Prilično zanimljiv prikaz u New York Timesu kako Phonedog tuži prethodnog zaposlenika kako bi dobio pristup sljedbenicima Twittera na računu koji je otvorio kao dio njihovog dosega na društvenim mrežama.
Prema trenutnim standardima zapošljavanja u zemlji, pretpostavljam da je PhoneDog u potpunosti u svojim pravima ... posao koji radite u radno vrijeme tvrtke je obično u vlasništvu od strane tvrtke. Međutim, društveni mediji jesu promijenjen i percepcija i interakcija između tvrtki i njihove mreže. Nekada su ljudi mogli stajati iza marke da bi komunicirali s mrežom. Učili smo putem oglasa, robnih marki, logotipa, slogana i drugih mogućnosti sponzorstva. Problem je u tome što društveni mediji sada stavljaju ljude ispred tvrtka i izravno u kontaktu s markom. Moje osobno uvjerenje jest, jer društveni mediji mijenjaju protok komunikacije, mijenjaju se i vlasnički obrasci.
Pogled unatrag je uvijek 20/20, ali jednostavan politika socijalnih medija 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.
Budući da nitko nema čarobnu kuglu, o tome morate razmisliti sa svojim zaposlenicima i postaviti odgovarajuća očekivanja:
- If you don't want your employees to vlastiti njihovih sljedbenika, možete ih natjerati da upravljaju i komuniciraju s računom sponzoriranim od strane tvrtke. Primjer: Umjesto da naši zaposlenici upravljaju vlastitim računima, mi im pružamo pristup @dknewmedia s HootSuite i Pufer. 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 i Stephen oboje često govore o 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.
Moja zadnja riječ o ovome: Mrzim riječ vlastiti i posjedovanje 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 vlastiti ti sljedbenici mogu pružiti sve dokaze na svijetu zašto su slijedili Noaha, a ne Phonedogov račun.