It appears that Facebook has recognized in its latest crisis that the Internet is a wonderful but very powerful tool to get strategic messages across as well as advocating for a change. Numerous bloggers and others online were outraged about the new term policies that Facebook had on their web site, and it caused a lot of discussion on the web. Facebook Founder Mark Zuckerburg responded through the Facebook blog about the situation, and here is a portion of what he wrote:
“One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.
I commented a few days ago how Facebook had in its terms of service agreement that they could possible have access to your information, even when you deactivate your account with them. This situation is an interesting case to study in terms of public relations, reputation management, and crisis communication. First, the response by Facebook was timely and they got their message through various media outlets (ex. traditional, new media, and social media). Second, their primary spokesperson in this situation was Mark Zuckerburg, who is the founder of the site or can also be labeled as the “face” of Facebook. Plus, this is a situation where advocacy and grass root efforts got an issue media and online attention– and created a lot of discussion across many different populations. This issue was also not just a factor in the United States, but also globally as well. Facebook has become such a dominant presence online and in the social media. However, even though it has gained significant reputational power and incorporated itself into the social culture, it is still an entity that can be taken down. People got together online and voiced their concerns about their new policies and it resulted in Facebook eventually announcing that they were going back to their original terms of agreements. It is indeed a case of how effective and strategic messaging and PR advocacy tactics can make dramatic changes.
Plus, it is another lesson on how individuals and corporations alike have to manage their reputation effectively online. Josh Stylman from AdAge wrote an excellent point on this from his article by stating:
“Regardless of your individual perspective, the one certainty is that there has never been a lower barrier to produce and distribute content for others to see. With that emerges a new responsibility for people (and companies as well) to think about their own digital footprint. While I’d like to think that it’s common sense, we’ve all seen that’s not the case. The irony is that Facebook sent up a red flag to its users saying, ‘Be careful what information you surface online and how you surface it’ and then promptly fell into the same trap that its TOS was warning users against”
(Facebook Serves as Own Example of How Web Bites Back, February 17, 2009, para.5).
Anyway, these are just a few of my thoughts on the subject. Hope you all are having a great day!
Best Wishes,
Karen
0 Comments