social networks

Permission Spamming for Friends

My friend John Haydon posted an interesting status update on his Facebook profile. Short and simple, it said: “Dear Facebook user. Please don’t tag me in a photo or video unless I’m actually in the photo or video. Thanks.”

And it stopped and made me think – are we now offering permission spamming for friends on social networks?

The minute we sign up for a service like Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc, we offer our details so we can find our existing friends or online connections, and hook up with them on our new network too.

The service we sign up for assures us that our details are safe and they won’t use or give them to third-party marketing and advertising services.

Yet it doesn’t really include that same option for friends.

That then leads to a whole slew of tags or similar on Facebook (just as John mentions) that have nothing to do with us, apart from our connection to that person.

Or there’s the Direct Message on Twitter where latest blog posts are pimped, or services shilled (though to be honest, I’m pretty fortunate in the connections I have on Twitter that they only DM me great stuff that I’d want to know about anyway).

The same goes for LinkedIn, where bulk and copy/paste messages are sent out promoting a service or product that, more often than not, holds no real interest for the person it’s been sent to. There’s also video responses on YouTube and even spam coming through on the likes of Skype and BlackBerry Messenger.

Of course, a lot can be put down to the networks not making it clear to the user that just by using a certain service, friends can be spammed (or the equivalent of unwanted messages).

Take the Facebook Like option, for example. If you like my Facebook Page, then (from what I’ve been reading) any updates on my page could appear on your wall, unless you (or I) have amended our settings so that doesn’t happen.

Now, I don’t want to spam you just as much as you don’t want to be spammed, and it’s certainly not deliberate. But Facebook makes this almost mandatory, which then pisses you off and makes my page offer less value, when I want it to be the complete opposite.

And therein lies the problem with all this new “social” approach, whether it’s networking or media. To be social, we have to open up certain doors.

But what happens when these doors turn our friends into spammers? And how do we differentiate the unwanted spam from the unaware spam? Thoughts?

photo credit: Adam UXB Smith

Are You Online Right Now?

This is a guest post from close friend and writer?Christina Kingston, who blogs over at CtKingston.com and is one of my 10 Bloggers to Watch in 2010.

If you’re online right now then?

Who’s watching rickety, old, near-death grandpa?
Who’s feeding the children?
Who’s French kissing the wife?

I was chatting with good friend and fellow blogger, Danny Brown, randomly discussing a multitude of topics. We touched upon one that made us both laugh.

The questions above, though harrowing, propelled a few snickers in regards to the “topic” we chuckled over, which boils down to web time spent versus real life squandered.

Danny suggested I write it up as a guest post on his site, but as time passed and rough drafts got cranked out, scattering by my desk side, I began to feel this particular blog might be too offensive for many of my career-oriented, married-with-children friends. It might even be offensive to my very close single friends who are sadly barren, unloved, lonely, and all alone without a clue how to survive in the workplace. I love these people.

Normally I have no problem being aggressive in prose or real life. I can easily blame my parents for this failing and that’s always a relief. Someone to blame. Once in a while I phone my folks, thanking them profusely for being such rotters. So rotten that their actions provided me with an infinite excuse. They hate those calls, but so be it, suck on it Ma and Pa! They know what they’ve done.

But this blog thing? I thought maybe I could just soft-pedal the initial idea so as not to appear accusatory of anyone I personally know, the ones who give the web their undivided attention, meanwhile habitually ignoring their wives, husbands, bfs, gfs, friends, children, jobs?

But no way, that’s what the whole piece was supposed to be about — the anti-social aspects of social networking as it pertains to the love showered on strangers, as opposed to the rampant disregard for those closest to us.

Although I see this kind of neglect often, I certainly wouldn’t map out anyone’s Internet timeline to prove how nearly impossible it’d be to find space where they might have had a moment to ask, “Hi kids, how was school?”? Or even microwave a meal for themselves. And the married ones, do they ever talk with their spouses? They are online far too often to have sex with them, that’s clear.

And is the company they work for paying any attention to their sloppy work ethic? How much longer can these people keep a job? How many of these human animals once had an active social life, solid relationship and successful career only to blindly watch it dwindle while they squander away the hours on a social networking site? This question seemed like a good, possibly very serious blog idea.

But the more I spun it the more it felt potentially a tiny-bit rude.

I’m sure others will and or have tackled this dilemma. However, this kind of dicey subject will probably never be written by me.

But I’ll still wonder, “Who is feeding the children?” I also might think, “It’s no wonder your mate is cheating on you,” and occasionally imagine, “Of course your company flounders and you have zero job security.” I kinda might ponder such things every once in awhile, but I sure won’t be bringing it up in public.

Maybe Danny will? You’ll have to ask him. Actually don’t ask him, I doubt either one of us has much interest in that sort of discussion.

Please leave your thoughts below.

Starbucks – A Lesson in Social Media Branding

Ask anyone what one of the biggest stumbling blocks for businesses and social media is and the over-riding answer will probably be understanding. Or lack of it.

With so many businesses questioning why they would enter a medium that doesn’t offer the same kind of return on investment (ROI) than traditional marketing, why bother?

One look at Starbucks could offer some answers. The Seattle-based coffee giant has embraced social media with some great initiatives that any business could learn from.

For instance, while other brands are deciding whether micro-blogging site Twitter is for them, Starbucks has tackled it head on. Better still, they’re actually engaging their customers into the bargain. Instead of simply using Twitter as a broadcasting tool, Starbucks is actively conversing with its 17,000 followers (although weekends seem strangely quiet).

By helping people buy Starbucks-related products to sharing information on various charity projects the company is involved in, the Starbucks Twitter account is the perfect example of great brand usage.

On top of that, Starbucks has also set up an interesting project over at My Starbucks Idea. Here customers of the company are invited to share their ideas on how Starbucks can improve. An open forum approach sees users post their ideas and other members vote for the best. These are then looked at by Starbucks for viability.

As an idea in improving a company through the people that matter – the customers – it’s brilliant common sense. As an example of interactive social media at work, it’s perfect.

Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that Starbucks is embracing social media as well as it is. After all, the company has long been an advocate of social responsibility with their eco-friendly projects. With My Starbucks Idea and their Twitter account, they’re merely transferring their offline ethos into the social media world. And a fine job they’re doing too.

How does your brand compare?

photo credit:?betsyjean79