This week, Jen Zingsheim is joined by co-host Bryan Person to discuss the Cooks Source Facebook debacle, expanding social media use by responding to questions with different tools, and the NLRB case of an employee allegedly fired for a Facebook post.
This week’s discussion is 32 minutes.
- First, Jen and Bryan discuss the topic of the week–the eruption of commentary on the Cooks Source Facebook page. When a blogger discovered her content had been lifted and published without attribution or payment, she contacted the magazine’s editor–and received a defensive and ill-thought out email in return. The response from the Internet community must have left Cooks Source reeling, as their Facebook page was soon flooded with angry comments defending the blogger (and taking the source to task for what looks darn close to plagiarism). Bryan notes that the venerable Mayo Clinic recently had an issue with comments on their Facebook page–which, because it was handled in a much better fashion turned out far differently. Jen points to a great synopsis of the Cooks Source incident written by Dave Fleet, which lays out in clear points how a brand can avoid this sort of situation (or at least mitigate its effects).
- Next, the two look at Shel Holtz’s piece about not being bound to respond to a text question with a text answer. Bryan Person discusses the example in Shel’s post about the collaboration between the White House and Monster to field questions about jobs and employment–the questions are being solicited through Facebook, and the White House will answer the top five with video responses. Jen likes the aspect of answering a question in the manner most suitable to fitting the question, as sometimes it’s better to show or demonstrate a response than it is to write an explanation out.
- Finally, Jen and Bryan talk about the recent decision by the National Labor Relations Board to take up the case of a worker being fired (allegedly) for a Facebook post. While this speech may end up being protected speech, that doesn’t mean it’s advisable, and both agree that the problem with common sense is that it isn’t so common. Jen wonders how employers will respond if the ruling comes down in favor of the employee.