This isn’t a new issue. Legal’s influence and command over PR issues has been felt for years.
I experienced this first-hand during my time at a international professional services firm. From time to time we’d face public scrutiny around an audit or tax issue for a client. As the issue became more prominent in the communities we served, negative public opinion swelled. Yet, all too often, legal’s response was “we cannot comment.” Now, legal was just doing their job: Manage risk and protect the organization. But, I continue to ask one simple question:
Where do you draw the line?
Yes, companies need to protect themselves. But, at what cost? And now with the social tools available to employees, management, customers and other influencers, it’s an even bigger risk (in legal’s eyes)–and an even bigger opportunity cost from a reputation management standpoint.
Case in point: Some of you may remember this exchange on Twitter last Saturday as I tweeted poolside at my son/daughter’s swimming lessons:
— this quote was brought to you by quoteurl
Without knowing the full reason behind why I couldn’t tweet poolside (the YMCA rep never told me why, just that I couldn’t do it per their policy), I’m guessing it’s a risk issue. But, again, at what point does risk outweigh brand and PR opportunities? In this case, it might be folks taking photos of their kids at swimming lessons at the YMCA and sharing on Facebook (great word-of-mouth and increased brand exposure for the YMCA–WOM they don’t pay for, by the way).
I tend to think there needs to be more give-and-take by organizations. Keep in mind, legal’s not making these decisions. They’re in the same boat as PR pros. They get paid to provide valuable counsel. It’s management that’s making the final call.
So, it’s incumbent upon us, as PR/brand/marketing professionals to make a strong case for a more balanced approach. There’s no doubt we should protect our companies, their assets and the intellectual capital they’ve worked so hard to build. But, our organization’s reputations are also at stake here. And, word of mouth through social platforms plays a key role these days.
We need to have these crucial conversations with legal and management. We need to make the case loud and clear for effective online reputation management.
That’s my two cents. What do you think?
I used to coach and give swim lessons at a YMCA. I’m not sure what policy they are referring to, but I do know that parents aren’t allowed to bring video cameras to swim meets because of privacy issues.
For the Facebook issue, I know Richie has talked to me a lot about the hurdles they face using social media within a school district. With privacy, minors, etc. – most of the time you have to get releases. This forces the Y and other orgs like it to be extremely cautious. For Mensa, I always have to have parent signatures and release forms before posting kid pics on social networks.
I was pretty open in explaining why to parents when they couldn’t bring cameras and such – and also being a former competitive swimmer of USA Swimming – cameras and such were always flashing and allowed. The Y, in general, is extremely strict when it comes to that.
Explanation is needed, otherwise you have parents asking ‘Why?’ and not wanting to bring their kids to swim lessons. The cost draws them in, but you can get swim lessons elsewhere, that allows cameras – unless you’re open about your legal policy and why.
L
Legal and PR definitely need to work together better – oftentimes they’re simply butting heads with each other.
The problem is that it’s a fine line that divides sound counsel and questionable counsel. In the YMCA’s case, I’m guessing it’s because so many innocent situations involving kids and pools have been taken advantage of by pedophiles. Taking pictures, posting online, creating private galleries at home, etc. So, I can see why they might have stopped you from using a phone with a camera, although they should explain why (or have a notice up).
Otherwise your blog post and the ensuing conversation – here, on Twitter, with your friends – mean that nobody really wins, especially the brand in question.
Though I agree with the additional thoughts of privacy and issues with taking pics of children swimming (even w/yours in the mix) – clear lines still need to be drawn, not just for the Y, but for all organizations/events.
Tweeting vs. TwitPic’ing seems to be two different things in the Y’s eyes, and should be clearly communicated from top down and where events are being held. If they restrict tweeting (w/o pics) then that’s a different issue that corporations should understand the impact of.
I think every type of company has a different level of tolerable risk – in this case the issue concerned children – and liability is critical here. I’ve represented a number of companies who market to children, and legal’s influence is a lot stronger for them. Sometimes a lawsuit just isn’t worth it (it can put a company out of business), and with so many watchdog groups waiting for mistakes to happen, I understand that.
As communicators I think it is absolutely critical to have a grasp on the legal ramifications our recommendations will have. While we all grit our teeth from time to time when having to deal with legal’s fist, it isn’t going to go away.
Did the YMCA know you were “tweeting” specifically? Or could they have assumed something else?
The difficult thing is balancing the legal knowledge/background that more established employees have with the enthusiasm for SM that the younger workers often have.
Currently, I am the community manager at a law firm in Los Angeles that runs and hosts a public access TV show that dispenses free legal advice. They’ve been doing the show for several years now and before that had a radio show, but they wanted to use Twitter to outreach to local people who were talking about subjects of interest for the show. The problem was the partners are conversant in legal terms and rules, but have absolutely no desire in running the SM accounts. When I came on we began looking at how to contact twitterers, while making sure I didn’t tweet anything that would be of concern to the LA County Bar Association. To avoid legal issues we decided to develop an outreach script where the initial contact and subsequent tweets were pre-approved by the Partners/Ethics Counsel, but written by myself with some leeway for simple responses.
We’ve been using the script for about a couple of weeks, with some success, but like all first efforts it needs some reworking. I have to say that as a somewhat new addition to the working world this is providing quite an education in terms of legal practices and responsible writing. After all, I really don’t want to get someone disbarred.
Lauren/Danny: I think that was my biggest concern with my particular situation. It was more “put your phone away” and less “why.” It would have improved my level of understanding if she simply would have provided a little rationale.
Rachel: I don’t think the Y assumed I was doing anything. They just noticed me on my Bberry and asked me to put it away while I was poolside. The odd thing is, they have an observation deck, and as far as I know, you could use your phone up there. Again, just a simple explanation would have helped a lot. Next time I visit, I plan on asking.
Tom: Interesting story. Your work sure sounds like an interesting case study for us all as we delve more deeply into the social space with our clients and client organizations.
[…] With the social tools available to employees, management, customers and other influencers, companies are facing risks – legally and to their reputations – and need to establish online management guidelines. Arik Hanson asks, ‘Where do you draw the line?’ here: http://www.arikhanson.com/2009/07/21/legal%e2%80%99s-role-in-social-media-where-do-you-draw-the-line… […]