Twitter user sued by ex-employer for his followers (SMH).

The details are fairly clear cut:

• Employee tweets under Twitter handle that bears both his and the company’s name
• Employee amasses 17,000 followers in 4 years
• Employee leaves company and reaches agreement with employer to keep his account as long as he posts occasionally on their behalf
• Employee changes his Twitter account name to his own name and (not sure how) keeps his followers under his new handle
• Former employer then sues (8 months have passed at this time) claiming Twitter list as customer list. They claim that they have invested significant resources to grow the list and consider it their property.

A ruling has not been made as yet but no doubt many are looking on with interest. I won’t go plagiarizing the article further but I encourage you to read it. Companies should proactively define their social media policy so as not to be caught off guard.

1. Define at the outset if employees will be posting from their personal or company accounts
2. State at the outset who owns the accounts
3. If posting from personal accounts decide protocol of disclosure, e.g.:
   – Employees are expected/encouraged to post and declare affiliation
   – Employees are free to post but any views expressed are their own and do not in any way, unless specified reflect the views or opinions of their employer
4. Set guidelines for what employees can publish, and how they should respond to customers on digital channels. Encourage a conversation internally about the guidelines and iterate them as appropriate.
5. Monitor what is published in the interest of improving the voice of the company online (not for surveillance purposes) and share success stories.
6. Ensure appropriate handover procedure for when employees leave

Related links:

• http://mumbrella.com.au/should-journos-have-their-twitter-profiles-taken-from-them-if-they-change-job-13600

The panel at Digital Citizens: Ben Shepherd – Sound Alliance; Sam Buckingham – singer / songwriter; Gareth Stuckey – Director, Gigpiglet; Dan Rosen – ARIA Chief Executive Officer; Neil Ackland – Sound Alliance; moderated by@acatinatree. The event was held at FBI Social.

So the topic of the evening was meant to be Social media and the music industry but that’s not quite what we got.

Everyone talked about the revenue/rights quandary but there was no real talk of how they were strategising for the digital age. Except for Sam Buckingham, a singer songwriter who has leveraged social media to connect to her fan base, build a loyal following and even crowd sourced $11,000 via the Pozible platform to fund her first album.

Buckingham: "I don't make any money off Youtube, but I use it to build my fanbase which funds my next album" #digicitz

December 5, 2011 7:26 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@eCitizens

Digital Citizens

There was talk at the outset of how well ARIA did “engaging” fans this year on Twitter. So what? The ARIA awards are on television. It’s got a pretty good head start because its being broadcast.

Somehow it just seemed that the panel, with exception of aforementioned indie songstress, was hanging on to the old way of doing business. They reinforced the status quo again and again – acts still need the music business, there’s no such thing really as independent artists. Um, yes there is and the hecklers* in the crowd started listing acts: The Jezebels, John Butler Trio, amongst others.

Sounds like the panel like the way things were #Digicitz

December 5, 2011 6:55 pm via YoruFukurouReplyRetweetFavorite

@franksting

Gavin Costello

The topic of discovery and curated listening was raised by the moderator. The consensus was that serendipitous discover wasn’t all that it is cracked up to be and listeners need those cool music types to tell what they need to hear. OK so Genius, and other recommendation engines don’t work and won’t improve? So tag classification systems on Soundcloud or Hypemachine are useless? I know I’m a relatively savvy user but I also have faith that users, given a good service and a good UI, will explore features made available to them if they find them useful.

I agree that Last.fm hasn't evolved as much as it could, but I still love it; so much music discovery it's given me #confession #digicitz

December 5, 2011 7:28 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@natface

Nathalie Swainston

The panel, I think it was Ben Shepherd from Sound Alliance segmented the music audience into two types: loyalists and casual listeners. It was implied that casual listeners will never pay and will be satisfied with free streaming music services and illegal downloads. I think these guys just hang out with the cool kids. There is a whole mainstream audience out there – sure they might listen to Susan Boyle sometimes – but they are happy to pay for music. Case in point, the entire Apple iTunes platform proves that if you create an ecosystem that makes purchasing seamless for the user they will indeed pay. What royalties artists derive from this is another matter entirely and nothing to do with social media and the music industry.

Repeatedly the panel kept talking about the web as a channel but not about social media as a platform. But it was worse than that. The web channel they spoke of looked entirely like a broadcast option only delivered via their specific platforms or partnerships. Convenient.

Sound Aliiance have come to a partnership with last.fm but aren't able to tell us what it is #digicitz

December 5, 2011 7:10 pm via webReplyRetweetFavorite

@eCitizens

Digital Citizens

An audience member pointed out that the three revenue streams of artists (synchronisation as in licensing from film and advertising, touring and merchandising sales) have changed only marginally and that the album, except for the top 10% of artists, has always been a loss leader. He asked Dan Rosen of ARIA where they fit in the new model of rental versus ownership (audio below). The response was that ARIA will support any legal way of purchasing music where rights/money flow back to the artist.

This led to the question of whether ARIA are exploring a streaming music chart? Sweden has one and apparently artists generate more revenue from streaming music services than they do from iTunes. OK this is interesting stuff but its platform, not social media. I also was left with no impression that ARIA are actively lobbying and negotiating with the likes of Spotify, soon to enter the Australian market. They most probably are, it just sounded so reactive on the night.

Ironically it was Ben Shepherd from Sound Alliance who was skeptical of whether Spotify will provide artists with the royalty cheques they deserve. We had learnt earlier on the night that radio only pays 1% royalties for the music they pay. This is clearly a disgrace, particularly when you consider the size of businesses like Austereo. He projected the Spotify IPO could raise a billion dollars the  Australian advertising revenues of Spotify in the millions* but he lamented that they would likely pay only minimal royalties. Why did I preface this as ironic? Because Sound Alliance themselves don’t necessarily pay their music writers for their content.

Sam Buckingham finished the night with a point that was at least on topic. Social media is about making fans and keeping them. And of course so much more.

#Digicitz Sam's point is a good one. Musicians need to focus on a direct to fan model & provide a great experience at gigs & online

December 5, 2011 6:28 pm via Twitter for iPhoneReplyRetweetFavorite

@roneo

Josephine Sabin

Full disclaimer: Some of those said hecklers are my friends and are themselves either music fans or music industry boffins.

Thanks to Jo Sabin for subbing this post.

* Thanks to Ben Shepherd who clarified what he said in regards to the potential Spotify IPO, correcting me in his comment below.

Having worked for a company behind open source software, I know how important community conduct is, on forums and other channels. In fact it was something that Geoff, as FarCry product evangelist had to (and I’m sure still does) moderate closely. This interaction between products and users is vital in fostering closer relationships between companies and customers, feature improvements and product innovation.

So it is great to see Get Satisfaction create a campaign around this. Get Satisfaction is a service that allows customers to send feedback, bugs and feature requests to companies. They have created a campaign called the Company Customer Pact. An accord, or code of conduct if you will. As interactions between companies and customers get closer through social media it will become more and more important that people are on the same page. Check it out, and get on board.

http://www.ccpact.com/

1980 telegram from activist group "Anti war citizens"

Social media and mobile phones are the communication and organising tool of this moment. As you well know these tools have been important factors in recent events like the Arab Spring and the London Riots. So I thought it an apt time to reflect on old school comms. I found this telegram from 1980 on a cleaning bee at my parent’s house.

My parent’s took me to huge peace rallies in the 1980s. We marched under the banner of a Greek community club called the Atlas League. Now I can see how this group coordinated their efforts with other peace lobbyists. No group SMS, no twitter broadcasts, no Facebook events, but a telegram, phone calls and word of mouth that mobilised thousands to march in Sydney streets.

Somehow the disappointment was energising. The speakers showcased relatively intimate projects. The conversations amongst the crowd, many of whom work for advertising and digital agencies were pointing out the difference of executing a social media campaign for a small boutique client versus a big brand. People were talking about dollars, and where budgets for this work should come from when companies don’t devote staff to voice and participate in campaigns. What the crowd had questions about, and what they wanted to hear were the lessons learned. Before a palette of wine was sold off the back of one tweet-up how many mistakes were made and what were they? Endless success stories and figures about the application of social media just didn’t ring true without the war stories.

The three speakers all showcased their experience as food and wine social media pundits. The first as a chef turned blogger and consultant, the second as friend turned publisher, the third (and the most well received speaker) as consultant turned wine event organiser. Although I didn’t learn anything new I (for one at least) was engaged by the achievements made. The speakers also demonstrated three principles of social media which I took to be:

• Authenticity
• Consistency
• Voice

“You are what you engage” – Bridget Davis

After a successful career as a chef, that included a stint as head chef at Bills, Bridget Davis found a voice and a profile as @bridget_cooks. The twitter profile lead to “The Internet Chef” and the trajectory really is quite remarkable:

• After 6 weeks on twitter Bridget was featured on SMH as a top tweeting chef
• After 3 months she was featured on the Huffington Post as one of the top 10 chefs on Twitter
• After 1 year she co-launched the event Media 140 for Foodies
• And after 2 years she has been acknowledged (I’m not sure by who, but I’ll run with it) as the most influential food tweeter in Australia and in the top 10 most influential food tweeters in the world.

This influence is achieved with just under 15,000 followers who “amplify” the missives. Bridget Davis has been able to build a business off her social media presence. One that includes: cooking demonstrations, corporate events, degustation menus, consultancy for cafe upstarts and even a social media agency (iconic 88 media).

“No one publishes us!” – Chef friends to Denea Buckingham aka The Gourmet Rabbit

The seeds of Gourmet Rabbit were launched when a group of chefs were bemoaning the latest bad review and the fact they didn’t have a voice. Denea encouraged them to write and with 100 pages of content and no publishing experience she started a presence on Facebook, Twitter and Four Square that became a print magazine dedicated to assisting and benefiting the food industry. This is another example of monetizing social media through publications, events and a consultancy.

Helping wineries find a voice

Trish Barry helps small wineries connect directly with their customers online. Big brands dominate sales, but the biggest brand has no more than 10% market share. In a category where recommendations are a primary influence on buying choices social media is an opportunity to craft a brand message, directly engage, gather feedback and connect. Again the benefit of the conversation is had in events coordinated through tweet-ups. This isn’t just brands advertising, but brands cooperating to celebrate and promote categories through events like “Chardonnay Day” and “Pinot Day”.

What the three speakers demonstrated is the effectiveness of a finely tuned online brand and message. Clearly the message that comes through communications by experts is gladly received by an audience hungry for authenticity and advice. Not all of the audience may have felt that they learnt anything new but the speakers did spark interesting discussions and it goes to show that Social Media Club is still one of the most fun events around.

First, to Egypt:

Within five days of his death, an anonymous human rights activist created a Facebook page — We Are All Khaled Said— that posted cellphone photos from the morgue of his battered and bloodied face, the video of the corrupt police officers and other YouTube videos contrasting his corpse with pictures of his bright and smiling face from happier days. By mid-June, 130,000 people joined the page to get and share updates about the case.

It became and remains the biggest dissident Facebook page in Egypt, even as protests continue to sweep the country, with more than 473,000 users, and it has helped spread the word about the demonstrations in Egypt, which were ignited after a revolt in neighboring Tunisia toppled the government there.
–Jennifer Preston, “Anger and a Facebook Page That Gave It Voice”, New York Times

Of course, Egypt’s is not the first example of the internet facilitating political change. Clay Shirky, in a 2009 TED address described the impact of the social internet in comparison to traditional media.

“The internet is the first medium in history that has native support for groups and conversation  at the same time … as all media gets digitized the internet becomes the mode of carriage for all other media … media is increasingly less just a source of information and increasingly more a site for coordination because groups that see or hear or watch or listen can now gather around and talk to each other as well”

I encourage you to watch the whole TED video.  Recent events in Egypt, past events in China and elsewhere certainly exemplify the power of the internet in politics. The impact isn’t only to be found in countries where dissenting voices and media are usually supressed. The Obama campaign was the poster child of social media advocacy. But what of the Australian political landscape?

In Issue 40 of the Quarterly Essay George Megalogenis (of the Australian and Meganomics blog fame) makes some interesting observations on the effect of the internet on the rhythms of traditional media publishing and consumption. The essay itself is about the end of the Australian political reform agenda but Megalogenis also has a critical discussion on the role the internet has played in quickening the news cycle and shortening our attention spans. He attributes the decline in standards of traditional media to “the information revolution” and while he acknowledges that the internet has improved journalism he presents the current situation as one where considered policy debate that contributes to political reform is not being had because the previously drawn out news cycle has now been compressed.  It is a nuanced argument but in short the following points are made:

Dae Levine and John Johnston on stage

Lessons learned from John Johnston, Social Strategist of original Earth Hour strategy

The core of the original Earth Hour strategy was the combination of user generated content with brand assets that were licensed as open source. There was take up from people, organisations and creative agencies; the latter happy to have the opportunity to work with an open brief. The major points of Johnston’s talk were:

• Keep the message simple. User generated content is easy when people like the message.
• Encourage others to build grass roots campaigns and facilitate them creating profiles (Twitter profiles, Facebook pages) and their own material with open source assets.
• Seek partnerships with organisations that can help spread the message.
• Outreach to bloggers.
• Don’t intervene. Let conversations flow.
• Don’t stop at English. Translate collateral into other languages and outreach to regional blogging networks.
• But what about the haters? There were a few including the editor of Tech Crunch, and a new group, the Human Power Appreciation Hour. Don’t get dispirited, it just goes to show you are getting somewhere when detractors feel threatened.

Lessons learned from Dae Levine, Head of Communications with Greenpeace, speaking about the Nestle anti-deforestation campaign

The lessons learned were spelled out in this how-to of social campaigning. After 10 years of Greenpeace lobbying Nestle and its supplier of palm oil, Sinarmas, they decided to change tact and create a campaign. The campaign was in the form of a video:

The lessons learned

• Leverage a brand. It was not until Greenpeace ran this social media campaign leveraging the Kit Kat brand that people took notice … and Nestle took action.
  

  Kit Kat brand appropriation

• Create an emotional entry point for your audience. People need something they can relate to, e.g. a cute orang-utan.
  

  Greenepeace thanks its supporters with this cute orang-utan

• A bad reaction from your target can only help your campaign. Youtube pulled the video when Nestle complained about copyright infringement. The result? Nestle inadvertently created the desire for people to watch it. People re-posted the video. It went viral. This decision by Nestle was the catalyst to the success of the whole campaign.

Greenpeace Nestle video stats

Audience advice to Nestle

• Embrace your social media moment. Secondary video campaign launched instructing people on how to call the Nestle CEO. by the end of the campaign this had resulted in almost 350,000 emails and phone calls.
• Time your campaign. When to launch an anti-chocolate campaign? How about Easter?
• Integrate your campaign with traditional activities. In Greenpeace’s case this involved hacking the wifi at the Nestle AGM so that attendees were directed to a spoof site. Interestingly Greenpeace also showed a twitter feed outside the AGM so that Nestle could see what people were actually saying. Other activities included stickering Kit Kat point of sale displays with the appropriated Killer logo.
• It helps when your target sucks at social media. Greenpeace encouraged people to join Nestle’s Facebook fan page. Numbers jumped by 20,000. Nestle removed negative posts from its profile only adding fuel to the fire.
• “People are awesome”. Something that Earth Hour designed as part of its campaign but Greenepeace did not anticipate was people creating their own content supporting, promoting and building on the campaign. E.g. this video.

This was the best Social Media Club I have attended for a while, but I love a good case study. The campaigns were very different but both offered a hook, something emotional that people could relate to, and of course, share.

Standing room only

Bernard Salt and Rebecca Huntley were guests at the last Social Media Club earlier this month. They presented their research on how Gen x and Gen y represent themselves online. Two themes emerged in the research: superficiality and authenticity.

The research found that Gen y are not, as some might think, uncritical of their use of social media. Gen y is aware of the dangers and pitfalls of broadcasting one’s life to the network – be it inappropriate photos being viewed by the boss, or superficial relationships being had at the expense of more meaningful connections.

The research focus was on attitudes towards social media and how people build and view representation of self in this space. The view that behaviour online is nothing new was echoed by Bernard Salt.

New technology amplifies instinctive human behaviour

Salt harked back to examples where the novel and conspicuous use of technology eventuated in a correcting force of some kind. Talking loudly on your mobile phone in a restaurant in the early 90s soon became uncool.

Behavioural corrections

He sees social media as a new vehicle for public preening. The old tribal head dress has been replaced by:

1. Un-tagging unflattering photos
2. Altering photos
3. Filtering friends by looks
4. Deriving status by broadcasting a cool location
5. Deriving status by the number of friends you have
6. Acting in a way to elicit feedback and validation

Salt predicts that these ego driven vanities will be calibrated: “That fight is yet to play out. We are still intoxicated by the technology. We will see a movement towards authenticity.”

The talks by Huntley and Salt were short – I wish I could have heard more about the detail of the research and the findings. But this is Social Media Club, not a sociology class. Tip brought it all home with commercial examples. Tip described people’s engagement with brands in social media as another way people build their identity and there were examples of what can only be described as conspicuous window shopping.

Superficiality and narcissism are rewarded

The brands you like define you

Social shopping? I prefer to call it conspicuous window shopping

Tip’s talk departed from the topic somewhat but, it was interesting to think about the juxtaposition of business and our social space. Advertising is seeking and managing relationships in a more direct, transparent medium where users ultimately have control. If there is to be a backlash against superficiality toward an authenticity it will be interesting to see the shape of the behavioural correction of commercial interests in our social lives.

Opening the night

I will admit, when the evening began with everyone in the room passing the mike and giving their elevator pitch, I was worried. There were over 60 women in the room and, one by one, they shared their name, job, employ—in many cases their own small business—and their twitter handle. I feared it would take all night but in a few minutes it was over. I found the exercise creepy; there was something evangelical about it, but I succumbed and came to realise that this spirit of promotion and openness was at the heart of the event.

The MC introduced the night saying this was a forum created for women to build confidence and share knowledge. There are no gurus here, she said, you can ask any question. As if there were an imminent threat, she declared this place is safe.

Kate Curruthers was the special guest. Her presentation on private and public boundaries online was about negotiating the terrain of social media from a personal and business perspective. Her central thesis for the night was that nothing is new. There are real world parallels to all online behaviour.

No human behaviour happens online that does not already happen offline

Kate Curruthers spoke of the changing attitudes towards privacy over time and how social networking has taken everyone back to the village. Now, like before, everyone knows each other’s business. Curruthers spoke of how the web quickens and amplifies communication and of the risks of social media engagement:

• reputation—and the lack of control of others content about you
• job risks—personal and professional boundaries blurring
• personal safety—what information you should disclose publically; and the sometime vitriolic nature of dialogue online.

Her advice to those in the room, wanting to engage with and use social media was don’t do online, what you wouldn’t do offline.

Kate Curruthers slide deck - risking reputation

Carruthers also spoke of the benefits of always being connected: convenience, friendship, guidance and business benefits. The new digital divide, she said, was not whether or not you have a computer but how connected you are willing to be.  Her most pressing piece of advice for the night was around the use of social media in the workplace. She warned that one should not question a young person’s right to be always connected. An audience member recommended that all businesses have a social media policy (and referred the audience to Telstra’s social media employee guidelines). Kate agreed and added that you cannot discipline employees for misuse of social media if you do not have rules in place.

Kate Curruthers slide deck - why are we participating in networks?

At this point the talk opened up into a forum where problems, anecdotes and advice were shared. This was the most interesting aspect to the night. The event delivered on its promise of being a safe place where people can ask anything. Questions were answered by guest speaker and by audience members alike. This made me see the whole point of the introductions at the start of the event. Everyone had a sense of what each other did, be that PR professional, journalist, accountant, business coach, stylist or small business owner—and knowing the people in the room made everyone comfortable to talk.

Audience snippet from social media women

Social Media Women sits somewhere between a digital industry get together and a business networking function. Many did learn a lot of new information. I learnt about the questions, fears and apprehension some people have of social media, no doubt thanks to the thought provoking presentation by Kate Curruthers.  I’ve been to a lot of industry events. The diversity in the audience and the range of discussion about using social media made this night the most authentic and refreshing forum I’ve attended for a while.

What was most interesting to me, was the discussion and difference of opinion on whether social media spaces like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook are publishing or conversation. Damien Damjanovski was a conversationalist; Sam North was of the opinion that as soon as you put something online you are publishing, and by entering the public domain you are availing yourself to be quoted, scrutinised, sued for defamation and have your Facebook photos printed in the Sydney morning Herald. Renai LeMay from Delimiter was a journalist trying to toe the publishing and ethics line. While he would freely quote a public figure’s tweet in an article he would only use an image found online if it was published under creative commons. He added that a journalist should go to the primary source of material they are using to verify its accuracy if nothing else. So at this point in the night the debate became one based on the premise that if we are putting ourselves out there publicly how can this content be used and how do we feel about that use (and vulnerability).

I side with the publishing angle myself and by that I mean that posting something online is a form of publication by its inherent distribution. Having said (and contradicting) that, I feel it is completely inappropriate for a newspaper to obtain a photograph from a social network because that photograph is from an entirely different context to the story. Who is the publisher? This was not explored in tonight’s discussion at the event but it did get me thinking. Part of the reason why the likes of Facebook and Tumblr claim copyright on your material is so that they can have the right to distribute your material which is what they are doing when you post content to them. While I think it is wrong of newspapers to delve into Facebook for pictures to illustrate their stories I think that the users of these platforms should take issue with Facebook as much as they may take issue with the journalist and the newspaper. Surely it is Facebook’s responsibility to protect its copyright as a means to protect its users. What should users expect of the social networks they participate in?

I could go on but I think the debate will continue at the next Digital Citizens event.

N.B. The hashtag for this event was #digicitz. The title of this post is paraphrased from a tweet on that stream.