Companies and other businesses who have shown interest in pursuing social media marketing must be made aware of certain developments at the federal level before going through on that front.

Jon Leibowitz, chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, says the efforts of online marketers have “fallen short” to create a do-not-track mechanism, through a 120-plus page report. The efforts, the report describes, have been overly-complicated for consumers to opt-out of being tracked for marketing information, as well as other self-regulatory efforts.

On the night before he is scheduled to testify before a congressional hearing, Leibowitz and the FTC have called for markets to voluntarily create a user-friendly mechanism that would allow consumers to easily opt-out of data collection.

The reports detailed the marketers efforts to self-regulate and described them as being slow and failing to “provide adequate and meaningful protection.”

It has been over two years since FTC first called for online marketers to provide a clear and concise way for consumers to opt out of data collection, and as it would appear, those calls have fallen by the wayside. Now, the congressional hearings are being called in.

Before being called in from of a congressional committee. Leibowitz expressed his dissatisfaction with the marketers self-regulatory initiative and said, however, that he and the FTC are not calling for privacy regulations, but are not opposed to supporting legislation in the future should it come to that.

In a roundabout way, an ultimatum has been set by the FTC, that it’s been too long and things need to change.

If you are a business or company moving towards online marketing, the FTC is looking for two things – an opt-out mechanism, and that that mechanism is user-friendly.

Some companies have responded and have gotten out ahead of any prospective legislation, most notably Mircosoft, which has included an opt-out function for its latest version of Internet Explorer.

Buzzphoria passionately believes that companies must carefully monitor where and when their messages appear online. We adhere strictly to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association’s (WOMMA) Code of Ethics along with those set fourth by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), as well as our own sense of keeping our clients’ best interests in mind.

Businesses that wish to take advantage of the social media space in their marketing strategies should be aware of recent developments in the courts with regards to the privacy and confidentiality in online sites. In these cases, unsuspecting site users have had their private conversations violated by site owners, who furthered their own interests by passing along valuable user information, navigation habits etc. to outside marketers.

In March of this year, judgment was handed down in the Facebook privacy lawsuit – the “Beacon Settlement,” in which user information was leaked to advertisers via banner ads – which resulted in Facebook being levied a $9.5 million fine. Furthermore, the court stipulated that Facebook set aside $6 million for the purpose of setting up a foundation, to be headed by a three-person board, tasked with ensuring the privacy of information for Facebook users.

It would appear that the online privacy issues have been resolved with social media users free to Twitter and post at will without fear of private conversations being violated.

However, the judgment which was levied down brings with it its own liabilities. The Facebook privacy foundation will be helmed by Tim Sparapani, the current Facebook director of public policy, which has led critics to call this a conflict of interests. In fact Ginger McCall, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, filed an appeal in the U.S. 9^th Circuit Court, calling the settlement “deficient and illusory.”

In addition, lawsuits have been filed against social media networking sites MySpace and Google Buzz for similar lapses in user privacy. MySpace applications – including TagMe, GreenSpot and RockYou Pets – have allegedly been passing user information to its advertisers.

Buzz – Google’s social networking service – has been charged with passing along personal information that might be held in a user’s Gmail account, making it public, and releasing what was confidential information if users did not specifically change the default settings. Google was recently forced to pay $8.5 million in damages.

Critics like McCall have lampooned the courts decisions, saying the penalty award amounts are misleading with only a small percentage of the damages go to the individual users who filed the lawsuits with the bulk going toward watchdog foundations.

Google admitted the February launch of Buzz was premature. But critics knew about these allegations beforehand and called Google out on its services deficiencies, but they continued with the launch anyway. This brings into question the security of social media more than ever. It is one thing when sites are passing consumer information to advertisers, but it is quite another when the safety of your confidential and personal information is jeopardized.

Even though a precedent has stemmed from these cases, McCall and others are left unsatisfied, even with millions of dollars made in settlements. They wish to go further and set additional legal precedents that will protect the privacy of social network users by having the site that violates those laws face serious penalties.

Buzzphoria believe that companies must carefully monitor where and when their messages appear online. We adhere strictly to the Word of Mouth Marketing Association’s (WOMMA) Code of Ethics along with those set fourth by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA), as well as our own sense of keeping our clients’ best interests in mind.

Microsoft announced recently a partnership with Facebook that would take the first step of a long-sought after goal to integrate social media and Internet search. Microsoft Bing will allow users to enter search terms and view responses as well as feedback from matches to those searched items from their Facebook “community.” For example, if someone should entering their Bing a search for a steakhouse, they might find several names of places in the area, but they will also find that a number of their friends have “liked” a specific steakhouse on their Facebook page. This has been a goal of search engines for some time and this marks the first step being taken in a new front of social media marketing.

You better believe that companies are taking that front very very seriously. Crown Imports EVP, which brings in Corona Beers, has launched a campaign centered around Corona Light to make it the most “Liked” beer on Facebook. Crown has purchased a large electronic display in New York’s Time Square urging people to “Make Us The Most Liked.” Not to buy Corona Light or drink Corona Light, but to make them the most liked on Facebook. To sink serious money into an advertising program such as that adds to the validity of the social market. Corona Light ranks eighth among light beer sales, but has risen in consumer sales since August while its competitors – Bud Light, Miller Light, Coors Light etc. – have declined in sales. And this is something that for certain will continue. If an average conusmer is sitting at home some night and is going to look for a movie to go see, he or she might go on Bing and check show times. If that person sees that 15 of their friends have seen and “liked” The Social Network, then they might be inclined to go see that.

Of course this brings into question the protection of personal information displayed on Facebook and other social media site – something which already has brought into question in the past. However, Mircosoft and Facebook, both, of course, have stated that personal information will not be taken or pulled or pirated or used. But with all that aside, this major push from a top company brings to the forefront the importance advertiser and companies alike are putting on social mediums, and how that is now paying off. Now, however, it will become on more important on more of a micro level with seeking after “likes.”

Buzzphoria will take that initiative and plan with the companies from the start to create a plan – a social media marketing strategy – whether it be gather “likes” on face to increase search engine optimization. Do you want your company to come up on the first page of a Google or Bing search? Who doesn’t? Of course an increase in exposure will get you company’s name on the mind of the consumer, but just where is that consumer located?

From early 2010 until the beginning of the summer, two Facebook users allege that the social networking site leaked users’ personal information to advertisers and marketers. David Gould and Mike Robertson claim that from February to May, Facebook leaked a generous amount of information about users who clicked on ads via refer headers. The clicks transmitted enough data to marketers that they could specifically identify the people (through their Facebook account) who arrive on the advertisers’ site after clicking on ads on Facebook. The pair claim that this violates federal and state privacy laws, as well as Facebook’s own privacy policy it ensures to all its users.

This is not the first time Facebook – or other social networking sites – have been accused of privacy violations. Just last year, two computer scientists published the report, “On the Leakage of Personally Identifiable Information via Online Social Networks,” which focused on how networking sites could be leaking personally identifiable information to marketers. One example given in an article published on MediaPost.com, if a gay Facebook users was struggling to come out of the closet, he or she might be view a Facebook gay support group page. If they should click on one of the ads on the page, the advertiser would then know that person was on a gay support group page, as well as their personal information given on their personal profile.

With just the click of the mouse, this person’s personal information – as well as the information from all the pervious pages they have visited – have been made available to advertisers and marketers, and what’s to stop the marketers from blindly soliciting these people? The truth – nothing. And what’s to stop these marketers from sharing information? Nothing. There exists no checks and balance system in online social media and marketing. Privacy laws exist, but it’s readily apparent how well those are followed if these allegations turn out to be true and Facebook glitches pass this information to its advertisers. Even so, nothing exists to check and see where these marketers obtained this information – it’s a roundabout way of “Everybody gets what they get,” and they will all use what they get.

Information needs to be protected, whether it be on a social media networking site or directly given to advertisers and marketers. For instance, when people sign up for Google Alerts and receive emails throughout the day because they want to monitor particular terms or information, they are trusting Google that they don’t need to worry about what else Google might do with that information or that they’ll have to deal with unsolicited, marketing emails. Much the same way they sign up for Google Alerts or other updates, people will sign up with marketers to receive emails about their products so they can be advertised to as opposed to a blind solicitation and are forced to wonder how a marketer got their information and what else they might be doing with it.

At Buzzphoria, we strictly adhere to WOMMA’s (Word of Mouth Marketing Association) Code of Ethics http://womma.org/ethics/code/intro/ and those of PRSA (Public Relations Society of America) http://www.prsa.org/AboutPRSA/Ethics/?utm_source=prsa_website&utm_medium=top_nav_intelligence&utm_campaign=ethics_nav. It is our feeling that as marketers, we need to provide consumers with a level of confidence when dealing with brands and companies not only to be transparent and authentic but to also protect the trust a consumer places in our hands when they provide us with personal information.

In a time when it seems to be a no-brainer for most companies to make the switch from analog to digital marketing initiatives, marketing strategists are making important decisions not only about which digital markets to reach out to, but also how much time and money could and should be allotted to digital expansion.

Enter a new study from the CMO Council and Accenture shows that not all Chief Marketing Officers (CMOs) are gung-ho about investing company funds into digital outlets.

According to the study, most CMOs agree that digitization is important — 78 percent agreed with the survey statement, “digital channels are important to their organization.” Also, half of those that were surveyed agreed that “Technology now underpins and shapes the entire customer experience.”

However, when asked if they’re “heavily committed and invested” in interactive digital marketing strategies, only one-third of the respondents agreed that they are prepared. Which begs the question: If so many marketing professionals feel that bridging the gap from analog to digital is essential to the future of their company, why haven’t they invested the necessary time and funds to do so?

(Un)Preparedness — Of the CMOs that were polled in the study, only 38 percent said they “believed their organization was prepared to exploit the opportunities presented by digital marketing channels.” So what about the other 62 percent who say they don’t feel that they’re ready to take advantage of the growing digital climate?

· 59 percent say they feel that they don’t have the funding for digital upgrades.

· 46 percent say that there is a disconnect between how digital marketing operates, and general understanding among senior management that curbs digital marketing investments.

(Lack of) Confidence — Perhaps even more daunting is the number of CMOs that agreed that they know how their customers utilize digital outlets. Only 27 percent concurred, “We know what we need to know about customers’ usage of our digital channels.”

Here at Buzzphoria, we understand that it takes a multi-layered approach when it comes to understanding the ins and outs of digital marketing. We help our clients find ways to bridge the gap that stands between companies who understand how important digital marketing has become, and what it takes to effectively understand and tap those essential resources. In an ever-increasing digitized business climate we believe that it is absolutely essential for companies to understand which trends their target audience is most likely to follow, and finally how to effectively meld digital with traditional marketing.

Has your company decided to go head-first into what it takes to meet the needs of your digital consumer? Tell us about it!

The Michigan Business and Professional Association (MBPA) has named Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria LLC as one of Metropolitan Detroit’s “101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For,” marking the fourth year in a row that the agency has been named.

“We are proud to receive this high honor once again,” said Adrienne Lenhoff, Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria founder and president. “We take special care in making our workplace a creative and fun place to work for our employees,” she added, “and the results show in both our work for clients and the dedication that our staff shows every day in accomplishing their goals.”

Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria and 100 other businesses in greater Michigan will be honored at an awards luncheon on Wednesday, September 22, 2010, at The Dearborn Inn, a Marriott hotel located in Dearborn, Mich.

Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria, Novi, Mich.-based businesses, have also received numerous recognitions from Crain’s Detroit Business named as a “Cool Place to Work.” The selection of Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria, along with other winning companies, affirms to its employees, clients, vendors, and to the business community at large, that it is committed to being one of the Best and Brightest companies to work for.

MBPA qualifies companies using independent research that evaluates company communication, community initiatives, compensation and benefits. The organization also reviews other categories such as diversity and multiculturalism, employee education and development, employee engagement and commitment, and work-life balance.

“Because the companies selected have created impressive organizational value and business results through their policies and best practices in human resource management, we believe it is important to recognize their accomplishments, especially at a time when all businesses are being challenged in ways never before seen,” said Jennifer Kluge, MBPA executive vice president and chief operating officer.

Metro Detroit’s 101 Best and Brightest Companies to Work For is sponsored by AT&T Michigan, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Corp!, Magazine, Davenport University, DTE Energy, Pepsi Bottling Group, Douglas Marketing, The Designate, Strategic Staffing Solutions, WJBK Fox 2, HRAGD, the Detroit Athletic Club and McGraw Wentworth.
About Shazaaam!/Buzzphoria

Founded in 2001, Shazaaam! (shazaaam.com) is an award-winning, independently owned, group of affiliated communications companies headquartered in Novi, Mich. Shazaaam! Public Relations, Social Media Marketing Agency Buzzphoria (buzzphoria.com) and experiential marketing company Promo Marketing Team (promomarketingteam.com) specialize in traditional public relations, social media marketing, product sampling and street-level marketing promotions and events, respectively, on a national level. Specialties include media and public relations, guerilla marketing, online viral marketing, electronic and new media development, mobile tours, product samplings, social networking and event coordination and management.

Since the beginning of the Internet, a wild-west mentality has prevailed with people anonymously blasting articles and blogs with caustic comments. The authors and bloggers are stunned and left shaking their heads wondering about the anger and venom they’ve suffered.

For decades the Internet hasn’t held users accountable for reckless comments. But that may be changing in two ways. First, social networking sites, such as Facebook, are requiring participants to use their real names. In addition, lawsuits are also being filed against anonymous Internet users for slanderous comments or posting vital information about crimes.

Many would (and still do) argue that online anonymity will not fade away. Just imagine the sound of keyboards declaring that Internet users deserve their first amendment rights- FREEDOM OF SPEECH. So, the question is, does the first amendment cover a person who hides behind a false name only to harm others or add fuel to the fire? The answer is NO.

Consequences: It’s widely known that unruly or harsh comments associated with a person’s real persona could cost them a prospective job, clients and reputation. Hiding behind a fictitious name does not provide real protection, as digital fingerprints are easy to track.

Take for example the non-ethical behavior of companies who have asked their employees to provide glowing third party comments to impact stock price or sales. The courts have simply called this type of corporate behavior, fraud.

Here at Buzzphoria (www.buzzphoria.com), we respect the disclosure of identity standards from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, WOMMA, which requires members to disclose their relationships or identities with consumers when they may influence a customer’s buying-decision. Our rules of the worldwide-web begin with an introduction of who we are, the name of client we represent and our purpose for responding to the blog or article. That is just the way we do business.

Telling the truth –It’s not only the right thing to do- it takes courage. For example Activision Blizzard Inc., one of the world’s largest videogame companies, boldly set guidelines for users’ online posts.

The company placed a requirement that gamers list their real names to post messages in online forums, just in time for the change to be applied to its first forums of the company’s highly anticipated “StarCraft II,” which was released in late July.  The purpose of the policy was to deflate the sometimes-nasty discussions amongst gamers.

Sadly, the policy collapsed after a widespread backlash from game users. The service is based on paid-subscriptions, and the company was concerned a revolt from consumers could mean a drop in sales.

But what is to be said about online sites that are not held at the mercy of consumers’ demand? Are they more willing to allow users to post factitious names without being held accountable for any wrong doings? A growing number of legal decisions are making it easier for lawyers to use legal proceedings to have online users’ names disclose. A move that hints the guidelines for Internet postings may shift for safety reasons, and to control unruly and malicious users.

One infamous case, the Lori Drew MySpace trial, made international headlines as the court reviewed evidence that a St. Louis suburb mom established a fake online identity to bully her daughter’s rival, who eventually committed suicide. Although the court eventually threw out the case, the judge threatened to criminalize the act of creating a fake persona online. The publicity surrounding the case echoed through the Internet community.

For now, users still have the right to their online anonymity. But based on the string of legal cases and Internet company reactions, there may soon be a major change to Internet users rights. In the meantime, users should be careful about their content, and the possible damage it may cause.

The simplest rule to follow is- use your name and stand behind your words. Why would so many users fight this?

As with all marketing mediums, there’s a lot of dialogue and discussion on how to measure the success of a campaign or marketing initiative.  Within the social media space marketers, companies and brands have been trying to figure out the holy grail of social media measurement.  For many, they try to say that the logical metric is the number of fans or followers that a brand or company accumulates across platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.  We beg to differ.

At the end of the day, any campaign, whether it be in the social or traditional marketing space lives, breathes and dies based on how well it ultimately moves the sales meter.  While from an analytic standpoint, it’s nice to have cost per impressions and reach costs, we also need to understand that today’s consumer has “constant partial attention”.  So, while you may be reaching them with impressions, or having them click on a like button or a follow button - are you really reaching through the clutter of marketing messages and noise that are competing for that consumer’s attention?

In reality, many consumers will click a like button or a follow button because a friend of a friend of a friend of the marketer reached the consumer and told them to click.  They’ll click and never look back.  So, at the end of the day, you’ve got a false population of fans/likes/followers who could care less about the messages they’re being blasted via Twitter, Facebook and the other platforms in which the brand is trying to engage their attention.

From our standpoint, the real measurement of both traditional and social media marketing success is multi-layered and lies between the actual engagement of those consumers — are they becoming evangelists?, are they engaging with your brand or company?, are you having viable dialogues that bring value to the consumer (and to the brand)?, and - most importantly - is there a positive impact to your brand or company’s bottom line???

How are you measuring your current campaign success?  We’d love to hear your thoughts…

Do you know what your employees, past employees and stake holders are saying about your company and brand?  While many brands and corporations are focusing their social media efforts on consumer/customer dialogues; many fail to monitor what their internal audiences are saying.

We’ve been seeing repeated patterns among employees of companies, both publicly traded and privately held…Does your company fall into this pattern?

At Buzzphoria, we use proprietary software to measure what’s being said about companies, brands and their competitors across all social media and web-based communications channels.  When we first begin working with clients, we run historic searches to provide a benchmark for where they are in social electronic conversations - who’s talking about them, what’s being said, where it’s being said, what’s the tone, sentiment, relevancy of the conversation (ie., how many people are monitoring that particular conversation and what is the level of influence of the sites, platforms and individuals who are having those conversations, etc).  This Social Media Reality Check, as we call it, provides valuable insights that shape our recommendations, strategy and implementation of our clients’ core social media outreach.

In addition to consumer/customer communications, we also spend a great deal of time working with our clients to identify the social media discussions that are taking place by stake holders within their organizations.

From an internal corporate communications standpoint the pattern that we’ve been seeing:

1.  Most of the clients we’re called in to work with (both private and public companies) do not have a blog/twitter/social media strategy policy related to employee communications.  Many have been calling us in to a) see if they need a policy, b) run a baseline to see what’s being said and c) craft a policy for them that is easy for employees to understand, is easy to monitor and enforce and is respectful of protecting proprietary corporate information while also being respectful of the employees’ personal rights…

2.  It has been more of the rule, rather than the exception, that we’ve found multiple employee run groups on social networking sites (not just business sites such as LinkedIn and Plaxo; but also more generalized personal sites such as Facebook).  The groups and pages we’ve uncovered have by and large been using the corporate logo, have identified themselves by the corporate name and have encouraged and have been populated by both present and past employees.  In nearly every instance, the corporation hiring us was unaware that these groups existed.

3.  In addition, for each of the corporations that we’ve done this for, we have also uncovered both employee blogs and Twitter accounts.  While the bulk of the Twitter accounts and blogs we’ve found have been for personal use, we have found that in nearly all instances, the employee with these accounts is also sprinkling their personal conversations and communications with corporate information.

Since one of Twitter’s best uses is as a content aggregator, we’ve found that most Twitter accounts held by corporate employees has also been programmed to aggregate Twitter communications onto multiple social networking and blog platforms the employee possesses (for example - they send a Tweet on Twitter and the tweet is updated to their Facebook, Linkedin and Blog pages).

Some specific examples of information we’ve seen that can be damaging to the corporation:

-   employees conversing about new clients they’re going after

-   employees conversing about job and company dissatisfaction

-   employees conversing about looking for new jobs

-   employees conversing about problems (product failures, forthcoming earnings statements, possible recalls)

-   employees conversing about product development initiatives

Most of the time, the employees are not even aware that their conversations could potentially be having a negative impact on the corporation.

4.  For the majority of publicly traded companies we’re working with, we’ve found that both media and analysts are conversing on multiple platforms (Twitter, blogs, discussion groups, social media pages, etc) and that our clients were unaware these conversations were taking place.

Do you know what your employees and stake holders are saying about your company and or brand?

In our last posting, we talked about how we’ve made ourselves our own best case study by putting our own brand on the line to illustrate how we can help you protect yours.

As we discussed last time, there are unscrupulous individuals and groups who are hijacking brands for both sport and profit.  In our case, a hijacker registered and began impersonating the Buzzphoria brand on Twitter.

The first step in defending your company and brand when a hijacker hits it to verse yourself on your rights within terms of service for the social media platform or site in which your brand has been compromised.

Below is a screen shot from Twitter’s Terms of Service:

Twitter Terms of Service

Notice that the Terms of Service clearly state that:

1. You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users.
2. You may not use the Twitter.com service for any illegal or unauthorized purpose. International users agree to comply with all local laws regarding online conduct and acceptable content.
3. You must not, in the use of Twitter, violate any laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright laws).

Twitter General Conditions - Terms of Service

Please note the following:

1. We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Use.
2. We reserve the right to reclaim usernames on behalf of businesses or individuals that hold legal claim or trademark on those usernames.

Below, we’ve share the final section of Twitter’s Terms of Service - Copyright (What’s Yours is Yours):

Twitter Terms of Service - Copyright

Please note the following:

Twitter undertakes to obey all relevant copyright laws. We will review all claims of copyright infringement received and remove content deemed to have been posted or distributed in violation of any such laws. To make a claim, please provide us with the following:

1. A physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or the person authorized to act on its behalf;
2. A description of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed;
3. A description of the infringing material and information reasonably sufficient to permit Twitter to locate the material;
4. Your contact information, including your address, telephone number, and email;
5. A statement by you that you have a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law; and
6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and, under the pains and penalties of perjury, that you are authorized to act on behalf of the copyright owner.