Much of the talk about social media - and digital word of mouth - has focused on the recent "astroturfing" by a gentleman by the name of Michael Goode. It has created some great conversation about ethics in terms of marketing and engaging social media...but more importantly, it leads to a bigger question - how far should transparency go? And what exactly is ethical?

For example, just look at the header above - my "photo" is actually an icon created by a fast food promotion for an animated movie. On several other media I use a straightforward picture, and for others (like Twitter) I'm more likely to change my picture. When working, obviously, I'm up front, but in my offline/non-professional life - am I being ethical? Or am I talking the talk without walking the walk? If a brand decides to use a "formula" for responses, and encourages an agency to do so - what's the agency's role?

Ethics, it seems, is tricky. One of the complicating factors is that engaging online involves a slightly greater amount of anonymity and ability to disguise oneself. It's not as straightforward as, say, a Tarasoff situation (to use a mental health example) - a face to face situation with a cilent, as difficult as it is, does not compare to the potential complexity of online interactions. At a time when the field is attempting to understand and quantify those dynamics, 'Goode' and DEI chose to engage in behavior without some self-reflection, even to the point of considering using a false name.

However, this reminds me of something I learned at a seminar on chemical dependency - someone had asked the presenter, when dealing with an addict who says one thing and does another, what should they (as a counselor) do. Dr. Erickson's response was to believe the behavior - that the thinking was influenced by chemicals, but that behavior is much more revelatory and honest

So too, then, is our online behavior - which is why transparency becomes paramount. It means that we are consistent in behavior and discussion across platforms, as well as between online and offline. When we change our basic behaviors - taking on a false name, using cut-and-paste style tactics, not being fully honest - we are denying key opportunities for growth, for conversation, for building richer and more complex online engagements. In that sense, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard - our interactions need to be more centered, more Rogerian, more honest.

In short, we need to let ham sandwiches be ham sandwiches.

Reading posts about social media can be a challenge - after all, it seems as if everyone (including myself) has an opinion on the social media landscape (or, at least, how to behave in social media). This post, however, is an attempt to discuss the nature of social media...but in a fun, easy to understand manner. So please feel free - after reading - to forward this post to your friends, your coworkers, even your grandma. It's the kind of post you can read while enjoying a nice ham sandwich on marble rye bread with horseradish mustard.

Someone - maybe it was Brian Eno, or perhaps it was Gene Rayburn - one said that only a few thousand people bought the first record by the Velvet Underground, but those that did formed a band. The Velvets' influence can be seen far and wide, and is way beyond the scope of this blog. However, social media tends to behave in much the same way - a small amount of activity can lead to a massive amount of content creation.

For example, a blogger creates content by posting on their blog. That blogger, using Twitter, has a discussion about said content, and fellow Tweeters then create new content based on that content. Much like Lou Reed taking the same three chords and writing "Sweet Jane", people who operate in the social media sphere take the same ingredients and create their own content. (I'm sure there's a John Cale/Doug Yule analogy in there, but I will allow my esteemed colleague Andy to address it). Think of it as "word-of-mouth marketing" on steroids - on Facebook, for example, friending people is often as simple as uploading an address book, and/or finding people/events/groups through initial contacts.

Even in smaller, "niche" areas of the blogosphere, those who do participate often inspire their colleagues to create a blog, create a Twitter account, link on Facebook, or any other tool to drive and develop content creation. Although it does have its drawbacks (look at a graveyard of abandoned/empty blogs, and 99% will, more than likely, have a blogspot.com domain), the ease at which someone can create online content is simply astounding.


So please sit back, feel free to enjoy a nice ham sandwich, and watch the beginning of a new age in social media.