Tuesday
19Jan2010
Social Media - Out of control?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 1:25PM
Articles written by UK solicitors about social media tend to catch my attention.
Sometimes this is because they are perceptive, entertaining and cutting edge… but more often it is because it is obvious that their authors (presumably intelligent and informed lawyers) don't seem to "get" the basics of social media and web 2.0.
Solicitors still seem to advise an outright ban on access to social networking sites (as advised by Halliwells LLP) or the introduction of a policy limiting use of the company's networks to access them (as recommended by Rob Coward's recent post on the Legal Week blog on cutting the cost of social networking.
Yet another recent article by Cobbetts Solicitors on social networking in the workplace recommends that "if these sites are not banned by the employer, it should consider guidelines as to appropriate use."
I don't mean to single out these particular articles as many solicitors seem to view social networking as a threat to business. The language used in these three articles:- "time wasting", "costing the economy", "crack down" is mirrored in many other articles and updates.
I have commented before on this blog about why I think social media can be a positive thing for business (including law firms) and I re-stated these views in my comments on Rob Coward's blog post.
Rather than repeat myself, I want to focus on one particular point that many of the commentators don't seem to grasp:- social media is already "out of control".
It doesn't need the beige box sitting under your employees' desks.
Mobile clients for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Foursquare and other social networks are available for the iPhone, Android, Windows Mobile, Blackberry (the list goes on).
These mobile clients aren't just a fallback - social networking comes alive (and in the case of FourSquare depends) on mobile platforms.
Block whatever you want and beef up the internet policy in your staff handbook, but some of your employees will still be tweeting. Even if you force a ban at work, can you restrict their access to social media at evenings and weekends?
A meaningful social media policy isn't an extension of your internet policy, it can't be enforced by blocking sites and it can't really be about "control".
It needs to be independent of platforms and networks. It needs to recognise that your employees will use social media and that they will discuss their work and your business.
It needs to acknowledge that there are serious risks (as well as benefits) to social media, but unless you want to lose out on the benefits it needs to empower your staff to use their social networks for the benefit of your business.
The best, and most elegant, approach I have seen yet is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's social media guidelines:-
• Do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute.
• Do not undermine your effectiveness at work.
• Do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views.
• Do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.
This may not win many fans amongst employment lawyers, but it is obviously drafted by an employer who "gets" social media and recognises its benefits for their business.
I'm not sure if lawyers or in-house counsel were involved in drafting it, but if so I would be willing to bet that they too understood blogging and Twitter and how important they are for their client's business.
Solicitors would probably argue that it isn't necessary to use social media in order to advise on its legal implications.
My response is that whilst there is nothing technically difficult about using social media, it is very hard to understand its benefits and how it works without experimenting with it (as any number of media commentators have proved). It is a state of mind more than a skill-set.
To advise clients who are immersed in social media and talk intelligently to them about it you do need to understand it yourself. Personally I think this requires a certain amount of first-hand experience at using it in a business context (having a personal Facebook page doesn’t really cut it).
At the moment the majority of articles I see by solicitors are focused on the risks of social media to the exclusion of the benefits and based on an outdated understanding of the technology and platforms.
With clients becoming more and more social media savvy perhaps commercial law firms should be encouraging their solicitors to use social media in a business context?
Let me know what you think.
Finally, I have used song lyrics to title a few Peninsulawyer posts, but I am probably plumbing new depths with the title of a Girls Aloud album… I can promise those of a nervous disposition that it won't be a recurring theme!
Sometimes this is because they are perceptive, entertaining and cutting edge… but more often it is because it is obvious that their authors (presumably intelligent and informed lawyers) don't seem to "get" the basics of social media and web 2.0.
Solicitors still seem to advise an outright ban on access to social networking sites (as advised by Halliwells LLP) or the introduction of a policy limiting use of the company's networks to access them (as recommended by Rob Coward's recent post on the Legal Week blog on cutting the cost of social networking.
Yet another recent article by Cobbetts Solicitors on social networking in the workplace recommends that "if these sites are not banned by the employer, it should consider guidelines as to appropriate use."
I don't mean to single out these particular articles as many solicitors seem to view social networking as a threat to business. The language used in these three articles:- "time wasting", "costing the economy", "crack down" is mirrored in many other articles and updates.
I have commented before on this blog about why I think social media can be a positive thing for business (including law firms) and I re-stated these views in my comments on Rob Coward's blog post.
Rather than repeat myself, I want to focus on one particular point that many of the commentators don't seem to grasp:- social media is already "out of control".
It doesn't need the beige box sitting under your employees' desks.
Mobile clients for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Foursquare and other social networks are available for the iPhone, Android, Windows Mobile, Blackberry (the list goes on).
These mobile clients aren't just a fallback - social networking comes alive (and in the case of FourSquare depends) on mobile platforms.
Block whatever you want and beef up the internet policy in your staff handbook, but some of your employees will still be tweeting. Even if you force a ban at work, can you restrict their access to social media at evenings and weekends?
A meaningful social media policy isn't an extension of your internet policy, it can't be enforced by blocking sites and it can't really be about "control".
It needs to be independent of platforms and networks. It needs to recognise that your employees will use social media and that they will discuss their work and your business.
It needs to acknowledge that there are serious risks (as well as benefits) to social media, but unless you want to lose out on the benefits it needs to empower your staff to use their social networks for the benefit of your business.
The best, and most elegant, approach I have seen yet is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's social media guidelines:-
• Do not mix the professional and the personal in ways likely to bring the ABC into disrepute.
• Do not undermine your effectiveness at work.
• Do not imply ABC endorsement of your personal views.
• Do not disclose confidential information obtained through work.
This may not win many fans amongst employment lawyers, but it is obviously drafted by an employer who "gets" social media and recognises its benefits for their business.
I'm not sure if lawyers or in-house counsel were involved in drafting it, but if so I would be willing to bet that they too understood blogging and Twitter and how important they are for their client's business.
Solicitors would probably argue that it isn't necessary to use social media in order to advise on its legal implications.
My response is that whilst there is nothing technically difficult about using social media, it is very hard to understand its benefits and how it works without experimenting with it (as any number of media commentators have proved). It is a state of mind more than a skill-set.
To advise clients who are immersed in social media and talk intelligently to them about it you do need to understand it yourself. Personally I think this requires a certain amount of first-hand experience at using it in a business context (having a personal Facebook page doesn’t really cut it).
At the moment the majority of articles I see by solicitors are focused on the risks of social media to the exclusion of the benefits and based on an outdated understanding of the technology and platforms.
With clients becoming more and more social media savvy perhaps commercial law firms should be encouraging their solicitors to use social media in a business context?
Let me know what you think.
Finally, I have used song lyrics to title a few Peninsulawyer posts, but I am probably plumbing new depths with the title of a Girls Aloud album… I can promise those of a nervous disposition that it won't be a recurring theme!
Reader Comments (6)
Good blog Jon.
Many points to pick up here...Apple invented the iPhone cos they knew that would be where a lot, (although not all), engagement would occur. They built it around the iTunes store, (that was the really neat bit). Look at why they bought LaLa that is where the world is a headed; see their building of a new server farm in North Carolina. You don''t do that sort of cap ex unless you have a business strategy.
As I have blogged before, we won't see more Twitters but we will see more people putting up valuable and engaging content, which leads me on to my next point.
Twitter yardy, yardy yardy. The problem with Twitter is there are a lot of people who use it so inefficiently. You get the obvious PR Department Tweets which are such a waste of time and increasingly the 'RT Noise.' Evolution will eliminate this noise, evolution will enhance the content. If you are not engaging then you will not be followed. Don't be offended by that.
It ain't about how many followers you have, it is about the quality. In fact I deliberately keep my followers low as generally the ones I follow are the people whose opinions, comments or links I am interested in. It keeps my timeline lean so that I don't miss something.
The whole point, (arguably the only point), of social media is to provide engagement. As I have said before, Microsoft, Adobe etc encourage their staff to blog freely about their work. They don't talk about confidential stuff...that would be dumb....but people interested in what say Adobe are doing get an inside track.
I am more likely to read what they say than some glossy Adobe brochure or website.
This is what I do, my company gives me the freedom to do so, (thanks guys!!). I am clear about what I do, who I work for but present my personal ideas and thoughts for all to engage with. Hell we could even start an argument.
I would argue the reasons that law firms are worried about social networking is two fold,
1. The time factor. I know of one large law firm who had their bandwidth swallowed up by Facebook. Manage it appropriately guys aka ENGAGE with your staff.
2. System people are driven by security paranoia's which is the same reason why you probably have a company Blackberry as opposed to a far more user friendly iPhone.
But as I bang on about all the time...the 20th century business has less regard for 'the user' than the 21st century one.
ps everyone has a favourite Girls Aloud song...I just choose not to tell you mine!!
[...] who also tweets, wrote an interesting piece on twitter and other social media… Social Media – Out of control? where he reviews the state of play and benefits for lawyers. It is an enjoyable piece but I [...]
Thanks for the comment on my blog post on this topic.
For me, the key is to have guidelines that encourage responsibility in all areas of communication. Social media is not something new, but many CEOs, IT directors, HR departments, lawyers, etc seem to be treating it as though it was.
I dare say there were similar fears expressed by senior figures when the telephone was first introduced, and when email first began to be used. Organisations quickly learned that they could guide their staff in appropriate use of the technologies and trust them to use their discretion when it came to what they chose to talk or write about. Exactly the same approach needs to be maintained with respect to these channels of communication.
Responsible use of the tools should also be encouraged to build appropriate experience and familiarity with them so that in the event a major issue does arise (maybe a company is being criticised on Twitter or on a blog) the company knows the right 'netiquette' to respond in a timely manner.
Monitoring the channels is also vital. This can be useful in reviewing how employees are using online networks, but is also helpful in gauging how other people are talking about your organisation. Failure to spot and respond to online criticisms can quickly turn into a PR disaster (as Eurostar found out recently, of course), and it is easy to imagine how organisations that seek to ban any use of such platforms could find themselves in a similar position.
Working predominantly in the construction industry, I can think of examples of major incidents on and around sites (eg: collapsed cranes, scaffolding accidents) that have seen photos and videos shot from mobile phones and then posted on Flickr, YouTube, Twitter, etc. Extreme examples, maybe, but companies need to be aware that such actions take place, and have processes in place to monitor the online 'buzz' and to react when necessary.
Thanks Paul - I remember a very similar level of suspicion about email when I started as a trainee in 1999... to the point of us trainees only being allocated an external email address if we could demonstrate a business case. The senior partner actually refused to allow his trainee even to have a computer - although that was more down to his personal foibles!
Interestingly the social media / PR agency for Eurostar were tweeting and blogging (http://twitter.com/wearesocial and http://wearesocial.net/blog/2009/12/note-todays-eurostar-crisis/) to try and carry out some damage limitation, but I don't know how effective it was.
We actually did have a crane collapse in Liverpool last year which was fairly well documented on Flickr and elsewhere (http://www.flickr.com/photos/4737carlin/3702502382/) and photos of which were going around on Twitter before the mainstream press had a chance to report.
Anyway - thanks for the comments.
Let me say that I enjoy reading this blog. Unfortunately I am not familiar with Girls Aloud. I'm sure they are all the rage among UK lawyers.
Question: Has this subject been hashed out already? Maybe I read too many blogs but I could swear the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's 4-simple-rules approach to social media has been universally praised, but not adopted.
Case in point. I developed the first blog and wiki policies at my bar association. You could hardly distinguish the doom-and-gloom of that era from the social media doubts of today. Same fears and same partisans. Basically it comes down to this: people fear change. Lawyers most of all (well, not all of us, but ...)
Let's just say the hysteria surrounding social media resembles the fracas surrounding blogs and wikis which looked a lot like fear of e-mail which quickly followed suspicion concerning computers that occurred just as office managers the world over were learning to trust copy machines.
Can I get an Amen?
Mhedayat - thanks for the comment.
I have seen the ABC guidelines promoted on quite a few blogs. I can't speak for others, but we have adopted a policy which is based on very similar guidelines with a few specific points to cover areas of risk which affect law firms (e.g. you should comply with all relevant regulatory requirements).
I do think that this needs to be an overarching policy and that you will still need (for example) an IT policy governing what people do via your own network to ensure that the firm / organisation are fully covered.
I am not a fan of Girls Aloud either, but if you want further background:- http://www.girlsaloud.co.uk/