More on the topic of your personal-professional social media profile: 12 Ways to Keep Your Online Reputation Trim And Fit For the New Year. I discovered this piece on MyOnlineCareerCoach.com. Even a reasonably experienced social media user might have overlooked a few of these tips.
In the process of exploring and discussing issues related to personal branding in a digital social media era, I’ve had occasion to find perspectives that add to the subject. As long as I’m on that topic, I’ll post links to articles and sites I think are of value:
- “How revealing is your digital footprint?” by Mike Ramer (@MikeRamer), appearing in the Financial Post Executive Blog. In his post, he shows how visible many of us have made ourselves online. Rather than focus on a horror story about this, he shows how doing a little research prior to an interview or presentation can uncover invaluable information about the people you’re trying to impress and influence. That extra insight can help you better prepare to speak their language. Just be careful not to reveal too much of what you’ve learned lest you come off as a stalker.
- RecruitingBlogs.com is a visual face-slap of a site that aggregates the knowledge and opinions of numerous recruiters. You’ll find – once you work through the clutter – lists of recruitment stars on Twitter with recent tweets, an entire blog posts section (go there for the most readily usable information for job-seekers and non-professionals) and links to tools and events for recruitment pros.
So many have written so much about personal branding in a social media era. If you’re in advertising, marketing or related fields, being present and well-connected online is table stakes. Simply put, being fully credible nowadays requires you to have a reasonably well-rounded online profile. (That criterion easily extends to just about any professional services field, like law, real estate, finance, technology and others.)
LinkedIn (and its distant competitors Naymz and Plaxo), Facebook and Twitter are all mainstream or mainstream-trending venues for professional presence. Then there are tools like Google Profile, along with any number of special-purpose platforms to tempt us.
But let’s face it. For business – pure business – LinkedIn might be the most important place to strut your professional stuff. Group activities aside, it’s not as robust as Twitter for real-time interaction. Yet it is for all intents your online resume-portfolio-Rolodex.
But who owns your profile? Most legal experts and LinkedIn members might reflexively declare that ownership is in the hands of the person profiled. But there have been occasional instances of challenge and subversion.
For example, a former client of mine contacted me and asked if I would write a LinkedIn recommendation for him. No problem, it’s just that I already had. Confused by his request, I sent an e-mail asking him what was up. He explained that he had been locked out of his LinkedIn profile when his former company closed shop and took down their e-mail system. My friend’s sole access was via that e-mail address and so he was effectively locked out of his own house.
Using LinkedIn and Twitter I floated the question of who owns or controls our professional online profiles – important parts of our personal brands. The options:
- Your employer merely has an interest in your profile. They should care but have no say unless you are misusing or misrepresenting your association with them.
- Your employer may provide guidelines on LinkedIn use while you are on their payroll. They might even provide boilerplate copy about the company for you to use. They might even encourage employees to be on LinkedIn. But there is no overt control.
- The final option is that a company declares outright control of an employee’s LinkedIn profile so long as the company is listed in the profile.
You might think you know the answer, but I’m getting a range of responses on what should be and what actually happens.
What do you think? Who should control your online brand. And what level of interest from your employer seems fair – from both your perspective and theirs? Share your opinions and examples with us here.
Yesterday’s Agency Babylon post questioning Apple’s wisdom in expanding its relationship solely with AT&T Wireless turned out to be more timely than imagined. Near the top of today’s business news (see New York Times and Mashable) is AT&T’s announcement that it will invest $2 billion this year to improve its highly criticized wireless network infrastructure. (No claims to global influence or clairvoyance here, but don’t I wish it was so.)
In a fit of unusual restraint, I held my powder on the related topic of Apple’s awkward name choice for its new device. But it’s not going unmolested elsewhere (see the CNN report). The iPad name is the butt of spoofs, tacky variations, second-guessing and widespread tittering. What were they thinking, I wonder. The name has possibly more things going against it than for it. In addition to the unfortunate reminders of personal hygiene products (see the 2005 MADtv iPad sketch) they face:
- Global language and speech understanding barriers: iPod and iPad can sound very similar in some languages, and are subject to misunderstanding with regional and second-language accents in play. How a word sounds matters enormously, and this one doesn’t pass muster (mister, master, moster, mester – you get the point).
- Legal infringement issues: At least three technology companies already use the iPad name for devices of their own. Not all of them are tiny; just ask Fujitsu. Money and corporate muscle can fix this, but why waste the cash and energy when this is avoidable from the outset?
Not everyone, of course, is dissing the name. Hayes Roth, chief marketing officer at branding giant Landor has kind words for the name choice and device in the agency’s blog.
Anybody who develops names will tell you that it’s no walk in the park. It’s as demanding and frustrating as it is exhilarating and rewarding. For as smart, innovative and brand-savvy as Apple is, you would think they would have avoided these mistakes for a product that was so eagerly anticipated and category-redefining. Instead, the luster of their announcement is tarnished. Only time will tell how much and for how long, and above all at what cost.
Agency Babylon is taking a step outside its normal scope of topics to pose this question, which has rolled around my head since yesterday’s Apple iPad announcement:
Will Apple’s over-reliance on the AT&T mobile network for iPhone – and now iPad – connectivity become its Toyota gas pedal fiasco?
The parallels between these two business events aren’t entirely tangible – probably more theoretical. Toyota has long been the darling of automotive consumers and the envy of competitors. It has a well-deserved reputation for building high-quality, extraordinarily reliable and thus high-value vehicles for decades. It would appear, however, that in its rush to propel itself to the top of the industry it began to make compromises in quality control that have led to the largest recall in the company’s history. And this is just any old recall. It affects eight of Toyota’s most popular models, spans several production years back and has halted their ability to sell millions of cars now in inventory.
Now to Apple’s situation. Like Toyota, Apple is a come-from-behind success. The underdog company with stellar products and service that is forging ahead in the marketplace on numerous fronts. The iPhone is smart phone category leader by any measure. The iPod in all its variations has an insurmountable market share (so long as the category itself continues to matter). Now there’s the iPad, Apple’s tablet device that takes aim at a cross-section of devices, from dedicated readers like Kindle to cheap netbooks. Detractors notwithstanding, the iPad will likely be a marketplace success. But wait. As they enter the marketplace, fully connected iPad models (those that don’t simply rely on available wi-fi connections) are supported only by AT&T Wireless. Yes, the very same AT&T that’s in a pitched battle with Verizon over the ubiquity and reliability of its 3G network.
Apple has hitched its wagon once again to a mobile carrier that is groaning under the weight of its own success. The heavy use of bandwidth by iPhone and other smart phone users on its network has prompted anger, frustration and even defections in the marketplace. People love their smart phones, and it seems that iPhone users as a group are guilty of obsessive love. They are loving their mobile access to endless sources content not quite to death but definitely to enfeeblement. (Whoa! It just occurred to me: Might AT&T’s reliance on Apple devices for a large measure of its success become its Toyota gas pedal fiasco?)
Now there are rumors that the iPhone and presumably the iPad will be available on Verizon before long – likely by mid-2010. So these words of caution might be academic before long. But the observations are still worth making as consumers and businesses ponder the choices they and as business like Apple and Toyota ponder their decisions.
Do you strive to “incentivize impactful partnerships”?
How about espousing the ability to “drive user-centric e-business”?
When’s the last time you told a client, colleague or prospect that your team was going to “utilize turn-key convergence” – and they didn’t look puzzled? Our nauseated?
If you’re stumped by vacuous business-speak or need some to flesh out that RFP response or capabilities presentation, there’s an app (well, web site) for that. The Web Economy Bullshit Generator is billed by its creator dack.com as a diversion that is “now celebrating its 10-year anniversary of buzzword ridicule.”
I’ll take the credit for sharing this with you, but can’t rightfully take credit for finding it. That goes to my friend @SarahResults (Sarah Smith), who shared this gem on Twitter. Enjoy.
When it comes to the new business pitch process, it’s generally presumed that the agencies invited to the festivities are in a subservient position. They need the business – are in the very business of winning new business, especially in these lean times – so they’re held hostage to short account tenures and endless business pursuit.
An article in Advertising Age archly titled “Hmm, It’s 2010 — About Time for Chipotle to Switch Up Ad Agencies,” cautions brands to wise up by laying out the consequences of their fickle ways. Calling out specific major brands as “serial reviewers,” Ikea, Chipotle, BMW, 1-800-Flowers and Quiznos are among those getting the scarlet letter.
The risk for these brands is that the very best agencies, the ones they might most wish to have woo them, will take a pass next time the business is up for grabs. And it appears to be happening. That doesn’t mean no one will pitch for it; never gonna happen. But you do reap what you sow.
While the name-dropping smack down has its entertainment value, it also is filled with advice to agencies, making it worth a read.
I stumbled across Christina Dorr on Twitter (@christina_dorr) the way you find many people there: through her connections, however many times removed, to people you know and trust. She turned up in my “following” list, so I decided to check out who she is. Here’s what I found in her Twitter bio statement:
- “Creative without a strategy is just a bunch of junk on a page.”
What a declaration. Direct, insightful without all the filigree of many strategy types and certain of her views. (It turns out that she is a manger of account planning and strategy at John Ryan.)
In her honor, and as a person constantly banging the drum for strategy and planning but with great respect for creative colleagues, I’ll add my companion statement to hers:
- “Strategy with no creativity is just a lot of talk.”
There is nothing new under the sun, as the saying goes.
In the angst-laden world of a slowly recovering advertising and marketing agency industry, the insertion of procurement departments in the agency selection process is among the things that are not new at all. But this old whipping post is generating a fresh round of teeth-gnashing.
What’s all the fuss? If an RFI/RFP process feels burdensome, stacked, unclear or downright unfair you can simply opt out. It could just be that the process put in place, whether procurement is involved or not, does not fit your model for acquiring new clients and projects. Just like you won’t win every client pitch, you also don’t need to be involved in every one.
Prospective clients whose processes become especially onerous run the risk of reaping what they sow when they attract sub-par agencies because the best and brightest just won’t play by their rules. Or clever agencies will find a way around procurement.
For those who choose to opt in, there are plenty of resources and lots of advice for navigating the process. Here are few recommended resource:
- The RFP Database not only is a clearinghouse for issued RFPs, it also contains links to related information and advice
- The Confluent Forms blog is one of those linked resources
- The Fuel Lines blog by Michael Gass often tackles the issue of RFP best practices and strategies
- Because the consternation seems greater in small and medium-sized agencies, Advertising Age’s Small Agency Diary blog is worth visiting – even a valuable online subscription
- And of course, Agency Babylon strives to be of service whenever it can
