the best control for social media

I was fielding a lot of rapid-fire questions this week from a skeptical audience of association executives about social media -- specifically, a barrage of questions about every worst-case scenario they could think of. What if people tweet things that are confidential? What if I don't have time to manage everything and control what people are saying online? We have layers of approval for these types of things. Even the best person might slip up at some point and post something inappropriate, right? You can't really guarantee for me that will never happen, can you?

Those things happen, I said, but that shouldn't stop you from trying. It's good to help clear guidelines for your team before you start working with social media, I suggested. Often, the way in which you correct an error can boost your reputation, I pointed out in an encouraging tone. No, I can't guarantee that won't happen, but it's best to choose people you trust for the task, rather than micromanage them.

"Ah, that's the problem," said one CEO. "I'm the one I'm concerned about."

I looked him right in the eye, and asked, "Do you know the best control there is on the market for social media?"

"No -- there is one?"

And that's when I pointed to my brain. Well, okay, the side of my forehead.

Truth is, if you don't have self-control, there's a lot I can't help you with, including using social media for business without embarrassing yourself. But I did take a lesson from it, a lesson that communicators should note: Sometimes, when you're making the case for social media, and your leadership is talking about loose cannons and that horse that escaped when the barn door was open, they might just be talking about themselves.

Now, to my mind, that doesn't mean they should be off your list of potential bloggers, tweeters, or Facebook friends. But they will need to rearrange their view of themselves as leaders in the social-media world. Showing a human side -- or as I like to say, if you don't have a personality in social media, you need to get one -- would do most CEOs a world of good.

In this great example, Brad Ward caught the Chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Madison showing her perfectly fine human side in a Twitter exchange she meant to be private, and argues it's just the kind of post that should be public. I agree, wholeheartedly.

Getting your CEO to that point may take more work than you have hours to do, but it's a useful discussion to have. Just promise me you won't resort to ghostwriting for your CEO as a way to fill a gap. If your leader is unwilling or unable to exercise the best control for social media -- the one behind her forehead -- let her delegate full authorship to someone else, in their own name.

Related posts: You can't be Mary Poppins in social media (or, don't be afraid to suck)

Get past 6 other CEO barriers to social media

Employee blogs v. CEO blogs: Which is best?

disclosing science @ meetings

Editor's note: Medical reporter Bob Finn responded to my recent post on controversies associated with those who "live-tweet" meetings: He wanted to clear up myths among scientists at their meetings concerning the "Ingelfinger rule," which many think prevents them from presenting their research before reporters at meetings, for fear of endangering their chances of publishing in top journals. Bob's kindly provided this post from his Medical Conference blog. You can find his most recent reporting on Twitter and on his Weird Medical News blog. Here's his post--please share it with scientists and researchers with whom you work!

Beware the Ingelfinger of Doom

So I'm sitting in the front row of a packed seminar room as four speakers describe different parts of an important, but not earthshaking, clinical trial. This seminar, they said, constituted the first public release of data from the trial. A news story for sure, I'm thinking, and since I'm apparently the only reporter in the room, an actual scoop.

The first three speakers describe the trial’s background, details of the experimental treatment, and details of the control treatment. The final speaker, the trial's principal investigator, stands up to reveal the trial's results, and the first thing she says is, "We’ve just submitted a paper on this trial to JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association, one of the top three or four medical journals in the world], and if there are any reporters in the audience we request that they not print anything about this trial, because that might jeopardize our publication."

My first thought: “Puh-leese.” My second: “If you wanted this seminar to be off the record, you should have said something at the beginning, before I invested an hour in this room.” My third: “Dream on, sister. You’re describing the results of this trial at an open meeting to which reporters were invited, and there are a hundred other people in the room. If the results were secret before, they sure ain’t secret now. I’m not the only one in the room with a recorder, and I’m not the only one taking digital photos of every PowerPoint slide.”

And my fourth thought: “I bet they shake that damn Ingelfinger at me.” Franz J. Ingelfinger, M.D., (1910-1980) was editor of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) from 1967-1977. During his tenure he decreed that for an article to be published in his journal it must not previously have appeared elsewhere. The rule prohibited authors from releasing their results to the news media before the date they were published in the journal. A small number of other journals (such as JAMA) developed similar policies, and the net result is that scientists are often afraid to talk to reporters for fear that they’ll lose the opportunity to publish in JAMA or NEJM (or Nature or Cell or Science).

Their fears are misplaced, I explain to one of the clinical trial’s investigators, who worriedly accosts me at the end of the seminar. I promise to send him an e-mail, quoting chapter and verse, and this is what I wrote (with identifying details altered):

Subject: JAMA publication policies

Dr. Smith, I'm happy to set your mind at ease regarding the effect my article in [my newspaper] will have on your intended publication in JAMA.It should not hurt your chances of publication if we report on the study as you and your colleagues presented it at the meeting. In general, medical journals follow rules approved by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors regarding prepublication publicity. (See NEJM 328(17):1283,1993, and NEJM 324:424-8, 1991). Specifically: "Policies designed to limit prepublication publicity should not apply to accounts in the media of presentations at scientific meetings or to the abstracts from these meetings (see the section 'Prior Duplicate Publication' in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals). Researchers who present their work at a scientific meeting should feel free to discuss their presentations with reporters, but they should be discouraged from offering more detail about their study than was presented in their talk."

And in the JAMA instructions to authors it says, "Previous Presentation or Release of Information. A complete report following presentation at a meeting or publication of preliminary findings elsewhere (e.g., an abstract) is eligible for consideration for publication. Media coverage of presentations at scientific meetings will not jeopardize consideration, but direct release of information through press releases or news media briefings may preclude consideration by JAMA. Rare instances of papers reporting public health emergencies should be discussed with the editor. Authors submitting manuscripts or letters to the editor regarding adverse drug or medical device reactions, reportable diseases, etc should also report such to the relevant government agency. "I hope this answers your concerns."

This satisfied Dr. Smith and his colleagues, but I would have gone ahead with my article even if it had not. Whatever motives Dr. Ingelfinger had when he originally promulgated his rule, the current effect is to stifle dissemination of research results to the public that, in most cases, paid for that research, and to increase the influence of a small number of journals at the expense of the public’s right to know.

tweeting at meetings gets controversial

I've been listening for weeks to a wide-ranging discussion about meeting participants who use social media tools to share, in real time, what speakers are saying. What's new: tempers are rising as this trend has taken hold. More and more, attendees have taken to live-posts, but conference organizers, speakers, and observers are all over the map. Is live-tweeting a version of spilling the beans? Should meeting contents be available only to attendees? Is it rude/childish/self-promotional/harmless to disagree with the speaker in a post written before her talk is over? Must you register like a reporter? Agree to certain timing embargoes? Only post when sessions are over, not during them? It's a mashup of etiquette, ownership, competition and peer-pressure. Here are three examples of how the discussion's playing out, from three different perspectives:

• From the annoyed attendee and observer: Here's a blog post from a PR consultant whose colleague was attending a conference where social media "courtesy" guidelines were published in the program, suggesting participants shouldn't post during talks, "oversimplify" speakers' remarks or make personal comments. After she'd blogged and tweeted about the issue, attendees at the meeting noted the conference had issued a hashtag, suggesting that people post on Twitter, in effect. Some speakers admitted to tweeting while on panels, and the attendee who first flagged the issue refrained, feeling constrained by the rules. The author's take: "if they’re going to decide for me how much attention I can or cannot pay while attending a presentation - well, I’m going to be thinking of spending my money elsewhere next time around."


• From a speaker and presentation coach seeking middle ground: Olivia Mitchell's a thoughtful speaker who coaches and trains speakers, as I do, and she's been exploring this issue in aid of her clients and herself. In "How to Tweet During a Presentation," Mitchell offers a measured discussion, including some academic research into this new trend, her own experience as a speaker and a Twitterer-during-meetings, and thoughts on what guidelines might say: "I like the idea of the principle that you should only tweet what you would be prepared to say face to face. But in practice, it’s quite challenging." She takes an example from her own tweets, in which she wrote of a speaker: "Being stimulated by Jeanne’s acting workshop. But not convinced that bringing acting techniques into presenting is useful. #pcampLA." Was that wrong? "Not necessarily," she says. Ultimately, she advocates the "face to face" guideline.


• From a scientific journal, a dose of practical realities: Scientific meetings are competitive sessions. Some researcher-presenters work hard to avoid coverage at such meetings to avoid incurring the wrath of journal editors with strict pre-publication release rules. (Traditionally, but not always, presenting findings at a meeting precedes publication in a journal.) The editors of one such journal have published this editorial after one laboratory issued the rule that meeting attendees must first have the presenter's permission before posting online during the talk. After considering some basic realities--researcher attend meetings to discuss others' work and have theirs discussed in turn, for one--the editorial says: "Critical discussion of worthy results should not in principle be restricted to walls of a conference hall or even the pages of a journal. Any meeting to which anyone can register is fair game for all available communications technologies — and any rules that cannot be policed will be ignored anyway." The editorial suggsts that those wanting complete control should close the meeting to all but participants who agree to avoid broadcasting the discussions, a model that already exists.

Meetings are just one more area where social networking and new technologies are rubbing up against well-established rules of the road--and the rub feels like sandpaper to some and silk to others. After listening to this discussion for some weeks, it sounds to me as if the objections to live-posts in meetings are symptoms of a larger discomfort with change, new technology and the unknown. It's that kind of discomfort that leads to the creation of rules that are unenforceable (who, exactly, would decide what a "polite" comment was?) and strident comments about etiquette and intent.

If you're struggling with this issue, take the time to brainstorm the potential benefits that will accrue from opening up live-tweeting of your meetings--and then experiment with them before you affix rules. You may find benefits you didn't anticipate if you give it a try. Or, as the Nature editorial suggests, you can make a tough decision to close your meeting and lose the benefits of a more open structure as the price of control. (Hat tip to Joe Bonner for pointing me to the Nature editorial.)

Related posts: Tips for using Twitter to report from meetings

social media: can you swim & stay dry?

That seems to be the hope in many private- and public-sector workplaces, according to two recent surveys that show companies and government agencies are still way behind their customers and constituents when it comes to using social media as a communications tool. The big barriers? Lack of knowledge, no policy guidelines, or such restrictive policies that these tools can't be used at work--the equivalent of posting a "no swimming" sign when everyone else is in the pool.

Let's start in the public sector, where a survey of corporate and government communicators by Ragan Communications and PollStream found that turf battles between IT and communications are holding up progress (reported by 45 percent of the government communicators) and a whopping 70 percent of communicators at government agencies say they can’t access social media at work. (You'll need a subscription to read the link above). This, despite the federal government's continuing--and successful--efforts to negotiate terms of service that will allow federal agencies to use Facebook, Twitter, and a host of other social media sites.

Deloitte's 2009 Ethics and Workplace Survey found a somewhat hopeful picture--14 percent of CEOs have Twitter profiles and 31 percent are on Facebook, for example. But the size of the potential pool for social media use comes clear in these data: 55 percent of executives say their companies don’t officially use social networks, and 22% said their companies would like to use social networking tools, but haven’t yet figured out how to do so. The Deloitte survey also probes employee/employer views on whether a policy would change what employees say about the company online and whether social media policy should be a boardroom issue.

The downside of all this: When you fail to follow your audience into the pool, you're missing myriad opportunities to engage your constituents--and creating opportunities for others to do so. For agencies in a federal system, it also creates an uneven level of taxpayer service, since I can access some agencies readily in social media, but not others. At some point, that's a performance issue for the entire system.

This uneven pool landscape may be why my "get your toes wet in the new-media pool" sessions, a combination of orientation and brainstorming, are still in demand in the public and private sectors. Until you get all the players in the room--from naysayers to early adopters--you won't be able to come up with a comprehensive approach that actually moves forward. Email me at info[at]dontgetcaught[dot]biz to learn about holding a session customized to your business needs. Where's your organization in this mix? Leave a comment and feel free to share your successes or barriers--and check out similar feedback in the related posts.

Related posts:

Posts on creating social media policies and best practices

When federal agencies limit social media use

Get your toes wet in the new-media pool orientation sessions

twitter book: old-media-new-media guide

Maybe it seems so old-media to read a book--you remember books, don't you?--about a new-media phenomenon like Twitter. But The Twitter Book is the perfect, er, analog to the digital world of Twitter, whether you're a newbie or have been tweeting away for some time. I'm delighted that one of my tweets--I'm @dontgetcaught on Twitter--is included as a demonstration of how to effectively promotoe your blog on Twitter, one of its most useful functions. You'll find advice on how to get started and how to avoid common mistakes, with loads of real examples of how others have handled the key principles of Twitter: listening in, having conversations, sharing information and ideas and revealing yourself. Twitter uses for business also get their due, with tips on managing multiple Twitterers, handling customers and more. I like the book's visual format: Each left page has several pictures of actual tweets that demonstrate the principles shown on the right page, and while it's an easy read, you may find yourself dipping into this book from time to time to get new ideas and perspectives. There are plenty of useful URLs and ideas here!

Buy The Twitter Book

more on newspaper's social media policies

Twitter's prompting the latest round of social-media policy development at the nation's major newspapers, with a lot of buzz surrounding the Wall Street Journal's restrictive policy, as well as others from the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, among many others. NiemanLabs has a great summary post that includes links to the major newspapers' policies, as well as discussions about why they are--or are not--effective. (To their credit, some newspaper editors are questioning why reporters can't be trusted in 140 character posts when they're trusted to write whole articles.) Newspapers, just like every other corporate entity, are struggling with how to guide their employees' use of social media options for work purposes. I'd expect many of these policies to change, but for now, they offer you a mixed landscape that can help guide your interactions and expectations of reporters in the social-media playground. A related question: Should news organizations' social policies guide your organization's policies? Maybe not. While they're still in flux, take them under advisement, keeping in mind that traditional media's rules don't fit easily in this new environment. As a result, the more restrictive policies, to my eyes, attempt to preserve the old milieu--not the best approach to adapting to new options. UPDATE: Check out Cision's list of journalists on Twitter to find and follow reporters of interest to you.

Related posts:

Best practices in social media policies

6 Wild-West rules for social media policy development

Top newspaper policies on moderating blog comments

best practices in social media policy?

This questioner, from one of the largest employers present, asked for "best practices" in social media policy. So I'll share links to my "wild west rules" for setting social media policy as well as this post sharing what I don't want to know about your employees on social media (with lots of links to real social-media policies you should use as models). Today, our Capital Communicators Group session talked a lot about the fine lines each organization needs to consider for itself: should employees friend their higher-ups? What'll you do if you get negative comments? Who's going to keep up that Facebook page? Should you reconsider your social media policy at some point?

Here are a few more links to consider as you're setting social media policy:

• How some corporations have learned to loosen up over time with social media
• How government, nonprofit, press and other groups are handling press credentials for bloggers, another specialty policy
• How one CEO advises others about blogging and Twitter
• How newspapers are handling comments posted on their websites (this might surprise you) and whether allowing anonymous comments is a good policy
• Whether you can trust employees with social media

If you've got a good social media policy to share with my readers, email it to me at info[at]dontgetcaught[dot]biz -- everyone's looking for examples and it's helpful to read other policies before you write your own.

6 wild-west rules for social media policy

I'm speaking today at the Capital Communicators Group lunch on "Taming the Wild, Wild West: Crafting a Social Media Policy," and this post will serve as the e-handout for the group. (Today's session is sold out, but I'll be organizing a repeat session as an independent lunch-and-learn; email me at info[at]dontgetcaught[dot]biz for more information.) And if you take the view that social media represents the wild, wild West for business communications, I'd suggest you imagine the soundtrack as "Home on the Range," where "never is heard a discouraging word," rather than the theme from "Rawhide" -- in other words, think free-range rather than trying to use your social-media policy to lasso, corral and brand everything that's moving.

When people use the "wild west" analogy, it conjures up images of lawless, roaming bandits, but I'd remind you that those were greatly outnumbered by ordinary settlers (and already-resident Native Americans) looking to live and let live. So when you saddle up to set a social media policy, take these six wild-west rules into consideration:

1. Don't legislate from back East: If you've never created a social-media profile, nor commented on a blog, don't attempt to craft a social media policy until you're more familiar with the territory. Make sure you've experimented with the platforms you intend to use for business, and learn the local norms. Read other organizations' social media policies -- you can find several good examples of policies here. Social media sites are community-regulated, and attempting to control them like colonies won't work in these new territories.
2. Say "howdy, stranger:" Do create policies that encourage participation by your employees and by the community you're trying to reach. If you restrict usage, you won't gain the advantages of the social part of social media. (Far from banning its use in the workplace, many of my clients are encouraging their employees to use it as a collaboration tool, creating secret Facebook groups and other tools to help that process stay private.) Make it easy to comment, share or rate your content.
3. Tell the sheriff what you're doing in these parts. Rather than start your policy with what you won't do, start with your reasons for participating--and let the community (the real sheriff in these parts) know those reasons. What's your goal? What are you here to do? What are you hoping others will do with what you're putting out there? How will you handle their comments? Tell them how you'll approach your communications here--for example, if your CEO promises to write his own blog posts, say so. (And stick to your word.)
4. Use a barn-raising approach to building your policy. We call this "crowdsourcing" in the social media wild west, and you'll have a more realistic policy if you include your employees and customers in its creation (something Facebook learned in less than 24 hours this week when it tried to change its Terms of Service without warning its users and seeking their input).
5. Don't rewrite the laws of the land. Many companies find they already have all the policies in place that might be needed when considering social media use, and if you have good existing policies on how your company deals with proprietary information, regulatory disclosures, copyright and related matters, you may need only to say "All the existing policies apply." At the same time, remember existing laws protect free speech, and understand you can't control everything. Many social media sites themselves note in writing that they can't and don't control the content on their sites, and you may need to get comfortable with that.
6. Don't sit on that cactus. In some high-profile cases, employees have done stupid things on social media sites. Again, no amount of rope is going to keep some folks from hanging themselves, but you may want to use your policy to urge the use of common sense--and set some norms for how you want your customers, members or other key audiences treated. (If you already have these policies in place, congratulations and see number 5.) Want to be sure? Hold some orientation and training sessions for your employees to be sure they understand the policies.

Finally, you may not need an overall policy, but you might need a few specific-use policies on things like press credentials for bloggers, or how you'll handle certain types of comments. (For example, most government blogs remind users that comments on the blog won't be part of the more formal public comment period on regulations). I've helped lots of clients work through social media policy issues; email me at info[at]dontgetcaught[dot]biz for more information.

what not to know: social media policy

In recent weeks, I've seen plenty of postings--on Facebook, Twitter, or blogs--that tell me things I shouldn't know. I shouldn't know when your media relations officer has offered an exclusive item to a specific New York Times reporter. I shouldn't know how to get into an event that's closed to the public and has high security. I shouldn't know what your employees think about what your office spends on equipment -- but I do, thanks to social networks. And have you heard the one about the PR executive who made snide comments about his client's city while there for a meeting--on Twitter? The firm was Ketchum, the city was Memphis and the client was FedEx, where lots of employees are originally from the city and proud of it. And while all parties have said the dust-up is settled by now, it offers food for thought for your organization--do your employees have the guidance they need from you about posting about your company, clients or business matters on social networking sites? Do they agree with it?

While the answer to that question is "no" for many organizations just getting started in social media, it's time to start crafting your policies now--and making sure your employees are on board. The trick: Maintaining openness and transparency to remain credible with your audience and offering employees sensible guidance in case, like the person noted above, they haven't stopped to consider the impact of their actions. Here's a roundup of good policies to check out before you craft your own, with some notes on whether they'd have helped in the case above:

• Dell has published its blog policy here (and a release about it here). Dell doesn't forbid opinions, but says they should be clearly noted as such, and goes further to say "Consumer protection and respect are paramount to Dell employees, suppliers and other company representatives." Note Dell's based its policy on ethics guidelines from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association designed to encourage honesty and transparency among marketers online.

  In a good model for nonprofits, the Mayo Clinic just published its employee guidance on social media use, delineating between personal and work-related uses. It notes that "the main thing Mayo employees need to remember about blogs and social networking sites is that the same basic policies apply in these spaces as in other areas of their lives." Mayo Clinic cites the Blog Council as a resource, as well as...

  Intel, with a policy that includes this useful item under "rules of engagement" that might've helped in the Ketchum case: "Be judicious. Make sure your efforts to be transparent don't violate Intel's privacy, confidentiality and legal guidelines for external commercial speech. Ask permission to publish or report on conversations that are meant to be private or internal to Intel. Also be smart about protecting yourself, your privacy and Intel Confidential information. What you publish will be around for a long time, so consider the content carefully and be judicious."

  Government agencies also have policies about employee use of social media. The U.S. General Services Administration offers these guidelines for government blogs and websites, and this link to existing federal blogs. The guidelines note: "As informal as blogs are meant to be, if they're appearing on a government domain, they're official government communications...That doesn't mean you shouldn’t have a blog—you just need to think carefully about how to use it as an effective communications tool that can benefit both your agency and the public." (After reviewing all the federal blogs for a government agency client, I learned that all of them permit anonymous comments--something many organizations hesitate to do.)

It's important when developing a policy to involve your social media team -- and as many affected employees as possible -- in the process. Taking extra time to talk through assumptions, ideas and values with those affected will do more than any policy can to ensure you're all on the same page. Want us to lead a social-media policy planning process in your organization? Contact me at info[at]dontgetcaught[dot]biz.