PR 101

Bloggers note: I am aware that sometimes typos show up in the blog. I lost my proofreader to a better job. Please have some patience. No one should ever edit themselves. I do appreciate when any of you points out a typos so I can make a correction.

An interview with City University of New York Associate Professor Jeff Jarvis on National Public Radio last week actually made me pull my car over so I could listen carefully and take notes. He was talking about the French Prime Minister’s Nicholas Sarkozy’s suggestion that governments regulate the Net.

While I normally confine my blogs to marketing, public relations and social media, Jarvis reported on something that could affect all two billion Net users worldwide. So I felt I had to write about it. We all need to stand up, take notice, and in my opinion, oppose any effort by any government attempt to control the Web.

Jarvis is the university’s director of the Interactive Program and director of the Tow-Knight Center for Entrepreneurial Journalism. Among his many accomplishments, Jarvis is a national leader in the development of online news, blogging, and other forms of collaborative journalism, blogs at Buzzmachine.com and is the is author of the book, What Would Google Do?

In short the man is an Internet expert.

Prior to the regular G-8 meeting, Sarkozy held an “e-G8” meeting to which the German news site Der Spiegel said he invited three of the world’s most powerful Internet luminaries to a forum in Paris: Eric Schmidt, the executive chairman of Google, the world’s largest search engine; Mark Zuckerberg, the founder and head of Facebook, the world’s largest social-networking site, with more than 650 million users; and Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon, the world’s largest online retailer. Many other Netizans, including Jarvis, went to the event.

Incidentally, note that the power trio is all Americans.

The gist of Sarkozy wants to do is having governments control the Internet. In his view, governments have a legitimate right to regulate the Web as they are only representatives of a country’s cititzens. He argues that things such as child pornography and terrorism have to be dealt with by governments.

“More than three years ago, Sarkozy declared war on the Web,” Der Spiegel reported. “At the time, he referred to it as a “Wild West” and characterized it as an ‘extralegal zone.’ In the style of an Internet Napoleon, he announced his intention to ‘civilize the Internet.’ Since then, he has pursued regulation with nothing short of missionary zeal.”

Curiously, I saw no coverage of this in the U.S. media. I guess they were too busy eating canapés and hobnobbing with dignitaries to notice something this important.

Jarvis said he attended the meeting as an Internet citizen.

“The net is also a new society,” Jarvis wrote in a Huffington Post blog. “That idea is confounding to nations of laws because the net’s own sovereignty depends upon no one having sovereignty over it. That is how it was designed. That is its core principle.

“So it doesn’t behave like a new land that, in Sarkozy’s view, needs civilizing.”

Sarkozy’s argument about crime on the Internet is, in my view, a Trojan horse. Once government can regulate any part of the Net, it will try to regulate it all.

That’s why we has marketers should be worried. Many countries are particularly protectionist. Suppose you have a client based in Ireland that wants to market its products in Singapore. But for whatever reason, the government of Singapore decides it doesn’t want the Irish marketing in their country. If they can control the Net, they can block any attempt by that Irish company to market its wares. Do you want a government telling you how you can market?

Give a government official control of the Net and free access to information will end. Frankly, I think governments are worried that the Internet is causing them to lose control. If they cannot control the sources of information, they have less control over their people.

Think about the Arab Spring. It was pushed and helped by the Internet. Think about what China and other repressive countries would do if their efforts stifle free expression were granted legitimacy.

We all need to oppose what Sarkozy is doing. He says he is just trying to help.

I am not a big believer in anyone offering to help me if I don’t ask for it. As Henry David Thoreau said: “If I knew for a certainty that a man was coming to my house with the conscious design of doing me good, I should run for my life.”

Wednesday I wrote about the consequences of posting insulting, immature and just plain stupid stuff on the Internet. I received a lot of questions about what a policy should be for social media use in a business or other public place. So here’s JJC Communications LLC rules for employee social media use.

First, it is wrong, and frankly almost impossible, to block employees from using social media use during work hours. As a social media agency, the people who work at JJC Communications are supposed to be using social media. It is one of the things we do for clients, so we be better be doing it.

Yes, you can block access to any site on your company’s system. But if your employees have their own smart phones; they have access during the day. Or they can just go home at night and say what they want. As technology advances, it is getting easier and easier for them to do it anonymously. Better to have them do it where you can monitor what they do.

Actually, a lot of good can come from allowing your employees access to the Internet. Your employees are your brand ambassadors. They have much more credibility with the general public than your advertising ever will. When I see an employee using their company’s products, I assume they take pride in what they do. That’s a powerful selling point.

There is fear among a lot of senior executives about letting their people access Facebook, or Tweet, do something else during work hours. There are concerns it will turn into a timewaster, an employee will reveal some company secret, or get the company in legal trouble.

Let me deal with those three:

• Show me an employee who doesn’t waste at least some time doing something other than work. In my time, I have run fantasy baseball pools; participated in chair races; figured out my NCAA pool entries and done a dozen other things that would not be considered productive labor. Wouldn’t you rather your employee posting something good about your company instead of playing Angry Birds?
• Every company who allows Internet access has to have – let me repeat that – has to have a manual for Internet use. The U.S. Air Force’s policy is that if a 19-year-old is old enough to die for their country, he or she is old enough to blog or use Facebook. However, each member of the Air Force is issued a manual that covers the do’s and don’ts of Internet use. Break any of those rules and an Airman will have serious explaining to do to their commanding officer.
• As for legal trouble, it is true the Internet is the Wild West of the law. How do you deal with a situation where your employee rips a company in Singapore? That employee might have violated the law in Singapore, but not in the United States. Where do the various doctrines of U.S. law enter the picture? My feeling that Internet is going end up being governed by something akin to Admiralty law, which determines the rule for the oceans. At any rate, here I always urge clients to error on the sign of caution. Make sure that Internet use manual includes a section on U.S. law.

One more thing about the manual. As part of any employee orientation, spend some time going over your Internet policy. Make sure every employee signs something acknowledging they know and understand the policy.

We at the agency do not allow completely open access. Accessing any pornographic, racist, or extremist sites is going to get an employee into a whole heap of trouble. People are told that when they get hired. We monitor those kinds of things. Of course, there is no criticizing clients publically. That would obviously be counterproductive. There is no revealing anything we are working on until we are ready to make it public.

In addition, there is no discussing any other employee either internally or externally. We also expect employees not libel or slander anyone. The AP Stylebook has an excellent section on libel and slander.

We have other rules, but they are designed to make things clearer, not more difficult.

The bottom line is that the Internet is something that never sleeps, never stops and is always accessible. It better to learn how to swim then forbid your employees to jump into the water. Remember, forbidden fruit, and forbidden access, just makes people want something more.

Do people lose their ability to think critically when they read a blog, a Tweet, or anything posted on the Internet? I have seen some of the most outlandish claims made on social media sites. That doesn’t surprise me. The people that make those claims have always been out there. They now just have a bigger megaphone.

What surprises me is how many people believe what they read. They apparently have no built-in B.S. filter. Seeing something posted on Facebook or tweeted apparently bestows some kind of seal of approval. Well, to time burst that bubble. People can and do lie on the Internet all the time. As a reader and a consumer you have to determine whether what a company is telling you, or a blogger is saying, is true.

Here are two things that spread all over the net in which everyone should have known better to ever believe. The first one is funny; the second one had serious repercussions that are still being felt around the world.

In the first case, the Weekly World News reported that Mark Zuckerberg was exhausted. So exhausted that in fact he was going to shut down Facebook. The Weekly World News is the same “newspaper” that reports that aliens regularly meet with the president of the United States and other world leaders.

“The questionable story apparently sent Facebook users into a panic,” The New York Daily News reported. “The phrase “is Facebook shutting down” was the 14th most searched for on Google Saturday (Jan. 8th) and the 10th most as of Sunday (Jan.9th) morning.

“On Facebook itself, groups like “Against shutting down Facebook on 15th of March” popped up with the slogan “No Facebook, No Party”. On Twitter, users fretted about what would happen to their pictures – not to mention social lives.”
That people believed this amazes me. I assume that it spread through the Internet pretty quickly. Didn’t anyone check the source? Didn’t anyone notice Facebook is thinking of going public?

Remember what I said in Monday’s blog about the need for speed when it comes to social media. This is a perfect example of why. Many people will believe something no matter how outlandish it might seem.

Facebook quashed the rumor Sunday evening by issuing a press release saying it had no plans to close. “We didn’t get the memo about shutting down, so we’ll keep working away,” the company said. “We aren’t going anywhere; we’re just getting started.”
The second rumor actually began about 12 years ago. While the conventional media initially spread it, social media kept it alive a lot longer than it should of. In this case, people died because of the idiocy of others.
In this case, “in 1998 English Doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in another British medical journal, The Lancet suggesting that the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine could cause autism,” The Washington Post reported. “The study triggered international alarm about vaccines, but quickly came under intense criticism, was discredited by follow-up research, and was eventually formally retracted by the journal.

“Nevertheless, the incidence of childhood measles rose in Great Britain and elsewhere after Wakefield’s study was published, as worried parents refused to have their children vaccinated against the potentially deadly disease. Parents have also shunned other vaccines. And even after Wakefield’s work was debunked, he continues his research in the United States and to have loyal, highly vocal supporters.”

There were four reported deaths of children in England and Ireland caused by their parents’ failure to immunize them with the MMR vaccine. Hundreds of children were unnecessarily ill because of the failure to immunize.

As a personal note, I had measles as a child. That was before the vaccine was developed. I was very, very ill. I do not recommend any parent putting their child through that.

Yet despite all of the evidence to the contrary, there are people out there who still insist that it was a vaccine that caused their child’s Autism. Google Autism and vaccines and look at the some of the results. A study released last March said one in four Americans believe there is a link between Autism and vaccinations. Despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, people seem more willing to believe bloggers and others using social media. It just amazes me. I don’t understand it.

As my late father used to say: “people don’t seem to know how to use the brains they were born with.” To which my grandfather would add: “there’s so sense in being stupid unless you can demonstrate it.”