ESPN, Marines Restricting Social Media

image userpic
August 6, 2009 | BY Jason Douglas
  

Jason Douglas

Spyder Trap Online Marketing

Yesterday, Ric Bucher of ESPN sent a tweet from his personal account stating: ‘The hammer just came down, tweeps: ESPN memo prohibiting tweeting info unless it serves ESPN. Kinda figured this was coming. Not sure what this means but’. On Monday, the Marines issued an order banning social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace within its network. Each is an example of censorship, but for two very different reasons.

ESPN, like many companies, have employees that are visible not only on television, but in the social media world. These employees are an extension of the brand that ESPN has built over the last 30 years. With that comes a large responsibility to represent your company as best as possible. There is a fear that within this ‘new’ method of communicating called social media and with information available instantly, if something improper is said, it will spread like wildfire and may have a negative impact on the individual and the company they represent.

There are two approaches to take here: you an either set guidelines for how to approach social media (in this case: Twitter); or you can choose to trust your employees, and allow them to interact with fans, readers, and other athletes who are using Twitter or social media as their platform to announce newsworthy happenings about themselves. We know which approach ESPN went with.

ESPN

Within ESPN’s memo full of guidelines, included were the following points:
• The first and only priority is to serve ESPN sanctioned efforts, including sports news, information and content
• Assume at all times you are representing ESPN

Maybe I am about to react because the above statements are hitting me differently than others. When you are hired by a company, does that mean you are, in a sense, owned by that company? Are you always on call for that company? Are you ever ‘off the clock’?

If this is the way that ESPN wants to treat social media, they are about to miss the point of social media: two-way communication. One thing about us here at Spyder Trap is that we tell clients that social media is all about communication, engaging with fans, followers, etc. Anyone that just pumps out their own content and does not try to engage with people will not be successful or respected in the social media world.

Giving fans of ESPN the opportunity to communicate and converse with their favorite personality increases the brand perception of ESPN. You are humanizing the personalities, and at the same time, gaining more fans of ESPN. This is now no longer possible due to ESPN’s restrictions.

Marines:

Their restriction of social media sites boils down to one simple word: security. This is an easy out for them. Within their memo, the following is stated:

“THESE INTERNET SITES IN GENERAL ARE A PROVEN HAVEN FOR MALICIOUS ACTORS AND CONTENT AND ARE PARTICULARLY HIGH RISK DUE TO INFORMATION EXPOSURE, USER GENERATED CONTENT AND TARGETING BY ADVERSARIES. THE VERY NATURE OF SNS CREATES A LARGER ATTACK AND EXPLOITATION WINDOW, EXPOSES UNNECESSARY INFORMATION TO ADVERSARIES AND PROVIDES AN EASY CONDUIT FOR INFORMATION LEAKAGE THAT PUTS OPSEC, COMSEC, PERSONNEL AND THE MCEN AT AN ELEVATED RISK OF COMPROMISE. EXAMPLES OF INTERNET SNS SITES INCLUDE FACEBOOK, MYSPACE, AND TWITTER.”

Really? In all caps?

This is an example how having certain restrictions can help solve security fears. Instead of banning social networking sites (SNS), implementing some form of privacy requirements, having an approval process for who’s following you, who’s your friend, what groups you are a part of, etc; would be a better solution.

I have a close friend who is in Iraq with the U.S. Army. Usually, we converse by writing letters and sending care packages, etc. Instead, I know he will be on Facebook at the same time nearly every day, which is how we are able to connect, via Facebook chat. I know that since he is able to communicate with myself and his family most every day in real time, his time over in Iraq has been easier to deal with. If that was taken away from him and the rest of the Army, it could be a demoralizing blow to each member.

Does your workplace have any rules regarding social media? If so, I would like to hear about your company’s policy. If your company instituted a policy restricting your use and presence in social media, would that change your perception of your workplace? Would you look elsewhere for employment?

Tags: , , , , , , .
Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.lizgiel.com Liz

    This topic is sort of tough, because I think the concerns about security are valid. But potential security issues don’t disappear alongside social media. Geraldo didn’t even need Facebook or Twitter to disclose the whereabouts of US troops in Iraq. :)

    I think you make a great point Jason. There must be some better way to address these security concerns instead of blocking all of the sites. Many institutions (ie: hospitals) have to take similar precautions.

  • Jason

    You made some great points here, Jason. I can understand both organizations rationale for blocking all SNS content. It’s undoubtedly the easiest approach – just block everyone and the problem goes away. Rules take time to develop and must be enforced. It could get expensive…

    As the “voice” of our company (our Marketing & Sales Manager), I use social sites to let customers know that we’re open to communication. That we want to know what they’re thinking. That we’re interested in having some fun with our brands. Social networking is business – but it’s also a way to put an entertaining and useful spin on your company and its products.

    On that note, production workers and other technical employees, in my viewpoint, don’t need to be using these sites on company time. There’s no corporate benefit, whatsoever. I know when the guy across from me is on Facebook. And he’s on there to look at friends profiles, not to add value to the company. In this instance, blocking content on user PC’s is not a bad idea. Some people just can’t handle the freedom that the internet offers.

    Every new technology comes with new rules of the road. I hope companies seriously consider the advantages and disadvantages of SNS before making any decision.

  • Bob

    Jason,

    I love your passion for social media but when it comes to social media too often people feel that it should come without rules and that going forward anyone from any company should be able to say what ever they want whenever they want. In reality you have to take it in a case by case basis and while you can always show how some companies embrace it and are successful with it, it doesn’t mean all companies need to do it nor will fail because they don’t.

    In the two cases you provide I completely disagree with your points. Before I go forward please note that I am a huge advocate for social media and what comes from it.

    ESPN View: You forget one very important aspect of content providers and the way in which they operate. When you are a writer at a company such as ESPN, you know what you are signing up for. You sign on with ESPN under the agreement that basically says this “we love what you do and we want you to do it for us and we are going to give you a lot of money to do it, with that said don’t forget that you now work for ESPN and ESPN’s voice and opinions. To ensure that you follow your end of the bargain we have in place these people who we call “Editors” who we also pay a lot of money to make sure that what you say is unique all the while true to ESPN and its brands.”

    By ESPN limiting social media all they are doing is protecting their assets, interests and brand. Sure some people may get all hot and bothered by it but it is the way it is and it won’t hurt them in the least. If the writers don’t like it they can always go somewhere else. And yes when you are a writer or content creator you do work 24/7 for the company. That is why they call it a salary. It is the way it works these days and it pretty much goes for any CEO or top executive of any company. (Remember the people are the company)

    Army Example: Are you kidding me? Did you actually try to say that social media is the only thing that is helping keep the troops spirits up while in Iraq? If that is the case then please send all those troops home as I don’t think they are cut out for the job they signed up for. Don’t get me wrong I love the troops and have family over there right now but I have never heard them once say that the only thing that is keeping them going over there is Facebook. They have a job to do and it is a scary one and if limiting the amount of “Facebooking” some troop does over better ensures that my friends and family come home alive and safe then so be it.

    So, like I said social media is a good thing, and I love it, but it is not the only thing and there is a time and place for it and people and companies should not be so scrutinized if they choose to not allow it. For some reason there is a movement of people saying that social media is a right but in actuality it is just a choice.

  • http://www.twitter.com/mikerynchek Mike Rynchek

    Bob,

    I think you raise some very interesting points. In discussing with Jason, we try to best represent the ideals of the firm in which we are hired. It is an interesting discussion and balance to decide what is quality information that will generate involvement and engagement rather than being viewed as social spam or overly corporate. Whenever we work with a client (as any marketer faces) we need to of course stay within legal boundaries while trying to inform consumer groups.

    With regards to the troops. I think Jason, did a great job leaving this topic open to interpretation. As you mentioned, this of course is a case by case basis. I’m sure some view social media connections as a lifeline back home to families they so dearly missed. I agree, security is a major concern.

    Finally, to your last point. As a marketer I agree there is a time and place for social media and of course at the end of the day it is the companies decision to participate or choose not to participate.

    Thanks again for your feedback. You have brought a very interesting perspective to this topic.

    Mike

  • http://scottjhale.com Scott

    Jason, I think you did a great job of giving a personal perspective to the Army debate. It is easy to say blocking SM for security is a fine idea, but when it comes to maintaining sanity and connection to home, it becomes more complicated. I understand they have a job to do, but I’m all for anything that makes it easier. I’m on the fence for the Army situation.

    On the ESPN side, I don’t agree with their new policy. ESPN may have editors (as Bob said), but they also have HR managers that are tasked with hiring people that will represent the brand and work intelligently. If a company blocks SNS, they are telling me that they do not trust their employees. In that case, why did they hire them? Hardly anybody would argue that ESPN employees are the cream of the crop when it comes to sports reporting, analysis, and communication. They should have the intelligence to represent ESPN in any PUBLIC MEDIUM.

    Good post, thanks.

    - Scott

    P.S. Tony Kornheiser addressed the new ESPN policy on PTI the other day by saying he would not stop tweeting – will they fire him?

  • Bob

    Everyone,

    Great posts and great opinions. All are very smart and well said. In regards to the comment about how companies have HR who’s job is to hire people they can trust etc etc etc. Yes I agree with that to a point but don’t honestly think for a second that every content provider for big brands have not been given their warning or told how long their leash is when it comes to what they say, when they say it and how they say it. Even someone like Tony K has a producer that keeps him in check during PTI. All content providers and brands understand that if one of them screws up both of their names get dragged through the mud, hence why brands like ESPN need to be careful with how much content their employees submit to the public without review.

    I think a good example of a worse case Scenario of why brands are scared of what their staff says “off the cuff” would be when Don Imus got canned at NBC for his racist comments. Sure it was Don who said everything but NBC’s name was always right next to his whenever the story was brought up in print and video. Brands don’t forget those type of events and everyone knows how much money NBC lost when it happened.

    Hence why it is not hard to understand why ESPN did what they did. I don’t like it but I understand it.

    ESPN’s content providers are very colorful and with today’s social media tools it is very easy for one of them to quickly want to react to a situation and send out a Tweet etc that could potentially ruffle a lot of feathers and you can be sure that if that happens (which it would have eventually) that ESPN’s brand would get dragged through the mud just because they pay them for their day job. Its sad but its true.