Article written by

  • For all you know, it was an intern who posted that comment. The problem seems to me is that everyone wants to ‘do’ social media.

    As a result, you have business men who traditionally have been traders who decide ‘Hey, I need a website and e-commerce to expand my reach. I also need some interns who troll blogs and twitter and post reviews and make comments and flag negative feedback on consumer forums’

    The question really is, do people approach social media for true feedback and fix what is potentially or to massage perception. If its the latter, the facade is sure to crack.

    Great post !

  • It was a pleaure to see my comment giving you fodder for an entirely new post.
    If internet is indeed the major influence on consumer mindset, employees should adhere to a hypothetical guideline to social media usage.
    But as is evident majorly, internet is still a personal opinion medium. And unless employees go on the offensive against their organizations, they barely notice or comment on the correct behavior.

    Btw, great post!

  • Interesting article. I also read the previous article which provoked this post.

    My 2 Cents:
    1. Do you give a disclaimer that you are associated to Edelman everytime you talk something about it or you retweet its tweet. A visit to your bio would tell your followers that, but would everyone do that.

    2. since the commenter did not publish his relation to Myntra explicitly (jus like you dont do it in your tweets about Edelman), why canr we assume that this was his personal opinion. He has a right to personally like his organization.

    • Pooja: Good questions!The point is, again, in semantics. A twitter ID, by nature, is just a nickname and people usually go to the main Twitter page to see more about that tweeter. A twitter handle invites people to know more about the tweeter. The blog comment, on the other hand, is done with an email ID as a identifier. People, normally, do not search (like me) based on a name/email ID, a person’s associations on Google.From that perspective, the comment looks and seems anonymous despite the name/email ID given – it looks like a harmless 3rd party validation of how good the brand is…only issue is that it is not a 3rd party endorsement – it is an insider’s opinion. It is in the interest of the brand and the insider that there is a disclaimer, however small it is – so that that opinion carry far more weight, by sheer effort of being transparent, than it does now.If my original post was negative, this comment would be akin to astroturfing, but as I mention in this post above, this comment is not wrong and is definitely not astroturfing. I was merely pointing to ways where this comment could have helped their brand better!

  • Had the post been a scathing negative review, or even a negative post made by a competitor, I would suggest being open about comments.
    I also think that companies need to encourage employees to be evangelists for their company, and companies need to have some sort of Social Media Guidelines policy so that employees know what is expected. They should also know and expect that “the company” is monitoring their online reputation. As such, knowing what employees are saying is important.

  • Good post. I don’t outright evangelize myself or my company. I am more concerned about not looking like a spam artist then trying to get a quick plug in for myself. I think the damage of being considered troll-like outweighs the possible positives of whatever you may post about yourself.

    I attempt to provide meaningful comments or content that is as unbiased as I can be, in hopes that people will appreciate it enough to then check out who I am or what company I work for.

    I don’t think anything is wrong with being proud of yourself or your company, just don’t be spammy.