Cuntas suimiúil go leor ar an New York Times ar conas Tá Phonedog ag agairt iarfhostaí chun rochtain a fháil ar leanúna Twitter ar an gcuntas a bhunaigh sé mar chuid dá bhfor-rochtain ar na meáin shóisialta.
De réir na gcaighdeán fostaíochta atá ann faoi láthair sa tír, is dóigh liom go bhfuil PhoneDog go hiomlán laistigh dá gcearta… is gnách go mbíonn an obair a dhéanann tú ar am cuideachta faoi úinéireacht ag an gcuideachta. Mar sin féin, tá ag na meáin shóisialta athraigh an dearcadh agus an idirghníomhaíocht idir cuideachtaí agus a líonra. Ba ghnách leis go raibh daoine in ann seasamh taobh thiar den bhranda chun cumarsáid a dhéanamh leis an líonra. D’fhoghlaimíomar trí fhógraí, brandaí, lógónna, slogáin agus deiseanna urraíochta eile. Is í an fhadhb atá ann ná go gcuireann na meáin shóisialta daoine anois os comhair an chuideachta agus i dteagmháil dhíreach leis an mbranda. Is é mo chreideamh pearsanta, toisc go n-athraíonn na meáin shóisialta sreabhadh na cumarsáide, athraíonn na patrúin úinéireachta freisin.
Is é 20/20 Hindsight i gcónaí, ach simplí beartas na meán sóisialta would have established this up front. While Phonedog may win the legal war of whether or not they own the initiative, the fact that they didn't set this expectation in a social media policy was a mistake. In my opinion, I honestly believe their case has no merit based on this alone. I believe it's always the responsibility of the company to set the expectation on employment and ownership.
Ós rud é nach bhfuil liathróid draíochta ag éinne, ní mór duit smaoineamh air seo le d’fhostaithe agus ionchais iomchuí a shocrú:
- If you don't want your employees to féin a lucht leanta, is féidir leat iarraidh orthu cuntas urraithe corparáideach a bhainistiú agus a chur in iúl. Sampla: In ionad a bheith ag ár bhfostaithe a gcuntais féin a bhainistiú, soláthraímid rochtain orthu @dknewmedia le Hootite agus Mhaoláin. I've noticed that some people will have the handle be the company name, while the actual name on the account is the employees. I believe that sets an expectation both with the audience and the company on who owns the account.
- I've noticed other companies that had their employees sign up with Twitter with a combination handle and name. For instance, if I wanted to have each employee have a corporate account… I might set up @dk_doug, @dk_jenn, @dk_stephen, etc. I don't think this is too bad an approach, but I'd hate to see a great following on an account that's eventually abandoned!
- The last option, in my opinion, is the best. Allow your employees to build their network and keep them. I know you're aghast at this, but empowering your employees to succeed is powerful. I love the fact that Jenn agus Stephen labhraíonn an bheirt go minic faoi DK New Media on their accounts. If they build an incredible following, I look at it as a benefit of having them employed with us and it's additional value they bring to my company. It's also my responsibility to ensure they're happy and I can keep them here!
Social starts with people, not a company. Those followers weren't Phonedog followers… they appreciated the handcrafted content that Noah Kravitz was able to develop on behalf of Phonedog. While Phonedog may have paid Noah, it was Noah's talent followers were attracted to.
Mo fhocal deireanach ar seo: Is fuath liom an focal féin agus úinéireacht when it comes to companies, employees and customers. I don't believe a company ever owns an employee nor do they ever own a customer. The employee is a trade… work for money. The customer is also a trade… product for money. The employee or the customer always has the right to leave within the boundaries of their contractual engagement. A company like Phonedog thinking they féin féadfaidh na leanúna sin an cruthúnas go léir ar domhan a sholáthar cén fáth go raibh siad ag leanúint Noah agus ní cuntas Phonedog.