The US army with approximately 1,050,000 active duty soldiers is keeping up with social media when a lot of others are still trying to figure out what a Tweet is. The Army’s brand for their social media efforts is appropriately called Army Live. Social media/new media’s use is only limited by one’s closed mind. In this case the folks at the US Army are paying attention to the communication change that is occurring through web 2.0 and they are responding.
The US Army has no less than 18 blogs on their blog roll and they are all related to the US Army. The blogs range from specific units, the reserves, Army medical (Tricare), Army ROTC, Army Corps of engineers, etc. I will guarantee you by this time next year they will have twice as many blogs or more. But the US Army is not only blogging they are active on no less than at least 8 major social media websites to include Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube to name a few. The way the US Army is leveraging social media is very customer service based. They are reaching their members through social media because that is where a lot of their members are spending time.
The use of social media by the US Army is very smart on their part. They realize by offering social media as a communication tool (not the end all be all) that they are empowering their members. How are they empowering their members? By allowing them to blog and express their feelings, their worries, their questions in an open forum. A forum where others in the US Army may also have the same issues and can commiserate with or provide advice to the blogger. The US Army has developed specific rules and procedures for the blogging process, which clearly defines right and wrong behavior while participating in Army Live. One of the biggest takeaways the US Army’s social media efforts is increased morale by their members and as the credit card commercial goes, “that is priceless.” Some takeaways by US Army personnel: a feeling that someone is listening to them (better communication), they are better informed on pertinent army issues, and they are able to keep up with their families through a single expansive US Army social media network.
The US Army is a progressive government agency, especially since their main function is protection of the United States. One would think, the US Army may not want to have a very public image displayed through social media. I think they are being realistic, but cautious. Social media/new media communication is a cultural change, which frankly not even the US Army can stop. Since they cannot stop it they are using social media as a tool to help their communication efforts. I applaud the US Army for their social media implementation and I look forward to watching how they use social media in the future.
The Journal-news.net reports how a rather unaccomplished burglar ends up getting caught by his Facebook login, yep, you heard me right. Here is a recreation of the crime: 1) break window of victims house 2) ransack house, take valuables 3) Login into Facebook to check wall status (duh) 4) Quickly leave with valuables and avoid getting caught. So if we were playing a game like “which part of the burglary process does not fit” I think we would all choose number three above.
But, believe it or not Jonathan G. Parker, 19, of Fort Loudoun, Pa., did login into his Facebook account to check out, who knows what for, but I guess the obvious to check his “wall” status. Do you see how social media is changing things in law enforcement. I am not sure, but this has to be one of the first arrests due to Facebook login evidence. How does this hold up in a court of law? Are there any “expert Facebook witnesses” in the yellow pages or Google who can testify to “Facebook rules of login?” Point is the criminal justice system, particularly the prosecutors and defense attorney’s have a possible historical social media case law issue on the horizon. Can it be proven that the suspect actually logged into his account? If there is no physical evidence and this is the only piece of evidence what an interesting outcome may be forthcoming.
My wheels start working when I think of the opportunities that are out there for software to be developed that can be integrated with Facebook and other social media sites to protect it’s users. In this case maybe Facebook could force the users to provide some type of unique user information when logging into a new computer to authenticate that computer? This may be considered intrusive, but what if the victim had been murdered! Yea, I could “what if” this to death, but don’t think this can’t happen. What about the Craig’s List Killer? Bet nobody thought that someone would find prey on Craig’s List as a serial killer. Will social media sites move towards user authentication of some sort, I think so. But, it will probably be some brilliant developer and a marketing guru that provide the solution.
The suspect did not meet the victim on Facebook according to the article, but this still present a reason for the “authentication login” I propose above. The “authentication login” would also be very useful for anyone in any social media community who wants some protection from unknowns. Force the spammers, bots, freaks, fakes, and so on to become authenticated and force transparency. This may be considered a little drastic, but many females are harassed online due to their profiles alone. Social media protections for users will increase, but don’t lose any sleep waiting for them to do so.
[audio:http://michaelvallez.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Whole-Foods6.mp3]
Jennifer Van Grove over at Mashable brings to light the potential for social media to have a very negative impact on a companies social media efforts. Whole Foods CEO John Mackey wrote an opinion article in the Wall Street Journal targeting the controversial issue of “health care reform”. Unfortunately, Mackey’s opinion piece has ruffled some feathers of his social media followers on Facebook and a Whole Foods boycott 22,000 strong has ensued.
This brings up a very good issue. Does one convey their opinions on controversial issues, such as religion, politics, etc as a public representative of a brand? Now, I am in now way condoning being dishonest or non-transparent when conveying one’s views. However, one must consider the ramifications to taking on those controversial issues publicly that are better not even discussed amongst family and friends. There is a proverb in the bible that states “he who restrains his lips is wise” (paraphrase).
The back lash that has begun against Whole Foods has nothing to do with the product, service, or the company, or does it. When you as the “brand leader” step out and take on issues that are controversial then one must prepare to endure the consequences. The focus on Whole Foods at the moment is not based on the company’s awesome groceries, green efforts, or great employees’. Rather, the focus on Whole Food is based on the fact that many feel their CEO does not believe in health care reform. Right or wrong I am not sure this is the best way to get your brand recognized.
Another key point is the power social media now wields. To have a Whole Foods Facebook boycott 22,000 strong in 10 days time is extremely significant. This is the sort of PR social media frenzy that could spin out of control on Facebook and may potentially penetrate into Twitter. Just imagine if a “Tweetup” were scheduled in several major cities where Whole Foods exits to protest this issue. I don’t think I would want thousands of people outside my store stirring the chum.
Then what is the answer to the initial question? A person who is viewed as the brand representative will no doubt bring negative publicity 9 times out of 10 when taking on a controversial issue such as health care reform. I personally would council any brand leaders to think twice before taking on a controversial issue that has little or nothing to do with their business model. More than likely this publicity will not benefit you. The power of social media is still being underestimated and it is surprising that companies that embrace social media positively do not see the dark side of social media that could make their brand suffer or become insignificant.
LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
FriendFeed
MySpace
Disqus
