a bee in my bonnet

Blog Blazers whets the appetite for more

At the last Social Media Breakfast, I picked up a copy of Blog Blazers: 40 Top Bloggers Share Their Secrets, by successful blogger Stephane Grenier.  The publisher (or the author?) made a box of copies available to the social media enthusiasts who showed up.

The book is a Q&A format series of interviews (conducted by email, it appears) with famous and successful bloggers, everyone from Aaron Wall to Yaro Starak.

Yes, it is organized alphabetically.

In fact, if I have a beef with the book, that's probably as good an example as anything of the author's unwillingness summarize or add value, to deviate from the formulaic way he set it up. 

All the bloggers, with the exception of Seth Godin, get asked the same questions, in the same order.

There are cases where this just seems silly, like when "Steph" the author runs through the list of questions with "Stephane" the blogger. (Yes, it's the same person.)  It also seems silly when a respondent replies with something along the lines of "I think I answered that question in my answer above." That's often enough, and somehow jarring every time.

This lack of critical editing and afterthought also leads Grenier to make a major error in the book, when he identifies "Manolo The Shoeblogger" as Manolo Blahnik, the famous shoe designer, in the chapter heading, even though the Shoeblogger has published a post trying to make it clear they are not one and the same. In the text of the chapter, in fact, the Shoeblogger says:

For the humble shoeblogger, the most exciting moment was when Maestro Manolo Blahnik the shoe designer, told the Times of London newspaper that he thought the Manolo's Shoe Blog was 'hilarous' [sic]. Ayyy! this was the Manolo the Shoeblogger proudest moment."

It seems to me that, if the author had carefully read the answers of the bloggers he was quizzing, he would not have mistakenly attributed the blog to the shoe designer. Or perhaps this is a problem introduced at the editing stage... but someone should have caught it, no?

Still, as a newer blogger, I have lots to learn, and there were takeaways for me from bloggers featured.

So, if you can put up with a formula that is, as my friend Francis Moran describes, "a mile wide and a pixel deep," then the book has some value to offer. It's a quick and (mostly) painless read.

He said, she said. Your brand is social.

People are talking, alright. Talking about you.

About how you suck, or how you went the extra mile. About what it is they see in you, or why they are about to give up on the relationship.

They are your customers, your prospects, your market. 

On February 20, Stuart MacDonald came to Ottawa to speak at Social Media Breakfast, and his talk was stirring. The founder of TripHarbor.com (also the founder of Expedia Canada, and later Chief Marketing Officer for Expedia.com) discussed travel as a perfect example of a market that is inherently social, and discussed how brands (in travel, and other industries) can and should tap into that power.

For travelers, the actual trip is only the beginning. Many travelers invest as much energy on sharing the details, from war stories about airlines, to comparing deals and prices. Travelers want to share insider information, tips, and even their photos with like-minded travelers. 

[Aside: What are the other markets where this is true? Books, for sure. Others? I know I don't buy an appliance without searching online for feedback about the make or model. Is any brand or retailer facilitating that discussion?]

Some nuggets from Stuart's talk:

• Lonely Planetguides (which I note has added forums and user content on its site) originated in 1975 as a traveler-to-traveler advisory guide with insider tips. It was printed and stapled together and circulated among like-minded friends. Travelers today are doing the same thing. All that has changed is where and how the information is circulated.

• Sites, like Tripadvisor, when they first added user reviews, had no idea how huge that feature would be, with both consumers and contributors of the information. 

• Dealing with user feedback can be a challenge. With enough traction, the unfair negative stuff gets neutralized by other contributors.  The best recommendation engines have started adding in profile information, so that people can filter reviews by traveler profile (eg. traveling with kids v. a romantic get-away.)

It was a great and energizing session.  I look forward to the next one!

Thanks to @sylc and everyone else that helps to put these together.

[Photo borrowed from Stuart MacDonald's Twitter profile!]

Lawyers All A-Twitter

Today I managed to get downtown for the OCRI 45th Circuit session "All aTwitter About Facebook." 45th Circuit is an Ottawa forum for lawyers to get together and discuss topical legal issues affecting their clients and other companies. The topic of this installment was the legal issues for companies whose employees engage in social networking activities for personal or professional reasons.

If you are with a company that has yet to introduce a policy for social networking for employees, don't feel bad. Such policies are far from the norm, but, the panellists agreed, they are coming.

The moderator, Thomas Prowse from Gowlings, was particularly thoughtful on how complicated the issues are, and how, in particular, the lines between personal and professional are increasingly fuzzy.

Some interesting points:

1. Companies should consider limiting or controlling their online searching with respect to prospective employees.

None of the information that is considered protected at the "application" phase (including the candidate's age, plans to have children, religious views) should be gathered or even reviewed. If it is, potential employees that are screened out of the process may have a claim that they were discriminated against on these grounds.

Ideally, the panellists noted that it would be better to bifurcate the hiring process.  Companies should consider engaging an independent agency to source candidates, knowledgeable about what details are relevant and allowable to disclose, and then ensure that this party turns over only the relevant and allowable information to the people doing the screening (ideally inside the company).  They felt that this was going to be an increasingly valuable service to provide. (Having come from the recruiting side, this was, in essence, a significant side benefit to the service my former employer offers its customers.)

If companies are doing searches on candidates, this activity should be kept for later on in the process, akin to checking references, and again ideally limiting the scope of the information you are looking for or reviewing. Again, all acknowledged that this is VERY hard in practice.

One of the best quotes, from Melanie Polowin at Gowlings, with respect to screening employees based on what they post on their Facebook or LinkedIn pages: "stupidity is not protected" information, under employment law. 

2. The other key topic of the panel was the kinds of policies companies should put in place to guide employees engaging in social networking -- whether or not this activity takes place using company infrastructure and on company time.

Another great analogy, to paraphrase Polowin -- just as in teen sex, you may be tempted to encourage abstinence, but you have to plan (and educate) as if employees will engage in the activity. 

Using a specific case, Cindy McCann (Halogen) pointed out the need to have defined, as the starting point for any policy, what it is you want to achieve.  What is the objective? Rather than starting with the rules (i.e. no personal use) you need to think about what it is you are trying to achieve (that work gets done, that employees are as productive as possible) and draft your policy accordingly.

Policies should be built on the notion that of the "duty of good faith" that employees owe their employer. In other words, people should filter what they are doing online with the understanding that they not cause harm to their employers. If their activities are harmful to the business prospects of the employer, they can (and should be) disciplined. Beyond that, personal activities that involve bullying or harassment of co-workers, or that demonstrate human rights violations, should also be disciplined.

Finally, all company policies should be communicated, communicated and communicated (multiple times and ways), and they should be refreshed, reinforced, revisited on a regular basis.

Again, all very interesting, and the landscape is clearly changing. From my communicator's background, I am much more likely to see the benefits of having employees engage actively in social networking, but the legal questions of liability and exposure are real, and, like everyone in attendance, I learned a thing or two I hope to apply down the road.

(© Photographer: Ladykassie | Agency: Dreamstime.com)

The purpose of [This Blog]

[UPDATE - I renamed this blog "a bee in my bonnet" (from, "Personal, not Private") after publishing this post.

I am starting this blog as a companion site to The Drumming. That site is aimed at helping me document and promote my work on my mother's remarkable memoir. 

In creating that blog, I found that there was lots I wanted to comment on and post, but it didn't really belong on that site. So, I decided to create this site, as my own personal blog. 

It will cover my other passions and pursuits. (Hmmm - Lot's of aliteration today.) Like my current job search, the business issues that interest me, good books I am reading, how I use twitter and whatever else shapes me personally and professionally. 

Thanks for reading!  I look forward to any and all feedback!