedures resulted in consumer injury, it is not aware of any instance in which an enforcement action was brought against a company for the actions of a single 'rogue' employee who violated established company policy."

So, get your Social Media policies in place and actively enforce them. Not only is this a good, common sense practice, it also helps to establish a defense in the event one of your employees strays into a legal minefield.


10. The FTC has outlined when material relationships must be disclosed, but it still hasn't said what constitutes "clear and conspicuous" disclosure on blogs, microblogs, or elsewhere in Social Media.

The FTC's approach to disclosure requirements is based on three primary questions:

• Does a material relationship exist between endorser (i.e., blogger, consumer posting in Social Media, etc.) and brand?
• If so, would the presence of this material relationship affect the weight or credibility given to the endorsement by consumers?
• If so, is the endorsement likely to be recognized as paid advertising by consumers based on the circumstances, communications vehicle, and medium?

The FTC outlines a slew of diverse and subtle examples of when material arrangements relating to endorsements must be disclosed, both in Social and traditional media. For example:

• A film star appears in a commercial endorsing a food product in exchange for a $1M fee or royalties on sales; no disclosure is required because such payments likely are ordinarily expected by viewers.
• A well-known professional tennis player appears on a talk show and raves about the laser vision correction surgery at a clinic that she identifies by name. The athlete does not disclose that she has a contractual relationship to speak publicly about the clinic. Consumers might not realize that a celebrity discussing a medical procedure in a television interview has been paid for doing so, and knowledge of such payments would likely affect the weight or credibility consumers give to the endorsement. Thus, disclosure is legally required.
• The same tennis player under the same contract endorses the clinic via a real-time Social Media site, and the same rules apply; consumers might not realize that she is a paid endorser and knowing this might affect the weight consumers give to her endorsement, so the relationship with the clinic should be disclosed.
• A physician endorses an anti-snoring product. Consumers would expect the physician to be reasonably compensated for his appearance in the ad, so no special disclosure is required to alert consumers the physician was paid.
• But the same physician in the same ad may require disclosure if he receives a percentage of gross product sales or he owns part of the company; either of these facts would likely materially affect the credibility that consumers attach to the endorsement. Accordingly, the advertisement should clearly and conspicuously disclose such a connection between the company and the physician.

So, assuming a brand does have a commercial arrangement with a blogger, the blogger endorses the brand's product, and this relationship requires disclosure in the blog post, what meets the legal definition of "Clear and Conspicuous" disclosure? The FTC doesn't attempt to address this question at all. In other FTC documents, it establishes standards as to how proximal and evident disclosures must be, but the new guidelines do not attempt to address acceptable disclosure in Social Media. It is left to brands to discern if its disclosure policies are sufficient under the laws and guidelines established by the Commission.

Marketers are advised to ensure sponsored bloggers write and construct their blog posts in a way that make the disclosure immediately apparent to even the most casual of readers. This means disclosure in the headline or in the first part of the blog post and not a brief mention at the end!

The FTC guidelines are purposely vague, but their direction is clear. The FTC is taking a conservative approach to whether compensation to bloggers and others in Social Media--be it cash or free product--must be disclosed to consumers. The Commission's guidance suggests that the sorts of arrangements that involve remunerating others to promote products via WOM make their blog posts and other comments in Social Media legal endorsements. Since these endorsements are not expected or recognized by consumers as paid media, the FTC believes that disclosure is most likely required.

Marketers and bloggers who engage in these sorts of commercial arrangements must understand their legal obligations and the risks of failing to adhere to FTC laws pertaining to advertising. Marketers must be prepared to ensure that bloggers disclose material relationships and do not make false or unsubstantiated claims; bloggers who are compensated are also potentially legally liable for their failure to disclose commercial arrangements or for incorrect claims communicated via their blog posts.

As noted, the FTC believes each situation is unique and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. As enforcement actions occur in the future, we will be provided with further clarifications to how the Commission and courts interpret the legal issues of sponsorship, endorsement, and disclosure in our new and evolving Social Media channels.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Internet Polices Itself on Blogger Advertising Better Than the FTC Ever Could (usnews.com)
• Fairness in Advertising Must Extend to the Blogosphere (usnews.com)
• Exploring Sponsored Conversations With IZEA's Ted Murphy (socialmediatoday.com)

Calling the world of blogs the "blogosphere" makes it sound futuristic, but the truth is that it's more like the Wild West. There are few best practices; no recognized industry organization has the power to set or enforce standards; rules are in flux (with the FTC currently reevaluating their guides); and modern-day brothel owners are eager to tell you how easy it is to buy blog love. ("Hey big boy, hot Playboy bunnies crave to tweet you!")

There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the best way to gain attention in Social Media is to earn it honestly with great brands that resonate with an audience, terrific consumer experiences, and customer service that delights. But for marketers who wish to pay for blogger attention, there are controllable factors that can help to protect the brand and diminish the risks.

I decided to revisit the topic of "sponsored conversations" after an interesting week of discussion. Four days ago, I posted a purposely provocative article to my blog entitled, My Paid Blog Post on the Forrester Blog. In it, I pointed out an apparent contradiction between Forrester's guidance on paid blog posts and their own site's rules against paid blog posts. Forrester's Josh Bernoff responded with a fair clarification of their stance in a blog post entitled "To Augie Ray: Thanks for the offer, but we don't take sponsorships." I very much appreciate the insightful, serious, and interesting dialog that has occurred within the comments of my blog and elsewhere, particularly from Josh and his Forrester peers, Jeremiah Owyang and Sean Corcoran.

The experience has caused me to reconsider my opinions of "sponsored conversations." I still believe very strongly that paid blog posts carry enormous risks for brands--legal, ethical, and, most of all, consumer perception--but there also is a place for brands to compensate bloggers for attention in the blogosphere. The problem is that, in lieu of established standards and governing bodies, there is no alternative for marketers except to proceed with care, knowledge, and a great deal of preparation to build meaningful relationships with relevant bloggers. "Sponsored conversations" may be paid media, but smart marketers will treat them more like strategic partnerships than advertising.

To properly explore the benefits and dangers to brands, we first have to recognize that the "sponsorship" in "sponsored conversations" can take a wide variety of forms. On his blog, Jeremiah Owyang identifies eight types of blog compensation. While paying cash to bloggers is easy, it also raises the greatest ethical fears and risks for the brands. But what about free product, junkets, and access? (I've been offered and turned down monetary compensation for coverage on Experience: The Blog, but I haven't hesitated to use those opportunities to gain access to information and insight I can share on my blog; in essence, I've accepted compensation in form of interesting content, opinion, and experience for my readers.)

With no established standards, what can marketers do to ensure their paid blog posts authentically build brands in Social Media? What factors separate blogola (the Social Media version of radio's payola scandal) from the sorts of compensation arrangements that meet with the approval of consumers and the FTC?

I believe there are several factors that marketers must consider when participating in sponsored conversations. We'll explore the first two--which largely pertain to issues of law and ethics--in this blog post. In my following post, I'll suggest several other factors that marketers must consider to protect their brands from risks and harm when paying for coverage on blogs.

The first two important factors for brands are Disclosure and Independence. It's important to note that these are not simple elements that merely are present or not. Both Disclosure and Independence have nuances and complexities that marketers must understand to avoid costly and embarrassing mistakes when compensating bloggers:

Paid Blog Post Disclosure

Not all disclosure is equal. To be effective, disclosure must be clear and conspicuous, detailed, and complete.

Clear and conspicuous: If a blogger is contractually obligated to furnish coverage in exchange for compensation of any kind, this fact must be evident to even the casual reader. Consumers must know when they are being exposed to paid advertising in manner that is instantaneously obvious. A small disclaimer at the end of a long blog post isn't conspicuous--it doesn't inform consumers until after they've dedicated time and attention.

Consumers seeing an advertorial ad in a newspaper know it's an ad with little interpretation and no doubt. These article-like ads are identified as paid media in several visual ways including special fonts, backgrounds, or borders, but mostly by plastering the ad with the word "advertising." For example, here is a blog post about just such an ad that appeared in L.A. Times, and it not only demonstrates how print advertorial ads are set apart from content, but also the risks that come from ads that appear to be editorial, even in established media like newspapers.

What would be the equivalent for blogs? How might paid blog posts be instantaneously identified as such by even a casual blog reader? Perhaps the term "Advertisement" should appear in the blog headline or in a repeated background image. Or, the very first paragraph of a blog post could declare the article is a paid advertisement in letters that are bolded and highlighted. No disclosure standards exist (yet), so it is left to marketers to establish the disclosure rules they feel are essential to protect the brand, ensure consumer acceptance, and adhere to legal and ethical expectations.

Detailed: The second aspect of disclosure is that bloggers must be thorough in revealing the form and amount of compensation. Consumers must know if cash was paid, free product was given, or the blogger received some other form of remuneration. I'd also suggest that the value of this compensation be disclosed to ensure the sort of transparency expected in Social Media and to protect brands from lost trust should consumers subsequently learn of unexpectedly lucrative blogger agreements.

Some may argue that disclosing the value of compensation is more than is necessary since magazines and television networks don't reveal the cost of their ads to consumers. This is true, but the difference with paid blog posts--and it is an important one to both brands and bloggers--is that what is being purchased is not merely advertising but editorial attention. Brands do not need special disclosures when paying for traditional and customary online banner or AdSense advertising on blogs, but when a blogger's words and sentiment may be influenced by compensation, consumers need to know more.

This is one area the FTC is specifically exploring as it considers more thorough rules for sponsored conversations. In their proposed new guides, an example is furnished of a gaming blogger being provided a new game system to review; the FTC states, "the blogger should clearly and conspicuously disclose that he received the gaming system free of charge." While these guides are not yet approved and in place, it is clear that bloggers compensated for posts are going to be expected to disclose far more than is common today.

Complete: To protect their brands, marketers must ensure bloggers reveal any special arrangements between brands and bloggers, not merely when a pay-for-post agreement exists. In the same way newspapers are expected to disclose their interests and potential conflicts when covering a story, bloggers must do the same to protect the credibility of both the blog and the brand.

I call this the "wink wink nudge nudge" rule. It is designed to protect against questionable and risky situations such as when a brand pays a blogger to be "a consultant" without (wink wink nudge nudge) defining any specific quid pro quo on the blog. Or when marketers pay a blogger to furnish content for the brand's site without any agreement (wink wink nudge nudge) for positive coverage on the blogger's own blog. Any time marketers feel a "wink wink nudge nudge" coming on when negotiating deals with bloggers, that's evidence the circumstances may not meet ethical standards or require greater disclosure.

Paid Blog Post Independence

In some ways, disclosure and independence are opposing forces in the battle for consumer trust. For paid blog posts to have authenticity for brands, consumers must feel the blogger is working independent of brand interference, but the moment we disclose the presence of an agreement, consumer trust begins to erode. Nothing marketers or bloggers do will prevent some degree of suspicion that the brand's consideration to the blogger didn't just buy coverage but in fact positive sentiment.

This sounds like a problem of perception, but this is an issue as much of reality as perception. Once we compensate bloggers, how do we know that we haven't swayed their opinions? Let's be honest, what do we marketers really want when we compensate bloggers--mere coverage or positive sentiment such as praise, endorsements, and recommendations? If we compensate a blogger and he or she bashes our brand, will this impact our willingness to pay this person again? Consumers are smart; they know the answers to these questions and don't need any excuses to be suspicious of paid blog arrangements. Any missteps or mistakes will be costly and consumer reaction will be unforgiving, so brands and bloggers must strive to make independence a reality even though it's a battle for consumer perception we cannot completely win.

One irony of paid blog posts is that while consumers, bloggers and Social Media practitioners may demand the complete and total independence of bloggers, the FTC has different ideas. For brands, there can be such a thing as too much independence, because the onus is still on the brand to make sure the compensated blogger's content is accurate. This is paid media, and like all paid media, the FTC expects advertisers to ensure accuracy.

In the proposed rule changes, an example is cited of a skin care products advertiser purchasing editorial coverage via a blog advertising service. In the example, the blogger makes a product claim that is not true, and the FTC notes, "the advertiser is subject to liability for false or unsubstantiated statements made through the blogger’s endorsement." The FTC goes on to suggest:

"In order to limit its potential liability, the advertiser should ensure that the advertising service provides guidance and training to its bloggers concerning the need to ensure that statements they make are truthful and substantiated. The advertiser should also monitor bloggers who are being paid to promote its products and take steps necessary to halt the continued publication of deceptive representations when they are discovered."

This is dangerous ground for marketers. Asking for prior review of bloggers' posts is considered a very troubling practice that undermines the necessary independence of the blogger. Asking for such a review--even in the absence of intent to evaluate and control sentiment--can influence the blogger's words and stated opinions. Conversely, leaving bloggers to their own devices can expose brands to risk. Best practices will develop, but for now it's clear brands must:

• Set expectations that bloggers will be factual and will validate or ask for confirmation of all statements of fact contained within paid blog posts;
  
• Furnish vital brand facts to bloggers so they can write their posts with both independence and knowledge;
  
• Monitor the bloggers who are compensated to ensure their accuracy.
  
  

Another practice that I believe will develop is that the level of independence afforded to bloggers will be part of the disclosures associated with paid posts. Did the agreement require the mention of a product's new feature? Was there an expectation of positive sentiment? Was the brand given the opportunity to review the blog post before it was published? Or did the brand furnish compensation with no expectation as to content, sentiment, prior review, or anything else other than accuracy?

If brands want to pay for play in Social Media where transparency is king, queen, and prime minister, then the independence afforded bloggers must be as great as legally advisable and disclosed thoroughly.

Disclosure and Independence are the primary factors that ensure paid blogging is executed in a legal and ethical manner, but there are other attributes that can help or significantly harm a brand's reputation when compensating bloggers. We'll explore these other important factors--which include form of compensation, financial value, and the blog's existing and implicit credibility--in my next blog post on Experience: The Blog.

Lots of companies have turned customer complaints into gold. By monitoring Twitter and other Social Media channels, smart organizations seek out legitimate complaints from displeased customers, proactively solve them, and snatch victory from the jaws of consumer disenchantment.

But what happens when an organization isn't smart about customer service, Social Media or PR? Horizon Group Management provides us with a case study to monitor and evaluate. While a great deal of damage has already been done in just the first day of Horizon's PR crisis, there are steps the company could take quickly--as in tomorrow!--to begin to mitigate the injury to their reputation and business.

Smart organizations approach Social Media complaints with an eye toward service and earn terrific PR. Not only will formerly aggrieved consumers often tweet their new-found brand happiness, but customer-focused companies also can earn positive PR of the traditional variety. By providing Social Media customer service, companies like Virgin Atlantic, Best Buy, JetBlue, and Comcast have received brand-building attention from news organizations.

But what happens when a company isn't smart about consumer complaints and the power of Social Media? Just today, a situation developed that will allow students of Social Media to monitor and evaluate the damage that can be caused by substandard customer focus and careless Public Relations. If you aren't doing so already, track the Social Media buzz and news about the situation with Horizon Group Management and Amanda Bonnen. We'll see who wins and loses, but I'm already prepared to make a prediction: This will end badly for Horizon.

Chicago resident Amanda Bonnen tweeted a complaint about her Horizon-managed apartment to her 20 followers. In return, the property management company filed a $50,000 lawsuit claiming she "greatly injured its reputation as a landlord in Chicago."

As reported on arts technica, Horizon made no attempt to resolve their concerns with Bonnen. As if the lawsuit didn't sufficiently demonstrate this organization's lack of understanding of Public Relations, an executive with Horizon made a shockingly stupid remark when contacted by the Chicago Sun-Times; Jeffrey Michael told a reporter, "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization."

An awkward press release subsequently posted by Horizon claims Michael's comments were intended "tongue in cheek," but this will do very little to quell the growing backlash and damage to Mr. Michael's and his company's reputations. In the press release, Horizon also revealed that Bonnen previously filed a lawsuit against the organization, which hints at a far more complex and delicate situation than perhaps was first evident. Problem is, even if Horizon is in the right, the damage is done; their careless actions have caused this situation to go viral.

As Horizon is about to learn the hard way, companies can no longer effectively manage their reputation via legal actions, and consumers are no longer at a disadvantage in the face of bullying lawsuits. Although Bonnen deleted her Twitter account and will have to deal with the lawsuit, Horizon is already emerging as the loser in this David versus Goliath tale.

Bonnen's tweet was made May 12 and was undoubtedly quickly forgotten by her 20 followers. No news organizations picked up the story. Bonnen's complaint against Horizon had--for purposes of Social and Web media--died.

But thanks to Horizon's inelegant handling of the situation, the complaint has been not only reborn but supercharged. What had been a message to 20 people is now being discussed and considered by tens of thousands, perhaps millions. Social Media, blogs, and news organizations broke this story wide just today, and already:

• Google news shows that the number of sources covering this story prior to 8 am was zero; as of this evening, it is over 250 including the Associated Press, Sydney Morning Herald, Wall Street Journal, Christian Science Monitor, FOX News, and USA Today. For a company that was concerned about how an ignored Tweet might "injure its reputation," Horizon has done a mighty fine job of broadcasting Bonnen's complaint around the globe.
  
• Twitter search reveals that dozens of people are now tweeting about Horizon each hour, and it will come as no surprise that none of the tweets are complimentary. Bonnen only had 17 followers; the people now dragging Horizon's reputation through the mud have far more than that:
  • DanDrusch has 107 followers and says, "Here's a tip: Don't ever ever ever rent an apartment from Horizon Group Management."
  • streetlogics has 1,469 followers and says, "Sued for a tweet http://bit.ly/4m5VnZ My opinion, Horizon Group Management is dumb! UH-OH they might sue me now! Don't we live in America?"
  • charlesthomas has 1,335 followers and says, "An apartment company sued a tenant over a tweet about a moldy apt. http://is.gd/1RVLs If you google the co, the hits are now all about mold."
  • jvandeboom has 4,200 followers and says, "What a PR failure by Horizon Group Management... Makes me believe the mold claims even more. - http://bit.ly/PjLsE"
  
  
• An article about this story was posted on Gawker, one of the most popular blog sites around, and in 9 hours has garnered more than 11,000 views. Over on the Consumerist, more than 18,000 people have viewed today's blog post about Horizon's lawsuit.
  
• Prior to today, the Horizon Realty Group had just three ratings on Yelp, averaging a mere two stars. Today, 17 new ratings were added, all but one with just one star. Horizon's reputation on this popular rating site will forever be marred thanks to the lawsuit and the ill-advised comment by the owner to the press.
  
• Over on Digg, the ChicagoNow.com article about this situation is one of the day's top 15 posts with 1,211 Diggs in just seven hours.

Almost a year ago, I wrote a blog post that asked, "Which is more important? The law or public opinion?" My answer then is even more appropriate today since the past year has seen Facebook grow 248% and Twitter 1,164%:

Brands must become cognizant that the law provides no refuge from public opinion when graceless legal actions are taken. In situations where anger and disappointment go viral, being legally right will not save brands from shame, damaged brand perception, costly PR crisis response, and reduced sales.

The growth of Social Media will increasingly require organizations to consider legal alternatives not just on their merits in law but also based on the potential reaction of millions of interconnected consumers.

So what lessons have we learned in just the first day of Horizon's Social PR mess?

• Being right in the court of law (which Horizon has yet to prove) will not protect a brand in the court of public opinion.
  
• If a brand's goal is to silence a defamer, a lawsuit will rarely accomplish the trick and will often make it much, much worse.
  
• When a reporter calls, defer an answer until the right person can make the right statement.
  
• Consider how your story will play in 140 characters: Big company suing a woman for a tweet to 20 people? Bad. Ignorant sound bite easily encapsulated in 140 characters with plenty of room left for derision? Very, very bad! ("We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organization." is just 63 characters! Has this man never heard of Twitter's 140-character limit?)
  
• Listening to customers and dealing with their issues with care and attention is a whole lot easier and cheaper than lawsuits and PR crises.
  
• Get to know and understand Social Media NOW! A company cannot hide from its problems or control the spin as they might have in the past.

What should Horizon do now? First, stop communicating through press releases and lawsuits; authenticity matters. Second, Jeffrey Michael must issue an apology immediately; if he is to save face, he must demonstrate remorse for his oafish comments and promise to resolve the issue with Bonnen quickly. Third, Horizon needs to move with alacrity to resolve the competing lawsuits between themselves and Bonnen, and frankly it's going to cost them now that this problem has gone viral.

Lastly--and most importantly--Horizon needs to embrace transparency. If Horizon has a mold problem in any of their apartments, the time has passed for them to deny and ignore it. This very loud situation has focused an electron microscope on Horizon and their properties; if other tenants start posting YouTube videos or Flickr galleries of poorly maintained properties, or if Chicago media finds merit to tenant complaints as they investigate this headline-grabbing story, Horizon will be very, very sorry they fought Bronnen's complaint not with appropriate action but with a lawsuit.

In the past week, we've discussed enterprise-level social media strategies and suggested initial steps that large organizations consider as they explore social media.

One strategic mistake that seems common is for organizations to seek opportunities but ignore the potential drawbacks of social media. While I am rarely the kind of person to concentrate on the negative, when it comes to social media an ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure. Organizations should first focus on solving social media challenges before turning attention to the opportunities. Understanding these challenges is important so that your organization can 1) take steps to avoid or minimize issues, and 2) consider and lessen risks as social media tactics are deployed.

One way to avoid brand troubles was suggested in "First Four Steps Into Social Media for the Enterprise": Ensure those involved with social media execution thoroughly understand your organization's brand or brands.

Implementing Web 2.0 tactics will require that communication responsibility be distributed even widely than in the past. For example, customer service representatives who today speak to one customer at a time may tomorrow be posting information read by thousands. And marketing personnel--who currently almost never engage consumers directly--will soon be employing community managers to speak on behalf of the company to your most loyal and engaged customers.

It's important to remember how vital social media will be in creating and altering the perception of your brand in the minds of consumers. Consistency has always been necessary to build a strong brand, and in the future the number of people communicating for your brand will make consistency even more difficult. Overcome this challenge by instructing every employee involved with social media efforts about what makes your brand different and how their actions matter.

Speak to employees about the brand in practical ways. Don't show them the Brand Strategy bull's-eye, discuss the communications platforms, or bother with media strategies; instead, put attention toward the importance of voice, how the unique selling proposition is realized in their daily communications with consumers, and how their social media interactions can best reinforce the brand personality.

I am reminded of a situation that occurred years ago when I was working with a famously conservative insurance company. Their customer service division was experimenting with its first-ever email responses, and one employee was selected as part of the program due to her enthusiasm and highly personable manner. One of her initial responses to a policyholder who held several million dollars of insurance contained a smiley face emoticon: :) . While complimenting her commitment to friendly service, the employee was counseled on ways to maintain her natural warmth while still conveying the professional and conservative face of the company.

What else can the Social Media Steering Committee do to avoid the problems associated with Web 2.0 tactics?

• Brainstorm possible Social Media problems: The buzz around social media is so strong that there is often a strong inclination to immediately launch into the "fun stuff," but taking a step back to consider and prepare for the risks is a vital first step. Take time with your steering committee, advisory boards, or other groups to consider the unique challenges your organization, brands, or industry faces with social media.
  
  You may be in a highly regulated industry, which would speak to the need for more legal involvement in social media planning. You may employ thousands of hourly employees who are geographically distributed, which suggests a need for distance learning so that associates understand your brand and communications policies. Or, you may have many brands with related but subtly unique brand platforms, which would require more care in defining what is shared and what isn't as brands execute social media tactics.
  

• Plan for emergency social media response. Don't wait until blogs and Twitter are abuzz with comments about your poor service, your product failure, or your corporation's SEC investigation. Create a plan for when to respond, how to respond, and who is responsible in the event something embarrassing or threatening occurs to your brand.
  
  As any Public Relations expert will tell you, being too responsive to every criticism or problem isn't the best policy, but there are some PR storms that cannot be weathered simply by battening the hatches. Understanding before an incident occurs when action is necessitated and who will lead the response helps the organization react rapidly and in a coordinated fashion when time is of the essence.
  
  And don't make the mistake of thinking social media PR issues can be managed using traditional PR tactics. If half a million people are reading or seeing your organization's failure, you cannot successfully combat the issue with communications hidden in the "news" section of your site. Instead, make social media work for you by using the same channels that are carrying the troubling news and information; for example, if an embarrassing video appears on YouTube, consider a YouTube response.
  
  
• Assign Responsibilities for Monitoring Social Media: Creating a social media director position (or a small team) is recommended for larger organizations. Among the many reasons organizations of a certain size need one or more people dedicated to social media is for the purpose of monitoring Web 2.0 discussions. Your brand and organization will be discussed, and knowing what is being said is not only good for the corporate feedback loop but can also provide an early warning of developing issues. Assigning responsibility for social media monitoring to one person or group helps to avoid gaps or duplication of effort.
  
  
• Register Your Brand Names on Social Media Sites: Not only will monitoring social media provide a great deal of knowledge as to what consumers think of your brand, it may also prevent a brandjacking. Might someone not associated with your organization already be speaking on behalf of your brand? If you think it couldn't happen, read about Exxon Mobil's recent experiences on Shel Holtz's blog. A person registered the username ExxonMobilCorp on Twitter and has been corresponding with consumers as if she were an official company spokesperson.
  
  That drama is still unfolding, but an Exxon Mobil exec has words of warning for other brands: “We need to be diligent about what is being said about you, by you, and those pretending to be you.”
  
  As Exxon Mobil learned, anyone can register your trademarks on social media sites; no one is monitoring or preventing this from happening. In fact, in many cases, they already have. A Disney fan named Cheri Thomas scooped up the Twitter name Disney, and although she is making no attempt to portray herself as anything but an individual, the Disney organization really should claim their own name. Twitter's Terms of Service provides the basis to do so without much effort, stating "We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames."
  
  Who owns your names? You may be surprised, and with the list of social media sites seeming to grow by the day, making sure your trademarks remain in your possession should be a priority. Go check your brand names on YouTube.com, Flickr.com, Digg.com, Scribd.com, Twitter.com, Facebook, Hi5, MySpace, Jaiku, Pownce, Ning, Plurk, and Identi.ca. (And trust me, that is just the tip of the iceberg!)
  

Organizations large and small can benefit from using new and developing social media tactics provided they proceed with awareness of the potential problems. Jumping into social media strategies without first identifying, educating employees about, and preparing for the problems will only undermine initial enterprise efforts.

Does social media have a dark side? Is it prone to manipulation? And is it really true that there's no such thing as bad publicity? These questions came to mind as I read the Slate article about the new, racy Puma "ad" that may or may not be fake and the company's response, which also may or may not be fake.

The image is certainly controversial. I'll let Slate describe it:

A photograph of a young woman in a short skirt, on her knees in front of a standing man; the picture is cropped at the woman's shoulders, so you can't see exactly what's going on, but you can see enough to make a good guess. Also, some creamy liquid seems to have dripped onto the woman's thigh.

What turns this PG-13 soft-core pornography into potential marketing is that the Puma brand is evident in the photo. The woman is wearing Puma shoes, there's a Puma bag strategically placed in the foreground, and a Puma logo appears in the corner.

But Puma says they have nothing to do with it. Not only that, they unleashed the lawyers, who sent cease and desist letters to bloggers who shared the racy "ad." And, as anyone who's been paying attention knows, in the age of social media there's nothing like threatening lawsuits to really set the blogosphere on fire. Sending lawyers into battle with bloggers is like fighting fire with a stream of gasoline--instead of successfully quieting the buzz about the "fake" ad, Puma's actions increased attention, discussion, and sharing.

So, was the company's response a tactical mistake on Puma's part? Some are suggesting this is all part of a Puma subviral marketing strategy, and if this is true, it's both a brilliant manipulation of social media and a dangerous precedent that could backfire on the brand.

The idea of subviral marketing is this: Anonymously release edgy, inappropriate, and attention-getting branded content into the social media wild. Wait it for to get noticed. Purposely react in a heavy-handed manner that only incites more attention. Enjoy all the attention and PR.

Why would a brand resort to this strategy? It's damn cheap, and it gives the brand the opportunity to appeal to a different demo and to stretch their brand without really moving the brand in a different direction.

At least that's the theory. But there are plenty of dangers, starting with the chances that people find out--or merely come to believe--that a brand is really behind the fake ad. If this happens, the brand can appear manipulative, untruthful, and abusive of consumers' trust. Not only that, but if the brand comes to be associated with the fake ad, then the brand isn't just stretching its boundaries--it's moving them, whether or not that is the intended objective.

Another danger with subviral marketing--assuming it is a real strategy--is that it is one that can work a couple of times for a handful of first movers, but if many brands try this over time, it will begin to leave consumers feeling jaded and used. Instead of paying attention to future ads that seem purposely provocative, consumers will roll their eyes and ignore the attempt at subversive publicity.

Worse yet, subviral marketing could cause consumers to think less of the brand rather than more. Subviral tactics may begin to appear gutless rather than edgy. If the brand really wanted to show its racy side or appeal to a younger and edgier audience, why not have the confidence to simply do it rather than resorting to hide-and-seek tactics that theoretically permit the brand to distance itself if the reaction is too strong and negative?

There's no evidence the Puma ad is subviral marketing, but the Slate article raises excellent questions, such as why would someone go to all this trouble to mock/promote Puma rather than the 800-pound gorilla in the sports marketing world, Nike. Was this just a consumer having some fun? Might this be another example of a brand-unapproved work by an agency getting leaked (much like the recent JC Penney ad that got attention at Cannes, despite the fact the brand never wanted to be associated with the racy spec creative)? Or was this a cold, calculated subviral plan on the part of Puma?

If subviral marketing is a true strategy, it's a dangerous one. Attitudes and "buzz" change quickly in the social media world. A fake ad can get some brand-building buzz one week and unleash an avalanche of brand-destroying derision the next. For established brands, it seems an inappropriate manipulation of consumers' trust and a misuse of social media.

I'll be watching the news and feedback on the Puma ad to evaluate if the brand benefited or was harmed by the fake ad and it's aggressive reaction (or perhaps by its calculated subviral marketing strategy).

Thanks to Andy for sharing this!