Zimlech interessant Kont op der New York Times wéi Phonedog verklot e fréiere Mataarbechter fir Zougang zu den Twitter Follower op de Kont ze kréien, deen hien am Kader vun hirem Social Media Outreach opgeriicht huet.
Geméiss den aktuelle Beschäftegungsnormen am Land, huelen ech un datt PhoneDog voll a senge Rechter ass ... d'Aarbecht déi Dir an der Firmenzäit maacht ass normalerweis gehéieren vun der Firma. Wéi och ëmmer, sozial Medien hunn geännert souwuel d'Perceptioun an d'Interaktioun tëscht Firmen an hirem Netzwierk. Et war fréier datt d'Leit konnten hannert der Mark stoe fir mam Netz ze kommunizéieren. Mir hunn duerch Annoncen, Marken, Logoen, Sloganen an aner Sponsoringméiglechkeeten geléiert. De Problem ass datt sozial Medien elo Leit setzen virun d'Firma an direkt a Kontakt mat der Mark. Mäi perséinleche Glawen ass, well sozial Medien de Floss vun der Kommunikatioun veränneren, och d'Besëtzermuster änneren.
Hindsight ass ëmmer 20/20, awer einfach sozial Mediepolitik would have established this up front. While Phonedog may win the legal war of whether or not they own the initiative, the fact that they didn't set this expectation in a social media policy was a mistake. In my opinion, I honestly believe their case has no merit based on this alone. I believe it's always the responsibility of the company to set the expectation on employment and ownership.
Well keen e magesche Ball huet, musst Dir dëst mat Äre Mataarbechter nodenken an entspriechend Erwaardunge setzen:
- If you don't want your employees to eege hir Follower, Dir kënnt se hunn e Firmgesponsert Kont ze managen an ze vermëttelen. Beispill: Amplaz datt eis Mataarbechter hir eege Konte managen, gi mir hinnen Zougang zu @dknewmedia mat Hootsuite an Respektiv. I've noticed that some people will have the handle be the company name, while the actual name on the account is the employees. I believe that sets an expectation both with the audience and the company on who owns the account.
- I've noticed other companies that had their employees sign up with Twitter with a combination handle and name. For instance, if I wanted to have each employee have a corporate account… I might set up @dk_doug, @dk_jenn, @dk_stephen, etc. I don't think this is too bad an approach, but I'd hate to see a great following on an account that's eventually abandoned!
- The last option, in my opinion, is the best. Allow your employees to build their network and keep them. I know you're aghast at this, but empowering your employees to succeed is powerful. I love the fact that Jenn an Stephen béid schwätzen dacks iwwer DK New Media on their accounts. If they build an incredible following, I look at it as a benefit of having them employed with us and it's additional value they bring to my company. It's also my responsibility to ensure they're happy and I can keep them here!
Social starts with people, not a company. Those followers weren't Phonedog followers… they appreciated the handcrafted content that Noah Kravitz was able to develop on behalf of Phonedog. While Phonedog may have paid Noah, it was Noah's talent followers were attracted to.
Meng lescht Wuert zu dësem: Ech haassen d'Wuert eege an Besëtz when it comes to companies, employees and customers. I don't believe a company ever owns an employee nor do they ever own a customer. The employee is a trade… work for money. The customer is also a trade… product for money. The employee or the customer always has the right to leave within the boundaries of their contractual engagement. A company like Phonedog thinking they eege dës Follower kënnen all Beweis op der Welt liwweren firwat se dem Noah gefollegt hunn an net dem Phonedog Kont.