Cov ntaub ntawv zoo nkauj nthuav xov xwm ntawm New York Times ntawm yuav ua li cas Phonedog foob rau tus neeg ua haujlwm yav dhau los kom tau txais kev nkag mus hauv Twitter cov thwjtim ntawm tus lej nws tau teeb tsa ua ib feem ntawm lawv cov kev tshaj tawm hauv zej zog.
Los ntawm cov qauv kev ua haujlwm nyob hauv lub tebchaws tam sim no, Kuv xav tias PhoneDog muaj siab nyob rau hauv lawv txoj cai… kev ua haujlwm uas koj ua rau lub tuam txhab sijhawm yog ib txwm muaj los ntawm tuam txhab. Txawm li cas los xij, social media muaj hloov ob qhov kev nkag siab thiab kev sib cuam tshuam ntawm cov tuam txhab thiab lawv cov network. Nws tau siv yog tias tib neeg muaj peev xwm sawv tom qab lub hom coj los sib txuas lus nrog lub network. Peb kawm paub los ntawm kev tshaj tawm, hom, cov cim, cov lus hais thiab lwm yam kev txhawb nqa. Qhov teeb meem yog tias social media tam sim no tso tib neeg nyob rau hauv pem hauv ntej ntawm lub tuam txhab thiab ncaj qha mus kov nrog lub hom. Kuv tus kheej txoj kev ntseeg yog, vim tias kev tshaj tawm xov xwm hloov pauv ntawm kev sib txuas lus, tus tswv cuab tus qauv hloov tau tib yam nkaus.
Hindsight yog ib txwm 20/20, tab sis yooj yim social media tsab cai would have established this up front. While Phonedog may win the legal war of whether or not they own the initiative, the fact that they didn't set this expectation in a social media policy was a mistake. In my opinion, I honestly believe their case has no merit based on this alone. I believe it's always the responsibility of the company to set the expectation on employment and ownership.
Vim tias tsis muaj leej twg muaj lub pob khawv koob, koj yuav tsum xav txog qhov no nrog koj cov neeg ua haujlwm thiab teeb tsa qhov kev cia siab uas tsim nyog:
- If you don't want your employees to tus kheej lawv cov thwjtim, koj tuaj yeem muaj lawv tswj hwm thiab sib txuas lus tawm cov tuam txhab lag luam txhawb nqa tus as khauj. Piv txwv: Hloov chaw kom muaj peb cov neeg ua haujlwm tswj lawv tus kheej cov nyiaj, peb muab rau lawv nkag mus @dknewmedia nrog Hootsuite thiab tsis. I've noticed that some people will have the handle be the company name, while the actual name on the account is the employees. I believe that sets an expectation both with the audience and the company on who owns the account.
- I've noticed other companies that had their employees sign up with Twitter with a combination handle and name. For instance, if I wanted to have each employee have a corporate account… I might set up @dk_doug, @dk_jenn, @dk_stephen, etc. I don't think this is too bad an approach, but I'd hate to see a great following on an account that's eventually abandoned!
- The last option, in my opinion, is the best. Allow your employees to build their network and keep them. I know you're aghast at this, but empowering your employees to succeed is powerful. I love the fact that Jenn thiab Stephen ob leeg hais lus feem ntau DK New Media on their accounts. If they build an incredible following, I look at it as a benefit of having them employed with us and it's additional value they bring to my company. It's also my responsibility to ensure they're happy and I can keep them here!
Social starts with people, not a company. Those followers weren't Phonedog followers… they appreciated the handcrafted content that Nau-a Kravitz was able to develop on behalf of Phonedog. While Phonedog may have paid Noah, it was Noah's talent followers were attracted to.
Kuv lo lus kawg ntawm no: Kuv ntxub lo lus tus kheej thiab cov tswv cuab when it comes to companies, employees and customers. I don't believe a company ever owns an employee nor do they ever own a customer. The employee is a trade… work for money. The customer is also a trade… product for money. The employee or the customer always has the right to leave within the boundaries of their contractual engagement. A company like Phonedog thinking they tus kheej cov raws no tuaj yeem muab tag nrho cov ntawv pov thawj hauv lub ntiaj teb vim li cas lawv ua raws Nau-ees thiab tsis yog Phonedog.