This isn’t because they aren’t using Amazon at work but because their employer hasn’t updated their internal applications in 10 years.

I get frequent requests to provide some sort of “private” Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn to large enterprises. Their goal is to provide some sort of social experience at work. They want to do this “in house” because of two reasons. One, they are afraid of the employees “wasting time” not interacting with their co-workers. And, two, they are worried about corporate data getting “out”.

Regarding the first objection, locking down the employee online experience isn’t going to prevent them from using their time as they choose. You can’t create rules that will create good employees. There are many more and much better ways to get employees to _want_ to behave appropriately. Moreover, these “new” social tools are not the only way an employee could squander company time. They already have lots of ways to do that, if they’d like.

As for the second objection, this reminds me of the early days of content management systems (CMS). A while back, companies would spend lots of time and money creating their own systems because off-the-shelf, customizable software wasn’t exactly right for them. In reality, they had different process, to be certain, but they were no better. Most enterprises seems to suffer from a “not invented here” syndrome regarding tools like that. And, so long as the implementation is left to technologists, they have a vested interest in keep things like this.

Regarding security of such social networks, they are no less or more secure than the average enterprise. It’s a mistake to think that, just because a tool is created in-house, it’s more secure. Indeed, it might even be less secure, because in-house technologists have to learn everything about the type of application all at once, and just for one application. They are unlikely to have the same skills as a technologist at a dedicated application provider.

Social media and networking can definitely benefit the average employee. And, I hope that companies will give the “standard” tools a chance before they start creating their own.

First of all, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even know if this is a real question. This question came up at the intersection of two contexts. One is this article in Wired on a LinkedIn-related laysuit. The other context was a project where we’re doing a LinkedIn social media plan for a client.

To begin, I’d like to define some terms. By “expressions” I mean anything on your LinkedIn profile that could mean anything about a company. By “own” I mean have legal control over. So, my question amount to this: can a company control expressions about it on your profile? There seem to be 3 levels of expression.

1. Outright trademarks

It seems obvious that clear, trademarkable material is owned by the company. This is true in just about every instance. So, if you put the IBM logo on your website or use any of its material, they might be interested.

2. Direct Claims

What about claims you make about a company? If I said that Company X was great (or not great), what could Company X do about that? Could they make you change it? Assuming it’s not true, then I think that they definitely could. What if it’s true but different than what they want you to say?

In this case, could they make you use their own formulation?

If controlling brand-related materials or trademarks can be controlled, then why not other expressions? It could just as easily be argued that any expression is central to a company’s brand or trademark.

Fair use?

Does fair use come into this at all? Could it be said that an expression about a company is just a quotation or sorts?

3. Indirect Claims

What about implied claims? Implied claims could exist in your own text. I am thinking here of job descriptions and professional specialties and goals. To the extent that this text means something, then it just seems to be a less clear case of expressions of type 2, q.v. It’s no different to mean indirectly than to mean directly.

The Argument

So, my argument is this:

Your current employer can control not only anything you say about it directly but also anything you imply about it in your job description or anywhere else.

So, if this is true, then a company could make you alter your text to reflect their own. I suppose you could just refuse to talk about the company, but that would mean you can’t say that you work there. Nor could it be reasonably known that you work there because then, by implication, people would know what company you are “talking about” when they read your job description.

This seems like a strong claim. There must be something wrong with it. But, what?

1. At what point is it acceptable to abandon or ignore a social media tool?
2. When does it make sense to include a new social media tool as part of your social marketing strategy?

It’s clear that social media is here to stay as a tool for spreading the word about products and services. Facebook has worked hard over the last year trying to make the tool business-friendly. Twitter seems to be business-friendly right out of the gate. LinkedIn was built for business. Each of these tools can be a part of a marketing strategy, but you must first  determine which of the tools is right for your business.

If you are currently on one of these sites, you should carefully review your participation in your company’s pages or general activity on each of these sites to determine if they still warrant your attention. If the participation has declined, you might want to look at your promotion techniques. Are you promoting or posting to your page often? Are you ‘tweeting’ compelling content regularly?

Another factor for decreased participation could be that your target market has moved on to another site… the ‘hot, new’ social media platform on the block. Social media users are far from brand loyal. If a new tool comes along that works better and is more interesting, they are really likely to switch the bulk of their attention to the new tool. They probably won’t completely give up on the old tool (right away anyway), but they will spend less of their available time with it, thereby decreasing the possibility that they will pay any attention to your presence there.

New social media tools seem to pop up all the time, but does it make sense to include them in your marketing strategy? Who are the people that are using the tool? Are they your target? If not, it might be OK for your family photos or posting about your trip to the grocery store, but it might not be right for your business.

Recently, however, I have seen an increase in the synchronicity of social media. Twitter and Facebook now seem to demand, and receive, constant attention. Status updates get replies in real-time. Tweets are answered in seconds. This indicates that these media have become synchronous: the parties are in communication at the same time. And, in so doing, these media are losing their efficiency. As they lose their efficiency, they become more like work. That is, they demand more and more time from participants. And as this happens, we can expect the use of social media in the workplace to come under increased scrutiny, especially in this economy.

We have to be careful when considering why is it communication that we call social that we don’t relax in what’s on synchronist communication. Synchronist communication apparently risky because they have–require much higher commitment from both parties. Instead, be sure to focus also on a synchronist communication, in fact we’re underestimating the importance and the role of the e-mail.