Tagged with 'policy'

The new Internet flavor of the month has arrived in the form of Twitter and law firms are going through their ritual hand-wringing about creating social media policies. “OMG! Someone might utter a legal opinion!” Social media “experts” and “gurus” are popping up like our springtime dandelions and everyone is wildly cribbing social media policy from what were heretofore internal memos at IBM or the US Air Force.

Your Policy: Duct tape your mouth

I have nothing constructive to add to the policy discussion because my policy recommendation would probably be to duct tape your mouth so you couldn’t speak and break all your fingers so you couldn’t type. Like I said, nothing constructive to add. On the other hand, perhaps law firms (and, ya know, every other business for that matter) needs some social media strategy.

Your Strategy: Give this some thought

Policy makers! Relax. Sit back and think strategically about social media for just a minute. Although we seem to be at some kind of tipping point for social media, it isn’t all that new. So, duh, others have been thinking strategically about this for a while. And here’s some of the thinking that I’ve picked up along the way. Yeah, I’ve cribbed it from others too. Except, because I’m a trendy Web 2.0 guy, I call it crowdsourcing. Start here. Then build on it:

Why bother with social media?
Eight years ago I was asking law firms why they wanted to build a website. They didn’t give me good answers. And many built (and still do) pretty crummy non-strategic websites. But very pretty – with clean design and intuitive navigation to nothing in particular. Now you have a second chance to not blow it. Answer this question or go home: Why would you spend one nickel on social media?

What are your targeted objectives?
I see you cowering in the corner without answers. I’m going to make this an easy multiple choice question. Select from these options (It is ok to imagine your own)

• Social media gives us an opportunity to be part of a community where there is a dialog. We might actually learn something about our market if we listen to the conversation that we are involved in.
• We want to establish our authority and promote our brand. By making valuable contributions to a conversation, we will become recognized in the community for our knowledge and authority
• By planting our flag all over the internet we increase the likelihood that people will follow links back to our website where they can learn even more about our deep expertise and our 150 year history.

Who will implement your strategy?
Didn’t think about that did you? Most law firms are renowned for hiring one marketing person for every 10,000 attorneys. Yet now you want to actually conduct conversations online? Just who do you think is going to do that? Your web developer? The associates you just furloughed? You better think through skill sets and resources before you make this leap. Seriously, bro.

What are your tactical tools?
Your LinkedIn presence is hit or miss. Your blogs are siloed in a couple practice areas if they exist at all. You don’t Tweet. You have nothing on YouTube. Nor Flickr. So exactly how do you plan to go social? You want a website with social media capabilities? What the heck does that mean?

What are your metrics?
I know metrics is a dirty word. You haven’t yet figured out how to measure your website performance. And now you’re diving into yet another area of Internet endeavor. And you don’t know how to measure this either. So then this is what we would call a faith-based initiative?

Sorry to ask the tough questions. Maybe that’s why you’re thinking about social media policy. It’s the easy part. The strategy part is just so darn scary. What do you think?

A new survey released from TRUSTe, says consumers are wary of internet marketing practices and taking internet security into their own hands. Yet at the same time are more comfortable than ever with behavioral advertising; the type of advertising that shows site visitors certain ads based on their tracked internet history. I wonder, though, if those surveyed would still feel so comfortable if advertisers knew about them what they apparently know about me.

Most people surveyed agree that internet security is an area that the government should be involved in, at least in some way. Indeed, 57% of respondents to the TRUSTe survey (conducted by TNS) felt that government was at least partially, if not fully, responsible for protecting on line privacy through regulation or legislation. However, 70% felt that Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and browser manufacturers were responsible, and most  (four-fifths) agreed that we–meaning both users and website owners–are responsible for our own on line security. Statements like that have some IT publications producing headlines that read: Survey: Online privacy is your problem, not DoubleClick’s. (DoubleClick is Google’s ad server service. Who knew?)

Surprisingly, despite all our security concerns, 39% of consumers admit that they do not consistently take the necessary steps to protect their privacy. And most fail to carefully read the privacy statements of the sites where they enter personal information.

I’m not sure, but I think I may fall into that category of people. For example, Anne Gentle wrote about Facebook’s new privacy policies a couple of weeks ago, but did I bother to read them? So today I logged on to check out the new homepage (which incidentally, people aren’t loving) only to be surprised by finding the following ad directed at me and other “women of a certain age.”

Okay, I get where they got my age (from the date of birth I gave Facebook in my personal information). But how did they know my kitchen and baths need remodeling?

And how did they know my New Year’s resolutions were to lose weight, floss more often and try like hell to look more like Jennifer Aniston? (Sorry, did you see that article about how  hard economic times make people cuss more?)

Not only are some consumers taking security into their own hands, so are some big companies. The New York Times reports that internet giants Yahoo! and Google are already making changes that give users confidence their information is safe.

Yahoo recently shortened the amount of time it keeps data derived from searches. It is also including a link in some ads that explains how the viewer’s browsing history resulted in the ad shown.

Google, as it introduces its own behavioral advertising system, is allowing consumers to see what information it has gathered about them for advertising purposes.

Some suggest the FTC is already trying to put all the responsibility on web sites to protect our privacy, but at this point they’ve only published a set of guidelines for companies(.pdf) that track our internet use  to encourage “self-regulatory action.”

We’ve seen lately where that can lead (ahem, SEC/Sarbanes-Oxley). So it’s no wonder many consumers are doing a few things on their own, such as deleting cookies, to ensure greater privacy. TRUSTe openly admits that security is still “uncharted territory” in behavioral advertising. Though the survey shows that year over year, internet users are becoming more accepting–indeed welcoming–of behavior targeted advertising, they still have good reason to be concerned about advertisers capturing their browser histories to gain information for the targeted advertisements.

“Behavioral tracking techniques represent the future in digital advertising, but as companies adapt to take advantage of these technologies, we are seeing some stumble as they struggle to provide transparency around privacy,” said Colin O’Malley, VP of Strategic Business at TRUSTe.

Then how did they know?

In an effort to educate both consumers and companies about the practice of behavioral advertising, TRUSTe produced a whitepaper giving us guidelines–a checklist, really–of things we can do to ensure users feel their information is safe, essentially the same things that Yahoo! and Google are doing, such as not keeping information as long, and letting consumers know about and/or choose behavioral ads. One web site I visited recently politely asked me if I wanted to see “ads chosen especially” for me based on my browser history.”  I thought that was nice. I said no, of course.

Where I see behavioral advertising lacking, though, is that just because they know that I have certain behaviors, doesn’t mean they know how I feel about those behaviors. Maybe someone is holding me at gunpoint when I surf for Arts and Crafts style lighting fixtures. Now they are even trying to find that out. On the new Facebook page, it doesn’t ask what I’m doing, it asks what I’m thinking.  And I’m not telling them.

Recently my husband received an unsolicited (according to him) subscription postcard from Playboy. I assume they sent it based on other subscriptions we have carried–slightly liberal, slightly trashy–but Playboy couldn’t possibly know how I feel about getting their postcard in the mail. They don’t know that I marked it up with a black Sharpie with comments like “They obviously don’t know your wife,” and “Do it and die!” Nor that I drew hairy moles and mustaches on the photos of the girls. Look, just becuase I let my husband read Esquire out in the open doesn’t mean I’m willing to cross that line.  I’m a woman of a certain age, afterall. But only Facebook knows for sure.