LinkedIn: It’s Not Facebook!

This post is a classic demonstration of how eclectic my blog really is. I’ve gone from writing about outsider music, to a post-slash-rant on the downward spiral, as I see it, that the website LinkedIn is on.

LinkedIn is a great way to connect with professionals, colleagues and thought leaders. It provides a forum for discussion, through groups, on issues pertaining to your industry and professional interests. You can connect with old co-workers, research companies that you’re interested in working with and, to some extent, network with new people.

On the other hand, as I see it, Facebook is where you connect with your close friends and family. You share photos, make silly comments, send birthday wishes and all the other stuff that you can do comfortably with friends, but wouldn’t dare do in a professional setting.

The reason for this post, is the other day on LinkedIn, a connection had liked a photo. In this photo, was a boy holding a sign saying “I just beat cancer, can I get a million likes?” First: I’m not heartless. That’s great that cancer is being beaten, not just by him, but by thousands of people worldwide. But the photo stopped me in my tracks: why is a like-farming photo appearing on LinkedIn? That’s hardly appropriate!

I’ve noticed it sporadically on LinkedIn, but it continues to grow: photos being shared that are personal, or simply to get “likes.” To me, this is a downward spiral for LinkedIn. In my mind (and maybe I’m just not with the times), the photo sharing option on LinkedIn should be used for things like infographics, or for informational purposes. I don’t want to see photos of your new baby; that’s what Facebook is for!

Facebook is the personal space (but remember that on the internet, nothing is personal/private), whereas LinkedIn is just like your workplace: cordial, friendly but professional. I’ll always keep mine that way, and I hope to see more of my connections follow the same path.

PR Tuesday: Reply All

This week’s post is a little less PR-specific; instead, it’s more focused on general office etiquette: specifically, the use of “reply all” in our e-mail inboxes.

Before I get in to my post in depth, I want to acknowledge that I didn’t meet the criteria I laid out two weeks ago, in my  last PR Tuesday post. I didn’t meet my deadline. I have a good excuse, though. Last Tuesday, I was happy to welcome someone new in to my life. His name is Atticus. He’s a 9-week Border Collie/Beagle cross.

I figure the cuteness will help you cut me some slack.

Reply all is the bane of my career

I’m not saying this because I had a “reply all disaster”, but because one of the things that bothers me in my career is when people click reply all, to provide information that is not needed to the group or to continue a discussion that perhaps doesn’t need to be continued.

For example, when I receive an e-mail letting me know a meeting has been moved, one of the things that drives me absolutely bonkers is when someone within the recipient chain replies with “Thanks.” I agree it’s important to acknowledge that the message was received; that’s good etiquette. But to clog the e-mail inboxes of your colleagues with “thanks” is uncalled for. What’s more, you should also consider who is included on these e-mail chains. Do you really want to start a “fun” conversation via reply-all about who is bringing what kind of cupcakes to the meeting when your manager or director is on the list? What does that say about the way you use your time at work?

The Huffington Post has a good article on reply all e-mail etiquette. Reply all has cost people their job, and has led to court cases about wrongful dismissal. It can – and clearly has been – a deadly tool. Thankfully, if you’re an Outlook user, you can block reply-all and there is even an add-on that lets you completely disable it. I know more than a few people who need to install this…

What are your thoughts on reply all? Is it a necessary evil, or should people just stop using it?

PR Tuesday: #Fail (Best of the Worst)

All of us, in our professional or personal lives, have seen a “hashtag fail.”  I thought this week, I’d change things up a little bit and share some recent examples of failures, whether PR blunders or social media slip-ups, or a hacking. It’s PR Tuesday: #Fail (Best of the Worst)…

Eco-Friendliness Stops Suicide?

This #fail comes to us out of Europe, where Hyundai’s ad agency ran a commercial where a man is trying to end his life using a hose stuck in the tailpipe of his Hyundai iX35. The kicker? The iX35 has 100 per cent water emissions, meaning there’s no carbon monoxide emitted and thus, the poor man’s attempt is futile.

Hyundai’s response, once the ad was condemned?

“We understand that some people may have found the iX35 video offensive. We are very sorry if we have offended anyone. We have taken the video down and have no intention of using it in any of our advertising or marketing.”

Some people may have found the ad offensive? How about any human being with any sense of compassion or dignity? It’s a wonderful thing that you’ve created an eco-friendly vehicle, with 100 per cent water emissions. How about, you know, show a pristine lake? A forest? Connect technology with the natural world, working together in harmony? No, instead, you use suicide? Shameful. While their response was swift, it was half-hearted. This ad should have been fully and completely condemned and Hyundai ought to fire its European ad agency.

Toronto Star fact checking goes on holiday

Last Tuesday, the Toronto Star ran an article about Scarborough Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP) Margarett Best, who is on medical leave from the Legislature, being on vacation in Mexico. The intent of the article, of course, was to shame Ms. Best for taking a holiday while she was purportedly unable to fulfill her duties in the legislature. How did the Star find out Ms. Best was in Mexico? The ever-reliable approach of looking at a Facebook profile photo. What’s wrong with that, you ask? First, go and try to read the original article here. I’ll wait…

You’re back? So you saw the “this article has been removed for legal reasons” post? Why is that? Well, because the Star was wrong in their reporting. So wrong, that they were forced to run a front page apology explaining their lack of judgment.

How did it all happen? According to the Star:

Brennan [Toronto Star Queen’s Park reporter Richard Brennan], a Facebook friend of Best, was looking into her absence from Queen’s Park when he came upon the photo of her and her daughter in Acapulco. Though he tried to contact Best through her constituency office, and sent her a message through Facebook, at no time did he give the MPP any indication he was writing a story that would report she was on vacation while on medical leave. Nor did his messages say anything about her Facebook photo.

Essentially, it appears Brennan made the assumption by looking at a photo – and not the date included with the photo. As said in their apology, he did not indicate to Ms. Best or her staff that this was the angle the Star would take in the story. A lack of understanding, perhaps, of social media leaves one of Canada’s largest newspapers with a lot of egg on its face.

Hack has economic impact

Late last week, the Associated Press’ Twitter account was hacked. The fake tweet reported that there had been an explosion at the White House and that President Barack Obama was injured. A horrifying thing to read, especially following heightened worries after events in Boston. Not only did the tweet cause horror for those who saw it, it also had an economic impact: the stock market, following the issuing of the tweet, plunged 130 points.

What is the over-arching theme?

There’s a couple lessons to be taken from these three incidents:

1. Don’t create advertising based on issues that are bound to offend; suicide is far from a laughing matter. While controversy can generate sales and publicity, there’s a very delicate tight-rope walk to go through. Clearly, Hyundai’s ad agency failed and one hopes they are fired in a spectacular fashion.
2. This is perhaps the most important one: verify anything you see on social media with other credible sources. The Toronto Star, in my opinion, has the biggest fail of all three of these stories. Why? Because their damaging, false article impacts the career of a public official. Had they been able to verify MPP Best taking a vacation during sick leave, then it is a legitimate story. A Facebook profile photo tells very little.
3. Protect your accounts. There’s not much more I can say here; it’s the standard stuff: use multiple passwords for your accounts (IE: your Twitter password should be separate from your Facebook password). When it comes to corporate accounts, don’t store your passwords on a shared server. Document and control who has access to your accounts, to help prevent hacking.

There you have it: another Tuesday, another instalment of PR Tuesday. As always, thanks for reading: and if you have seen a bigger fail, please share it by commenting or by posting it to the Facebook page!

PR Tuesday: #Oversharing?

It’s that time again! Happy PR Tuesday!

In the last post, I wrote about under what circumstances I think a tweet should be favourited. There was a bit of discussion, and it trended towards agreeing with what I suggested.

@JTerr88 Glad somebody agrees with me on the favourite-"ing" vs. being lazy! Thanks

— EnviroJan (@EnviroJan) April 17, 2013

This week, I thought I would tackle a topic that I know I am guilty of, as are many people I know who use social media: oversharing of information.

Social media is fascinating, as I mentioned, because it allows you to instantly connect with people from across the world who have similar interests (and differing opinions). It provides a glimpse into a person’s life. Sometimes, it’s less of a glimpse and more of a “hey, look who’s getting changed with the blinds open” view.

An example of oversharing

https://twitter.com/JTerr88/status/326487636703326208

Yes, I totally am willing to admit that I fall prey to this. Who cares?! What is the relevance? This isn’t going to spark conversation, it is meaningless to every single person who reads it. Yet, in today’s day and age, it’s ingrained in people to share the minute details of their lives this way.

We see it all the time – people  tweeting about going to bed, taking photos on Instagram of their food/dogs/kittens/offices and checking in every ten minutes on FourSquare to tell strangers where they can be found. Creeping is easy, with location-based apps.

Mashable has suggestions on how to avoid oversharing; the action has gotten people arrested, caused them to lose out on a job opportunity and much more. Really think about what you share – posting a photo of your dog may seem innocuous enough, but don’t be too surprised if your bank account gets hacked and someone was able to get in because that was your security question! Perhaps I’m going to an extreme, but it makes the point.

There’s a balance to be struck; there are things in our personal lives that are interesting and worth sharing. They spark conversation and debate. But I’m going to be monitoring more closely what I say, as I have a feeling nobody cares if I have spaghetti for dinner or am wearing flip-flops. It doesn’t do anything to benefit my personal brand. I’m going to take an approach like this: if it isn’t something I wouldn’t tell a stranger on the street, it’s not going on social media.

PR Tuesday: Why “favourite” a Tweet?

First: let me thank you for your patience. I know I had promised to post on a weekly basis, but life intervened. It’s been a busy time at work, but I’m here now and that’s what matters.

Second: as many of you know, I work in the wonderful world of PR! I decided that, you know, I have some thoughts on general trends in PR and I should share them! So I’ve decided to dedicated Tuesday posts to the very topic. I hope you at least find them somewhat insightful.

With that in mind, I had two posts in mind. I decided to go with this one and save the other idea for next week.

The majority of my readers are on Twitter; I can say that because I know that most of my traffic is derived from clicks through my personal account. One of the features of Twitter (as you know) is the ability to “favourite” a Tweet (and yes, there is a “u” in favourite – this is a Canadian blog). I think most of you would agree that there are two reasons to favourite a tweet: to show the author that you have seen and enjoyed what they said and/or to save the tweet for later.

I think marking a tweet as a favourite for the first reason is pointless. The action is a very passive form of engagement – it’s Twitter at its laziest. If you think something that somebody has said on Twitter is funny, interesting or controversial, there’s a far better solution: say so! Social media is exactly that: social. It’s an opportunity to engage, to connect with people across the globe who share similar (or not) views. I can’t count the times I’ve engaged in political debate with people across Canada who, I’ve never met and likely never will.

What do you mean?

Here’s a great example of a discussion I had with somebody today:

https://twitter.com/JTerr88/status/324260088439250944

Marking a tweet as a favourite is just as lame as clicking “like” on Facebook. What’s the purpose? A virtual thumbs up or gold star says, well, nothing. It’s something that was reinforced with me in discussion with a friend recently: a like is objectifying, in a sense. As I said: social media is social. Why be quiet and hide in the corner? Talk to people who say things you like!

Where being able to mark a tweet as a favourite comes in handy is very simple, at least for me: it’s when somebody shares something I want to view later (a link I want to visit from my own computer, after work, for example) or is something I want to follow up on (ie: someone replying to me, but not being able to reply immediately for one reason or another). In that case, a favourite serves as a bookmark.

So, what do you think? Do you agree that marking something as a “favourite” or “like” is passive? Or is it a form of meaningful engagement?