The Disclaimer Revisited – An Opportunity for Employer Brand and Personal Brand to Coexist and Prosper

by vergenewmedia on March 17, 2010 · 107 comments


The Employee Blogger – Manage the Risk and Reap Reward

I wrote my very first blog post here three years ago, nearly to the day.   In 2005, I had an awakening to just how disruptive the empowered social web was to my industry, and ultimately my job.   So rather than just sticking my head in the sand, and hoping all of you would stop using the interwebs and start being better TV citizens, I dove right in and began exploring new communication channels.  My blogging, Twitter and experimentation with emerging mobile trends – such as location based services – have all been a part of my continuing media eduction.  To be honest, its also about positioning myself favorably in a troubling and uncertain career landscape for those of us who still toil in legacy media.

While anonymity was my cover early on, a modicum of web notoriety and Google ranking has put me in a position where those who employ me pay attention to what I say here and on Twitter.  Whether it’s this blog, what I say when I speak publicly, or my behavior  on the job – interacting with people face to face – it’s important that I represent the brand of my employer favorably.  I hope I do that here, but while we’re on the topic, I wanted to point you to my blog disclaimer, so that you know that these are MY thoughts, observations, and views.

Disclaimer 2.0

So, as you can see, I’m hoping that this “living, breathing disclaimer” can be an opportunity to demonstrate that I’m doing it right.   Thoughtless online behavior by a CEO or the lowest ranking worker, can put brands in a negative light.  Sometimes an insightful employee’s blog, like former Forrester analyst Jeremiah Owyang’s Web Strategy,  can take the spotlight off of the employers brand.

Recently,  Forrester Research laid out new guidelines prohibiting their analysts from blogging about research ares that they cover.  To some it’s a smart move that prevents their employees from diluting the brand.  To others, it’s seen as “Epic Enterprise 2.0 Fail” – a way of jealously preventing their personal brands from getting larger and more relevant.

Forrester CEO George Colony is well aware of that savvy analysts can build their personal brands via their positions as Forrester analysts amplified by social media (see the post on “Altimeter Envy”). As a consequence, a Forrester policy that tries to restrict analysts’ personally-branded research blogs works to reduce the possibility that the analysts will build a valuable personal brand leading to their departure. -  SageCircle

Employers struggle with the notion of their workers having a voice on the web.  At the extremes, there are two tribes – one that espouses a social media utopia where every worker has open access to social networks, and another that operates in fear and pushes to silence the rank and file.  Hopefully, a more pragmatic third tribe recognizes the risks and rewards of their employees social media use and provides a set of guidelines for them.  NPR has an approach to all of this that I admire.

As NPR grows to serve the audience well beyond the radio, social media is becoming an increasingly important aspect of our interaction and our transparency with our audience and with a variety of communities. Properly used, social networking sites can also be very valuable newsgathering and reporting tools and can speed research and extend a reporter’s contacts, and we encourage our journalists to take advantage of them. – NPR Social Media Guidelines

Policy Evolution

These policies and guidelines will continue to evolve as new technologies and communications platforms further push the boundaries of openness and transparency.

I’m interested in hearing your experiences – as a worker or an employer – with disclaimers, social media policies and the like.  I’ve already gotten some good  feedback on Twitter and Facebook.

Daniel Johnson Jr

It does bring forth this idea on how intertwined a personal brand is with one’s employer. Can one’s presence online be completely separate from his or her employer? I’m thinking this is becoming harder and harder to do. (via Facebook)
@newmediajim – It’s not required by the company policy, but I put one in there anyway just to make clear that it’s my personal thoughts.
@newmediajim I have a disclaimer on my blog, but not because of employer’s (nonexistent) policy. It’s just there to keep the trolls at bay.
@newmediajim I guess. It’s just to avoid people running back saying “SOMEONE FROM ARS SAID THIS!” Never happened, but could one day!
@newmediajim if we HAD an SM policy (bangs head against desk) I’d be better able to answer that question. #frustration

QUESTIONS:

  • Do you think employer blog polices go to far?
  • Do you think workers’ social media activities  should be sanctioned or monitored?
  • What companies or employees are balancing these issues well?

As always i appreciate your feedback.  Your comments truly build on my incomplete thoughts here.

Sphere: Related Content

Tagged as: blog disclaimer, employee blog policy, risk management, social media policy

Newer Comments →
  • Anonymous

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Anonymous

    this opportunity would be really good for users of all kind.

  • Anonymous

    Oddly, the Department of Defense opened up the ability for service members to access social media from government computers with some qualified restrictions revolving around operations security. Pretty standard and smart stuff. BUT, they didn’t require the individual services to require access to FB, Twitter, etc… with the predicted outcome — no change. I still can’t access it from an Air Force computer. C’est la vie. nnOn my own time, I can do it. I wouldn’t violate Operations Security concerns in any case. I’ve chosen to downplay my personal brand.

  • Anonymous

    Jim and I have been discussing this on twitter today. I know the frustration of not having a policy has on those that can be slated to loose their jobs because of their social media activity. I would argue the case for debating that fact since their wasn’t an existing policy in the first place. To be fired on the grounds of a policy that doesn’t exist is in itself debatable IMHO. nnHere is my take on why the branding issue is a debate b/w personal & corporate brands. http://bit.ly/9y8rUU

  • Anonymous

    I’m not surprised really. Organizations are typically not early adaptors to new concepts. On a whole most are not agile or curious enough to adapt quickly while many individuals do. It will take a partnership between organizations and individuals to work together to formulate guidelines together since many employees are already actively participating in various forms of social media. It may take individuals leading the way for it to happen and organizations should empower them to do. Lastly, the guidelines will be an evolving process with a lot of learning happening along the way.

  • Anonymous

    Very good points Ann Marie. What struck me was how many people rnresponded to me on Twitter saying they were frustrated that their rnemployers didn’t yet have a policy.

  • Anonymous

    I think both employees and employers are struggling with this dilemma. Most companies are lacking guidelines and many are having to backtrack causing confusion and sometimes resentment. There’s a lot of gray area and I see guidelines evolving as organizations feel their way. rnrnToday, we often are what we do or where we work so we are identified as such. (And that isn’t necessarily a good thing.) I learned this early on. Before I was a consultant, I was a spokesperson for a large regional organization and within the media community I was identified as such. I couldn’t really fully express myself on a diversity of issues because I was the face of the organization and perhaps some of my views weren’t the same as the organization. I never wanted to cause confusion so I kept my views to myself not participating in marco/mirco-blogging until I became a consultant. rnrnBasically, what I’m trying to say is regardless of whatever a disclaimer says, people are going to be defined by what they do and who they work for especially if your position is more public-facing. So best to keep it clean and respectable. After all, this is the Internet-age and nothing ever really goes away. rnrn

  • Anonymous

    That raises an interesting question of whether to extend one’s disclaimer to blog comments or Twitter posts!

  • Anonymous

    In higher ed (where you would imagine faculty members’ assurance of academic freedom) courts have ruled against faculty when they have commented in public about the governance or administration of the college or university. The principle of academic freedom, grounded in the First Amendment, protects a scholar’s right to express freely points of view related to his or her research field, but does not extend to public expressions of views about his or her institution and its students or staff or administration. The Supreme Court’s Garcetti v. Ceballos decision, which ruled on public employees, has been applied by lower courts to professors.rnrnThat’s why, in many instances when postings are critical, bloggers go undercover. A blogging employee could also post anonymous snarky comments on his/her own blog postings!

  • Anonymous

    Misha! thanks for coming by! :) I do agree that when you know some of the people associated with a brand, it helps humanize that brand. Glad I can be some part of that. I DEFINITELY don’t talk politics, precisely because I cover it.

  • Anonymous

    If it’s any consolation, even someone like myself who has no employer has to watch what they say. Being in the job market, you have to worry about everything coming back to haunt you. One thing though, I’ve decided that I will still wear my politics on my sleeve. It’s such a big part of who I am. I do try to keep that on my more anonymous twitter account. nnI’ve become much more of a loyalist to brands represented by the people I interact with through social media. I read links and try to catch the people when the are guests or even filming certain segments. Your personalization of NBC is a big draw. They should be proud.

  • Anonymous

    Robert, Thank you for kicking off the conversation here. I enjoy rntalking with you on Twitter and glad you took the time to leave your rnthoughts here. I’m inclined to agree with you and would go so far as rnto say I’m more of a proponent of guidelines than policies. Still, rnsometimes people go way off reservation and policies are a way of rnaddressing continued problems.

  • Anonymous

    Either the employer or the employee must give ground for the other’s branding requirements. I favor the employer giving ground as having expressive employees is an overall benefit to normally staid corporate expression. Regardless, much trust is required.

  • Pingback: The Disclaimer Revisited – An Opportunity for Employer Brand and Personal Brand to Coexist and Prosper

  • http://twitter.com/rjamestaylor Robert Taylor

    Either the employer or the employee must give ground for the other's branding requirements. I favor the employer giving ground as having expressive employees is an overall benefit to normally staid corporate expression. Regardless, much trust is required.

    • newmediajim

      Robert, Thank you for kicking off the conversation here. I enjoy
      talking with you on Twitter and glad you took the time to leave your
      thoughts here. I'm inclined to agree with you and would go so far as
      to say I'm more of a proponent of guidelines than policies. Still,
      sometimes people go way off reservation and policies are a way of
      addressing continued problems.

  • misha1234

    If it's any consolation, even someone like myself who has no employer has to watch what they say. Being in the job market, you have to worry about everything coming back to haunt you. One thing though, I've decided that I will still wear my politics on my sleeve. It's such a big part of who I am. I do try to keep that on my more anonymous twitter account.

    I've become much more of a loyalist to brands represented by the people I interact with through social media. I read links and try to catch the people when the are guests or even filming certain segments. Your personalization of NBC is a big draw. They should be proud.

    • newmediajim

      Misha! thanks for coming by! :) I do agree that when you know some of the people associated with a brand, it helps humanize that brand. Glad I can be some part of that. I DEFINITELY don't talk politics, precisely because I cover it.

  • Pingback: uberVU - social comments

  • thomaslawrencelong

    In higher ed (where you would imagine faculty members' assurance of academic freedom) courts have ruled against faculty when they have commented in public about the governance or administration of the college or university. The principle of academic freedom, grounded in the First Amendment, protects a scholar's right to express freely points of view related to his or her research field, but does not extend to public expressions of views about his or her institution and its students or staff or administration. The Supreme Court's Garcetti v. Ceballos decision, which ruled on public employees, has been applied by lower courts to professors.

    That's why, in many instances when postings are critical, bloggers go undercover. A blogging employee could also post anonymous snarky comments on his/her own blog postings!

    • newmediajim

      That raises an interesting question of whether to extend one's disclaimer to blog comments or Twitter posts!

  • http://www.ann-sense.com/ Ann Marie van den Hurk, APR

    I think both employees and employers are struggling with this dilemma. Most companies are lacking guidelines and many are having to backtrack causing confusion and sometimes resentment. There's a lot of gray area and I see guidelines evolving as organizations feel their way.

    Today, we often are what we do or where we work so we are identified as such. (And that isn't necessarily a good thing.) I learned this early on. Before I was a consultant, I was a spokesperson for a large regional organization and within the media community I was identified as such. I couldn't really fully express myself on a diversity of issues because I was the face of the organization and perhaps some of my views weren't the same as the organization. I never wanted to cause confusion so I kept my views to myself not participating in marco/mirco-blogging until I became a consultant.

    Basically, what I'm trying to say is regardless of whatever a disclaimer says, people are going to be defined by what they do and who they work for especially if your position is more public-facing. So best to keep it clean and respectable. After all, this is the Internet-age and nothing ever really goes away.

    • newmediajim

      Very good points Ann Marie. What struck me was how many people
      responded to me on Twitter saying they were frustrated that their
      employers didn't yet have a policy.

      • http://www.ann-sense.com/ Ann Marie van den Hurk, APR

        I'm not surprised really. Organizations are typically not early adaptors to new concepts. On a whole most are not agile or curious enough to adapt quickly while many individuals do. It will take a partnership between organizations and individuals to work together to formulate guidelines together since many employees are already actively participating in various forms of social media. It may take individuals leading the way for it to happen and organizations should empower them to do. Lastly, the guidelines will be an evolving process with a lot of learning happening along the way.

  • Pingback: Disclaimers on personal blogs: Should we name names? - WSU New Media Group

  • http://www.shireenmitchell.com digitalsista

    Jim and I have been discussing this on twitter today. I know the frustration of not having a policy has on those that can be slated to loose their jobs because of their social media activity. I would argue the case for debating that fact since their wasn't an existing policy in the first place. To be fired on the grounds of a policy that doesn't exist is in itself debatable IMHO.

    Here is my take on why the branding issue is a debate b/w personal & corporate brands. http://bit.ly/9y8rUU

  • http://twitter.com/DanCMos DCM

    Oddly, the Department of Defense opened up the ability for service members to access social media from government computers with some qualified restrictions revolving around operations security. Pretty standard and smart stuff. BUT, they didn't require the individual services to require access to FB, Twitter, etc… with the predicted outcome — no change. I still can't access it from an Air Force computer. C'est la vie.

    On my own time, I can do it. I wouldn't violate Operations Security concerns in any case. I've chosen to downplay my personal brand.

  • http://www.advancedraidrecovery.co.uk Raid Recovery

    this opportunity would be really good for users of all kind.

  • http://www.searchengineoptimisation.com Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

  • Phil

    But still in some private, i see restrictions and hear that…if govt. allow those social media access, that why its limited in private business houses

Newer Comments →

Previous post:

Next post: