Entries Tagged as 'Web'

Short URLs, trust and security

yellow_padlock

A recent episode of the For Immediate Release podcast — I believe it was show 486 — included a discussion about worms on Twitter and the connection with the (in)security of shortened URLs shared online. As FIR co-host Shel Holtz alluded to, even if you trust the sender or sharer of a shortened URL, those links — which mask the destination with a simpler, shorter tinyurl.com or bit.ly address — are fraught with danger. Or, at least, potential danger.

This is something I’ve discussed more than once with my friend and local code wizard Garrick Van Buren. He’s built his own URL shortener, grv.me, that he uses to share stuff he creates. He’s done the same for MinnPost.com with its minnpo.st URL shortener, which the local news outfit uses to share its own stories on Twitter and the like.

Why? Trust. When you see a TinyURL, you have no idea what the link is going to point you to. Viruses, spyware, porn and all sorts of other unwanted or inappropriate stuff are just a click away. Sure, there are some tricks to help alleviate that problem, but what if you actually could trust a shortened URL?

That’s there grv.me and minnpo.st come in. Once you’re familiar with them — once their respective publishers introduce you to them — you can trust them as much as you trust their publishers. Because you know only Garrick can create grv.me URLs, there’s no virus at the other end. Coke, a client of ours, also created its own URL shortener — with trust being one factor and, I’m sure, the desire to control the technology rather than rely on someone else’s as another factor. (though we had nothing to do with the creation of this tool).

The need for safety and security online will not go away. Don’t worry: Smart people like Garrick will be here to help.

Photo courtesy of zach_manchester on Flickr

Staffing business Twitter accounts with multiple people

TeamworkAlbert Maruggi and I have started working with a new client, a brand new Web start-up, and we’re already seeing some folks mentioning the client on blogs and in Twitter conversations. Beyond that, we’ll obviously be working with a Web-savvy crowd, so having a strong presence in these online communities is important.

“Being on Twitter,” then, is a given. When we have four people on the team, both at our firm and at the client company, who are actively monitoring and interacting via Twitter, the challenge is how to work with a single account profile while still conforming to these amorphous norms that “govern” the Twitter community.

The CEO of Client made sure, early on, to sign up for a Twitter account with Client as the username. A good start. The @Client Twitter profile hadn’t been used much yet, though, because building their product, their Web platform, has been the focus of their energy. So we’re basically starting from a blank slate.

However, as individuals, those of us on the “Twitter team” are fairly active Twitterers under our own names. That’s an asset, as we each have a fair amount of rapport and credibility built up. We’ve demonstrated, at least to some extent, that we “get it.” We’re not just swooping in to “do some PR,” “drive some traffic” and move on to the next thing.

It’s a good thing to have so many people interacting on behalf of the client, and we’ll all surely continue to do so under our own names. But for some of our work, we’ll need to operate under the obvious and official @Client profile. The challenge is to make sure the people we’re talking to know who they’re talking to. Personality and identity on Twitter, as is the case just about anywhere, are important.

So how do we plan to handle this? Well, for starters, we want to make it clear that the profile is staffed by a team — even going to far as to change the display name to “Client.com Team.” Additionally, we’ll change the brief bio section to say something to this effect:

Info about Client.com and [the subjects dear to their hearts], from @[ClientCEO], @albertmaruggi and @mjkeliher.

We’ll also make a habit out of signing our tweets with our first name or our initials, so people will know who wrote each one. For example, my tweets might look like this:

Client: Client.com is looking for usability testers. If anyone in the Twin Cities area is interested, let us know. -MJK

I stole that trick from the team that twitters for NPR’s “Bryant Park Project.” All good ideas are made to be stolen, right?

Speaking of which, we’ll round out the tactics for twittering as a team (alliteration!) by using the all important URL field of the Twitter profile to paint a full picture of the twittering team. Laura “Pistachio” Fitton was the first person I saw do this. The URL field of her Twitter profile points to a page on her site that serves one purpose: welcome people who have checked out her Twitter profile and explain a bit about who she is and what she does.

In the case of my client, we’ll have a page that explains, in very personable, conversation language (sadly, a scarcity in the worlds of PR and marketing) who we are and why we’re twittering as @Client. After all of the above, it will hardly be new information, but it is an opportunity to put a little more meat on the bone and offer more detail and color than the miniature Twitter profile section allows.

Have you done anything similar to this? What’s your approach? Any ideas to improve this method? I’m eager to hear some other insights.

Teamwork” courtesy of DavidBole on Flickr

MSNBC, you’re losing me

When the Wall Street Journal writes that MSNBC is ramping up it’s online news efforts…

“Instead of selling itself as a “breaking news” destination, as it once did, the site is trying to highlight the range of news and entertainment it offers.”

…all I can think is, “Great, more Anna Nicole Smith ‘news.’ ”

I am a media junkie — Web, print, broadcast, podcast — and I love MSNBC. Something about it just feels better than all of the other TV outlets. But damn, those folks are losing me quickly. I can’t stand one more damn minute about Anna Nicole Smith or Paris Hilton.

For god’s sake, Joe Scarborough used to be a damn congressman. Now his show’s “highlight” is a segment called “Hollyweird.” It’s nice that he’s not fawning over the celebs, but doesn’t he have better things to talk about?

Ethics in online PR: another breach

In the wake of recent companies-not-disclosing-their-online-activity news like this, the Washington Post brings us this little gem.

The Post writes about a company in Arlington, Va., called New Media Strategies. NMS is a company that provides online monitoring services for clients ranging from movie studios to politicians. Reading the article makes this sound like a fun place to work for a combination geek-and-media-junkie like me. But they’re doing more than just monitoring, as the Post writes:

Over the past few years, the “online analysts” have helped the companies track their reputations, found ways to get their products noticed and joined online conversations to help steer them the way clients want them to go.

Monitoring and “steering”? What a deal!

Immediately, ethics concerns arise. Eagarly awaiting that part of the article — “I hope the write about…!” — I make the jump to the Post article’s second page, which reveals:

Curran said she is careful to acknowledge her connection to clients when it’s required. All online marketers have to walk a fine line when they work the blogosphere. Federal Trade Commission rules require them to identify their roles when they’re making a point on behalf of a client, but if they’re gossiping about the latest episode of “Desperate Housewives” they can legally be as anonymous as anyone else.

Disclosure “when it’s required”? “Can legally be” anonymous? Sure, maybe it’s legal, but hopefully the folks at Edelman/Wal-Mart have learned that there’s more to this than the law. All of us in public relations, marketing, advertising, communication and the like are trying hard to figure out how to do our jobs well in these wild and crazy times, and there are surely no set-in-stone rules right now. Still, I think most will say that only disclosing a professional, client-employee relationship in these types of forums only when legally required is not enough.

The Public Relations Society of America has a code of ethics (PDF) for its members that says, among other things on the topic of disclosure, “Reveal the sponsors for causes and interests represented.” The Word of Mouth Marketing Association, of which Edelman is a member, has a code of ethics, too, which Edelman helped create. WOMMA has set up a Web page dedicated to discussing Edelman and it’s lack of blogging disclosure.

All of this points one thing: Following the law isn’t enough when it comes to disclosure. Professional communicators should follow a strong code of ethics. I hope New Media Strategies has stronger ethics than this article depicts.