Everything In Moderation: Social Media Ethical Dilemmas

Some of our clients have asked us to serve as moderators on their Facebook Fan Pages.

I know such pages are a dime-a-dozen on Facebook, but we are talking about some big-league brands in this case. Names you know. “Fan clubs” of which you may well be a member.

Although we strongly adhere to a full-transparency ethic when it comes to Social Media, the clients simply do not want SHIFT’s name to be explicitly affiliated with their Facebook sites.

“Too confusing” … “Brand dilution” … “Won’t ever get approved.”

To be clear, approximately 90% of the posts are approved in advance, by the client. In addition to helping respond to user inquiries, we also often have a pre-developed “editorial calendar,” created in cooperation with our Marketing contacts. We’re not running amok or anything.

Additionally, when a SHIFTer responds to a user’s query, they typically do so from their own Facebook account (“on behalf of” the client), so that if the user were to click on their profile, they’d quickly discern that they are interacting with an external PR representative.

In other words, there is a fair bit of transparency, but, our team members’ roles are not always explicitly called-out, nor is there 100% compliance: sometimes our people are moderating/responding using the client’s name/account info (when requested).

The clients trust us to do so; the posts are generally pre-approved and always innocuous and on-message … but, yea, “authorship” in such cases is not always clear.

Have we crossed a line?

I don’t lose sleep over this one, though it could represent an egregious breach to Social Media purists.

I would understand their complaint: Social Media Marketing’s power stems from the ability to spur direct dialogue between brands and consumers. Inserting an agency representative in the mix (with not-always-clear distinctions about their role or employer) begs the question, “how is this any different from the crap marketing foisted on users in the first place?”

There is still more transparency than in the past. There is still a direct connection to the brand (trust me, the clients care VERY MUCH about feedback we report from Facebook and Twitter). Any and all “major” responses, i.e., to user complaints, are truly drafted and posted by client representatives. Ninety-percent of the posts are pre-approved by the client.

Although our agency brains get involved in terms of the core digital strategy, including how-to improve our clients’ interactions online with consumers, at this tactical level we are essentially serving as the execution arm (and listening post) for the clients. It’s all “on-brand” activity in terms of the messages, and if anything our aid ensures that our busy clients can never be accused of not being engaged at all times — a metric that is increasingly important to them, yet is incredibly hard to scale.

Got feedback? Accusations and plaudits are both welcome. Help me figure this out, if you feel we’re taking a wrong-headed approach!

Continue reading here: Googlize Your Press Releases with News Ads

Was this article helpful?