Insights

Does Twitter Monitor Its Brand? Fake-Twitter.com Suggests No

Do you monitor your brand and what’s being said about you? I’m guessing that you do – after all, you need to know what’s being said in your name, particularly in our fast-paced connected worlds.

I’m beginning to wonder about Twitter, though.

The micro-blogging company isn’t having a great time of things at the minute. From network stability issues to the recent malware attack, it’s been a testing time for Twitter.

Thanks to a new website, it could become even more testing – yet Twitter doesn’t seem particularly bothered. Should they be?

Fake-Twitter.com is a site that allows you to choose any Twitter user and make a fake Twitter status update. This is then posted like a tweet and, at a glance, looks like the real thing. If you’re not a Twitter user, you might even think it’s the genuine article.

Even if you see that it’s fake, I’m guessing that the fake tweet will show up in search engine results and look like a genuine post. You can see how damaging this could be to someone’s name or brand. So, far from being a little bit of fun, Fake-Twitter.com is ethically questionable.

So where is Twitter in all of this? So far, nowhere – yet don’t you think they should be taking action against the site, in order to protect its own users?

Even if that was legally a gray area, Twitter could take down Fake-Twitter.com for copyright breach on the site’s design, which is just like the real Twitter set up.

Maybe there’s no response yet because Twitter is busy dealing with the malware attacks on their servers – so here’s some help to the Twitter team:

The Fake-Twitter domain is registered at GoDaddy.com under the name of Ryan Cornwell of Columbus, OH. You can get full details – address, email, etc – here.
The site itself is hosted at DreamHost.com, which is located in Brea, CA – so there should be no issues with overseas hosting legalities.
One of the co-creators of Fake-Twitter.com is Twitter user @topherchris – I’m sure you could ask him about Fake-Twitter.com, abuse of the site and the design copyright issue.

There’s not a lot more I can (or should) do – I’m not a Twitter employee and I have my own tasks at hand. But I am a Twitter user that cares about the Twitter community, as well as the potential damage this could do to individuals and brands,? hence the collection of information for you.

It only took me about half an hour to collate all the details and do some digging on the people behind it.

The question now, Twitter, is what are you going to do about it?

How about you? Should Twitter be taking action or is Fake-Twitter.com just a harmless joke?

Update April 13 – As of 9.00pm EST, the Fake-Twitter website is closed following an official takedown request from Twitter.

photo credit: kaioshin

Tipping the Scales

Sir Millard Mulch So there’s been plenty written about why bloggers hate PR people.

From lazy pitches to not knowing names and audience, there’s a veritable mish-mash of scorn poured on us PR nuisances from a lot of bloggers.

And, yes, some of it is warranted and trust me, I’m the first to call out bad PR practices.

But you know that just like anything, there’s always a flip side. Here’s an example.

I was speaking with a very good friend of mine who runs her own PR agency. She’s established a terrific reputation as one of the best PR people around and has deservedly won awards for her approach. Simply put, she’s a role model for great PR.

We were talking about the relationship between bloggers and PR and how we can improve it (“we” being both the blogosphere and the PR industry). This was when my friend shared one of her examples as to why that improvement might be further off than hoped.

She was working with a client whose core audience were “mommy bloggers”. The client’s product was ideally suited to the thousands of moms that have families of their own and blog about products in that niche. So, it would make sense for the PR campaign to connect with the blogging audience it’s suited to. So far, so good.

When my friend approached some of the key bloggers in this field, she had this response: “It’s $75 for a positive review, $100 if there’s an image attached.” When my friend queried this, she was told, “Get your client to splash the cash. If you’re getting paid, we want paid too.”

Say what?

Now, I understand about paid blogging and I have no qualms with it, as long as the blogger is upfront that it’s a sponsored post and that the review remains unbiased. Heck, we all need to make a living, but if you can’t offer full disclosure and non-bias then don’t take the money.

But this isn’t paid blogging – it’s simply a company asking (through their PR agency) if you’d be interested in product testing. You get first shot at the new line and you get to use and keep the product.

But you’re saying that if I pay $75, I’ll get a “positive review”? Isn’t this false advertising, or marketing, or whatever you wish to call it?

What happens if the product is crap? Will you still tell your readers that it’s great, because you’ve agreed to offer a positive review? How do you think your readers would feel about that? After all, aren’t they your most important audience?

Or is this just another point in your one-upmanship game with the PR industry?

Now, I’m not saying all bloggers (mommy or otherwise) are like this, either when it comes to product reviews or in the relationship they have with PR. I have some fantastic relationships with many bloggers and I couldn’t do a lot of my work without them.

But to those bloggers that my friend had the misfortune of dealing with?

A blog is your personal voice. Your readers are your community. Is both your voice and community something you’d happily sell down the river for a few bucks?

Because if they are, then that’s the real bad PR.

photo credit: rick

Experts Television

If I want to watch repeats, I?ll subscribe to some crappy network
that just shows re-runs of ABC, CBS and other programming misfits.

But if I want to watch innovation, I?ll subscribe to HBO.

I know who the HBO people are – the rest are just missing out on viewers.

Experts Television

If I want to watch repeats, I?ll subscribe to some crappy network
that just shows re-runs of ABC, CBS and other programming misfits.

But if I want to watch innovation, I?ll subscribe to HBO.

I know who the HBO people are – the rest are just missing out on viewers.

Internet Censorship, Google Style

Google seems to be coming in for a lot of stick at the moment.

Many Twitter users are aghast at the thought of Google buying Twitter, and their handling of popular blog tool Feedburner has come under fire (including here on this blog).

Some of the criticism is justified, others less so. Yet is it any surprise that Google continues to come under fire when the company itself seems to go out of its way to upset the community it relies on for its userbase?

Here’s an example.

Yesterday I asked if Google bought Twitter, would they would be a benefit or a hindrance to the micro-blogging site. I cited Google’s handling of Feedburner, and the fact that their Gmail email service is still in beta after five years. I linked this to the official Gmail blog.

The link resulted in some new traffic that I may not have had, with the readers of the Gmail blog obviously curious about the Twitter angle and Google’s involvement.

Today, I noticed that the link had been removed from the Gmail blog. And not just my link – there was another one that asked how a company can keep a product on beta for five years (which is now back on the blog, bizarrely).

(As a test, I’m linking there again with screen capture at my side – let’s see if they’ll allow this link and if so, for how long).

So, does Google only link to stories that are positive about their company? Are they trying to paint a picture that all is well with their services, and that they’re still every web user’s friend?

Wouldn’t it have made more sense to allow the link and maybe respond to the post in question?

Open up discussion and have some healthy debate about what users would like to see and whether this is feasible or not, as well as address blogger issues at the same time?

It’s a shame. By removing the link to a non-congratulatory piece, Google have taken a step down the Internet censorship path that web users hate. Sure, it’s Google’s Gmail blog so they can do what they want – that’s their prerogative.

But the end result of this is that Google begins to look like the indie band that struck it lucky and hit superstardom, and then forgot all about the fans that put them there. Instead, they’d rather hang with the faux celebrities and hangers-on that only stroke their ego.

Of course, you could say Google’s so big they don’t need to worry about what the little guy like me says. Funny thing is, though, upset enough of the little guys and it soon becomes a big guy problem.

And with little guy alternatives to Google’s services becoming more widespread, where would that leave Google?

photo credit: Larsz