Social media advice

[Bulldog from Birth]

Hybrid social media accounts that mix work and personal life are a horrible idea. For most of us, it's a non issue. Nobody is following us to know the latest about our companies and workplaces. In fact, I would get in a lot of trouble for posting workplace happenings and company businesses on social media.

But people and companies would be smart to separate the two. Why would you let employees use their personal twitter accounts to give inside information related to their job, build a following based on that, and yet have the ability to offend anyone they wanted for any reason or issue. Seems crazy to me.

 

[tatedog]

Because adults who understand why this is a terrible idea are becoming a rare breed.

 

[57stratdawg]

What kind of ‘insider information’ are we talking about?

 

[tatedog]

I got the sense he was talking more in the vein of building personal relationships with customers, not passing along stock tips--perhaps his phrasing wasn't the best or I could be totally misunderstanding it as well.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

information obtained and acquired as part of one's job.

 

[tatedog]

Tell me more...

 

[shotgunDawg]

I agree

The media that provides content needs two twitter profiles. One for their work (tweeting our articles, sports opinions, etc) and one for their private lives in which they can say whatever they want.

The reason I believe this is necessary is because it isn't fair to the consumer who just wants to follow sports, to be subjected to political opinions they didn't sign up to hear. Consumers should be able to choose whose political opinions they want to hear without sacrificing their ability to follow sports.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

Not talking about stock tips. Which is actually illegal. Say you work for Scout.com just as an example and you use a twitter account to relay latest news and links and articles. You'd be best serve to have a second account for personal commentary, kid pics, etc.

 

[Junction John]

Certain members of the Hailstate video team come to mind.

it isn't fair to the consumer who just wants to follow sports, to be subjected to political opinions they didn't sign up to hear. Consumers should be able to choose whose political opinions they want to hear without sacrificing their ability to follow sports.

It has caused me to sacrifice immediately knowing when new vids are released.

ETA: Sorry, just saw the whole thread below about him. I quit following DC a while back. I'll take my sports sans political rants, thanks.

 

[Hail State]

and yet have the ability to offend anyone they wanted for any reason or issue. Seems crazy to me.

I get what you're saying and all, and the zeitgeist of business and PR yada yada yada. But ultimately this quote is the real problem in our society. This culture of victim hood and delicate sensibilities. In a perfect world you ought to be able to say anything you want at any time any place and not have to worry about being fired for it. Just saying. This country stood for that at one time.

 

[tatedog]

I get what you're saying and all, and the zeitgeist of business and PR yada yada yada. But ultimately this quote is the real problem in our society. This culture of victim hood and delicate sensibilities. In a perfect world you ought to be able to say anything you want at any time any place and not have to worry about being fired for it. Just saying. This country stood for that at one time.

At no point in this country's history have people had constitutional protection to say anything they want at any time without repercussions. There are criminal penalties for speech that endangers the safety or freedom of others, and the first amendment does not apply to discourse that takes place while acting as an agent or while in a private setting. In fact, agency relationships require loyalty to the exclusion of illicit activity.

Now, all that being said let me explain something. Everything that happened yesterday is whole big bunch of nothing that was likely carefully calculated to get people like me and you all riled up and ready to call into talk radio tomorrow morning about it. The NFL owners aren't stupid people. They know that ratings are faltering, interest is declining, and a WHOLE BUNCH OF TEAMS SUCK. They need some temporary cover and I'm sure Bob Kraft made a call to his friend Donald Trump and asked for some help. News is news, be it good or bad. It sells. The rage will eventually die down and the NFL will keep some interest going in places where people have little or no reason to care otherwise. They will make some concessions in collective bargaining to bring this to a close and we'll all go back to loving them.

I know this because in 1994 people were forever done with MLB, and 4 years later a white guy and a black guy set records together to bring the sport to an all time popularity high. Just enjoy the popcorn and the music.

I don't think you were really getting at this in your post necessarily, but I felt like the two topics dovetailed well enough.

 

[ronpolk]

Not talking about stock tips. Which is actually illegal. Say you work for Scout.com just as an example and you use a twitter account to relay latest news and links and articles. You'd be best serve to have a second account for personal commentary, kid pics, etc.

Does it really bother you that bad to see opinions that are not just like yours? I follow several sports writers for various teams that are way way more liberal than I am. If I see a post that is not about sports, I keep scrolling (as I imagine half the people or more that follow said person does). Just so you know I probably agree with you on a lot of political issues. I'm a conservative and hate this kneeling during the anthem. However, if you want people to stop posting their politely views on twitter and you make fun of "snowflakes" for needing a safe space, then you're probably a huge hypocrite.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

I think in Derek Codys case it's to the extreme because he's attacking MSU fans on Twitter. Most sports writers are liberal. People just have to get over that if they don't agree.

 

[ronpolk]

I think in Derek Codys case it's to the extreme because he's attacking MSU fans on Twitter. Most sports writers are liberal. People just have to get over that if they don't agree.

I would agree 100% in that case. To be honest, I didn't even know Derek Cody existed, much less worked for the athletic department, until the thread yesterday.

You're pretty stupid if you're attacking the people that basically fund your paycheck.

 

[Hump4Hoops]

Cody doesn't seem that extreme. Passionite, yes.

Most of his "controversial" tweets are anti-racism and anti-Nazis, as well as responses to of some of Trump's most recent Twitter ramblings. If you don't agree, don't follow. He's still good at his job, and hasn't said anything out of line.

 

[bulldogbaja]

At first I assumed you were talking about Elon Musk. Then I thought Trump. Now I get it.
Going back to the other two, though, it works for Musk because he doesn't do personal attacks and is generally pretty PC. For Trump, most people agree that his Twitter habits are completely unprofessional, but on the other hand it did help get him elected.
In today's age it is possible to increase your profile and even your social standing by saying stupid stuff on Twitter, but it's still almost always bad for your employer.

 

[Bulldog from Birth]

Doesn't bother me much. But here's the deal. People can say what they want due to the first amendment. But simultaneously, CUSTOMERS are free to do what they want and make purchasing decisions on whatever basis they want. And because of that, businesses are free to set boundaries at work and around work related activities to not hack off customers and tank their sales.

Somewhere employers have to find the line that can't be crossed. One guy Kaepernick sitting generated a lot of discussion. But not much impact on ratings probably. 150 folks kneeling for the anthem will generate a little more backlash. Taking it to a crazy extreme, if 90% of NFL guys on the sideline were to start wiping their butt with the American flag every time a play was over, 75% of the country may stop watching. Sure that is a constitutionally protected act, but dumb dumb business.

And it's not just about one issue. If a pro choice female showed go to inquire about buying a $500,000 piece of industrial equipment, should a pro life employee be able to berate that person as an accomplice to baby murder, without any fear of reprisal from their employer? I don't care how passionate and justified one's cause might seem to them, it seems very reasonable to me that reasonable limits should be set by employers when it can hack off lots and lots of people who disagree.

You guys can all take my advice or not. Doesn't matter to me. But the advice is solid. It's just dumb dumb dumb to mix your political and professional lives so close together unless your profession IS politics.