When I describe Ant’s Eye View, I talk about a group of experienced practitioners who establish themselves as trusted advisors to our clients, through passionate and proven delivery. But since I’m a bit biased around our capabilities, I’m always interested to hear how people outside of the company describe us. I was excited to learn that the Austin Anthill managed to capture some folks talking about Ant’s Eye View during this years SXSW.

In watching the video, I’m humbled by the fact that people outside of Ant’s Eye View tell our story much like we do. That’s strong validation that we’re delivering on the vision that we created just three short years ago. Similarly, I was struck by the level of impact that these people are having within their respective brands. They’re at the forefront of change, leading their organizations through a challenging yet highly-rewarding journey.

Watching the video made me realize that we can’t separate our story from those of our clients. We internalize our clients’ struggles and celebrate their victories. It is part of what motivates us here at Ant’s Eye View. It energizes me to get on the next flight, because I’m not just sharing the story of my company, but of everyone leading their organizations on the Social Engagement Journey.

As organizations and individuals navigate these new mine fields we will all run up against the edges of previously explored legal territory. We are setting precedent every day. Here are just a few examples in the last couple of years where social account management and ownership have come into play, in rather high profile and costly ways:

 Legal battle over ownership of Twitter followers:

Noah Kravitz and PhoneDog had a working relationship. Depending on which article you read that relationship takes on different forms, but they had a working relationship none the less. PhoneDog made a variety of investments to promote their product and engagement efforts with their customers. Noah Kravitz was part of these efforts. In doing so Kravitz amassed a rather large following on Twitter. At some point he made the decision to leave the company to pursue other opportunities.

PhoneDog later pursued legal action against Kravitz because he took his Twitter account with him, changing the name from PhoneDog_Noah to a more personalized NoahKravitz. Their allegation was that this was a business asset they had made investments to in the form of a customer list and it was company property. There was another law suit at play where Kravitz was seeking a claim over a percentage of the site’s revenue based on the conditions of their relationship that he claims spawned their suit. Both of the lawsuits are still in progress.

Court orders individual to hand over LinkedIn contacts:

Mark Ions was a consultant based in the UK. Ions, like many professionals, used LinkedIn to expand his networks a professional and as a function of his job. He was encouraged by his employer at the time, Hays Specialist Recruitment in using this platform for that specific purpose. Problems arose however when Ions decided he wanted to start his own competing firm. He used his LinkedIn network in that process.

Hays did not approve and took legal action. Courts ruled that Ions was to hand over and disclose not only all of his contacts, but additionally, all documents, invoices and mails that were sent and received from that account from the Hays’ computer network.

Ex-employee’s targeted via litigation for misappropriation of LinkedIn account:

Sawabeh Informations Services (SISCOM) acquired Edcomm in 2010. Several months later the founders of Edcomm were fired. Dr. Linda Eagle was one of these founders of and a central party to the lawsuits that ensued after the firing. After the firing Eagle continued to utilize her LinkedIn account which spawned the litigation. Because the account had been used used (by multiple parties) for business purposes, SISCOM alleged they had made significant investment and therefore it was company property. They went so far as to change the profile name, information and picture to that of a new employee internally.

Employer asked job seeker for log-in Facebook credentials:

Justin Bassett was interviewing for a new job. DUring the interview process the interviewer sought him out online – looking specifically for his Facebook profile. When the interviewer could not find him because his profile was private they insisted on him handing over his log-in credentials so they could evaluate his page that way. Justin did not hand over his credentials and ultimately withdrew his application on the grounds that he did not wish to work for a company that would seek such information. This is a prevalent practice amongst public agencies and offices.

There have been cases similar to these that never reached the court system. Rick Sanchez was fired from CNN. During his tenure at the station he developed and utilized for CNN related purposes a branded Twitter account (@RickSanchezCNN). When he was fired there was much speculation in the social media world as to whether or not he would be able to keep his handle, and whether or not there would be a ‘to-do’ about it. Rick did maintain access to the account, and to public knowledge, CNN never raised a legal finger to stop him. (That’s of course not to say there weren’t possibly discussions about it privately.) Another similar example was when Frank Eliason left Comcast. He had long utilized the popular @ComcastCares account as both his personal and Comcast-business-related account. He proactively handed the account over to Comcast during his departure – there was no litigation.

Social media will continue to mature, and with it organizational operating models along with it. In the process there are bound to be many more legal battles. The cases outlined here are only the tip of the iceberg. As an industry we have in no way reached the point where there is unilateral consensus on how these types of situations should be handled. Additionally as professionals the lines between our personal and business-related presence online will continue to blur and overlap. As we evolve and seek understanding it is important to remember that we’re not only fighting these individual battles – but also setting the [legal] precedent for how our industry operates going forward.

In this environment with little certainty an organizations best defense is, albeit trite, a good offense. A statistical analysis of Trade Secret litigation by Gonzaga law review found that the majority of times cases are brought forward, favor is found with the employee. Proactively protecting your company through the use of confidentiality agreements and policies will go a long way to preempting costly litigation and distracting media attention. Protection related governance is not the only way to help mitigate risk. Empowering your employees through education and awareness can help create environments of knowledgeable action and thoughtful behavior. The growth in social media popularity has brought about revolutions, saved lives and changed forever the environment in which we do business. It will continue to evolve and change and grow. Every court case and every piece of legislation is helping to shape tomorrow’s online environment. Your individual and organizational actions today will impact that tomorrow.

At the community level, the relationships in place can be more supportive for practical jokesmanship. Brands have been pulling off pranks, jokes and spoofs every year to spotlight the human side of their business. And each year, there are as many losers as there are winners. It can go either way, but the tension highlights the risk brands encounter when they decide to try their hand at funny every April 1^st.

The risks for brands to look out for in putting on a gag is:

• Your audience may not realize you are joking: CT Criminal Justice Aide’s Twitter Prank Accidentally Goes Public
• The misperceptions of a joke with symbolism or cultural implications
• The hoax confuses customers and leads to negative action/reaction
• The joke is offensive, hurtful or deceitful Report of school shooting was April Fools’ prank
• The joke is badly timed “Chicken ‘N Waffles” Syrup and Why Torani Brand Ruined April Fools’ Day

If you want to see a few of the best April Fools’ jokes of 2012, Adweek has done a roundup here. To set your brand up for success on April 1, do not rush into planning without considering some tips:

• Be sure the joke is clever and still pays homage to your brand message: Warby Barker: Glasses for Dogs
• Get more internal eyes on your idea, especially legal, to avoid nasty issues
• It’s OK to poke-fun and be self-demoralizing, but do not disrespect your brand, your customers or industry: Timbuk2 Clifford Canine Carrier
• Get executive participation: Philadelphia pilots dedicated sidewalk SPACE for distracted pedestrians
• Sometimes your fans do all the work for you:  Assassin’s Creed for Kinect

You can quickly find out when an April Fools’ joke has gone wrong, especially if it results in a lawsuit. LegalZoom has a good primer on how to avoid costly hoaxes.

And if you are still on the fence about an April Fools’ joke for your brand, go with cute animals:

• Kodak Unveils Live Kitten Printing Technology
• AdBlock introduces CatBlock

An Ant’s Eye Point-of-View is curated and written by Senior Social Business Consultants: Kristy Bolsinger, Geoff Knox, Ali McCourt, Laura Feeney, Anthony Garcia, David J. Neff  and Sam Eder. Ideas and reactions are welcome in the comments section.

Cisco has consistently used the Social Engagement Journey as a diagnostic tool for their social business progress.  In fact, some of that work has even been featured in this blog: The Cisco Social Media Listening Journey.  Their internal commitment to this framework has created a uniform, galvanizing taxonomy for talking about social business transformation within their team, with internal stakeholders, and as you see here, with the industry.

One of my favorite aspects of the video is how Jeanette and Cisco have changed the aperture of the Social Engagement Journey to the “Digital Journey.”  Cisco isn’t the first of our clients to make this adjustment and I don’t suspect they’ll be the last.  As a result of the change management introduced by social, we’ve seen many clients seeking to address systemic change in not only their digital practice – but also in their overall marketing operations.

Jeanette’s also done a great job of demonstrating how the journey can be more than just another framework.  By using practical examples (e.g. “metrics your CEO cares about”) coupled with the qualitative (e.g. “it all works seamlessly”), Jeanette’s told you what the Social Engagement Journey, or in this case the Digital Journey, should feel like – and that can be a powerful piece of narrative inside a brand.

For those headed to ad:tech San Francisco tomorrow, say hello to Jeanette as she and Julia Mee talk about “The New Marketing Mix: Integrating Digital into Traditional and Vice Versa.”  You can find all the details from Cisco here.

Ant’s Eye View recently hosted a webinar for clients on the topic, and we’re sharing some highlights here. Watch the executive briefing.

Tip 1: Use a high-impact cover photo.

• Use striking images for maximum impact and engagement.
• Avoid call to actions; they are against Facebook’s new terms of service.
• Think of the cover photo more as a work of art than a billboard.

A few examples:

• Lexus Facebook page -  Drives attention to new product lines.
• Verizon Facebook page – Encourages fans to submit camera phone photos. Daily updates of cover photo.

Tip 2: Start compiling your brand history.

• Pick key dates in company or brand history and backfill them.
• Think of the community manager or brand manager as a brand historian.
• Make sure key dates are aligned with imagery. Never just a text update.

A few examples:

• Barack Obama Page – Uses humor for the president’s birth controversy. Click born.
• Livestrong Page – Shares personal photo of Lance in cancer treatment. Click founded.

Tip 3: Set expectations for the new inbox.

• Create “office hours” for which the inbox is open and amount of time people can expect a reply.
• List the open hours in your about us section.
• The inbox is optional and can be turned off.

A few examples:

• TOMS is accepting emails.
• Ford is not accepting emails

Is your brand using Facebook timeline? What are some tips you’d give?

An Ant’s Eye Point-of-View is curated and written by Senior Social Business Consultants: Kristy Bolsinger, Geoff Knox, Ali McCourt, Laura Feeney, Anthony Garcia, David J. Neff  and Sam Eder. Ideas and reactions are welcome in the comments section.

With the adoption of single sign-on capabilities across so many sites, where you can log in using your Facebook or Twitter account, the spread and reach of fake accounts has become even easier to grow. Even LinkedIn isn’t immune to fake accounts. So what are the sources of fake accounts?

• Sometimes these fake accounts are the creation of shady groups trying to boost numbers for monetary gain. This is often the first thing we think of when talking about fake accounts, lumping them into the same category as spammers and telemarketers. John McElhenney put together a neat post breaking down his theory on the motivations of a Twitter bot net.
• Some fake accounts may be the creation of organizations looking to monitor social channels, or use them for pushing agendas through the anonymity afforded by a fake account.
• Some fake accounts may just be novelty accounts or “throwaways” used by regular people that want to post anonymously or use multiple personas for entertainment.

The new subscription feature added to Facebook has also created a new surge in subscriptions by fake accounts, as a humorous (but very insightful) write-up from news anchor Linda Thomas documents. While Facebook will surely tweak how subscriptions work in the future, the subscriptions and likes generated by them should also be taken with a grain of salt.

Tom Foremski recently wrote an in-depth look at fake accounts that includes some detailed analysis from Kevin Kelly and the people in his G+ circles.  Tom’s post makes good points with regard to the hollow nature of stats such as likes, followers and views for content but make sure you read Jay Baer’s spot-on reply in the comments as well. Knowing that a significant portion of the social space is not what it appears to be should help drive the analysis of mentions online.

Knowing what you want to do online can help define how you listen and what you should look for. When you look at mentions in social media and the topics that are trending from those mentions, you have to dive beneath the surface data to truly mine any value out of it. Analysis of why something is trending, who is behind the trend and why does this matter to my business should be starting points.

That’s where awkward conversation starters can help. Ant’s Eye View did some research and social listening — the foundation to any form of customer engagement –  to come up with this helpful guide of offbeat, yet real statistics and numbers about last year’s SXSW conference. If any of these factoids help you get the conversation ball rolling with someone interesting, or really interesting, let us know.

A synopsis of the Pinterest incident

• January 2012:
  • Rumblings surface about Pinterest’s use of Skimlinks to take advantage of affiliate programs. A few bloggers find that pins of eCommerce sites’ content that have affiliate programs had the Pinterest affiliate link added to the URL so that Pinterest would get credit for purchases. Pins that already had an affiliate link were not changed. Joel Garcia at GTO Management points out that brands with affiliate programs may be unintentionally submitting themselves to a commission by pinning their own products to Pinterest.
  • February:
    • Josh Davis at LLsocial.com writes that revenue generation in a beta phase is unique for a social network but not disclosing the practice “feels weird”. Users seem to be in favor of the practice, as long as it’s disclosed. If this sounds familiar, Posterous performed a similar affiliate link swap without disclosure in 2010.
    • The Atlantic reports that Pinterest was “playing dumb” to get investors because it already knew how to make money off of affiliate links.
    • Skimlinks CEO Alicia Navarro defends Pinterest, pointing out that disclosure is not legally required in this case, it is only necessary when the content creator makes endorsements that they profit from.
    • LLsocial interviews Pinterest CEO Ben Silbermann and learns that they stopped using Skimlinks about a week before the initial story broke. They mostly used Skimlinks to gain insight into how customers were using their service and have since updated their help page to address the question about how they make money. Ben points out that they were slow to respond to the Skimlinks story because Pinterest is a small team of only 16 people.
    • This scrutiny caused a closer look at the Pinterest Terms of Service which should cause brands to pause and consider implications to their participation.  In fact, the section about “member content” makes it clear that Pinterest has the right to distribute, sell, and “otherwise exploit” your images that you pin.  The Boston Business Journal pulled their boards after careful scrutiny of the TOS.
    • To help ease copyright concerns, Pinterest released code that allows sites to block pins of their content.  It remains to be seen whether sites will use this feature considering the broad visibility they can get for their pinned content. There are many factors to consider and each brand will have to decide which side of the line they fall on.

The recent Pinterest incident isn’t the only social network to have Terms of Service that should concern their users. There are a number of these events to remember and learn from.

• In 2009 a Facebook Terms of Service change caused uproar when it became apparent Facebook wouldn’t remove your data if you deleted your account. Facebook rolled back the change and then took a number of months to collect user feedback before allowing users to vote on which TOS they preferred. The important thing for companies to remember about Facebook TOS is that they must comply with Terms governing the use of 3^rd party applications, pages, promotions, and advertising, all popular features in most social strategies.
• A TwitPic TOS change caused an outcry when uploaded photos became property of TwitPic and could be used, distributed, and sold. This resulted in TwitPic clarifying their Terms to state that the content creator retains copyright.
• Google is in the midst of updating, simplifying and combining their privacy policies and Terms of Service across their many platforms. First announced in January, the changes are scheduled to take place in the beginning of March. There’s been some backlash, most notably in the EU where officials want Google to suspend the privacy policy changes and amongst privacy groups that want Google to offer an opt-out option.
• In contrast, Twitter Terms state that you own your content. As an interesting method to help you be more comfortable with the legal language in the Terms, they’ve highlighted tips throughout the page that give brief explanations of complicated paragraphs.
• Interestingly the U.S. General Services Administration Office of Citizen Services and Innovated Technologies finds that standard social media Terms of Service do not comply with federal law and therefore cannot be used by government agencies. To remedy this and help government agencies create a good customer experience, they negotiated TOS agreements with a number of social media services that agencies can use with the providers. Since the government finds the Terms to be unacceptable, you should definitely review the TOS of any new service you plan to use and get legal advice as necessary.

After reviewing these examples it’s evident that Terms of Service can and should affect your social strategy, particularly on Pinterest or in the case of Facebook promotions. Read the TOS and review them with your legal counsel before launching a new strategy for any platform. You don’t want to be in the news for having your page or account shut down, right?

An Ant’s Eye Point-of-View is curated and written by Senior Social Business Consultants: Kristy Bolsinger, Geoff Knox, Ali McCourt, Laura Feeney, Anthony Garcia, David J. Neff  and Sam Eder. Ideas and reactions are welcome in the comments section.

Which is why today we’re thrilled to announce a partnership with Badgeville, a Silicon Valley startup that shares our belief in delivering measurable business impact through sustained customer engagement.  Badgeville’s Behavior Platform uniquely blends gamification, reputation management and social networking to drive user engagement and customer loyalty.

Our partnership with Badgeville enables Ant’s Eye View to provide clients with a technology platform to support their social business strategy by analyzing consumer behavior and increasing participation in online communities.  Badgeville has also proven to be an effective solution for companies trying to increase employee collaboration, or deliver training in engaging and effective ways.  In addition, the platform’s deep analytics capabilities give clients the ability to monitor and reward individual behavior, as well as customize the gaming mechanics in response to real world real-time activities.

Badgeville was recently named one of Forbes’ 100 Most Promising New Companies in America and upholds an impressive enterprise client roster. We are thrilled to partner with them, and offer new capabilities to our clients as they engage with their online communities.

Learn more about the partnership in the announcement release.

Let’s first explore the Susan G. Komen Foundation incident

We learned from Zappos  that the first 24 hours are critical for crisis communications. Unfortunately, after Susan G. Komen pulled funds from Planned Parenthood amid their involvement in their polarizing stance on abortion, The Komen Foundation was nowhere to be found. The silence was deafening.

Seeing a large gap in their funding, Planned Parenthood immediately took action, asking supporters to donate to fulfill the gap left by Komen’s withdrawal, and seemingly was the impetuous for public awareness and attention to the issue. The groundswell began to bubble as the American public took their voices to social channels.

When Komen finally crafted a response to the outrage, they failed to make a distinction between traditional and social media, approaching the two audiences as one-in-the-same.  Komen began tweeting to followers with blanket statements linking back to their press release.  Their position came across as defensive, impersonal, and ultimately hurt more than helped.

Some implications of the crisis were as follows:

• 1.3M+ tweets referencing Susan G. Komen Foundation and Planned Parenthood
• 20 posts per minute on the corporate page of the Komen Foundation
• 10,000 comments on the Komen Facebook page
• The ratio of negative to positive Komen tweets immediately following the incident was averaging 80 to 1
• Top Komen officials were forced to resign
• Komen back-peddled on their decision and reinstated funding after deteriorating the brand
• A new campaign emerged to refocus efforts around women’s health under the hashtag #takebackthepink
• Planned Parenthood raised nearly $3 million dollars

A seemingly innocuous amount of contributed funds (0.2% to be exact) turned into a black mark that will forever haunt, arguably American’s most beloved non-profit, ultimately because they were not prepared for the implications of their decision.

Now let’s turn our attention toward SOPA

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA) were introduced to enable the government to monitor online trafficking of copyrighted information and reduce piracy. Similar to Komen’s decision to stop funding Planned Parenthood, SOPA/PIPA proved to be a polarizing topic.  The public began publically sharing their opinions about government encroachment on privacy and openness of the web.

Soon, big names like Google and Wikipedia began “censoring” the Internet in retaliation of the bill and to drum up support. Traditional media largely avoided covering the topic, rather the hotspots for driving conversation came from non-traditional media such as blogs and communities.

The results are astounding:

• 3.9 million tweets were SOPA-related on January 18, 2012
• More than 162 million users saw Wikipedia’s blackout page, and 8 million used the page to look up their representative’s contact information
• More than 7 million people signed Google’s petition to congress
• The Flikr community darkened 324,445 photos in protest
• Online activity on Tumblr drove offline behavior with 87,834 phone calls to US Representatives
• Senators opposing the bill went from 5 to 35 in the course of a week

With a little enablement from Silicon Valley, attention and a voice was given to the public to affect the future of our country.

What can we learn from Komen & SOPA/PIPA?

With enough passionate supporters, the ability of grassroots efforts today to drive impactful change is immense. As business leaders, we should not underestimate the power and the voice of a community. With a broader set of tools and technology, the barriers to sharing information are much lower.  Be prepared for a crisis, ensuring outlined processes allow you to quickly communicate with the world. If there’s one thing we can learn from both Zappos and Komen it’s that the first hours of a crisis are critical for informing public opinion and a lack of response only deteriorates brand equity. Lastly, a one-size-fits all approach doesn’t work when addressing audiences. When speaking to individuals it’s best to speak to them as just that – individuals.

As Senator Wyden commented, “What has happened in the last few weeks will permanently change the way citizens communicate with their government.” And as we’ve seen over the past few years, the same is true of organizations who are on the Social Engagement Journey.

What do you think? Weigh-in with your comments below.

An Ant’s Eye Point-of-View is curated and written by Senior Social Business Consultants: Kristy Bolsinger, Geoff Knox, Ali McCourt, Laura Feeney, Anthony Garcia and Sam Eder. Ideas and reactions are welcome in the comments section.