A Question Concerning the Ethics of Social Media Presence

Facebook Business Solutions
Image by davemc500hats via Flickr

Question: If, as CEO of a company, you personally and passionately oppose Facebook’s Privacy policies and methods, would you withhold having any presence on the site, regardless of what it may cost you?

I’m an advocate for intelligent adoption of emerging technologies and media for individuals, non-profits and businesses. I believe they can be useful, pliant and remarkable tools as part of larger internal and external strategies. But I also believe that the uses of these media need to be integrated in accordance with the specific needs and resources of an enterprise within the larger contexts of what it means to do business.

But one matter is often overlooked, which is what I raised in the question above. What if you believe that a particular medium is run by a company who – in your eyes – has questionable or no ethical standards? Would you shrug off the matter and ultimately decide that you need to reach your customers on Facebook or Twitter or on any other medium which you don’t own and have no say in?

After all, when you set up a Facebook Page, you’re effectively entering a business relationship with Facebook – even if you don’t run ads or otherwise cut a check. Just as any smart and ethical executive would question entering a partnership with an un-trustworthy vendor, shouldn’t executives similarly consider the trustworthiness of the companies who run media sites?

I won’t answer the question here. But I would suggest, that executive leaders (and agencies) fully understand not only the properties of the media companies they use but also the ethical values and practices those companies employ.

We are living in a time when leaders must possess a minimal understanding and proficiency of emerging media. That entails not only a technical understanding of them but also an ethical wisdom and awareness.

Given Facebook’s changing policies with respect to Privacy, Healthcare executives must especially be pondering this question. As my friend Faisal Qureshi aptly stated:

@PhilBaumann if you're a Healthcare CEO you need to be thinking long and hard about using #fb in your marketing mix. #hcsm

@PhilBaumann if you're a Healthcare CEO you need to be thinking long and hard about using #fb in your marketing mix. #hcsm

Companies, and the agencies that advise them, must never forget the fundamental dividing difference between traditional media (print, radio, TV) and emerging media (Twitter, Facebook, Blogs, Forums): the former are hardware while the later are software. Hardware is relatively static and straightforward. Software, on the other hand, is pliant, elusive and unpredictable. Facebook isn’t a as much a medium as it is software. Thus the ethical thinking on media like Facebook, must take this key difference in mind.

Of all of the technologies which  our species has brought forth into the world, perhaps it’s the Question Mark which is our crowning achievement. And with that, I repeat my question to you:

If, as CEO of a company, you personally and passionately oppose Facebook’s Privacy policies and methods, would you withhold having any presence on the site, regardless of what it may cost you?

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

All Marketers Are Dopes

dopey and the dwarfs
Image by bijoubaby via Flickr

Do you agree? Do you disagree? You clicked the link, didn’t you? Either because you agreed or – perhaps more so – because you disagreed or were offended.

Did I linkbait you into coming here? Perhaps. And that’s the point: marketers too often fetishize messaging at the expense of deeper, rounder and longer-term marketing strategies.

A catchy or rousing phrase may invoke the attention of your targets, but if that’s all it does, you’ve failed your boss’s investors.

THE SOURCE AND END OF DOPERY

In fact, it seems that the when some marketers declare themselves to be marketers, what they really mean is that they are messengers. But marketing isn’t just about messaging: marketing is about connecting something of subjective value with a subject who values that something (whether they know it yet or not). (Yes, marketing is kinda circular when enframed that way, isn’t it? 🙂

And that connecting is difficult work – it’s something that goes way beyond messaging. And yet many marketers have gotten lost in the practice of messaging – they’ve lost perspective of both the historical roots and the future evolution of their profession.

Marketing evolved over the last 100 years from producing to meet demand, to standing out with quality, to selling and persuasion and sophisticated research, and most recently into what is today called Traditional Marketing.

So what do I mean by All marketers are dopes? Who says that? Why?

Well, that sentence is a sentiment that consumers are increasingly feeling in their gut when they come across Dreck – and today Dreck is tired messaging and attention-screaming and incomplete marketing with no human quality.

EVOLUTION VIA WEB SELECTION

And what the Web is doing is providing marketers with a chance to re-evaluate the Why’s and How’s of what they learned from the start of their careers.

Unfortunately, most have gotten stuck in one phase of Marketing’s evolution, and unable to take the lead towards its next.

They’ve gotten lost in the assembly-line mentality of segregating and dividing labor and tasks: Research, Creatives, Advertising, etc. It was a necessary way of doing things in an economy where scaling required standardization of operations – things needed to be predictable and repeatable at the lowest possible costs.

But the Web is mothering novel media, with emerging properties that didn’t exist in the traditional staples of mass communication: print, radio and television.

Marketing isn’t dead, any more than desire or hunger or business. Marketing is just in the transitional phase to something more complete – a chance to build communities where the right messages can be delivered at the right time in the right context with the right processes.

Evolution is typically a merciless process – species who once reigned and ruled can be ruined without notice, while the tiny prey emerge stronger and more fit to deal with the new ecology.

ARE YOU A DOPE?

Too bad marketers are dopes. Or are they? If you’ve gotten this far, you’re probably not one of the dopes and I sincerely wish you nothing but success as you create a more human – and effective – Marketing.

A dope is someone who, once has learned a certain way of doing things, doesn’t know when to unlearn that particular way when it no longer works.

Are you a dopey marketer? Or are you someone who wants to change the world by connecting values that matter with people who need and want and (perhaps) crave what you have to offer?

Please be at the exception that proves the rule.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Better to Play It Safe

When a new force in the world makes life more difficult and frightening and upturning – like the Web – the stakes get higher. So many things can go wrong if you don’t do it right. You can get stampeded and lose the game. Playing on the sidelines is more appealing.

THE SIDELINES ARE MORE APPEALING

The Web is making the world more and more dangerous. If you run a pharmaceutical enterprise and decide to blog or tweet or otherwise open yourself up, people will report adverse events. If that happens, you’ll have to work harder. That means more standard operating procedures, more trained personnel- maybe even more fines and letters from the FDA. Playing on the sidelines is more appealing.

If you run a hospital and decide to establish a vast living presence on the Web, people will say bad things about your doctors, your nurses, your waiting times in the ER, your food. You’ll have to deal with HIPAA. There’s also a chance that you’ll say something you’ll regret. Playing on the sidelines is more appealing.

If you run a newspaper and decide to use Twitter to gather information, distribute the results of your journalistic excellence and express opinions, people will stop buying your paper. Why should people buy your newspaper when they can get content for free? Getting to the point of dazzling the people with your professional curation skills is just too hard to do anymore. Turning the very technology that turned your industry upside down into your favor is risky and hard. Playing on the sidelines is more appealing.

A NEW PAIR OF LENSES

Of course, you could look at the world through different lenses. You could look upon the Web as a sea of infinite nonsense, a place where people are thirsty for rare perspective and wisdom and value. The sidelines may be more appealing, but you won’t find any goal posts there. That’s not where the game is.

What does safety mean to you? Are you doing what you do because it feels safe? Are you sure that you’re truly playing it safe?

Wearing a life preserver in a jungle won’t help you.

If you do the hard work to make it easy for patients and doctors to report adverse events or file complaints about the treatment they received (or didn’t), you have a better chance that your product won’t get slapped with a black label or pulled from the market or that your hospital will get sued by people who feel abandoned or without recourse to you.

FEAR IS NOT SAFE

If hard work or changing your view intimidates you and you don’t mind living on the sidelines, it’s better to play it safe.

Sometimes, however, the world changes so fast, so cruelly, so unforgivingly that the safest bet is to live dangerously. Sometimes, it’s not better to play it safe.

Your choice. Win or lose. Eat or starve. It’s that simple.

Tweet This Post

If you enjoyed this post, subscribe here.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]