Beast of Traal

I realize many people still don’t know how @mentions work on Twitter, in terms of visibility. Reiterating from Twitter Help page:

1. People will only see replies in their home time line if they are following both the sender and recipient of the update
2. People will see mentions in their timeline even if they don’t follow the person mentioned – as long as they follow the sender, they’ll see the mention in their timeline (It’s treated like a regular Tweet.)
3. People with protected accounts cannot send replies to people who aren’t following them, and mentions won’t be seen by non-followers either

So, remember…your brilliant, sarcastic, intelligent, funny responses may go unnoticed by a larger group. If you think they are worth the world’s time, add a ‘.’ in front of your response tweet so that the dot becomes the first character, preceding the @.

Should we, at all?

In a recent Twitter conversation I was having with a few Twitter-regulars (who else!), one of them remarked, ‘Such kids, we are!’.

It’s an interesting quip, on many levels.

Back when there was no social media, our social circle, in real life, was decidedly smaller. We had friends from school, with whom – if we were still in touch – we were more casual and without guards. We remember how we were when we were in school and share more things naturally.

But, at the same time, we do not share the same things with our office colleagues and people who report to us. The lack of social media allowed us to build and maintain that facade.

Today, things are vastly different.

I already use Twitter to check if someone I need to get in touch with, is active/online. It’s as simple as noticing his last tweet time and assuming (mind you…only assuming) that he’s online/active. Another friend recently talked about how he used Twitter to check if someone he wanted to get in touch with had finished his vacation. He was tracking the other person’s non-vacation vs vacation tweets to come to a rudimentary conclusion.

Now, extrapolate the same thing with acting our ages.

You may be the CEO of a company. On Twitter, you may have your own set of pals and share info on how you find a new actress cute, but not-so-hot. I wonder how that could be ‘used’ by someone who reports to you or simply someone who is supposed to look upto you. On Facebook, it’s slightly better, if you have done your homework on your privacy settings!

The wall is broken now, thanks to social media. And what you share is accessible by anyone/everyone. Does the fact that they know more about you change their behavior towards you? Even if you portray the serious, professional outlook face of yours, a quick tweet check will help them understand a LOT more about you, which could perhaps give them an idea that your serious, professional outlook face is…well, just a workplace-facade.

Does that worry you?

I, personally, do not have a problem. I’m usually the same, everywhere, across all ages of people I interact with. That helps. But again, for people who genuinely have a reason to put up a facade for a specific purpose/place, this could pose an problem, I assume. What do you think?

You must have seen the new ad for a sugar-substitute starring Bipasha Basu. The south Indian version has actress Shreya Saran. I don’t care how they look or what they do, but a URL caught my attention in the end.

If you are in no mood to see the ad. or you are not a fan of Bipasha Basu, here’s the last shot – captured for posterity.

I wanted to see what was in the URL that the brand thought it was absolutely essential to add it in the last shot of the ad.! Surely…there must be some more tips on how to stay fit…right? After all, it is added in the ad. for a call-to-action…to transition interested viewers from passive television viewing to interactive online medium…right?

The URL is www.steptofitness.in. Since it is not the brand’s actual website, we can safely assume that this is the much-discussed and much-dissed ‘microsite’!

And…it is nothing but a poster!

Of Bipasha Basu.

With exactly 2 links in it – one, a small box to load the ad again. Err, didn’t we land in this site AFTER seeing the ad? Why? You think we may want to ogle at Bipasha all night? That’s a reasonably convincing answer, if I say so myself.

The 2nd link is for the main website of the sugar-substitute, which, incidentally, does not have even a SINGLE mention of this step to fitness whatever…at least not within this branding that has been so visibly touted in the ad.

Apart from Bipasha’s face, there are 3 lines about how you should avoid taking the lift and walk up the stairs. It’s almost like writing the script of the ad that we saw…and landed in this ’site’.

The funniest sentence is in the bottom. It says, ‘For healthy living log on to www.steptofitness.in’. It is not hyperlinked with anything useful – it’s just a piece of text. Now…really? Aren’t we IN the site already?

That’s it…that is THE site!

With all due respect, I use this brand. Everyday. I have tried other brands like Relish, but I come back to this brand. Which is perhaps why I even noticed this ad…enough to see the ’site’.

It’s a pity that a website is being beamed on prime time television and it is nothing but a poster. If that is supposed to be a joke…the joke’s on the brand.

A rude one, at that!

PS 1: The brand’s actual website has more howlers. A prominent box in the footer says, ‘Follow us on Twitter‘. Ok…great idea – can I engage with my favorite brand of sugar substitute on Twitter? 7 tweets, 16 followers…since December 2, 2009.

Now, I do not want to make fun of this effort, but could someone please apply some common sense? When someone says ‘follow me’ (in plain English – forget Twitter), the first reaction, if you do not know that person, is…’why?’.

Couldn’t someone have thought of an answer and then started this Twitter profile? The answer manifests itself in assorted ways – the reason could be consistency….of updates, related to the brand or its space. It could be based on intelligence…of updates; about what people did not know about this product or its category. It could even be about something associated with the topic of healthy living/eating that the product category promotes indirectly.

Why bother with such half-hearted, pointless efforts and insult your own brand? Not being on Twitter is perfectly legal and acceptable – remember!

PS 2: I’m aware of all those research studies that say that aspartame/sugar-substitutes are harmful. This post is not about the veracity of those claims.

It possibly can!

Our resident, social media favorite, in India, ex-Minister Shashi Tharoor sent a strange tweet last night. It said,

“Hugely frustrated by Norton Security. Paid for &downloaded software, recd product key, but everytime I try to activate, am told key invalid”

Did he try calling customer support? May be. May be not.

Did he email Norton’s service guys? May be. May be not.

Did he tweet to vent his frustration? Oh yes, he did!

Just think about it – here, let me give you an example of how that looks like, in real life.

You are watching a phenomenally interesting match (cook up any sport – I’m not into sports). The cable connection (DTH?) snaps and you welcome it with a ‘What the F***?’. Your first instinct then is to reach out to your phone and call up the cable guy. If you have been put on hold by the cable guy or haven’t got the right response, you’re less likely to do it. So, the best thing you can do is sulk, given the circumstances.

But, there is another thing you can do these days. That is….open your balcony door….or simply get down to the central, common area in your apartment and shout at the top of your voice….’My cable TV has snapped – what can I do now? I so wanna see that match!’.

That, in essence, is what we all end up doing on Twitter. Since it’s real-time, people who are in their houses, when you shouted, will hear your bawling – the rest won’t. Same thing on Twitter – people who were active at that time when Mr. Tharoor was tweeting would have seen that tweet. He has 8 lakhs+ followers for heaven’s sake!

I noticed it and wanted to help Norton out – in case they have not tracked it themselves. Why? Because I like the product – I’ve been a user for the past 7 years and have had no issues with it. And have seen the product improve in terms of features and UI, steadily.

So, I tweeted,

“Norton you’ve a problem…sounds like ‘Houston we have a…’ no? @NortonOnline better see this! http://bit.ly/al3R68 Seen by 8 lakh people!”

My worry was that Norton had mentioned in it Twitter bio…this: “Welcome to the official Norton from Symantec Twitter channel. Share your thoughts. We’re listening: M-F: 8-5pm PST.” – so, will the time zone impact this?

Turned out…it did not! Norton sent a tweet to me and another person (who pointed this out to them)…this,

“@beastoftraal @rohit_agarwl Thanks for forwarding to us! We’re looking into @ShashiTharoor case right now & will contact him asap.”

They also tweeted this to Mr. Tharoor.

“@ShashiTharoor Thanks for reaching out to us on twitter. We’re looking into your situation right now and will contact you asap.”

And, they seemed to have pulled it. Tharoor tweeted this shortly thereafter,

“the power of Twitter: my tweeted frustration with Norton elicited an immediate call from a wonderfully helpful support person who solved it”

I love this! It’s one thing to get irritated about how our collective behavior has leaned towards public whining (due to bitter experiences with customer support…or the lack of it…I understand!)…and it’s a completely different thing to witness issues being resolved in real-time. More so when that issue is being beamed out to 8 lakhs+ people.

On the ‘moving the needle’ part – the next time you’re out in the market to buy a anti-virus, PC-security product, I’m sure you’ll add Norton in your consideration list…if it wasn’t in it, already. This experience may not make you rush out and buy Norton’s products, but it gives you a recall value…a very positive one at that!

Just one last question: If Mr. Tharoor was still  a minister…if someone in his constituency had a problem with something…can he resort to shouting it out at the middle of his city to get resolution? Or, do such tactics work only for profit-oriented multinational corporations?

I came across this Ragan piece titled, ‘Big-name consulting companies fail Twitter test‘, by Wendy Marx.

There is already a discussion thread about how PR companies do not blog or tweet from their official IDs enough and hence are incapable or not appropriate for handling clients’ blogs or twitter profile.

I’d like to think aloud here – is this charge like telling a film critic to be a good filmmaker before he can critique films?

Let me elaborate.

I know of quite a few social media gurus who are not active (hyperactive) online with their tweets or blog posts. But they are darn good in meeting clients’ expectations, getting internal teams to work on the mandate and deliver.

I assume there is a difference between visibly displaying your social media smarts…and applying it in a client perspective and deliver results. If you do both, that is ideal, of course!

There are many advertising and PR agencies which have a poor web presence…and even poorer social media presence. The problem is that someone should be doing them, but perhaps spend that time doing their personal web and social media presence. During a client meeting that personal profile is sold as the team’s and hence, agency’s profile too.

Is that a better and more honest representation of the agency’s skill given how an agency is nothing but its people? The agency, per se, may own a set of processes or tools and this is something that can be replicated across any agency, given time and resources.

But, it is people who bring unique perspectives to that agency and doesn’t it seem fair that they own their online profiles?

Take the Forrester case. Forrester issued a diktat that its people will share knowledge and insights only on official Forrester blogs. If those insights are gained using proprietary tools owned by Forrester, this suggestion makes perfect sense. But, if they are opinions and generic insights, wouldn’t it make more sense to bolster individual consultants’ profiles online than pooling everything in a brand-owned destination? The question is…what happens when the person/consultant leaves the organization?

The most common justification for the results concluded in the above link is, ‘If the agency cannot their own brand online, how can they handle others’?’.

Is handling one’s own brand a case study? Or is it only about handling a paid client’s brand? If you consider a personal branding example, we all own our personal brands and update our professional profiles on LinkedIn with great care. We talk about client work done and results. But, personal branding is uni-dimensional – we have just that to talk about. At best, we can get others to recommend or ratify that work.

For organizations and brands, the branding is multi-dimensional – they are a brand on their own, of course. But, the individual brands of people who work also gets tagged with the organizational brand.

So, is it enough if the organization talks (or makes case studies) of its paid clients’ work? Have you ever seen a social media agency talk about it’s own website, Facebook, or Twitter profile’s success? Does it matter?

Also, choosing one tool (Twitter) and talking about the respective organization’s delay in responding on that tool…is it a fair way to assume that they are as good/as bad with their client’s profiles? Is it just possible that they are busy dealing with client’s brands since the clients are paying and that work can end up as a case study?

If you think I’m taking sides, you’re mistaken. I’m merely thinking aloud. I know of enough agencies that have a kick-ass website and social presence…and struggling to find work. And an equal number of agencies which have horrendous online presence, but have super individual stars creating and sharing opinions on the subject and finding loads of clients!

Within the context of Wendy’s question on Twitter (that she posed to these big-name consulting firms), I agree it is a poor example that they have a Twitter presence but don’t necessarily check it in real time. That perhaps beats the purpose of being on Twitter and it’d be a better idea to remove that profile and not give an impression that they are out there in real time!

If you haven’t seen or heard what Old Spice is doing online…that must be one massive rock you are under. Get out it, will you, please?

Old Spice started it quite innocuously. There was an ad. It was blah, at least in my opinion. Last seen, Kareena Kapoor is doing something mildly similar for a Sony Vaio Vivid campaign in India.

This…is the Old Spice Man ad.

Now, I belong to a generation which will buy Old Spice only if it’s perhaps called New Spice. So, no wonder, I considered it blah. But then, they did something brilliant. The Old Spice Man invited comments and questions on assorted platforms like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube itself…and started answering them (selectively, of course) with a video…each!

So, let’s see what is unique here. The ad is shared online – this is routine. They invite comments and queries – routine again. But, as ReadWriteWeb explains the painstaking details, they respond to queries and comments using customized videos.

This is nothing unique again – there are many instances of live Twitter chat or Facebook chat that have shown that brands can interact in real time, albeit for a specific period of time. So, why did this campaign become incredibly popular then?

As I’ve always said, now sounding like a broken record, it is the content, stupid! (sorry – not you)

Just see/listen to the script (the writing!) in the videos. It is crisp, witty and so well worded, in almost all of them!

That holds the key to the campaign’s success. It is no doubt a humongous effort and involved 11 hours of work without break, but what makes this campaign a massive success is the quality of writing that went into it. That it was all done in real time with little supervision by the client is an operational miracle. And that it was packaged brilliantly in the form of short videos…even more super!

Without smart content, it wouldn’t have spread (virally, if I were to use that oft-abused word) this well. It went viral because people found it worthy enough of recommending and sharing with friends.That comes not from having the idea of doing video responses…or asking people to share comments/questions online…or sitting with a team for 11 hours…or using online promotional tactics to push it out aggressively. That comes from plain, good ‘ol writing. Everything else accentuated the main effort – strong content.

The equivalent of this is all those people who use great content to build and manage online communities – they are interacting too, mostly in real time and using language as a tool to reach out to, console, apologize or even assuage people (members, in community management parlance).

You can get people to sit on your community round the clock. You can get people to track all the brand mentions that Google or any paid tool can throw at you. But you need people with good, smart content creation skills to engage. That is precisely what this Old Spice commercial reiterates, all over again!

There is this added intelligence in the Old Spice campaign which identifies who they respond to – one of them happened to be a sick Kevin Rose (of Digg fame). Instead of simply saying ‘Get well soon, Kev!’, here’s what the Old Spice Man said.

It’s no wonder Kevin Rose was compelled to tweet this!

HOLY SH*T, best get well video EVER from the old spice man!: http://bit.ly/dpSeOs

I hate writing blog posts that hide critical names/information, but in the interest of the concerned parties, I’m forced to do so, this time!

I’m part of myriad groups online and one such group is a city-based ‘blogging’ group. Do not ask me if all members in the group blog…blog regularly or even blog at all. I do not know.

I noticed a mail from a social media agency representative, to the group last week and it simply said that one of their clients, a globally known fast food chain was interested in hosting a ‘blogger’s meet’ for the members of this group!

Hmm, that’s interesting! The first thought that crossed my mind – why this fast food chain and why this group? Did the group display any specific affinity towards fast food, or the kind of grub this chain is known for? I do not recollect seeing any.

So, if the blogger’s meet happens, what does the fast food chain get out of that? Are they planning to offer free food for the members when they meet in their outlet? Should they ‘blog’ about the experience? The details will perhaps be worked out, but it was vague in the mail.

And to think I/we (in the past) trawled all over the web to find people, in a city, who may have expressed something about a client or it’s industry before even shortlisting them for a blogger meet/tweetup!! It was a humongous effort to make sure that every participant who lands up has something at least remotely to do with the brand, brand profile or brand’s industry. Of course, we did invite the so-called local social networking stars too…they seem to be the drivers in getting others!

That brings me to point 2…local social media stars!

If you are in an agency, doing something remotely to do with social media, you’d have come across them.

Even in the above example, one of the local social media stars offered to be the ’spokesperson’ of the group, while, I believe the group has a moderator too (someone must have started the group and IS the moderator!). That’s where an interesting turn occurred.

Another member blamed the group for 2 things – that the group’s inertia in meeting more often is broken by a commercial brand offering it’s venue. And, that the group may be pimping/slutting itself just because a brand is calling them!

The debate went on a tangent from this point onwards about the ethics of that fast food brand and about the fact that a brand is calling them (via a social media agency) for a meet for no specific purpose but to grace their outlet. It went on to such an extent that the social media agency representative who opened this offer posted an apology message to the group! The brand or the social media agency’s head may have noticed the debate, I suppose!

This is an interesting direction for all things blogging/tweeting in India.

First, the brand or its agency did not consider what it could have gained out of it or, more importantly, what is in it for the people it is inviting.

Second, the pimping/slutting angle is very similar to last year’s outrage in the US about blogging for cash/gifts. The amazing thing is that in the US, there was at least a blog post as a quid pro quo…here, in India, given the abysmal state of blogging, even that is missing. It is simply akin to a brand selling its wares outside a college campus…just that, an online group has taken the place of a physical destination.

Now, just imagine, what would the group members do, after the bloggers’ meet? Will they write about the experience? Possibly, if that experience was customized and memorable in some way. What is the main tone likely to be – that we got free grub at this fast food joint for just being a member in this group? Is that likely to increase sales? It could increase word of mouth, but wouldn’t that mean extra membership for the group, in the hope that they will be called the next time the fast food chain organizes another free-for-all?

Forget ethics – that’s a deeper thought. Just look at it from what the brand gains for the effort in time, store space and free food value. How different is it from just opening the doors of the outlet and letting people have free grub? Just because the door opening was done, figuratively, online, does it become ’social media engagement’?

Compare this to the traditional marketing technique of announcing a contest, where you’re asked to buy a pack of something and write a slogan. That at least had 2 elements – purchase and a mild show of skill, to win the prize. This invitation sure seems like a new way of doing ’social media marketing’!

Two Indian journalists were recently seen sharing some opinions about PR agencies.

The Economic Times’ Joji Philip, among other things, said,
“in general, i have nothing against PR pros, they are doing their job – but some methods are wrong”

In the same conversation, Kushan Mitra, from Business Today, said,
“it is the duplicity I can’t stand. And the inbox clogging attachments. There is a reason I like certain agencies. Honesty.”

I have to add here that the above opinions are a lot more diplomatic and polite than what you may hear in person, from many media folks. But, these did set me thinking. Are PR agencies doing it wrong, most of the times? Definitely not – there are many things that are done right, but it perhaps would help to articulate the basics, once more.

So, when I ask, ‘How do you do PR?’, forgot all those academic explanations of public relations and how it is suposed to be done. Let’s talk ground realities.

Is this what PR does, hands-on?

1. Get a detailed brief from the client on what their objectives are – business-wise and communications-wise
2. Understand who they are targetting their business at
3. Identify target media who could impact that target segment
4. Create engaging content and communicate that with the target media periodically

Largely? Now consider what really happens.

Brief? Yes, this is something that is usually adhered to, across agencies. The better agencies ask more and more questions to clearly understand the clients’ priorities.

Target audience? Yes, a subset of the one above. Works, mostly.

Target media? Largely works, but there are sporadic cases of the wrong journalist targeted and they vent their anger, these days, on Twitter.

Content?

Here’s the problem.

Is PR about content? Or, is it about relationships?

I’d tend to opt for the former.

Journalists’ job is to report and talk about what is happening. They rely on a lot of sources for leads about news/information and one such source is the PR agency. So, a basic relationship is essential, no doubt. But, what does that relationship guarantee to the PR professional? Coverage for the client? Mentions about the client in the story the journalist is filing?

Why would it guarantee coverage? Isn’t the job of the journalist to stay true to his story and publication and report/write about only that which makes sense from the story’s perspective?

Would he plug your client just because you have a good working relationship with that journalist? Perhaps once. Or twice. But beyond that wouldn’t his story and it’s focus matter more than the relationship – he needs to justify his job too, right?

Next, how is that relationship built? By smoking together? Drinking together? Calling up many times? Of course not. Ideally, that relationship is built on respect. Respect for each other’s intelligence and capabilities.

What intelligence? The intelligence to connect your client’s story to what the journalist covers, in his ‘beat’, usually.

What capabilities? The capability to communicate that connection in an interesting manner, enough to attract the journalist’s attention.

So, it gets all down to content. The intelligence part is your own, but to impress a journalist enough to respect you, you need content that is appropriate to him/her and makes for interesting conversation with him/her.

Content is, therefore, king. It always will be.

The way you deliver that content is where PR professionals can add value, but content is the base. With vacuous content, however well you deliver, it will not help, in the end. Which is why PR profession is being ridiculed, in general. All talk and no content, is the crux of it.

It also matters when you have the guts to go back to a client and tell him/her if the base content (the news) you are asked to ’sell’ to media is weak. If it is weak, it is – you can try to mask it with interesting numbers and data, but you need to have enough intelligence and discretion to identify weak content…from the point of view of what the target journalist needs. So, when you are telling your client that it is weak, you are doing the client a favor, because nobody needs to waste their time in selling weak content and get reprimanded from respective bosses later over the no-show. The alternative, while telling the client the truth, is to ask for additional information that can strengthen the content so that it becomes better.

What about the venerable press release, you may ask.

The ‘press release’ is merely a tool, to get an idea across. It is not the news, by itself. Press releases were hand-delivered long back; faxed, sometime back and are emailed now. The process, in general, is to email it and call the journalist who has recieved it, to check if he has recieved it. Duh?

Is that the point of sending and calling a journalist? Of course not. The sending part is easy – and done, in a matter of seconds. But the calling is done to ’sell’ it. And selling involves what I wrote above. The point is to make yourself and your piece of news (carried within the press release) stand out among the numerous other press releases that the journalist may have got on any given day.

For that to happen, go back to the basics again.

Is your press release interesting to read, from the perspective of the journalist’s ‘beat’?

Do you have a ‘top 3 messages’ crux on what the journalist should look at if the world is ending in the next 2 minutes? Is it on the release? If not, can you communicate that without beating around the bush and more like an elevator pitch?

Have you done anything at all, creatively, in your email or its subject line to let it stand out among the clutter in a journalist’s inbox?

No? Then you’re just one among the millions and it is no wonder media hates PR professionals. It is both not interesting and not customized. The only reason why a journalist may still listen to you on the phone is perhaps because you helped him with good content some time ago….so don’t push your luck too much.

The practical problem is in scaling all these, to multiple clients. But that is a factor of team and time management.

So, please get back to basics. If it is about content, get your language right. Package relevant and sensible content creatively and confidently ’sell’ it to media. It’s about time PR in India got some respect back, as a profession.

Photo courtesy: The Visions Of Kai, via Flickr.

Here’s an advertisement from today’s (June 27, 2010) The Times of India (click on it to enlarge).

Notice the Facebook and Twitter URL in it? I completely understand the reason behind adding the website URL, but why add the other 2 URLs?

If you do see those links – they have 9 followers on Twitter and 8 friends on Facebook (as of now!). The last updates on both is in the end of February 2010. On Facebook, there is just one update, welcoming themselves! Even more interesting – the Facebook URL is a profile…not a page. The page (see this!) is no better, with 12 members (or ‘likes’).

So, why add these links at all? To garner followers/friends?

If so, does this ad. or anything in either their twitter timeline or Facebook page indicate a reason for people to either follow them or add them as a friend?

Personally, I don’t see any. If there was some contextual update about the properties advertised in the ad., on the Twitter timeline or FB profile/page, I can understand that readers may make the connect between print and online properties and perhaps ask some information. That’s missing too.

So, why bother? I have no idea – if you know why or could possibly think of a reason why adding a follower-less or friend-less Twitter/FB URL with no recent updates makes sense in some way, please do let me know.

Some time back, there were helpful blog posts and articles in media on how not to use social media. One of the caveats was about how we’re not supposed to share information that we will not share in real life – the joke was, ‘Never share anything that you’d not share with your mother, priest and lawyer’…or something along those lines.

Let me add on to it – would you tweet or blog about your client?

This is more appropriate for folks in public relations and advertising (and other client servicing industries). While we all tweet and blog about our negative experiences about brands, do we take adequate precaution before sharing something like that about a client or even a potential client with whom we’re discussing business?

Should we, or should we not crib about a client/potential client?

If my blog (or twitter feed) is to be treated like a media source (assuming!), would I be happy if my morning newspaper doesn’t report something bad from an advertising partner?

Is that the kind of relationship I share with my readers (on any social network – ignore personal discussions)?

There are varying levels of information here,

1. There can be information that is negative – a client or a potential client may have bungled on service or product quality
2. Withholding information – I know that a client or a potential client is up to something that is not necessarily in the interest of consumers (I’m one too?) and I do not share that information
3. There can be information that should be communicated only by the client, first – this could be termed as material information and here, it is obvious that a vendor should not be sharing this at all, under any circumstance.

The issue is when I, as a consumer, more than a vendor, get affected by either 1, or 2. For example, if I’m in advertising, and servicing an airline brand…if I get horrendously delayed by my client’s flight, should I tweet or blog about it, expressing my displeasure? I’m fairly certain of it’s repercussions, particularly when I know that the client has a team tracking the social media space for conversations about them. Worse, I myself could be the vendor handling their social media listening program.

Then, if I have a auto brand as a client and I come to know that a particular model of vehicle is slated to be phased out starting a particular date – and I know that there are a quite a few people on my twitter timeline who are planning to buy that model because of the recent price cuts (in preparation of the phasing out that is not yet communicated explicitly). What is my obligation, as a blogger/content creator/tweeter…more than a vendor servicing a client?

Now, put these instances in real life.

I’d obviously come home late from that delayed flight and crib to my wife and perhaps my friend in office/apartment. Verbally. It doesn’t travel much.

If I knew some friend, personally, planning to buy that to-be-phased model, I’d ask him to wait, by explaining the reason. Verbally. It doesn’t travel much, technically, but that friend could pass it on and depending on how influential he is, it could spread – the unnamed source could be me!

So, what are the rules here?

Personally, I have not declared in my blog and twitter profile that I’ll share nothing but the truth. I have not declared that I will not lie, but that doesn’t mean all my tweets and blog posts are a lie. I do not consider the relation between me (as a blogger or a twitter user) and my readers (followers on twitter and blog readers) as that between a magazine and it’s reader – but again, things do go grey when you have advertising on your blog. What if you have sold space on your blog for a particular brand of car and you write only positive things about it? There is an auto-correction mechanism and people could figure that out, but more often than not, it doesn’t happen as fast or as smooth.

From my perspective, if I tweet about a client (for something that went wrong) and the client asks me not to, I wouldn’t think twice before stopping such tweets – more than a content creator, shouldn’t I be bothered more about my welfare?

Think about it – if you’re in PR and are handling contentious clients (like BP, maybe?), what will you do, if a media guy on twitter is asking for your personal opinion about something your client has bungled? It impacts you too, as an individual, more than a vendor. You’re bound to safeguard or improve the reputation of your client, but could have a conflicting opinion about them, within yourself.

With us getting more vocal online, this conflict is bound to magnify. Earlier, all you could do was perhaps request yourself out of that client since you do not believe in them and cannot justify within you of handling their image. But now, you have a life far beyond your immediate comfort zone of home/office/weekend pub, thanks to social media.

What will you do? I only have some hazy answers above, so feel free to comment.