Yesterday, something happened on Mashable which illustrates one of the biggest threats to the social web, to business, and maybe even democracy.  I’m really interested to see what you have to say about this incident.  Let’s start with the lead paragraph from their post:

The Italian Windows website “Windowsette” somehow managed to get a hold of a super-secret, highly confidential PowerPoint presentation outlining many of Microsoft’s goals and plans for Windows 8. Apparently this sensitive data (complete with UNDER NDA watermarks) was just found sitting around the Internet.

If you haven’t been around the corporate world, NDA stands for “non-disclosure agreement.”  This means that whoever had these slides had signed a legal document to keep them secret.

The Windowsette site said it learned of this leak from “Andrea Martinelli.” I have no idea who that is but it seems unlikely she just found secret internal Microsoft documents “sitting around the Internet.”

So here are the questions I have for you:

• Mashable has become the journal of record for the social web. Maybe they’ve been trained as journalists, maybe they’re not.  Does that make a difference?
• Is it ethical for them to publish a “super-secret, highly confidential” internal document that could be extremely damaging to Microsoft?
• Is it responsible to report on a document whose source was a single associate of an obscure website in Italy?  How can we even know these slides are real? Isn’t it easy to create official-looking PowerPoint slides?
• The Mashable post was tweeted almost 1,000 times and included in about 500 Facebook sites.  For many people, this article has become “the news.” What are the implications when non-journalists create the news?

I’ll tip my hand here and say that my undergrad was in journalism and I believe this institution is essential to democracy.  What’s going on in most blogs today is not journalism.  Usually that’s OK.  But with the dramatic decline of the traditional press, whatever we have left on blogs is going to become our de facto news of record. Like Mashable.

In the end, this incident will have a shelf life of about one day and it’s easy to let a big company like Microsoft be our target. But what if this unsubstantiated piece of news was about your secret new product development?  Your company? Your congressman? A terrorist threat in your community?

What if it was about you?

Consider …

When the financial system collapsed, the national spotlight turned to banking practices and regulations.

When drunk drivers could slip through the system and get  back in cars to injure or kill innocent people, a national movement was created.

And when the safety procedures on a Gulf of Mexico oil rig failed, plans for offshore drilling came to a grinding halt under the glare of public alarm.

All it takes is one crisis, one crime, one whopper of an oil slick, to change public perceptions forever.  What does this have to do with marketing?

Here is the first prediction I’ve ever made on this blog: In the near future, we will have a social media crisis that will turn enough negative attention to the social web to arouse public alarm to the point of a backlash and perhaps even legislation. It will be our very own oil slick.

Specifically, I believe there will be a crime or tragedy that shines a spotlight on the incredible flaws and dangers inherent in the social web. Perhaps it will be a Foursquare stalking crime.    Maybe new research will emerge that demonstrates the shocking effects when teens live their lives through text messaging.  Perhaps a significant database or privacy fail.  A Twitter-delivered virus?  Or perhaps it will be a financial scam that dupes the elderly … the fastest-growing population on Facebook.

There have already been several documented cases of social-media-related robbery. One U.K. woman was recently burglarized after posting that she would be attending a music festival.

We can look to recent events in South Korea as a precursor to what might happen in the Western World.  A 28-year-old South Korean died from his video game addiction. The man literally killed himself through exhaustion-induced heart failure by not stopping game play long enough to sleep or eat. So the South Korean government is responding with legislated curfews on video games. The gaming industry has an oil slick.

Facebook is teetering on the edge of a privacy disaster. The social network has come under fire for a series of recent changes to its policies that have limited what users can keep private, as well as embarrassing technical glitches that exposed personal data.  And yes, privacy advocates have called on regulators to intervene.

So far, the benefits of the social web have outstripped potential dangers. But when will the line be crossed?

What’s your opinion on this?

If you enjoyed this post, consider a free email subscription to {grow} by clicking the RSS feed button at the top of the page. Thank you!

Perhaps by now you’re heard of the “Please Rob Me” site that highlights those on Twitter disclosing that they’re away from their homes.

While the site is kind of funny, it draws attention to a serious point — disclosure of detailed personal information, including your precise physical location, will lead to crime. Notice I didn’t say MIGHT lead to crime. It is inevitable that the bad guys are going to figure this stuff out. They always do.

Last week I saw my first tweet that actually had a map attached to it. The stalkers can not only find you, the technology is telling them how to get to you.  Or your empty house.  Or your kids.

I’m particularly concerned by this emerging generation who is de-sensitized to what they’re sharing about themselves.  They’ve been conditioned to put everything out there all the time, so why not tell everyone where you are, too?  They’re actively and willingly teaching The Machine their personal habits, behavior patterns and hang-outs, just so they can be named “mayor” of a location on Foursquare or receive a free latte at Starbucks.

Where corruption can occur, corruption will occur. It is only a matter of time before a tragic crime draws attention to these serious issues and people start taking action, perhaps even legislation. Let’s not wait for that, OK?

As an individual, and especially as a parent, I think we need to draw the line on certain social web behaviors.

• Actively teach your kids to be net-savvy. Instill a healthy dose of paranoia into their mindset.  Teach them about privacy settings and being Internet “street smart.”
• Take a view that Internet access is a privilege, not a right. Set clear expectations and limits. If a child does something to endanger themselves on the Internet, there should be consequences, just as if they had wrecked a car or set a fire in the kitchen.
• Personally, I would forbid my kids from using Foursquare or any technology that reveals their personal location at  a point in time.
• Be involved in what they’re doing. Know enough about the technology to ask the right questions. Look at who has friended them and what those people are saying to your kids.  Until you are convinced they can demonstrate mature judgment, I don’t think kids have a right to Internet privacy.

A man told a story yesterday on a news report on Internet safety that as a precaution, he follows every one of his young son’s Facebook friends. “I’m a 39 year old man,” he said. “And these kids automatically follow me back even when they don’t know who I am. And their parents never question it either. It just shows me how dangerous this could be for young kids.”

If you’re a parent, deal with this. Don’t ignore the issue or avoid conflict with your kids over the family “privacy” battle.  Will you leave a comment and let me know what you think on this issue?

I read a blog post yesterday that staggered me. It was about a woman who could only find success as a blogger and freelance writer after she posed as a man (under the name of James Chartrand).

The gist of the tale was that she was a talented, hard-working individual who could not make enough to feed her family until she lied about her gender. Once she became “James,” her life changed. She’s been living a double life for years and has attracted a loyal audience to her photo-free, phone-free persona. It made me sad and angry … and it stirred a lot of other people too.  It was tweeted more than 2,000 times and received more than 400 comments.

One of those commenters was Jenn Whinnem, who suggested that I blog about the underlying issues.  I thought it would be a richer experience if I could capture a woman’s perspective too, so I embarked on an experiment – a virtual chat that became today’s blog post on gender inequality on the social web …

Mark: My initial reaction was “stunned” that this kind of blatant inequality still exists, especially on the social web, which is supposed to be so democratic. I guess that myth has been exploded.

Jenn: I was saddened, but not surprised.  Since establishing a professional presence on the social web, I haven’t experienced discrimination (to my knowledge).  I have, of course, experienced sexism in the workplace – everywhere really – so I see no reason why it would be any different on the Internet. I realize James Chartrand was pushed into outing herself, but I’m really grateful for the attention her decision has brought to this topic.  When I’ve been offered a salary, I’ve had no idea if a man would have been offered more.  But “James” knows, and she shared it with us.

Mark: You said you didn’t know if you had experienced discrimination on the web and this made me think about my own behaviors. I looked at who I work with, who I am connecting with on the web, who has been guest-blogging … just any data points I could find. I guess I’m trying to judge my behavior by the numbers. Does that seem silly?

Jenn: I don’t think it’s silly at all.  Reviewing one’s own behavior is necessary for change. As for examining the ‘numbers’ aspect of it — well, that’s a pretty hot topic in social media – proving that the time spent using social media leads to dollars for your business.  I know it’s something you’ve written about, Mark.  It’s important to know which numbers you’re paying attention to and knowing what they mean.  You can look at the number of men vs. women you’re following on Twitter, but what is that going to tell you?

Mark: At the end of the day, equality has to come through self-awareness. I can try to look at numbers and still fool myself about how I treat people. I had one boss who treated women terribly … to the point that I was compelled to address it. He said, “Look at all the women who report to me. How can you say I have a problem with women?” In his case, the numbers supported “equal treatment” but his actions were incongruent. So Jenn, what do you do to see yourself more accurately?  To make sure you’re congruent?

Jenn: That anecdote is a perfect example of how someone can fool themselves into thinking they’re ‘okay’ and why there’s a real need to keep fighting for equality. For me, that fight begins with my own behavior.  I’m the first to admit that I’m often guilty of ‘incongruent’ behavior, and like you, Mark, I find that awareness is the first step in correcting that.  I also had an excellent boss (hi Alice!) early in my career who lived the mantra “nurture other women, don’t compete with them.”  And, when I think about it, this complements nicely the social media mantra “promote others, not yourself.”

Mark: Do you think that is a social media mantra or a feminine mantra?  I ask this because the comment section in my previous blog post on this topic contained speculation that some inequality stems from the fact that men are perceived to be better self-promoters than women. I think the male social media mantra might be “help others, promote yourself.”

Jenn: I’ve read the “promote others” mantra in several blog posts, but didn’t notice if the authors were men or women.  But I don’t know that this is a feminine mantra. My experience has been, at least in the work place, that women are more likely to tear each other down to eliminate the competition, rather than help each other out.  This is why Alice’s advice was so powerful to me.

I find the conversation about men or women being better at self-promotion more difficult.  If we look at gender roles in this culture broadly, I would say that self-promotion goes against socially desirable behavior for women.

Mark: That’s an interesting observation. Perhaps this cultural expectation for socially-desirable “female” behavior is just exacerbated on the narcissistic social web. Instead of being the great equalizer everybody hopes for, it could actually highlight and reinforce aspects of our culture that keep gender inequality in place?

Jenn: If I can back up a minute, where did the idea of social media as an equalizer come from?  We encourage the idea of “being human” on the social web … and any space where people are invited to be human means they’re going to do just that.  On the positive side, I think this kind of highlighting is a good thing.  When attention is drawn to inequalities, it starts to change.  Something of a theme in our conversation.

Mark: I say “equalizer” because presumably having access to free, global, immediate communication should provide genders, races, religions, rich and poor with precisely the same opportunity to communicate and connect. But I guess you’re right. If underlying inequalities persist, it’s wrong to think that will change by simply having a new way to broadcast it. It drives home for me again how silly it is when people say the social web “changes everything.” Obviously it doesn’t.

Jenn, our dialogue has brought up some vital discussion points. Let’s turn it over to the {grow} community to add to the discussion …

Jenn Whinnem is a Communication Specialist focusing on developing social media strategy for Golden Compass. You can connect with her via @JennWhinnem on Twitter.

My local newspaper is a cesspool. 

The comment section of the online version has become toxic … filled each day with misinformation, bigotry, cruelty, and hatred.  This is the darkest side of social media.  When technology enables everyone to be a critic and publisher, even those on society’s frayed edges must be welcomed to contribute anonymously and freely.

What happened?  The Letters to the Editor section used to reflect the dignity and integrity of the newspaper itself. Letters were subject to proof of identity and editing. But today’s web-based “letters” more closely resemble a TV reality show: vicious fights, alliances, regular “characters,” and no-holds-barred drama. I have no problem with anybody publishing this crap or reading it in the forum of their choice. But this sensationalistic and shocking drama is now playing out before our eyes in the context of mainstream media.

This is the bleeding edge of social media ethics, a place where law, free press, individual liberty, and civility intersect. Whether you’re a blogger, Tweeter or simply a reader, the opportunity to have anonymous hatred pushed in your face affects us all.

As reported in a superb article by Frank N. Carlson, some are finally beginning to question the value of these remarks.  How do they fit within a newspaper’s mission?  A community image?  How is this different from “regular” journalism?  What are the consequences of catering to the fringe? And who defines “fringe?”

A catalyst for this awareness is that comment cruelty is starting to make news on its own. Carlson reported that the FBI actually subpoenaed a local newspaper regarding a threatening online comment made toward a murder trial defense attorney. Earlier this year, comments made by online posters made news when a courtroom debated the media’s allowance of racist, anonymous comments on its websites. And a few weeks ago, I posted a story about a local pizza shop owner who was sued for $2 mm for alleged libelous comments made through social media channels.

The online commentary has become so vicious here in Tennessee that the local newspaper called a community meeting and has now taken action to limit offensive authors. Here’s a summary of these steps to illustrate how one community is dealing with social media run amok.

1)    Newspaper readers can now turn comments “off.” Previously, comments would appear at the end of an article whether readers wanted them or not. 

2)    Newly-registered commenters are on “probation” and are screened by editors before being published.

3)    If a certain number of commenters flag a comment for review, that comment will automatically collapse, or “auto-redact,” and a warning will appear to the reader that it may contain offensive content. This way, offensive remarks can be hidden when an editor may not be present to take them down. And if a user’s auto-redacted enough times, his or her user name will be automatically banned from the site.

4)    Newspaper staff members were encouraged to participate in the conversations to steer them back toward the focus of the article, or to correct misinformation and answer questions being posed by commenters.

5)    Editors are attempting to standardize and lower the threshold of what is considered offensive.

In this space I could not possibly examine all the issues and implications presented by the growing levels of commentary cruelty and efforts to control it.  That’s why you’re here.  : )   How do these issues impact you and your ideas about personal liberty, evolution of the traditional press, and social media?

A few months ago, one of my Twitter followers sent me a link to a blog post by Alexa Clark claiming there is a bias against women on the social media speaking circuit.   My friend was outraged that most panels were made up of men and she further hinted that I was part of the white male problem.

I resisted this notion violently and responded impolitely.  I abhor bigotry in any form.  But since this shot across my bow, I’ve paid attention to the notices and invitations I receive for social media events and discovered something astounding.  She’s right.  Guest speakers and panelists on the social media circuit are 90% white males between the ages of 35-45.

This is not statistically-scientific proof, but represents a tally of the same invitations you probably receive, too. As I dug a little deeper, I’ve since discovered that this phenomenon has also been noted by Fast Company magazine, and other publications/blog posts.

The problem becomes even more mystifying by looking at the line-up for Blog World, which takes place this week in Las Vegas. The representative guest speakers from the entire blogosphere are wonderfully balanced and diverse at this event.  So it’s not a problem with women being inactive.  By comparison, there were just three women out of the 30 keynote speakers at the last social media-focused SXSW Interactive Conferences.  

In my previous article on social media success factors, I hinted that there might be another predictor of social media success other than personality, writing ability, confidence, and hard work.  There is. Gender.

And now that we’ve opened this topic, let’s push it a step further.  Where are the minorities?

I want to be extremely careful here so don’t skip over this sentence when you’re composing your nasty-gram to me:  I am not claiming that anybody is overtly, consciously, systematically biased.  In fact, my bias is that people in general are NOT biased. I’m also not suggesting that the very talented men who lead these conferences don’t deserve to be there.

But what conclusion SHOULD we draw? Conference organizers want to attract the best talent they can find regardless of gender or race. If they do, they will be economically-rewarded with high attendance. So either I’m wrong –  and there IS bias regardless of the economic consequences — or 90 percent of the most talented and available social media speakers are men.  Right?

Neither seems to be a reasonable conclusion.

So what IS going on here?  Why don’t social media “expert” panels reflect the demographics of the general population?

Illustration: This photo appeared last week in Valeria Maltoni’s excellent blog “Conversation Agent.” She was also a presenter at this Inbound Marketing conference.

I usually dismiss people who say that social media “changes everything.” At least in marketing, it’s a variation on a theme of “listen, react, and serve your customer” that has served us well for generations.  But in a world where everyone is a publisher and critic — and can potentially be sued for it — this DOES change everything in the world of public relations!  

I’ve been honored to explore this topic with Steve Farnsworth, Chief Digital Strategist of Jolt Social Media, who is absolutely one of the smartest PR and marketing guys I know.  On Monday I wrote a post describing a real case where a marketing firm, Low and Tritt,  sued a Knoxville pizza restaurant for $2 million over alleged libelous comments on Facebook and Twitter.  The fact is, this is just the beginning — we are going to witness more and more of this kind controversy.  The marketing firm’s reputation is now spinning out of control.  Once it goes viral, what can a company do?

Steve answers this for us in a guest post, his first ever!

________________________________________________

When Mark challenged me to respond to his post on libel lawsuits and social media, I was thrown for a loop. Crisis communications for a business who had sued a client or tenant?  Where do you even start on a self-inflicted gunshot wound like that?

It was a little like asking me to talk about safety to a young man as he recovers in the hospital burn ward, after he met the business-end of a Roman candle in a deeply misguided Jackass reenactment.   All you can really do is take pictures of the awkward injuries to show the other kids that it is just not a good idea.  You don’t want to try this at home.

Being a regularly reader of {grow} I couldn’t pass up a chance to work with Mark or his challenge.  To mix things up, Mark agreed to participate in a Twitter chat (#SM4B) with me on Wednesday October 7, 2009.  A sampling of the comments from the chat are included at the end.

Since I only have access to openly published details of the case, and lack internal insights of the cases Mark cited in that post, it is difficult to address those situations specifically. So, I am using this assumption:  The marketing firm realizes that as an unintended consequence of the lawsuit they risk potential irreversible damage to the firm’s long-term reputation, a reputation that they have spent years nurturing, and the very real potential of lost future business.

 Situation Analysis

At risk for both parties

• Loss of Money: court fees, attorney fees, and judgments against the loser by the court.  Also, vendors and banks see extending credit or loans to a business in litigation as potentially risky.
• Bifurcated Mental Focus:  Cases can drag out for months or even years. Being involved in a lawsuit, even if you think you might win, is a drag.  It takes your mental focus off your business, family, and your life. With so much at risk you can’t think about building your business, taking care of your family, or health.
• Time Sink: Meeting with lawyers, responding and filing court documents, and depositions all take your most valuable and limited resource: time.

Brand Impact Risk for Pizza Restaurant 

• You want people to think, “Hey you’re the guy who makes that fantastic Three-Cheese Pasta Bake.” Not, “Hey, you’re the guy who called your agency crooks and got sued for a million dollars.” Needless to say this is way off topic for your brand image.

Brand Impact Risk for Marketing Firm

• Even if the courts decide that they are the clear victim in our scenario, the public is going to see the offending words calling them crooks and thieves repeatedly, and hear accusations that their work is subpar.  Public sentiment, as reflected by dozens of published comments, is establishing them as “That agency that sues its clients.”  There is absolutely no upside for their brand.  They could be a  very reputable agency, but this will impact new business development for years.

 My Suggested Plan Of Action

• Make It A Non-Issue
  • News, and social media discussions, thrives on conflict.  Often when words have been said, and egos bruised, it is next to impossible to have a meeting of the minds, but that would be my first effort.
  • Both sides have a lot at stake in this case, and both have a great deal to gain by putting their differences aside and coming to terms. No one is going to be happy.  However, if they can agree on settling this matter quickly they can start repairing reputations and move on to building their business.
• Create A Listening Dashboard
  • The train is off the tracks, but you still need to know where it’s going to land so you can be prepared to engage or adjust your efforts as needed.  Using an RSS reader like Google Reader, I would create several persistent searches for terms related to the case and save them as RSS feeds. At a minimum, sites I would include are Google Alerts, Twitter search, and Technorati. Probably Social Media Firehose (Yahoo Pipes), too.
• Speak Once On The Topic and Shut-Up
  • I would write a very conversational, from-the-heart, brief blog post from the face of the company (owner, president, or GM) on the resolution.  I would have them acknowledge, in clear, but gentle terms, their mistakes, and I would do this without mentioning Pizza Kitchen by name. No need to beat a dead horse.  I want to capture the human nature of the situation, a genuine mea culpa, so that the public would connect with the people involved.  If the client had any believability on video I would do it on camera, and then post it to YouTube.
• Create Positive Online Content
  • Diluting the negative online content with expert content is extremely important. Any time a new customer Googles L+T they will see the negative results. So, they should publish downloadable, no sign-up required white papers, case studies, and/or e-books.
  • Also, they need to start a blog hosted on their website (huge SEO benefits), and develop a videos series to post to YouTube.  All the content must be well crafted and targeted to potential client’s business concerns.  The blog and videos must provide great usable advice and demonstrates their marketing expertise.  This will help return some positive standing to search results, and likely shorten their sales cycle.
• Show Your Face and Become a Resource
  • It looks like L+T primarily works with local businesses. I would create a few powerful presentations designed to help local business owners generate new clients, and then take it on the road. I  would talk to any group that could put 5 or more butts in seats.  Getting management out in front of potential clients will do a lot for rebuilding the company name by putting a human face on it, and great for generating new  business.

L+T  should continue to evaluate damage to new business, and decide how best to evolve their efforts.  Also, I would seriously consider rebranding the company and changing the name.  When I suggested this during the chat it met with a number of dissenting opinions.  The general sentiment was that the negatives would outweigh the benefits because people would see it as hiding behind a different name.  However, this does not track with the effects I have seen in the real world.

Names are very powerful. Johnson & Johnson rebuilt their very damaged brand effectively after the Tylenol tampering scare, but they were the victims and got out in front of the story. It is almost impossible to rehabilitate a brand that consumers see as the bad guy.  Blackwater Security Consulting knew this and changed their name pronto.  Now, if you ask a room full of people what Blackwater’s new name is, most would be unable to tell you. It’s Xe Services LLC.

For a full listing of comments, search Twitter for #SM4B.  Here is a sampling of some of the best insights:

 @Dan_Holden: So even if they are right (win the lawsuit) they’ve damaged the reputation of the firm, perhaps irreparably.

 @kimmolinkama: Maybe this is simply the first highlight case of ambulance-chasing turning into tweet-chasing?

 @steve_dodd: the power of an apology… fix it and move on … would generate positive press that more than counteracts negative

 @NitinGuptasays: I agree that BPB has risked its reputation and future business by sueing. .. but was PD justified in defaming the agency?

 @Dan_Holden: My resolution would be to get the suit out of court and have a pizza and beer … maybe even sponsor a neighborhood beer bash

 @markwschaefer: My take is that suing a customer is almost always a losing proposition.  And now under the glare of SM … wow.

What have I missed?  What would you do in the event of a social media PR crisis?