5 Rules For How To Behave In Social Media

I've been on a jag lately about the phenomenon of the "vocal few" in social media.  I wrote about a troubling shift in the brand-consumer power dynamic; and the vilification of "old" media during the breaking Michael Jackson news. 

Hopefully this is my last post on the topic ... for the time being.

The latest broo-ha-ha has to do with ESPN.  Yesterday afternoon it was rumored - based on a misguided Tweet from an ESPN reporter - that ESPN had enacted draconian social media policies on their employees.  Very influential bloggers, including Chris Brogan and Mashable rushed to wag their finger at the network.  Tsk Tsk.  Problem though - neither Brogan, nor Mashable, nor anyone else had actually seen the policy at the time they were passing judgment. So they were basing their "reporting" on ... [crickets].

[Update: In the spirit of this post ... neither Chris nor Mashable indicated having seen the policy when they first blogged about it.  Both referenced an NPR post as their source; that NPR post was based on a single Tweet from an ESPN reporter. Since then, everyone has updated their posts to link to the actual policy in question.  But the entire point of this post is about what happened before anyone had actual facts on which to base an evaluation.]

By the time ESPN released the policy, countless people had blindly re-tweeted and propagated the negative POV, based solely on the uninformed opinions of others.

Funny thing happened on the way to the forum ... turns out the policy was, for the most part, reasonable.  You can see the bullet points here.

Yet another tempest in the teapot.  The vocal minority strikes again.

Can't we all just get along?  I have five proposed rules for how we should all behave moving forward [wishful thinking, I know]:

1. Get your facts straight before the bashing begins.  Or at least get a fact [any fact] on which you base your opinion.
2. Put yourself in the brand's shoes.  Have you worked at a brand in the era of social media?  If not, take your fingers off the keyboard for a minute and just try to think what it's like to be a brand trying to navigate the new world of social media.
3. Don't blindly pass along the uninformed opinions of others.  Do your own thinking.  If you agree, go for it.  But at least put some effort behind it.
4. Consider the impact your words can have on an individual or organization.  I'm not saying "if you don't have anything nice to say ..." but do try and put a human face on the target of your criticism.
5. Get over yourself.  We all make mistakes.

So - can you live by these rules?  I, for one, will make a conscious effort to do so.

Comments

[Alan Wolk]

Good thoughts all Ian and the sort of common sense/common courtesy that should be practiced in all situations.

As for the ESPN situation and others, I refer you to that old fable, The Boy Who Cried Wolf.

Once these bloggers/tweeters/shriekers have been proven wrong or over-the-top one too many times, people will stop taking them seriously. Journalists have certain codes of behavior and ethics for a reason. Even gossip columnists like Perez Hilton have to be right most of the time.

A few more tempests-in-a-teapot and the next time the social media crew cries "wolf" the townspeople will just ignore them.

[Clay Parker Jones]

Love it when people (a) don't stop to think about the business context (b) don't stop to think about organizational change and just how difficult it is to turn an enormous ship and (c) pass judgment without knowing the facts.

And I'm not being facetious. I actually do love it. It makes me smile, shake my head, and swiftly turn my internet channel to more sensible pursuits.

Nice post.

[Michael Maurillo]

I read Brogan's post last night, then Mashables. Then I saw Mash's update with link to the actual guidelines and I go confused. I came really close to @ing Brogan (who doesn't knows me from Adam) to ask if he had read it bc it just wasn't adding up. I didn't bc I thought for sure he wouldn't have blogged without the full details... My bad, and his.

To more directly respond to your point, 'we' need to stop thinking like it's 'us against them' (old vs new, trad vs digital, those who 'get it' vs 'don't get it') bc at the end of the day we're not gonna be able to figure it all out on our own.

[Ian]

Michael: If Brogan did read the details when he first posted, he certainly made no mention of having done so. His only reference seems to be a post on NPR, which itself is based on speculation (2nd para starts "If true ...").

[Rob Saker]

Nice post. My frustration with the commentary around this post, and the topic in general, is a lack of perspective by people who are external to the brand.

There is something in our industry that seems to perpetuate naive idealism. Dot-com bubbles, unrealistic valuations, and now this burgeoning almost anarchist belief that anyone should be able to post whatever they want.

"Put yourself in the brand's shoes."

This quote really says it. ESPN has a brand that is closely defined, and their talent are actors in support of that brand. ESPN isn't restricting people from posting about other items, but only where it is core to their brand. It's a reasonable expectation.