Ban Social Networking at Work?

Yesterday I blogged about the sales collapse at Groupon in the lead up to Christmas and I have also looked at the apparent large drop off in use of social networking sites like Twitter over the traditional holiday period. In the two blogs, I have suggested that there seems to be a marked indication that social networking is being 'transacted' largely in working hours. If, I surmised, that the majority of all social networking is for 'social' use and not business, are employers going to get wise to the apparent fact that their workers are using social networking heavily in working hours which may be impacting productivity?

Indeed, should companies actively ban or limit the use of social networking at work? Should they have a distinct policy about its use? Should they only allow social networking to be used by agreed members of staff and for company promotional use only?

I ask these questions as the mini-debate in the comments on my blog sparked quite polar views. On the one hand it was suggested that people with certain types of job like bank-telling or police on the beat as examples should not use social networking as their job demands their full attention. As a good example, you would not expect a professional footballer to use Twitter while 'working' playing a match or a boxer during a fight or a rugby player during a game.

However, you might expect all of those people to engage in social networking outside of their working hours. Perhaps in their breaks - although I can't imagine Sir Alex Ferguson's reaction during the half time team talk if Wayne Rooney had his head down tweeting.

On the other hand at least two people argued that there should be full, unfettered access to social networking as this would enrich personal and team performance and make employees more productive as they are being more creative and happier. And there is a fair argument in working relations terms to show that happy employees are productive employees.

I have worked with companies who have distinct policies - say no more than half an hour on certain websites during work hours or social networking sites being filtered out completely. I have also worked with companies who have had full, unfettered access to the internet. I can honestly say that my own observation is that access to internet is vital for most people to do their job. However, at those companies where there has been a policy there has been a range of performance observations.

In the companies where there was unfettered access to the internet there was a cross section of performances on show. In one company I have worked with, a general monitor was put on staff to measure time spent on certain sites. The information was not used as an HR or management tool per se but it was used to develop policy although it was clear that certain individuals were spoken to casually about their usage specifically of Facebook afterwards. The results showed that specifically salespeople who spent more than 30% of their woking day logged into Facebook were markedly less productive than those who logged in less than 30% of their working day. 

A very interesting correlation showed that those who intermittently accessed the site during the day actually were more productive even if they were logged on on more than 30% of the time  - and there was no real timing pattern to this like lunch hour. 

The result of the survey was that company developed a policy around Facebook use specifically but it was extended to a number of websites including online stores like Amazon. There was a serious kickback at first and the policy was amended to accommodate some of the feedback but it eventually went forward with a limitation of use of Facebook in peak working hours. This has remained in force.

The results have shown that overall productivity as measured in a very detailed way in terms of access to work related systems, orders entered, sales achieved, profitability achieved, cash collected, supplier orders placed, stock reduced etc etc has not really increased or decreased appreciably. However, the company did hit all its fiscal targets in the following year having underachieved the year before. However, the budgets reflected the economic climate so were less onerous.

But, in certain job functions where there was a distinct measure on performance, productivity increased. More outbound phone calls were made, more access to the company CRM, online order and backlog systems were made, more physical transactions were made, more old stock was reduced.

It's arguable that none of those increases actually were related to decrease of use of Facebook specifically and they did not run a similar detail 'before and after' use comparison, mainly as there was some kickback about 'Big Brother' use of monitoring impinging privacy. But the biggest measure that was impacted was staff churn. In this specific industry, staff churn, particularly in the desk bound sales area, is high at around 45%. This fell to below 40% for the first time in 5 years.

I have only read the findings but anecdotally, I have worked with a company where there was no access to social networking or sports or retail sites during the day and that company has bombed since its IPO two years ago. Meanwhile, I have worked with a firm with unfettered access to the internet and seen salespeople even communicate in offices via Facebook - the company performance was poor and sales call out days were the worst I have ever seen in participation terms.

Yet those companies with clear guidelines seem to get something back. As in all things, there is a balance to be had. What the firm who did the study found was that there were some staff who just spent an incredible amount of their day on sites non-work related, but particularly Facebook. There was no doubt that those who did were the worst performing members of the company by some distance. But more importantly, these staff members actually brought the performance of their teams down.

I still think you have to look at this issue on a case by case basis. It was clear from this in depth study that people performed really well when they seemed to finish tasks and took a break on the internet. Those who never logged out were contributing virtually nothing and poisoned the performance of others. In reality, this is not rocket science and it's nothing new, as the HR Director pointed out in the narrative. This is just a case of certain workers either being in the wrong job or not being managed or trained well or being plain lazy, finding distractions to make their day more interesting. On company time.

So in my own, mini experience, I have seen companies like Google with the most whacky work environment possible for distractions to productivity become one of the biggest companies in the world, I have seen a public company hurtle downwards after restricting internet access and I have seen a company with a sound and fair policy get gains.

A balance is to be had and as with all things, where people know and understand the boundaries, you get good results.

Now here's the corollary to the findings at the company I mentioned. The policy of use of social networking sites ( and certain other sites) is a guideline and is voluntary. There is no monitor on the system stopping them after a certain time. The employees themselves police their own policy. Use of Facebook specifically has more than halved since the implementation of the policy and very few staff now log on for more than 30% of their working day. There have has been only one disciplinary related to excessive use of social networking and that was raised after members of the person's team brought it to their manager's attention.

I like to think that's a victory for common sense all round.

The Social Network is on Holiday

It's funny, isn't it. We even take a holiday from blogging and Tweeting at Christmas time. Now why would we do that?

Just out of morbid curiosity I turned on my Twitter this morning to see that the number of Tweets since Xmas Day was minimal. Emma James, the Bucks Naturist and all round fitness superstar was chirping like a bird about her local area, Shane Warne was lovey-doveying about Elizabeth Hurley, 'Bumble' was watching Poirot, Aggers was watching Downton Abbey and Rory McIlroy will be in Thailand with his gorgeous girlfriend. Mercifully the usual rubbish was missing and I could actually read some things that were vaguely interesting.

But blogging was down too as everyone focused on Christmas festivities, eating and drinking. It's the way it should be, I might think. But why would people suddenly be quiet over the Christmas period when they probably have more to say than at any other time? Why would they forsake their computer or phone when it is only yards away?

We know that roads are clearer, we expect it. We know that families are together - but so what? Tweeting takes just a  second.

Wait a minute. The workplace is empty. 

Ah, so that's it. We Tweet and blog only when we are meant to be working, is that it? We take a family holiday and we stop. Now isn't that a thing?

I can only guess at the volume decrease but if my Twitter was registering over 10% of the normal volume of Tweets then I would be overcalling it. The same for blogs. 

So what, I hear you say. This is serious, is my reply.

From an advertising point of view, TV takes enormous share at Christmas time as viewing figures go higher so there are some incredibly expensive shows to sponsor. Advertisers make money at Christmas time - in fact, any time when families are together. Weekends, national holidays etc. 

It's the exact opposite for social media. I have no idea about Facebook as it is a noise to me but for the ones I use, I see no activity at all. That will be for the best part of two weeks.

That's a serious consideration in this valuation tomfoolery. Social media is at its peak during working hours and non holidays. It's value for users seems to be at its height at times when they should be working.

If an employer is reading this, they might consider filtering all social media sites from employees on their networks. It's a productivity theft system. Or they might have a light bulb above their heads and think, 'How can I turn this to my advantage?'.

But for those whizz kids and their investors at these social media sites, I might just be a little concerned that such a dramatic drop occurs at such times.

Happy, Happy Christmas everyone.

From Crackberries to Facebook Anonymous

Addiction to technology or devices is reality even if much of it is in the virtual world. That sounds either trite or daft or both but I think you know what I mean. 

There was a time when you could see the bowed heads of grown men staring into their laps apparently fiddling with their genitals - what a relief when you found out that the reason they haven't being paying attention was because they were playing on their Blackberries. Imagine our surprise to find some weren't - but that's another story.

In an office of someone I know, the secretary in the small team used Facebook so much during the day to communicate with few friends that her manager, sitting next to her and watching her habits, sent her a Facebook message to make some tea. The person in question without saying anything simply got up, made some tea for everyone then sat down and resumed her Facebook 'work'. The manager sent another message to thank her and she even responded to that. It was the tail end of what had been an unhappy employment experience for both parties.

I worked with a company where they had 90 people on a main sales floor and everyone of them used Facebook to communicate to people not more then a few feet from them. It was probably the most unproductive sales team I have ever come across.

This isn't necessarily an age thing as older employees are as likely to be heavy Facebook users as younger ones but I am sure the statistics will prove a point about the new generation of workers. Many companies are starting to formulate policies on use of such services like Facebook, Twitter and even LinkedIn during business hours. We have already had a landmark legal case where an employee who used LinkedIn for work was found to have violated client confidentiality and non compete clauses in their contract of employment by simply using the same LinkedIn account at a new firm.

But addiction is more than that. Genuinely, many of the new social media applications are fast becoming like the chat sites at the turn of the millennium where many employees got sucked into nattering inanely online during work hours. Instant Messaging is still an issue. For many companies, the recording of IM messages remains a taboo subject but should there be legal cases surrounding such communications such as in employee tribunals or libel actions, these forms of communications are just as likely to be called as evidence as emails.

We have seen the use of social media grow to make legal issues complex such as the 'outing' of identities in super injunction cases and the jurisdiction of law is not at all clear. But addiction comes in many forms and it could be argued that simply believing that what you say in 'private' on Facebook, Twitter or any other form of interaction not controlled by your company directly, is your own business.

It is not at all clear whether that is the case or will continue to be so. There was a recent case of a Dutch website which hosts a community of kids and teachers and some of the anonymous accusations against students and their teachers have been far beyond good taste and into the realms of libel and slander. The site in question basically says that you should comply to the law of the land where you are based when using the service. Which sort of makes a mockery of Terms of Service. It also means that legal issues are reflected at the source of the issue.

Addiction to social media has relevance beyond non-productivity in work time which is a huge issue in itself but it has potential deep legal ramifications. As users naively continue to chirp away merrily on any number of internet hosted sites they are potentially storing up some problems.

What they say while sat at work, during work hours may never be as private and free to say as they think. 

Here's gut feel prediction for 2012, I think one or other of the major social media sites may get involved in at least one corporate case where an employee has compromised the professionalism of their company by saying things they shouldn't have - either about fellow employees or managers or rival firms. I predict we may get a few landmark cases on this in the UK soon.

How do you prevent it? Well I think you can have company policies and that's fine for those people who are fully attached to the corporate network. But for those attached as guests or accessing via mobile telephony via tablets or smartphones there may be more problems. In terms of weaning people off such social media addictions, I honestly think we'll see some Facebook Anonymous groups popping up in the not too distant future.

The world is changing fast thanks to the enhanced ways we have to communicate. That may not always be a good thing. There is such a thing as anti-social networking and there is such a thing as lack of productivity.

I think both of these things will become bigger issues in the next year or two.

What is the Social Media Agenda?

It isn't normally an acid test for a business to ask that if it failed to survive from tomorrow would we miss it. But you could easily ask that question when applied to say the Royal Mail whose collapse would have a very large effect if it shut down tomorrow as post and parcels may not get delivered before Christmas, as an example.

It's perhaps more applicable to ask the question when the company offers its service free of charge, like Twitter.

Yesterday I asked if social media and networking had actually down anything for us. I don't think anyone would disagree that the new medium has helped change the way many of us communicate and therefore it has done something for us. But if a substantial part of social media was to change, not exist or become chargeable as of tomorrow morning, would we actually miss it?

Let's ask that question of Twitter. Why Twitter? because it is the most ingeniously simple of all the social media ideas. In just 140 characters you have to say something that you hope many people will read as something of value. Well I follow some 180 people and I can honestly say that I would value around 1% of what they say. I set aside Cricket Commentator David Lloyd whose list of Christmas presents for his 'Nest of Vipers' was hilarious and Shane Warne's public and sugary growing love story with his fiancé Elizabeth Hurley - they have been intriguing in different ways. Why? Because they are stories 'at source'. They are not newspaper articles or people surmising, they are the individuals saying real things.

But if Twitter died tomorrow, I can honestly say nothing would change of any consequence in my life - my business would carry on, life would carry on. Like the loss of a favourite TV channel, that would be that.

I would say Twitter has that odd feel about it as a business. So much might possibly be done by it but its fragile mechanism and attraction depends almost solely on the users' love affair with chuntering out any old 140 characters regularly unimpeded, unregulated and free from bombardment by advertisers. Mess with any of that equation and you suddenly have the whole lot falling down.

Twitter had further inward investment of some $300m from a Saudi Prince recently. There is no shortage of cash for investment and clearly all the investors see the potential return. Or do they? Is this the rich people's equivalent of putting $300m on the nose of some nag in the 5.30 at Kempton Park? Or have they seen the way that a 100m users will suddenly realise $billions of revenue every year?

If that medium is missable from tomorrow, then you would have to question investors' sanity. Clearly, with that kind of inbound investment money, Twitter is sticking around for a while yet. But the clock is ticking and pay back will be required some day soon. 

I think there is a huge danger in believing that just by attracting a large following that you can suddenly monetize it. Business models are key here but the bit that really worries me is the honesty with the users. If Twitter never proposes to charge users any money then realistically all they are is a database company who will rent out the 'space' each user occupies to the highest bidders to attract those users to spend some money on products or services. Twitter and Facebook, in that sense are glorified TV channels with the IP addresses of all the users which is pretty good knowledge.

That makes them the ad man's dream. If that is the case, shouldn't the users know that some day they will get bombarded with adverts, time and again with ever more personalised content to stimulate us buying? 

The Real Future of Social Media

Some years ago, I went to a presentation on the future by an entrepreneur who had invested in several internet companies every one of which I can say have failed. However, he did foresee that there would come a time when every advertiser on the planet will no longer work on house addresses or hit and hope on TV adverts, they will send personalised adverts into your private space on the internet with full knowledge of your buying habits, the credit cards you use, how much credit you have, what sex, age and dimensions you were, where you shopped, what you did on holiday, where your holiday snaps are, what you do for a living, what private habits you have, who your family were and what you were doing at any exact time. The murmur at the interval was that man was talking rubbish.

If anyone wanted to know all about any one of us, all that information is largely available from many sources on the web. A great deal of it is now held on Facebook and other social media sites. We have surrendered potentially valuable personal details of all sorts onto the web and there is very little left for people to know. The race is on to consolidate that information and monetize it.

Make no bones about it, the business model of every social media company is to whore its user base as long as we don't pay. Advertising of the future will no longer be hit and hope, it will be highly personalised and very intrusive but there will be far more sinister uses for all that data. 

In that context, if Twitter died tomorrow, I wouldn't miss it. But it's records of what I have done and said are saleable to somebody so there is a lasting legacy.

In some unnerving way, the whole business model of social media is mass blackmailing. I don't necessarily mean blackmailing as we know it although there is a great deal of potential there, but I mean advertising of such a personal nature that it 'blackmails' our sensibilities into making us do things we wouldn't have done without the stimulation to do so. And the 'protection racket' will be for us to pay to stop receiving such offers all the time.

The internet will become a legalised, largely unregulated forum for a good old protection racket.

There's more. Just as financiers have turned to nuclear physicists to help them beat the markets, psychologists can be used to make us all part with cash we would never have parted with otherwise. Supermarkets use 'data warehousing' to look at our individual buying habits and give us 'suggested trolley loads' and then tailor offers to make us buy more - because they know we will. In fact, they will be able to predict the precise moment to know when we will be more prone to do so.

How? If we Tweet or add a Facebook message with specific data, don't be surprised to find something specifically tailored to the context of what you have just done using all your personal data to predict exactly what you will do next. To sell that exact moment to an advertiser could become the nirvana of every social media company.

So it isn't just your personal space that is for sale, it is every second of your existence based on the intimate knowledge of you as an individual and every personal and financial piece of data on you and your family, friends and business associates.

There is a way to go yet on this journey. But people don't invest this kind of money in such flimsy business ideas without the firm knowledge that there is a mega payback. The payback will be guaranteed by our ever increasing willingness to not just surrender more personal data onto the web but to be able to track exactly what we are doing and when.

You didn't think there was a reason for setting Facebook as your default internet page with automatic login? Didn't you, really? 

In the world of monetisation of social media, the real fun has yet to begin. I hear people bleat about data protection and privacy but I would challenge that not more than 1% of all the 800m Facebook users has ever read more than the first sentence of the company's Terms of Use.

You didn't really think all these benevolent platforms were for free, did you? Microsoft gave us all those lovely free products and yet made 40% net profit on sales. 

Nothing is ever really given for free.

Will 2012 be the year of the Gigaflop?

Lord Hanson famously worked on the adage of buying companies that made the basic commodities like bricks, cement and batteries as he reasoned that they would always be in demand. He made a bob or two in the process.

In a way you could interpret that approach as one of low risk investment. If you could see that a company made products that people wanted and there wasn't a lot of clever things in between like lots of research costs then you could always make money. The simpler the business model, the easier it was to foresee a return.

Next year sees the IPO of Facebook and this year we have seen Groupon go to market - both with incredible valuations. The valuations are not just big, they are hopeful beyond all measure. They could even be described as hopeless by some measures.

The attraction of social networking for most of the 800 million subscribers to Facebook, and the same can be said of Twitter, is that we love the freedom of use that benevolently donated platforms can give us. So far, we are mildly irritated but not put off by advertising. Which is good news as this is a multi-billion dollar business in itself of which Facebook already has $3bn a year. That's sheer exploitation of the user base in no uncertain terms and it may not be long before users who attract a lot of attention start believing their own bull and think that companies like Facebook, Google and others are making a mint off their popularity and start charging these companies to use their space.

Hmmm, is there something flawed in the model here? Sticking an advert on my Facebook page is useless, frankly. I hardly ever go there and neither does anyone else. Rather like paying for the best hoarding for an advert in a Tube Station the demographics of Facebook's user base commands the price. And will those users who do get millions of page impressions suddenly wise up that it isn't about Facebook, it's about them? Are we talking users huddling together and forming a 'Premier League' style breakaway?

If that ever happens, will Facebook's value implode or will there be enough of the second tier to fill the gaps and start all over again? Could this actually ever happen?

I really don't know but I would imagine that as I write there is some enterprising individual who might actually be dreaming up this concept. It's a simple thought - some users are more valuable than others to Facebook and the likes so if they got stripped away then the calculation on which the valuation is made is skewed, possibly ruined.

The only really rock solid foundation for Facebook would be to use a 'taxation' model. If every user paid a small fee for being a subscriber every year then there would be a base revenue which would always be the core source of the profits. Losing a few users would then be not a real worry. Exploitation of the membership has an inherent flaw and it's why many of these seemingly fat golden geese may actually be plain old ducks in the end.

Mark Zuckerberg is an infinitely more clever individual than me but Lord Hanson would point out that my tiny company made more net profit last month than his company has accumulated in its entire existence. That's a sobering thought. 

2012 could be a landmark year. I honestly believe that Groupon will implode sometime in the next two years. It has a fundamentally weak business model that could even be transient at best but infinitely clonal at worst. In fact, any model predicated on believing that consumerism will only expand in the next 5 years is basically a high risk business if it is not uniquely differentiated in my small and insignificant book. And Groupon is not differentiated enough by far.

So my point today is that if you are going to invest your hard earned cash or leverage your house to do so, then don't back the IPOs of these sorts of companies and certainly not as long term investments. 

2012 could be the year of the Gigaflop.

Virtual Reality Check

You can only go so far up ones own backside before you emerge into the same world at the other end. I made that and I am proud of it.

Online reputations are a wonderful thing if you are interested in them. I have no doubt that activities online will augment the standing you have in your business world and you can create wider and richer social networks. I am bought into all that. But if the current vogue of measuring your online reputation gets beyond the faddy fun scenario then we are in danger of promoting the wrong behaviour as drivers for future success.

You see one of the main drivers in the online world has been the urge to quench people's desires to be recognised for more fundamental reasons like love, relationships and sex plus for the business of basic hoodwinking. Yes we now have more business recognition sites like LinkedIn which helped people widen business networks and I have picked up several contracts from LinkedIn. But that changed about two years ago and now LinkedIn is the defacto research engine of choice for the recruiting world. People can advertise availability against which their profile can be matched for current jobs. And most of what goes on there is just that now.
There are many other business to business platforms but most are recognition seeking too. The Ecademy stands out as one site where business people are trying to do business with one another but most of that currently centres around networking itself which is fine.

What you cannot get around is that relationships have to be formed in the real world. Violent people can appear angels on the web. I pose the question that if Al Capone and Mother Theresa were alive today and actually used the web, who would have more Klout or value on Empire Avenue? It's obvious what the answer would be and is that a good thing?

You want to really influence people? Go learn from Rupert Murdoch. He doesn't Twitter people he goes see them or sends his agents. Google spent $2.06m on Government lobbying last year, yet they own Google Plus. The real world has not changed. You cannot cover up rubbish service by sweet talking Twitter accounts at the Carphone Warehouse, but you can win more sales by having a cool website and natty Twitter manner. Reality bites in the end.

People need to learn that ultimately you will be judged by who you really are, not who you virtually pretend to be and that's where reality is the best checker. Fancy CVs no longer impress me, interviewing people finds out what really makes them tick - even over the phone. The last batches of LinkedIn recruits I saw at one company were the lowest calibre I have seen yet their profiles spoke volumes of achievements.

My advice. Trust your instincts. Check people out. Don't give more credence to online reputations without checking as anything goes on the web and the most influential person could be the clown of the web who just posts heavily on Facebook in work time or 'a happy go-lucky girl' who might or might not have stuck insulin into saline drips killing 4 people or someone who has convictions for violent relationships and appears so sweet.

Reality check - you know it makes sense.

Anti-Social Networking?

We are all like kids in a sweet shop. We just can't get enough of social media this and social media that, what's our Klout and the next best social network.

It's as if socialising never existed. And as everything grows like topsy we all vigorously defend the right to free speech. Shame on China, shame on Arabia for not allowing Facebook and Google in - it should be the right of every person to have an account on which to post silly pictures of their cat and share anti-Muslim jingoistic emails from outraged Americans.

We are a generation (even us oldies) who have re-invented the term social. I mean, you are simply not influential if you can actually talk to important people - you have to have an extremely large network of followers who hang on your every digital word to be really influential these days. 'What goes on on tour, goes on YouTube' and other phrases that have entered our lives and suddenly what we do is far more public. We fight for data privacy and then we log into Facebook and make sure our profile is 100%. We 'out' Ryan Giggs on Twitter but we abhor spam attacks. Life is suddenly full of odd paradoxes.

But what of the legacy? Today, if I was so inclined, I could seek out chatrooms which trade in private bank data by the batch of thousands, I could join interest groups that organise Jihad, I could become a member of a pedophile ring, I could join groups and groom young children for all sorts of things, I could join sites which cater for the most bizarre sexual acts in life. The world is my oyster.

In that morbid and mundane place we call the real world, people starve and crimes are committed by weird people. Online, people are cool and the only crimes are our lack of imagination and a low PeerIndex score. Losers are those who haven't joined tumblr or received hair removal from Groupon. Pedophiles are merely active social networkers, after all. We can organise raves, parties and terrorist acts while getting to the events on special offers on lastminute.com. The world is limited only by our imagination.

I have yet to hear the term anti-social media or networking. We have yet to have any real impetus on law making that embraces the internet and social networking. Groups will fight it as it spoils the fun. But it will come, I suppose. You can have too much of a good thing.
We are in an important period for the digital world. The fever pitch is high as valuations get talked up and the last thing you want is law makers stepping in and spoiling the fun. But we may be creating the easiest and most useful ways for anti-social people to commit their anti-social acts.

Here's an interesting statistic. Crime has not gone down any but car theft is at it lowest for years. I wonder what all those artful criminals are doing these days? Checking who's online, who's travelling on Tripit, who is buying and selling what on eBay, scamming us on our Microsoft support? (Surely we are all just glad of a call mentioning Microsoft).

At some point, I dare say we will all sober up from the party and with sore heads survey the mess that surrounds us. It will have been such good fun at the time that we just didn't see the obvious happening. But we will see it some day.

When?

Taming the Turds

140 characters forces the mind to come up with some gems. How about this for a quote, "Virtually all innovation emerges from piles of turds".

The writer goes on to say, "Good news: Lots of turds around hence matchless opportunity to innovate or start up business."

I have been saying similar things myself in deeper vernacular. This writer also says that, "Only tough times produce heroes." He does caveat it with "more or less" but again I see his point. When the going gets tough, the tough get going and all that malarkey.

In fact, this writer again goes on to say, "Name me a US President you can remember who didn't achieve memorable status by taming turds." To be frank, I didn't know turds were uppity so you learn some thing new each day. The vision of Nixon fencing with an angry turd is amusing and apt. I see the writer's point.

The theme is somewhat grim and perhaps a bit cynical of our times. But we are all pulling in our belts, consumer confidence is very low (Argos had bad numbers recently), the PC market has dropped sharply and dominate companies like Nokia are being hard pressed. Times are not rosy.
And as the Irish would say, "You need some prime shite to grow beautiful roses."
We may not agree with the details of all this but it is true to say that the innovators make things happen in tough times and opportunities are taken. When tough times come businesses, it is courageous and creative leadership that wins through.

So the time is right, the opportunities are there - get creative and tame those turds.

The writer? Oh, some guy called Tom Peters said it on Twitter just this afternoon.

Have you got Klout?

There is a rumour that in the future employers will use a measure of your 'influence' on people in social networking and media to assess your suitability for a job. Is this a good thing?

Websites such as Klout and PeerIndex offer computational ways to assess your 'influence' over people in the digital world. Depending on how often you are retweeted or how much you blog and various other inputs, the sites will determine an 'Index of Influence' for you. How cool is that?
In fact, your digital friends can actually help you by giving you things like +K's on Klout or +1s on Google or 'Likes' on Facebook to help boost your Index, so you had better start being nice to people. Or not writing guff, perhaps.

I read an interesting retort to this by Simon Ellinas who offers his indignation that a web-based algorithm can shed any real light on 'influence'. I tend to agree but I also believe that there needs to be a way to sort out who is really influencing the digital world and who isn't.

Where Simon is absolutely right is that numbers of clicks, retweets, likes, volumes of posts or tweets are only a bland measure of what is one of the most profound of forces in life. Things have influence over things - we don't have to be specific about life itself even. Gravity has influence over celestial bodies, independent of life. More practically, Klout has no rating for a dead author whose online works still may influence people today.

To say that Klout is a measure of a person's digital influence is like so much of what goes on the web today. It is a very web-centric point of view and ignores the fact that a whole world exists outside of it - and has done for eons. It's as if the digital world is the only world that exists.
What the web has done is open up the world of possibilities. Suddenly, what I say has the potential of reaching millions pretty easily. I now have the possibility of networking with and influencing people who I hope to do business with more quickly, cheaply and effectively then ever before. The rest is pretty mundane. And that's the point.

So I don't think the fact I have posted a video of my young son on Facebook for family and friends to see and 'Like' has any relevance on my CV or to an employer, unless I did it in work time! I don't think it's of great relevance that I write up the bedtime stories I tell my young son on a blog has a bearing on my worth to a future employer.

So there is a context and relevance that is completely missed here. A future employer would be pretty astute to be cynical of a Klout score if it was influenced by who liked my son's video. But they might want to know who reads my blog on business and likes it. There is a big difference. In other words, these indices are just a bland measure of activity and response with no real relevance to what constitutes influence in people.

Here's a for instance - if my employer measured influence by the number of emails I sent out and received replies to, then they miss the fact that the ones I might get most replies on are the 'Joke du Jour'. They might miss the fact I send few work related mails! Hypothetical, of course.
If clicks and algorithms cannot even differentiate between business and messing around in the digital world then it is highly unlikely to know whether anything I have said in my blog has made any difference to a business.

I would far rather a future employer take the word of those I have actually worked for who would either write a reference or take a call rather than use my Klout score.

Maybe that's just me being old fashioned.

Is Social Media Just Another Goldmine?

Amongst all the banal guff you get on Twitter, I decided to pose a philosophical question. Has Social Media done anything to better the world or is it just another goldmine?

To date, I haven't had a single reply. Perish the thought of a retweet. It isn't that surprising really as the lack of answers sort of answers the question.

The fact is that you could present arguments for and against. Only a few days ago I saw great sportsmen like Freddie Flintoff, Michael Vaughan, Graeme McDowell and many more create a trend on Twitter for a young girl with terminal cancer which was part of her 'bucket list'. I see Marieme Jamme developing a narrative for Africa through her activities in Social Media, today her questions were on vaccination programs. I dare say we have plenty of examples of this kind of 'force for good' that some use Social Media for.

Equally, I could just say that most tweets are from attention-seeking wannabes who just like the sound of their own tweets.

Despite the incredible growth in Social Media and the massive usage, we still fight wars, people still starve and there is still incredible social injustice everywhere we look. Although Twitter can claim some small victory in helping debunk the idiot law on Super Injunctions, it has done little else to further social causes beyond the promotion of individual plights, though often for very worthy motives.

In reality, the biggest buzz about the whole phenomenon is about the valuations of each platform. Vast, astronomical amounts of money are being talked of and paid in some instances. It seems the ultimate motives behind Social Media are ones of greed and vast personal wealth.
Perhaps I am being idealistic but when I saw such powerful tools for interaction and networking come into being I did believe that at least one side effect would be that more people could communicate for the good. Perhaps we could find out that we have more in common with Muslims than we don't. Perhaps the same could be said of the Chinese. But when money's at stake, the only reason that we gripe about China's crackdown on Google and Facebook is because we cannot exploit the vast population there for 'monetisation' not because we really care about freedom of thought or speech.

Will Social Media be the biggest opportunity ever missed? Will we only really care about our personal standings in Klout and PeerIndex or measure our personal worth on our numbers of followers? Or will we ever care about changing an unfair world?

In no small way, Simon Cowell was blocked from his tasteless commercial hijacking of Christmas when an Internet wave made 'Rage against the machine' the Christmas No. 1 instead of it being the automatic right of the X Factor winner. That tiny, trivial rebellion illustrated the power we have at our fingertips.

It's just a fact that Tim Berners-Lee and all the originators of the information world we now exploit never made a bean out of it. Their vision was for an opportunity for us all to communicate and share ideas. Somewhere along the way, a bunch of people hijacked the concept and made fortunes.

Don't get me wrong, we all need to earn a living but are we missing the point on Social Networking?

Small is Better Than Big - The Impact of Social Media on Openness

Big brands can be awfully reassuring but why is that when buying from smaller companies the whole experience seems better?

I know we go to Tescos for our weekly shop and we buy big brand name cars but why do we also use smaller companies to buy things from? If big brand is so powerful, why do smaller companies even get a look in?

Part of the whole thing is that we all feel perhaps a little glad to help the smaller guy. But if that means trading off cost savings for mental satisfaction we usually choose money in the bank. The reality is more that we find the whole experience more agreeable and we think we get better value for our money.

Part of this, so experts now insist, is that smaller companies are more open. A good example is if you go into a superstore you just see products stacked whereas at the local butcher may tell you more about the products they sell, you can see where they prepare their products, they may make much of the produce themselves and they will give you cuts the way you like them. They might even throw in bones for the dogs.

Smaller businesses tend to believe in and know more about what they are selling is what we believe.

But there is more. Smaller businesses will be more honest about their supply chain, overheads, what they believe is important. They will tell you their limits on price and they will try and blend their service to accommodate you, be honest when they can't and try harder when they get it wrong. There is more access to people who make decisions, the service is more personal. Bigger companies tend to shroud their cost structure in secrecy, give less power to staff who deal with customers in terms of knowledge and decision making authority, keep senior people away from customers and they try to make as many rigid rules as possible to keep process and structure to match profit expectation.

The rule is, 'You can have any colour you like so long as it's black'. So often this leads to unmatched expectations and then the fight to get what you think you paid for ends on the sallow ears of call centre staff in the 'Department of Not Giving a Damn'.

Honesty and openness is at the heart of this and part of this is being put down to social media. The theory goes that if big companies embrace social media then they will become more open and succeed. There is credence in this but in my spat with Carphone Warehouse, the person camping on Twitter was just as useless as the rest of them in terms of giving actual service.
Honesty also can work against you. How many times have I heard from phone operatives at large companies tell me that 'Directors don't take calls'. It makes me furious and it also means that I am less likely to deal with an insurance or telecom or satellite company that has that kind of policy than a company that has proper escalation procedures and can allow phone based staff to make judgement calls when required rather being left to behave like stuffed animals with fixed length communication chords.

Information is the key, not how or where you say it.

Openness in large corporations has to start from within. Too often information is shielded at the top and is deemed far too sensitive to pass down. It's not a question of amounts of communication as many companies now adopt the policy of regular 'Townhalls' or floor meetings or mass broadcasts. It is more the type, breadth, depth and quantity of information fed down and, more importantly, what is held back.

As a for instance, how can a company properly turn a situation of poor performance around if it cannot be open about its position with staff? How many times do staff wake up and read in the press that their company is being sold before management have had the good grace to say they are cashing in their chips and walking away?

I see this kind of thing everyday. I don't think social media per se will help necessarily because it is more associated with information leak than flow right now. What social media can do is to get more of that 'illicit' information into the public domain meaning that big companies can be leaking like sieves. Uncontrolled information flow is a big risk. Emails usually come with a health warning on the packet, Instant Messaging has been a big issue in court cases as is the use of things like LinkedIn but Twitter, Facebook, Bebo, You Tube and others now pose real threats to larger corporations as information can be leaked way too easily.

So the argument goes, it is better for big companies to have an internal and external culture of openness and then social media becomes less of a threat. In fact, it can be the opposite. Give enough information to everyone and they can enhance the brand by Tweeting or similar constructively in favour of the company rather than using snippets to snipe.

If smaller companies are more open anyway, then there is a huge opportunity for them to get ahead of the game to Tweet loudly and widely. And this is what experts far more intelligent than I now say.

A case in point only a couple of days ago was when an editor of a Channel news website Tweeted asking for news stories. The next day the website broke the news that the CFO of a large distributor was leaving and this forced the company affected to comment on the story to confirm veracity. If only the same company had led with openness it could have positioned the story positively and with due respect to the individual involved and the people he or she worked with.

Buyer beware

Beware of those 'social media experts' selling snake oil but get your messaging out in the open. You would be surprised how it can help you in the highly competitive world in which we live. If there is one thing that the web has really done is that has given an equal opportunity for companies large and small to expand their horizons.

Use the force wisely and increase your reach. Be more open, customers like it - your staff even more so. That's my sage comment for the day.

Oh Twitter - How Cool Was That?

Just when I thought Twitter was going to disappoint me, it has made my life worth living again.

Yesterday, the power of Twitter embraced me and I had a brief, but rewarding, conversation with none other than Tom Peters. Yes, THE Tom Peters - the 'Thriving on Chaos' etc. Tom Peters.

How did it come about, I hear you all ask as one? Well Tom, as he likes me to call him, tweeted something about enthusiastic staff making him busy. Then he clarified that tweet by how he was going to do 'Operationalizing'. Being the wag I am, I asked Tom if that was a real word and he replied that he had no idea but had been using it for 40 years. Further, when I suggested I would use it from now on he said that he would take no responsibilities for my actions and not send me cookies when I was in bad-grammar jail.

Fantastic repartee.

Ah my point here is that you can threaten Wayne Rooney, call Piers Morgan a self-publicising fart or have a banter with the great Tom Peters. In short bites, Twitter makes people who you thought were inaccessible, accessible.

The key is original thought - keep that in mind and cut out the irrelevance and maybe Twitter will really become a good place to be.

Fact or Fiction - Microsoft to Buy Nokia's Phone Business?

Don't take it from me - I got this from Business Insider.

Speculation has grown since a little-known Russian Tweeter rumoured that Microsoft may buy Nokia's phone business for $19 billion. Sounds cheap for the world's largest shipper of mobile phones compared to the valuations on companies with little or no revenues in the social media sector but such is the vagaries of these speculations.

And speculation is all it is at this stage. But the rumour is gaining momentum as this chap was the first to report that Nokia and Microsoft had any kind of tie up. Many are now speculating as to why such a move may make sense.

But it would be a tragic end for the one-time Finnish welly maker. Come on boys, don't do go to the 'Dark Side'. The 'Force' is still strong.

The Apprentice's Sorcery

What is it about The Apprentice that captures people's imagination? And then makes them say stupid things?

A case in point was when one of my 'Internet Buddies', as Uncle Bryn would call them, last night Tweeted the immortal line, 'Dog Food - interesting challenge. Who is the target market? Humans or dogs?'

Well at least we can rule out cats. I am no classically trained marketeer but I draw on my own experience here and say I have yet to see a dog carry a basket around my local Budgens, make an informed choice on its brand of dog food and then proceed to the checkout. Maybe I go there at the wrong times but I'm just telling you as I see it.

However, I have seen pooches in my local Pets at Home superstore but most of those are attempting to sniff the butts of other dogs or are weeing on the bags of straw for rodents. And I can also say that one of my Border Collies actually did try to sniff the backside of Garfield on the TV once so maybe dogs do pay attention to the TV and adverts for Dentasticks are not wasted.
Maybe I am being too literal after all. But as one Tweeter put it last night, 'Do you have to be a twat to be on The Apprentice or can anyone apply?'

Maybe you don't have to be one to watch it but it might help understand the nuances. I can safely say that I don't get it.

Beware of 'Snake Oil' on Social Media

I read Twitter messages everyday - it seems like every minute - from one of my 'Follow' people who tells me that I could get hundreds of free leads on Twitter.

It struck me that the chap has no idea what my business is and that if only he knew that I had a 100 leads, I probably would not be able to service any of them if I closed more than a few at a time. That strikes me as a very poor use of Social Media as a way to either promote yourself or your company.

The first rule of ANY marketing is to know your audience. If all you do is accumulate 'Followers' willy-nilly and for the sake of numbers, then you will rapidly find that many of your Tweets will not resonate. So whether you put on there that you are doing coffee at St Pancras Station or peddling thousands of free leads, you have to know whether your audience is going to be interested.

Here is my main personal gripe with Twitter and it's one reason why I cannot comprehend the mega-bucks price tags on the pending IPOs of Twitter, Facebook, Zynga et al. There is so much banal twaddle on them all that it is very difficult to cut through the blaring noise of sheer inconsequential crap. There, I've said it.

If the content has no value, then it depreciates the asset, in my humble opinion. So beware those pleasant people selling the 'Snake Oil' panacea that Social Media will revolutionise your business.

My advice is to follow the general marketing principles that have been tried and tested but experiment with the new medium:

• Get to know your audience, so research who your Followers are before bombarding them.
  


• Create compelling propositions (and that's tough in just 140 characters).



• Think about which platforms you want to use and why and then vary the content for each.
  


• Now here's the rub. One of the 'nice' things about Social Media is that it is a fairly relaxed, casual place to be. Users don't like spammers or blatant selling so refine your messaging as information or education rather than 'roll up, roll up - get 'em while they're hot' selling.
  

Another of my major gripes is that there is so much banal guff and unimaginative retweeting on things like Twitter that it's hard to spot people with innovative ideas or refreshing viewpoints and original thought. Trust me, if you can make your pitch original, pithy or provocative you will catch the eye.

I suppose the over-riding message here is that Social Media is not the ideal place to 'sell' as the users are in unreceptive mode when they are using it. They are there to socialise, in the main.

• So Rule 1 - use it as only part of your usual marketing mix and,
  


• 
  
  Rule 2 - try to create 'engagement' rather than solicit for orders.
  
  Maybe that will help us all cut down on the humdrum dross that fills my Social Media in trays and we'll get some meaty, original stuff.

Dream on.

LinkedIn IPO - Did They Get it Wrong?

On the first day of trading, LinkedIn was valued at $45 a share by its lead bankers, Morgan Stanley, Merrills, BoA and JPM raising some $352m for the company. However, by the end of that first day its stock price had risen 100% netting $millions for the select clients of those lead banks and the day traders who hiked up the price.

One of the Facebook founders, Peter Thiel, basically said this was typical of Wall Street not taking Silicon Valley companies seriously, intimating that the east Coast fuddy-duddies refuse to believe in those 'fly by night' West Coasties and all their new fangled technology, internety things. Why he should complain, I don't know as he was one of LinkedIn's early investors and has already made unbelievable stacks on Facebook and PayPal. I mean, he has become even more filthy rich as a result of this tomfoolery.

He has a point in some ways as the average price hike on day 1 of an IPO is about 15% which seems a fair valuation with a bit of premium for subscribers to the underwriting banks for their share of the risk. In that, context it's a fair accusation that banks got it wrong.

However, given LinkedIn now has an earning multiple of 1,000 it would also be fair to say that those hiking the price are nuts. Surely, at some point there has to be a fall back down to the reality earth?

It seems Web 2.x is well under way and we can feel those bubbles expanding all over again. Veritable Professors are coming out and decrying this 'under valuation' as a crime that should be outlawed when perhaps simple folks in armchairs think, 'Has anyone ever told them that LinkedIn is unlikely to ever be worth 1,000 times its profits ever again?'

Beware, as there are plenty more of the babies on the way - Zynga, Twitter, Groupon and Facebook to name a few. Some would say that the Google method of auctioning stock is the fairest way of doing this as making 100% in a single day is just daft.

I harp on about it but tears will flow sometime. This kind of valuation cannot be sustained.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

LinkedIn - $10 billion

So LinkedIn is now traded on the stock market and the current valuation is some $10 billion. That's a mere 600 to 1,000 times its earnings, depending on who you listen to.

To be fair LinkedIn makes a profit. I use it daily to network and it no doubt is very useful. It is the recruiter's godsend in terms of a quality repository of current players in various industries who want to be seen and approached for potential new roles. It is very good in reverse, and I know several people who have got themselves very swanky new jobs after being approached by a recruiter on LinkedIn. Even highly paid boutique Headhunting companies use LinkedIn as a base for their research which brings into question their fee sustainability but that is subject of an earlier blog by me.

There is no doubt, also, that LinkedIn has merit in building 'private networks' for either Corporations or institutions like the IOD to create Groups of like-minded or connected individuals. There is also a growing revenue stream for advertising both generic and job related. These are all revenue generating activities which are sustainable in the long term, so LinkedIn has a definite money-making strategy for the future. Like other largely B2B sites like Ecademy, the question is what percentage of the millions of LinkedIn users would be prepared to pay a regular fee for the 'services' as the vast majority of users are at the basic, free level.

Of course, this the $10 billion question. Can LinkedIn ever generate the kind of profits over the long term which would sustain this kind of market valuation?

Reading the Forums on LinkedIn this morning shows a general opinion that such predictions are not based on reality. Many compare the valuation to those in Web 1.0 but some point out that at least LinkedIn is currently delivering profits which is more than can be said of Twitter. LinkedIn users generally are not amenable to paying a fee for just posting their profile on the site. After all, there should be a quid pro quo here - the profiles and users themselves have created the value within LinkedIn for which they have gotten zero return while the shareholders of LinkedIn are creaming off their share of the $10 billion right now. Rather like Twitter, charging users generally may be killing the goose that lays the golden egg.

As with Web 1.0, it is the potential that everyone is speculating on. LinkedIn has two options - either it tries to extract a great deal more revenue from its current users or it continues to accumulate users and hype its value by appending potential value to each user. This latter strategy will undoubtedly achieve the potentially more satisfying goal of having someone bigger acquire LinkedIn - much like Microsoft has just acquired the long term profitless Skype.

This kind of strategy is very convenient for the founders and the Venture Capital guys in at the start who stand to gain most. It means there is no requirement to have any real sustainable business plan other than to accumulate users, make the services generally cool and innovative, consume plenty of cash and then sell the whole shebang to someone else who can inherit the problem of what to do next to release all that 'potential value'.

Like Skype, it could become a 'musical chairs' to see who is left holding the shares when the cycle of sales stops. If it is someone with deep pockets and who buys into this whole 'untapped potential' ruse like Microsoft, then so much the better. But the reality is that the original investors and founders are now happy as sand boys. Their job is done and they have their rewards. there is no longer a requirement to ponder the problem of the future - someone else will sort it out. Some time.

As a LinkedIn user, I see its merits. But I also see its pitfalls. Scams and ruses are on the up, spam is increasing and the Forums are getting dominated with agendas. And like Twitter, the general noise level of the banal is increasing - with people telling us where they are travelling to, what they are Tweeting, posting irrelevant slideshows and more. It had to happen, I suppose. Whether there is an appetite to take LinkedIn to a new level by the existing management remains to be seen. I dare say though that it would be at a price to the loyal freebie users.

Until then, LinkedIn will bumble on its merry way as the recruiter's dream. Fill your boots while you can.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

"Twitter Ye Not"

Perhaps Frankie Howard knew something we didn't when he uttered the famous catchphrase.

However, Twitter is fast becoming the centre of attention for all sorts of reasons. Let's face it, for sheer utter banal drivel you would have to go a long, long way to beat it. Time and again I try my best to get into it but time and again it beats me back with unimaginative cods wallop, noise and constant retweets which are both unoriginal and unhelpful. Trying to filter out the guff is just too time consuming to warrant my attention but Lord knows I have tried. Life is too short to spend that much time on the valueless.

I read stuff from Thomas and Penny Power of Ecademy fame about the new age of the internet is about 'Being followed'. Some people have postulated that future CVs should be correlated by against your Peer Score on Klout.

But are people upping their self-importance and getting an ego boost or are they talking common sense?

One advantage of Twitter is the ability to follow famous people who you may be interested in. This has its upside and I do follow the likes of Shane Warne, Graeme McDowell, Jonathan Agnew etc and I actually quite like to see what they say. However, the very same stars see the downside.

Lee Westwood has recently said he is reconsidering his membership of Twitter after several Tweeters started to give him serious abuse. Ian Poulter has considered the same while Paul Lawrie has classed his account. Wayne Rooney has been the centre of a Tweeting storm in some of his retorts to an abuser. This has prompted Sir Alex Ferguson to even possibly impose a blanket ban on all his stars using the service. Which may come as some relief to Ryan Giggs - no pun intended.

The problem with accessibility to the stars is that while it can massage their egos and satisfy the genuinely interested, it also is open to abuse. This may be no worse than the intrusion of the media but it has an immediacy and directness which I am sure must be disconcerting.

For me, I have to say I am sanguine about Twitter. I cannot see how on earth it will further my career and I don't see the advantage of people following me or for me following them in most cases. If only people had something original and incisive to say maybe it would a different experience. Right now it's just hyped up garbage for 99% of all the Tweets.

That can't be a good model for the future. At some point, Twitter has to become something of real use other than the mundane.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The End of Journalism?

Rupert Murdoch recently won a victory as Google has now reduced the number of articles that can be read by its aggregation service of the news, just as one newspaper group in the UK started to charge for reading its online content.

Is this really a victory for Murdoch and newspapers or is it merely a stay of execution?

Newspapers argue that there is a large cost involved in producing their content and so it needs to be recognised particularly as circulation numbers of their hard copies drop as online news becomes more accessible. Indeed, content drives much of the huge 'portal' business on the web that Google is so good at - Google being the almost unchallenged kings of pulling it altogether and then selling zillions of contextual adverts near it and accruing enormous revenue off the back of content. Authors of books have the same issue - Google is a massive threat to the origination of content.

But Google and others would argue that news is becoming ubiquitous on the web. The rise of blogging and phenomena like Twitter means that news is being transported at source by millions for free. Indeed when you sift much of what is printed on trashy newspapers most of it comes from the internet in the first place - newspapers are just the old form of news aggregation.

It's true that newspapers have had a great run for their money. It's a format that has produced vast profits for the proprietors over the years and Murdoch is testament to how rich you can be off the back of content aggregation. Google, arguably, is just moving the concept of news and content into the new millennium.

The argument that the production of news is expensive is moot. Robert E. Heath explains, “I’m not suggesting that news gathering is inexpensive. Or that bloggers will replace reporters. But many in the industry seem to be tripping over the fallacy that if something is expensive to produce, there must be a profit-making market for that product. If that were true, there would be a vibrant market for diamond-encrusted buggy whips.”

In business we all learn fast that if the production of your goods is expensive then you likely have a very limited market to buy it. Delivering news to the masses is now the key part of the business, and Murdoch has not really changed the model of his content production for years - so maybe he is in the wrong here.

Certainly, as a blogger, and knowing that my content is not widely delivered anywhere, I just need to be happy that I have some people who read what I write. I know that if I attempted to charge for it, no one would read it and so it would be pointless writing it. Similarly, if I tried to 'monetise' my site by displaying adverts, as I did when I started following Google's advice, I got far less readers.

In a microcosm, here is the dilemma for the news industry. Change is very much needed - the value of the content needs to be reviewed and the rise of the distribution service is where the real money is. Murdoch, if he were starting again today, would never invest in such an antiquated business model. He needs to recognise that, as do all media types.

Social Networking Costs Business

Look out, the boss is coming. Make sure that Facebook page is hidden and make it look as though you are doing work.

We have been here before. I can remember when everyone told us that word processing was the biggest drain of office productivity as everyone started writing their own documents instead of handing them to typists. Then we had the lunacy of email when we would send a mail to someone seated next to us rather than talk to them, then chat facilities like MSN started to catch our attention. Well now it's Social Networking.

In a recent study, social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook are estimated to cost UK businesses around £1.3bn of lost productivity according to research done by Morse, a systems integrator.

There are now cases of companies banning such sites from use on company networks, while many others are changing their Employee Handbooks to include notices that stop workers from using such sites during working hours and only on breaks. I worked at one company where virtually the entire sales floor had Facebook as their homepage and throughout the day people would be sending messages to one another via their pages yet they sat not a few feet away from each other. I felt quite the old fart for not using it and sniggering along to rude pictures and jokes circulating around - most likely about me.

However, in the Morse survey, around 76% of the people surveyed responded by saying their employer had yet to issue guidelines on the use of social networking sites during working hours. But more worrying was that around a third of those surveyed said that they had seen sensitive information posted, but 81% reckoned that they should decide what they should be able to post. This a warning bell for any company.

This particular issue is of great importance to companies. A growing problem to companies and individuals is what is posted on social networking sites. It could be sensitive data, it may be compromising pictures or it could defamatory remarks. The potential for lawsuits is growing and many users of such sites often post material without regard to the potential issues they may cause or worry about who reads it.

There is a real urgency for company HR departments and management to get to grips with their policy documents and ensure that they protect themselves as an organisation from the potential outcomes of postings by their employees.

There is a whole legal debate yet to be had about whether the information posted on sites like LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, Bebo, MySpace, YouTube et al is construed to be the property or thoughts of a company rather than an individual. In the case of LinkedIn, there is already a case in UK Law which ruled that the entries were governed by employer confidentiality and property clauses in contracts. If that is the case, then postings made to social networking sites during work hours might possibly lead back to the companies the people work for. It's best to make sure you are properly 'disclaimered' for such circumstances.

A further concern is that many people follow links on social networking sites despite the fact that 81% of those asked thought there may be potential security risks in doing so. It seems people cannot resist a good potential link and that is hugely dangerous for a corporate network.

It all points towards companies taking a real interest in protecting themselves both legally and technically against the growing use of social networking. Quite apart from the loss in productivity which is bad enough, companies are exposing themselves to potential security and legal threats which could amount to a far greater cost to the business.

It can be no longer the case of 'What goes on on tour, goes on Facebook'. Companies need to be aware of the potential threats to their business from social networking.