Since 2010, Maryland has taken the lead in social media law and compliance. In 2010, Maryland became the first state to draft (Full Disclosure: I worked with the Maryland Board of Elections to draft the regulations) social media election regulations. These regulations treat state office digital campaign materials in the same manner as traditional campaign materials and do not put any extra burdens on candidates and their campaigns.
In 2011, the judiciary flexed its social media wings in Griffin v. State of Maryland, when it stated that social media evidence must be properly authenticated when introduced during trial. In 2012, Maryland became the first state to create social media privacy legislation that protects both employers and employees (Full Disclosure: I worked with multiple state lawmakers to pass this legislation). This legislation was groundbreaking and has been used as a template by at least 15 other states and multiple members of Congress.
On June 12, 2012, the Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee published an opinion providing guidance regarding the judiciary's use of social media. The main point of the decision is that, "a judge must recognize the use of social media networking sites may implicate several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and, therefore, proceed cautiously."
The Florida Supreme Court's Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee's opinion that prohibited judges from adding lawyers who may appear before them as "Facebook Friends" demonstrated a lack of understanding of social media. If judges can be friends in the real world and join the same social clubs as lawyers who appear before them they should be able to be Facebook Friends. California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio and South Carolina have taken a different position than Florida and their rules appear to generally demonstrate a better understanding of how online relationships are analogous to real world relationships.
The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee appears to have taken a position that generally follows California, New York, Kentucky, Ohio, and South Carolina. The Maryland Judicial Ethics Committee stated "the mere fact of a social connection does not create a conflict" while referring to online social media connections. The bottom line is that Maryland once again has demonstrated an understanding of how social media intersects with the law.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Media Ethics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media Ethics. Show all posts
Monday, June 18, 2012
Saturday, December 24, 2011
Social Media May Decrease Law Firm Revenues
There still appears to be a major disconnect between lawyers and social media. The Wall Street Journal Law Blog recently asked the question: "2012:The Year Law Firms Ditch Geezer Image and Get Tweeting?" Most of the Wall Street Journal's sources for the post were marketers and not practicing lawyers who actively tweet so I would like to see the Wall Street Journal create a follow up post that asks practicing lawyers if Twitter is an effective marketing tool for lawyers.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of practicing lawyers who actively tweet may state that social media usage does not increase law firm revenues. I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear since June 15, 2009, have tweeted more than 3,200 times, and I have a Twitter grade from Twitter Grader of 94/100. Despite these social media statistics, I have never had a client mention on his intake form that he hired me because of my tweets.
Over the past several months, I have had several people approach me during networking events and conferences to tell me that my blog has helped reduce their need for legal services. When this has occurred I have asked how and the general response has been that for some issues my blog provides enough information that they don't feel they need to spend more money on legal fees. One potential client reiterated the old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free."
Instead of increasing law firm revenues social media usage by lawyers may decrease law firm revenues. The World War II saying, "Loose lips sink ships" may come into play when lawyers tweet and/or blog. Therefore, before you spend your firm's marketing dollars on a social media evangelist who wants to teach your firm how to tweet you may want to peel back the social media onion because you may be surprised with what you may find.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I believe that the overwhelming majority of practicing lawyers who actively tweet may state that social media usage does not increase law firm revenues. I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear since June 15, 2009, have tweeted more than 3,200 times, and I have a Twitter grade from Twitter Grader of 94/100. Despite these social media statistics, I have never had a client mention on his intake form that he hired me because of my tweets.
Over the past several months, I have had several people approach me during networking events and conferences to tell me that my blog has helped reduce their need for legal services. When this has occurred I have asked how and the general response has been that for some issues my blog provides enough information that they don't feel they need to spend more money on legal fees. One potential client reiterated the old saying "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free."
Instead of increasing law firm revenues social media usage by lawyers may decrease law firm revenues. The World War II saying, "Loose lips sink ships" may come into play when lawyers tweet and/or blog. Therefore, before you spend your firm's marketing dollars on a social media evangelist who wants to teach your firm how to tweet you may want to peel back the social media onion because you may be surprised with what you may find.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Klout's Algorithm Appears To Be Compromised By Social Media Credential Fraud
Is Klout's algorithm compromised by Social Media Credential Fraud? At this point, it appears that Klout's algorithm is unable to accurately measure influence because it is not able to accurately determine who has real online and/or real world influence due to Social Media Credential Fraud.
According to Klout's website, the factors in its algorithm include: "List inclusions, Follower/Follow Ratio, Followed Back %, Unique Senders, Unique Retweeters, Unique Commenters, Unique Likers, Influence of Followers, Influence of Retweeters and Mentioners, Influence of Friends, Influence of Likers and Commenters.
Follower/Follow Ratio which appears to be a major component of the algorithm is being manipulated by those practicing Social Media Credential Fraud. If the Follower/Follow Ratio can be manipulated, it appears that the Followed Back % is also compromised. On April 26, 2011, Klout's Public Relations Agency (Best Public Relations) informed me that Klout's website was recently relaunched. When I reviewed the relaunched website I noticed that the Follower/Follow Ratio and the Followed Back % were major components of their algorithm. Therefore, I immediately contacted Best Public Relations to let them know that Social Media Credential Fraud is affecting its client's ability to accurately claim that its service is able to measure one's online social influence.
Klout's PR firm responded back to me with a link to Klout's website that did not answer my question so I contacted them again to let them know that this is a very serious issue that has the ability to destroy Klout's credibility. I have not heard back from either Klout's PR firm or from Klout. Therefore, either Klout's PR firm did not relay my message to Klout's senior executives or they decided to look the other way about my concerns.
As Klout and other websites vie to become the modern day Nielsen Ratings for the Social Media Age they will have to find a way to factor Social Media Credential Fraud into their algorithms. Klout needs to follow Google's lead to penalize those who try to game their algorithm. Last year, a company called DecorMyEyes gamed Google's search rankings by intentionally encouraging bad publicity so that the company could obtain a high organic ranking on Google. After a New York Times article on this practice, Google updated its algorithm. Earlier this year, JC Penney was accused of gaming Google's search rankings before last year's Christmas Season and Google subsequently penalized JC Penney for its behavior.
Since Google has the clout to punish those who it deems are acting in an unethical manner to increase their search engine ranking, Klout should do the same for those who are intentionally gaming its algorithm by participating in Social Media Credential Fraud and other forms of misleading and unethical social media behavior to increase their Klout score. I challenge Klout along with the other services who claim to be able to measure online influence to follow Google's lead in penalizing those who to try to game their system.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
Ethics, Social Media, and Live Television...You Can Run But You Can't Hide
Social Media has blurred the lines of so many things in our society. Once something is posted on the Internet it is nearly impossible to remove. To paraphrase what former heavyweight champion Joe Louis once said about an opponent, "You can run but you can't hide."
In the Social Media Age, keeping secrets and client confidentiality has become even more difficult due to the rapid pace of technology and constant innovation. In today's "look at me" world everyone seems to want their 15 minutes of fame. Lawyers are no different than anyone else due to the nature of the profession. However, lawyers must be very aware of the ethical issues inherent in the Social Media Age.
During the past year, members of the media have requested my insight on multiple occasions. Due to my schedule, reporter deadlines, etc... I have had to turn down some requests. However, I have also turned down some very high profile media opportunities due to some of the ethical issues.
At the height of Congressman Anthony Weiner's social media crisis on June 1, 2011, I was asked to speak about the matter on MSNBC television. Since Weiner had not contacted me regarding his situation, I was able to accept the the opportunity to discuss his situation on national television. I was called at 10:30am for a noon appearance and had to quickly reschedule several meetings.
It was the first time I had done a live national television segment so I did not know what to expect. I arrived at my local NBC affiliate just in time to go into makeup before the segment. Right after makeup, I was led into a small studio with a bookshelf backdrop and given a sound check. I was not provided any direction on what part of the camera to focus on and I was not able to see how I would look on camera to ensure that I was looking directly into the camera. I was in a different location than the interviewer and I could not see him or the background information that were part of the segment. The room was pitch dark except for some bright lights shinning on me.
Before the segment started, I only knew that the general topic would be the legal issues that may be involved with Weiner's social media matter. During the appearance, I correctly pointed out that it was troubling that Weiner had not asked for an investigation. In the middle of the segment, I looked down for a split second because I felt something brush against my leg. After the segment, I realized that the thing I most likely felt brush against my leg was a wire that moved because my briefcase fell over it during the segment. In addition, I kept blinking throughout the segment because my eyes felt very dry. Afterward, I felt like Homer Simpson and said to myself D'oh. As Murphy's Law states, "anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
It was several weeks before I was able to view my appearance and obtain a copy of it. After seeing my performance, I was inclined not to post the appearance online but I decided that I should follow the advice I usually give clients so I decided to post it so I can provide proper context to it. My performance could have been worse. At least I didn't call the President an inappropriate name on national television.
I am very appreciate that NBC provided me this opportunity and when I am contacted again I will look to improve upon my performance.
If you are interested in viewing the segment here it is:
To learn more about social media law and ethics you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
NOTE: I would have uploaded the video in a more timely fashion but I was having technical difficulties uploading the video from my computer to Blogger so I finally uploaded the video to YouTube and then uploaded the segment from YouTube to Blogger. I have no idea why I was not able to upload the video directly to Blogger.
In the Social Media Age, keeping secrets and client confidentiality has become even more difficult due to the rapid pace of technology and constant innovation. In today's "look at me" world everyone seems to want their 15 minutes of fame. Lawyers are no different than anyone else due to the nature of the profession. However, lawyers must be very aware of the ethical issues inherent in the Social Media Age.
During the past year, members of the media have requested my insight on multiple occasions. Due to my schedule, reporter deadlines, etc... I have had to turn down some requests. However, I have also turned down some very high profile media opportunities due to some of the ethical issues.
At the height of Congressman Anthony Weiner's social media crisis on June 1, 2011, I was asked to speak about the matter on MSNBC television. Since Weiner had not contacted me regarding his situation, I was able to accept the the opportunity to discuss his situation on national television. I was called at 10:30am for a noon appearance and had to quickly reschedule several meetings.
It was the first time I had done a live national television segment so I did not know what to expect. I arrived at my local NBC affiliate just in time to go into makeup before the segment. Right after makeup, I was led into a small studio with a bookshelf backdrop and given a sound check. I was not provided any direction on what part of the camera to focus on and I was not able to see how I would look on camera to ensure that I was looking directly into the camera. I was in a different location than the interviewer and I could not see him or the background information that were part of the segment. The room was pitch dark except for some bright lights shinning on me.
Before the segment started, I only knew that the general topic would be the legal issues that may be involved with Weiner's social media matter. During the appearance, I correctly pointed out that it was troubling that Weiner had not asked for an investigation. In the middle of the segment, I looked down for a split second because I felt something brush against my leg. After the segment, I realized that the thing I most likely felt brush against my leg was a wire that moved because my briefcase fell over it during the segment. In addition, I kept blinking throughout the segment because my eyes felt very dry. Afterward, I felt like Homer Simpson and said to myself D'oh. As Murphy's Law states, "anything that can go wrong will go wrong."
It was several weeks before I was able to view my appearance and obtain a copy of it. After seeing my performance, I was inclined not to post the appearance online but I decided that I should follow the advice I usually give clients so I decided to post it so I can provide proper context to it. My performance could have been worse. At least I didn't call the President an inappropriate name on national television.
I am very appreciate that NBC provided me this opportunity and when I am contacted again I will look to improve upon my performance.
If you are interested in viewing the segment here it is:
To learn more about social media law and ethics you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
NOTE: I would have uploaded the video in a more timely fashion but I was having technical difficulties uploading the video from my computer to Blogger so I finally uploaded the video to YouTube and then uploaded the segment from YouTube to Blogger. I have no idea why I was not able to upload the video directly to Blogger.
Thursday, June 16, 2011
Social Media Ethics, Politics, the First Amendment, and Twitter
The media and the public can't get enough of Congressman Anthony Weiner's Twitter Sex Scandal. Sex, Sports, Entertainment, and Politics drives our culture. People watch television, go to the movies, or view content online generally if it is about one of these four topics. When a situation such as Weinergate contains three of these four issues it may be considered a trifecta. Here, it is sex, entertainment, and politics.
Social Media Ethics is not black and white. There is a tremendous amount of gray. I am a staunch supporter of the protections that the First Amendment provides; however, this right is sometimes balanced against other issues such as privacy, defamation, copyright, etc... The problem is where should the line be drawn as far as what is merely inappropriate, what is unethical, and what is protected under the First Amendment? For example, recently in Minnesota the state Senate Ethics Panel voted to dismiss an ethics complaint if state Sen. Gretchen Hoffman apologized for a Tweet that allegedly took out of context what state Sen. Barb Goodwin stated in a speech to her fellow colleagues. It appears that at least an entire afternoon and evening was spent discussing how to handle this matter.
According to a Minneapolis-St. Paul NBC affiliate news report, the ethics committee debated how Sen. Hoffman should apologize to Sen Goodwin; in person, via Twitter, or to the Senate along with some type of social media component. If Sen. Hoffman's message was just spoken and not tweeted I highly doubt that the Minnesota Senate Ethics Committee would have addressed the matter. Therefore, will social media usage be treated differently than other forms of communication when determining what is ethical, inappropriate, and protected by the First Amendment?
Sending out one allegedly misleading Tweet about a colleague is much different than sending out at least one photograph of your genitals along with multiple allegedly inappropriate photographs of yourself to strangers. I would never recommend following Mr. Weiner's social media or crisis management strategy.
Is Mr. Weiner's behavior merely inappropriate, is it unethical, or is it protected by the First Amendment? Where do we draw the line? I believe a national conversation is needed to discuss how social media and the First Amendment may collide. How far will Minnesota or another government body go in regulating social media political speech? These are just a few of the many legal and political issues that will need to be addressed in the near future.
To learn more about social media political speech and ethics you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media Ethics is not black and white. There is a tremendous amount of gray. I am a staunch supporter of the protections that the First Amendment provides; however, this right is sometimes balanced against other issues such as privacy, defamation, copyright, etc... The problem is where should the line be drawn as far as what is merely inappropriate, what is unethical, and what is protected under the First Amendment? For example, recently in Minnesota the state Senate Ethics Panel voted to dismiss an ethics complaint if state Sen. Gretchen Hoffman apologized for a Tweet that allegedly took out of context what state Sen. Barb Goodwin stated in a speech to her fellow colleagues. It appears that at least an entire afternoon and evening was spent discussing how to handle this matter.
According to a Minneapolis-St. Paul NBC affiliate news report, the ethics committee debated how Sen. Hoffman should apologize to Sen Goodwin; in person, via Twitter, or to the Senate along with some type of social media component. If Sen. Hoffman's message was just spoken and not tweeted I highly doubt that the Minnesota Senate Ethics Committee would have addressed the matter. Therefore, will social media usage be treated differently than other forms of communication when determining what is ethical, inappropriate, and protected by the First Amendment?
Sending out one allegedly misleading Tweet about a colleague is much different than sending out at least one photograph of your genitals along with multiple allegedly inappropriate photographs of yourself to strangers. I would never recommend following Mr. Weiner's social media or crisis management strategy.
Is Mr. Weiner's behavior merely inappropriate, is it unethical, or is it protected by the First Amendment? Where do we draw the line? I believe a national conversation is needed to discuss how social media and the First Amendment may collide. How far will Minnesota or another government body go in regulating social media political speech? These are just a few of the many legal and political issues that will need to be addressed in the near future.
To learn more about social media political speech and ethics you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Do Marketing Ethics and the FTC Advertising Regulations Matter in the Social Media Age?
P.T. Barnum is credited with the phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute." Social Media provides entrepreneurs so many new opportunities to expand their brand and footprint in many exciting and fun ways. However, social media also provides snake oil salesmen and others whose ethics are questionable the ability to defraud in ways not imagined until a few years ago.
After a recent speaking engagement, a lawyer approached me and said, "I think I have been duped the way Oprah was by James Frey." The lawyer told me he had bought a book on Amazon.com that had an amazing initial editorial review. For the record, the book's official editorial review states, it "is a 'must-read' for all law firms. Indeed, it should be studied avidly, not only by lawyers, but also by any professional service firm that wants to grow its business fast using Web 2.0 techniques. As a successful New York attorney turned social media guru, [name removed] deals with his subject comprehensively and with an easy authority." The author of the social media book that the lawyer bought is self described social media expert Adrian Dayton.
With the above editorial review along with Mr. Dayton's celebrity like Twitter Following to Followers ratio, the lawyer told me he believed that he was buying a book from a real social media expert. The lawyer said that he thought that anyone who had around 50,000 followers but only had to follow several thousand people in return must be an expert in teaching others how to harness the power of Twitter to build their business.
After listening to me discuss Social Media Credential Fraud, the lawyer told me he was angry at himself for blindly believing Mr. Dayton's official biography without doing any further due diligence. He stated that despite following Mr. Dayton's recommendations for the past 9 months, that tweeting will build your book of business, he doesn't have any business development progress to show for his efforts. I told the lawyer that since I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear on June 15, 2009, I have not had a single legal client contact me and say, "I love your Tweets, you're hired!" I have tweeted more than 2,000 times from @bradleyshear.
Attorney Brian Tannebaum's blog posts about Mr. Dayton on November 9, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 3, 2009, June 16, 2010, and February 9, 2011 reveal that Mr. Dayton may be embellishing his credentials and may have a problem with truth in advertising (i.e.Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and the the FTC's Advertising Regulations). Last year, Mr. Dayton un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter. As of this writing, Mr. Dayton is following 7,533 people and has 41,026 followers.
If you didn't know that Mr. Dayton has already un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter, you may have the impression that he has an organically created rock star like Twitter Following to Followers ratio. However, the numbers don't lie. Mr. Dayton has followed at least 14,000 more people than are following him back. Having to follow at least 54,533 people in order to receive only 41,026 followers in return is not very "expert like." Mr. Dayton's Twitter activity demonstrates that he is a social media expert at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
I challenge Mr. Dayton to dispute Mr. Tannebaum's and my allegations. I take great pride in being a lawyer and like thousands of other lawyers I made many sacrifices to become a lawyer. I find it offensive when a non-practicing attorney such as Mr. Dayton continues to mislead the public without any repercussions. Since first writing and speaking about Mr. Dayton's activity without naming him, I have not had a single lawyer state that Mr. Dayton's conduct is ethical or legal.
In previous blog posts, I initially did not name Mr. Dayton to provide him the opportunity to take corrective action (he started following me again on Twitter recently so I am sure he has read my April 1, 2011 and April 8, 2011 blog posts about Social Media Credential Fraud). Unfortunately, Mr. Dayton has not yet taken corrective action.
Caveat emptor when hiring "experts". Don't be a sucker. At least perform a Google search to learn more about an "expert's" credentials. Just because someone calls himself/herself an expert and has a social media profile that appears "expert like" does not make it so. As Malcolm Gladwell states, it takes at least 10,000 hours to master a craft.
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
After a recent speaking engagement, a lawyer approached me and said, "I think I have been duped the way Oprah was by James Frey." The lawyer told me he had bought a book on Amazon.com that had an amazing initial editorial review. For the record, the book's official editorial review states, it "is a 'must-read' for all law firms. Indeed, it should be studied avidly, not only by lawyers, but also by any professional service firm that wants to grow its business fast using Web 2.0 techniques. As a successful New York attorney turned social media guru, [name removed] deals with his subject comprehensively and with an easy authority." The author of the social media book that the lawyer bought is self described social media expert Adrian Dayton.
With the above editorial review along with Mr. Dayton's celebrity like Twitter Following to Followers ratio, the lawyer told me he believed that he was buying a book from a real social media expert. The lawyer said that he thought that anyone who had around 50,000 followers but only had to follow several thousand people in return must be an expert in teaching others how to harness the power of Twitter to build their business.
After listening to me discuss Social Media Credential Fraud, the lawyer told me he was angry at himself for blindly believing Mr. Dayton's official biography without doing any further due diligence. He stated that despite following Mr. Dayton's recommendations for the past 9 months, that tweeting will build your book of business, he doesn't have any business development progress to show for his efforts. I told the lawyer that since I have been tweeting from @bradleyshear on June 15, 2009, I have not had a single legal client contact me and say, "I love your Tweets, you're hired!" I have tweeted more than 2,000 times from @bradleyshear.
Attorney Brian Tannebaum's blog posts about Mr. Dayton on November 9, 2009, November 26, 2009, December 3, 2009, June 16, 2010, and February 9, 2011 reveal that Mr. Dayton may be embellishing his credentials and may have a problem with truth in advertising (i.e.Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct and the the FTC's Advertising Regulations). Last year, Mr. Dayton un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter. As of this writing, Mr. Dayton is following 7,533 people and has 41,026 followers.
If you didn't know that Mr. Dayton has already un-followed at least 47,000 people on Twitter, you may have the impression that he has an organically created rock star like Twitter Following to Followers ratio. However, the numbers don't lie. Mr. Dayton has followed at least 14,000 more people than are following him back. Having to follow at least 54,533 people in order to receive only 41,026 followers in return is not very "expert like." Mr. Dayton's Twitter activity demonstrates that he is a social media expert at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
I challenge Mr. Dayton to dispute Mr. Tannebaum's and my allegations. I take great pride in being a lawyer and like thousands of other lawyers I made many sacrifices to become a lawyer. I find it offensive when a non-practicing attorney such as Mr. Dayton continues to mislead the public without any repercussions. Since first writing and speaking about Mr. Dayton's activity without naming him, I have not had a single lawyer state that Mr. Dayton's conduct is ethical or legal.
In previous blog posts, I initially did not name Mr. Dayton to provide him the opportunity to take corrective action (he started following me again on Twitter recently so I am sure he has read my April 1, 2011 and April 8, 2011 blog posts about Social Media Credential Fraud). Unfortunately, Mr. Dayton has not yet taken corrective action.
Caveat emptor when hiring "experts". Don't be a sucker. At least perform a Google search to learn more about an "expert's" credentials. Just because someone calls himself/herself an expert and has a social media profile that appears "expert like" does not make it so. As Malcolm Gladwell states, it takes at least 10,000 hours to master a craft.
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations Part II
An idea attributed to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels goes something along the lines, if you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually believe it. Unfortunately, there are some people who practice this philosophy in the social media marketing world.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Last week, I wrote about a self-described social media marketing expert ("Expert #1) who actively follows tens of thousands of people and then once he receives a follow back he un-follows them in order to increase his followers to following ratio so it looks like he is a rock star or professional athlete. This practice is known as Social Media Credential Fraud.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. On April 1, 2011, this self-described social media marketing expert was following 7,000 people and had 41,009 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,523 people and has only 41,040 followers. Therefore, in a week he has followed 523 more people and obtained only 31 followers in return. In almost 3 months, he has followed 3,106 more people and lost 9 followers. His Return on Follow (ROF) is not what I would call "expert like". If you extrapolate these findings over a year you may realize the depth of this deception.
There is another excellent example of Social Media Credential Fraud that I would like to share because a friend of mine recently told me I should follow another self described social media expert. As soon as I saw the name of this person I said to myself I think this person has played the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game with me.
I was right. On 2/16/10, another self described social media marketing expert, "Expert #2," had the following stats: 11,290 followers; and following 11,390. Therefore, he had to follow 100 more people than were following him back. On 6/5/2010, "Expert#2's stats were: 12,277 followers; and 12,748 following. He had to follow 471 more people than were following him back. As of this writing, "Expert #2's stats are: 14,424 followers, and 5,243 following. All of a sudden, "Expert #2" found his social media wings.
Expert #2 now has a Twitter account that he feels better reflects his persona so it may enable him to sell social media marketing services. Expert #2 recently advertised to law firms, "Blogging and Social Media Package Only $1,800 Per Month" and "This program has a value of $4,000 per month!" and "P.P.S. We only have room for 10 new clients in this program at this low price." "Expert #2's social media assistant also plays the "I will Follow You And As Soon As You Follow Me Back I Will Un-follow You" game. On 5/27/10, Expert #2's social media assistant's stats were: 9,458 followers, and 9,588 following. As of this writing, the social media assistant's stats are: 10,252 followers, and 5,535 following. What a great turnaround. How did this happen?
Oh, I forgot to tell you that Expert #1 and Expert #2 are good friends. How do I know this? Expert #1 has Tweeted that they are are good friends. Therefore, are they sharing with each other tips on how to perpetrate Social Media Credential Fraud?
To learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Friday, April 1, 2011
Will Your Social Media Expert's Advice Violate the FTC Advertising Regulations?
Will your social media expert's advice and/or actions violate the Federal Trade Commission's Advertising Regulations? This is a question you may want to answer before you engage a social media guru for your company.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Social Media Credential Fraud is a growing problem. Social Media Credential Fraud may occur when someone utilizes social media to create a false impression that they are an expert in their profession for commercial gain. Under the FTC's Advertising Regulations, it is crystal clear that engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices is unlawful.
I believe it is important to discuss this issue again because a self-described "social media expert" started following me again today on Twitter. This "social media expert" followed me last year and then as soon as I followed him back he un-followed me. Of course, I un-followed him back because I only followed him in the first place because he initially followed me. This social media expert's Twitter feed mostly consists of public conversations with a small group of his friends and/or fellow legal marketers, strategic Foursquare check-ins, and re-posts of his old articles and blog posts. Every once in awhile he will post a link to an interesting article written by someone else; unfortunately, he mostly clogs his Twitter feed with useless and self-serving information so I will not be following him back. Since I will not be following him back, he will un-follow me in the near future. I guarantee it.
This "social media expert" is desperate to keep his followers above 41,000. I mean Muammar Gadhafi desperate. His whole persona is based on the impression that he is a social media expert and has a large organic Twitter following. If he did not practice Social Media Credential Fraud he would be following tens of thousands of more people than are following him back. Last year, he wrote a blog post that said something along the lines, "I un-followed almost 50,000" people. In this rationalizing post, he stated that he could no longer focus on new followers so it was time to do a mass un-follow.
Does this "social media expert" think he is Lady Gaga or Britney Spears? Lady Gaga follows 144,000+ people and Britney Spears follows more than 415,000 people on Twitter. Would Lady Gaga or Britney Spears ever un-follow 50,000 people to better focus on their most die hard fans? Absolutely not. Therefore, this self described "social media expert's" explanation why he did a mass un-follow is not believable. The "social media expert" has un-followed at least 50,000 people to hide the fact that he needs to first follow tens of thousands of people before some of those people he initially followed follow him back.
On January 13, 2011, this "social media expert" was following 4,417 people and had 41,049 followers. As of this writing, he is following 7,000 people and has only 41,009 followers. In approximately, 2.5 months this "social media expert" has followed 2,583 more people but has lost 40 followers. This statistic demonstrates that this person is a "social media expert" at one thing: following tens of thousands of people on Twitter and un-following tens of thousands of people on Twitter. That is it.
If your social media expert is personally engaging in activity that may violate the FTC's Advertising Regulations you may want to ask yourself will he advise my company to do anything unlawful or unethical? If a "social media expert" appears to have great "social media credentials" take a look beyond the numbers to determine how they were achieved. Perform your due diligence and fully review all social media activity. If a "social media expert" appears to have celebrity like Twitter "Following to Followers" figures there is a good possibility that Social Media Credential Fraud is involved.
To learn more about social media ethics and to learn how to avoid violating the FTC Advertising Regulations you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Social Media Credential Fraud
If you are reading this blog post there is a good possibility you have heard of the following social media terms: Tweet, To Friend, Un-Friend, To Follow, To Un-Follow, etc...However, have you ever heard of "Social Media Credential Fraud"? Is "Social Media Credential Fraud" a mythical term or is it a new type of fraud that is being perpetuated by some social media users who are trying to be someone whom they are not? Popular. Seen as an expert. Or both.
I discussed this topic while being part of a panel at LegalTech New York 2011 that covered social media branding and ethical issues. During the session, I posed the following hypothetical: Is it unethical for a Twitter user who utilizes a Twitter account for commercial purposes to intentionally follow someone on Twitter, only to stop following that person once a follow back has been received for the specific purpose of inflating one's follower numbers? Is this practice just 1) Bad Manners; or 2) Mere Puffery; or 3) Misleading and/or deceptive under the FTC Advertising Guidelines and/or a Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (if the Twitter user is also a lawyer)?
For example, what if a Twitter user followed 100,000 people, and 50,000 of those people followed the Twitter user back based upon the initial follow. Then the Twitter user systematically un-followed 95,000 of those people so his following to follower number has a ratio of 1:10. After achieving a celebrity like Twitter following to follower ratio, the Twitter user then advertises that he is an expert in his profession and as part of his sales pitch points to his Twitter following to follower ratio or advertises he has a certain number of Twitter followers. Is this practice ethical or is it legal?
This scenario sounds like it could be something that happened in the movie Mean Girls. Unfortunately, it is a behavior that some Twitter users engage in. The FTC Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Advertising states, "The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices broadly covers advertising claims, marketing and promotional activities, and sales practices in general. The FTC's Advertising and Marketing Guidance states, "under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply." Since a Twitter account may be considered an advertising platform, the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures may apply to your Tweets.
In the legal profession, lawyers must follow their jurisdiction's Code of Professional Responsibility. For example, Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct State: "(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not use or disseminate or participate in the use or dissemination of any advertisement that: (1) contains statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading; or (2) violates a Rule." Therefore, a lawyer's Twitter account may be perceived as an advertisement even if it is only used for personal purposes. What if the Twitter account is utilized for both commercial and personal activities? Social Media has blurred the lines between what some people may see as personal and what others may interpret as your professional message. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that your social media activity may have both ethical and legal consequences.
The bottom line is that reputation building and expertise takes years to achieve and that short cuts in the long run will fail. In the 1987 hit movie, "Can't Buy Me Love" Ronald Miller, an unpopular kid in high school paid the most popular girl in high school Cindy Mancini $1,000 to pretend that she was his girlfriend for a month. Ronald's hypothesis was that if Cindy was his girlfriend he would become popular. Overnight, Ronald went from "totally geek" to "totally sheik". However, his new found popularity was short-lived because as soon as the rest of the school found out that he had to pay Cindy to pretend to be his girlfriend (analogous on Twitter to paying a service to obtain followers on your behalf or following tens of thousands of people and then un-following them once you receive a follow back) Ronald's brand was destroyed. Ronald learned in high school that there are no short cuts in reputation building.
The bottom line is acting like a "Social Media Ronald Miller" will not succeed in the long run. While utilizing social media one must understand there are ethical and legal ramifications of what you post and how you utilize each platform.
To learn more about social media legal, branding, and ethical issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
I discussed this topic while being part of a panel at LegalTech New York 2011 that covered social media branding and ethical issues. During the session, I posed the following hypothetical: Is it unethical for a Twitter user who utilizes a Twitter account for commercial purposes to intentionally follow someone on Twitter, only to stop following that person once a follow back has been received for the specific purpose of inflating one's follower numbers? Is this practice just 1) Bad Manners; or 2) Mere Puffery; or 3) Misleading and/or deceptive under the FTC Advertising Guidelines and/or a Lawyer's Code of Professional Responsibility (if the Twitter user is also a lawyer)?
For example, what if a Twitter user followed 100,000 people, and 50,000 of those people followed the Twitter user back based upon the initial follow. Then the Twitter user systematically un-followed 95,000 of those people so his following to follower number has a ratio of 1:10. After achieving a celebrity like Twitter following to follower ratio, the Twitter user then advertises that he is an expert in his profession and as part of his sales pitch points to his Twitter following to follower ratio or advertises he has a certain number of Twitter followers. Is this practice ethical or is it legal?
This scenario sounds like it could be something that happened in the movie Mean Girls. Unfortunately, it is a behavior that some Twitter users engage in. The FTC Dot Com Disclosures: Information About Advertising states, "The FTC Act's prohibition on unfair or deceptive acts or practices broadly covers advertising claims, marketing and promotional activities, and sales practices in general. The FTC's Advertising and Marketing Guidance states, "under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply." Since a Twitter account may be considered an advertising platform, the FTC's Dot Com Disclosures may apply to your Tweets.
In the legal profession, lawyers must follow their jurisdiction's Code of Professional Responsibility. For example, Rule 7.1 of New York's Rules of Professional Conduct State: "(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not use or disseminate or participate in the use or dissemination of any advertisement that: (1) contains statements or claims that are false, deceptive or misleading; or (2) violates a Rule." Therefore, a lawyer's Twitter account may be perceived as an advertisement even if it is only used for personal purposes. What if the Twitter account is utilized for both commercial and personal activities? Social Media has blurred the lines between what some people may see as personal and what others may interpret as your professional message. Therefore, it is imperative to understand that your social media activity may have both ethical and legal consequences.
The bottom line is that reputation building and expertise takes years to achieve and that short cuts in the long run will fail. In the 1987 hit movie, "Can't Buy Me Love" Ronald Miller, an unpopular kid in high school paid the most popular girl in high school Cindy Mancini $1,000 to pretend that she was his girlfriend for a month. Ronald's hypothesis was that if Cindy was his girlfriend he would become popular. Overnight, Ronald went from "totally geek" to "totally sheik". However, his new found popularity was short-lived because as soon as the rest of the school found out that he had to pay Cindy to pretend to be his girlfriend (analogous on Twitter to paying a service to obtain followers on your behalf or following tens of thousands of people and then un-following them once you receive a follow back) Ronald's brand was destroyed. Ronald learned in high school that there are no short cuts in reputation building.
The bottom line is acting like a "Social Media Ronald Miller" will not succeed in the long run. While utilizing social media one must understand there are ethical and legal ramifications of what you post and how you utilize each platform.
To learn more about social media legal, branding, and ethical issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)