On the other hand, I despise the prevalence of social media lies.

There’s a certain amount of anonymity involved. That’s always been the case, from the days of old school chat room and message board handles. I feel it’s that sense of anonymity that makes social media spaces such a prime playground for the dishonest among us.

Today I want to share a few of my “favorite” examples of the lies I’ve seen through social media. Then I’d like to hear your thoughts. Does social media make people more likely to lie, or does it just attract those who are already full of shit? And what kinds of lies do you see most often via social media outlets?

Social Media Lies: 5 Examples

I’m not talking about major corporations or politicians here. I want to focus more on everyday folks — my own colleagues in some cases. With that in mind, here are some examples of lies I’ve seen in social media:

Nefarious Post and Comment Deletions

To be clear, I’m not talking about things like deleting spam or abusive blog comments, or even deleting old posts when there’s a valid administrative reason to (outdated content you don’t want to promote to readers anymore or timely announcements that are now irrelevant for example). I’m talking more about post edits and deletions designed to hide past truths.

For example, one freelance colleague I know used to delete old posts sharing an opinion that had since become unpopular. Then, in new posts, they’d claim they never said those things in the first place. This was often a result of them being paid to promote something they used to advocate against.

Others delete things like negative blog comments and then act like everyone agrees with them. Both are a crock. And both are easily caught.

Remember, readers can subscribe to comments or posts including via email (including through third party RSS subscription services, so you can’t prevent this as long as you have feeds). You never know who still has an archive of your old material in their inbox.

Mysterious Changing Stats

Some people are attention-seekers. Others constantly seek validation.

In one case there was a colleague in the latter group. They posted in a comment on a popular blog that they spent X hours per day on something for their own readers. When they didn’t get the oohing and aahing responses rolling in, within days that story changed and they claimed to have invested even more.

On another site where they promoted the content they were seeking validation of, the number magically increased. They were suddenly doing more, and “deserving” of more praise and adoration. I guess they forgot when you post on sites in the same niche chances are good the sites or blogs have shared readers.

I saw similar with another freelance colleague. They were a guest on a popular blog, and in a post there they shared their income numbers (a type of boasting common in the freelance community). They weren’t impressive. And within the next couple of weeks, their story changed. While trying to impress readers on their own blog they touted income stats well into five figures higher than what they’d just disclosed elsewhere.

That’s the kind of thing that happens to liars though; they sometimes forget which lies they’ve told where.

False Identities

As a writer who understands the importance and value of pen names (and as someone who’s been a victim of cyber stalking), I don’t consider handles themselves to be lies, especially when your handle can be tied to your real name in some way or at least you use it consistently as your online identity. There’s a place for privacy, and there’s value in them in the sense of safety.

But one of those freelance colleagues I mentioned above took the issue of pseudonyms a step further.

On another colleague’s blog they were being criticized. So they commented. And that’s fine. They were invited to do just that. But then they went too far. They commented again, this time anonymously. (They were caught because they forgot to change non-public information tied to their comments — such as your email address and IP address.)

The idea is simple. If people aren’t backing up their point, they comment anonymously or under another handle or name to provide false support for their post or previous comments. In other words, they used sock puppet commenter “accounts.”

This is one of the reasons you can’t judge a blogger’s popularity based on the number of comments or interactions they get. Most are easy to fake (and internet marketers in particular have a habit of finding ways to game every system).

That’s dishonesty plain and simple. And finding this out about a colleague is a surefire way to convince me to drop them — from my subscriptions, from my social media follows, and everything else. After all, if they would lie in that way on someone else’s blog (or even your own), who’s to say they don’t do the same thing on their own to make it look like they have more readers, commenters, or supporters?

False Credentials

Lying about credentials isn’t new to social media. People have “embellished” resumes for ages. But social media seems to incentive it.

Just consider the wave of self-proclaimed social media gurus for example. People twist something small (like follow-spamming their way to 10,000 Twitter followers) into an expert status in social media.

Yet another colleague — a PR writer — I know used a large online community (where I was a moderator at the time) to blatantly lie to prospective clients claiming they had a degree when they didn’t. They were called out on it and tried to say they never claimed that in the first place. Funny thing about the web is archives are usually still publicly available somewhere.

After being exposed, this person practically dropped off the face of the earth. And really, is it worth damaging your career for a quick buck? Never.

Another example was downright laughable. Someone publicly advertised in that same community offering press release writing services. They claimed major corporations flew them all over the country to write their releases. You know you can call bullshit right there. But it got better…

Forgetting others in the community could see their public ad (beyond their prospects) this person messaged me privately since they knew I was a PR professional. They admitted they were a kid working out of their parent’s place, and they practically begged me for advice on getting started.

Why people lie like this is beyond me. They will be found out, even if not usually through their own stupidity of admitting it.

Claims of Uber-Success

Sometimes these lies are rolled up into others, like false credentials. It’s a popular one in the freelance game. One time, for example, I came across a writer claiming they earned six figures. No big deal. It’s hardly uncommon. But this person was using that as a way to attract more readers and attention for their blog.

So I looked at their business site because it never hurts to see what other colleagues are doing and I try to keep a wide network with other successful freelancers. Imagine my surprise when I saw their rate list and their claim to fame was $10 articles. That comes to more than 27 articles every single day — no weekends, no holidays, no sick time, nothing. Right.

The thing is, many people don’t check on claims. One of the biggest repeat liars I’ve seen in the blogging community still has a loyal following because people just don’t pay attention (like how some of their “teaching” was plagiarized from old copywriting textbooks). In the end, it frequently does catch up to you.

So what about you? What kinds of social media lies bother you the most? What seem to be most common these days? Do you think one platform supports liars more than others? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

The post Social Media Lies: How Social Media Enables Liars appeared first on NakedPR.

It began with the blog “influence” lists or rankings based on faulty metrics (like the Power150 or Edelman’s social media index). Things aren’t any better today I’m sorry to say.

They’re worse.

I came across an article this morning on Twitter that discussed how companies are overvaluing Facebook “likes.” And I agree with that completely.

What is a “Like” Anyway?

In the end a “like” doesn’t equal a customer. It doesn’t even mean you have a lead. You can “like” a lot of things you can’t afford for example. It doesn’t mean you’re in the market for it. You could “like” a website after reading one good article and still never see enough value in it to go back. In the end, a “like” means very little.

A “like” is just another way of whipping out your trusty litter ruler to see who’s bigger than whom, and for friends or followers, a “like” is a near zero-effort activity.

It’s not new. It’s the same thing we see with Twitter spammers — the type who follow thousands of people they know they can’t realistically follow because they’re hoping for automatic follow-backs as if caring about what someone has to say should be the result of a reflex.

Rather, it’s all about who appears to have more friends, fans, followers, or whatever you want to call them today — who has the biggest list. And in the end, it doesn’t matter.

Large generic groups of people “liking” you or “following” you means very little. Building a following of a smaller group of people — but with a genuine and regular interest in what you have to say, sell, or do — will benefit you more.

Somewhere in this social media mix we lost the concept of targeting. 

Popularity Alone Isn’t Social Proof

At this point I’m little more than embarrassed for the “social media professionals” who participate in these popularity contests or convince their clients that they should care about them. They’re still missing the mark.

In the end, who benefits from the hype around these popularity-based lists and emphasis on vanity metrics such as “likes?”

The social networks being promoted for starters.

Perhaps more important, those who benefit are the sites sharing these ranking lists in the first place. After all, if you can’t get attention by being a legitimate authority, there’s always linkbait. And let’s not forget all the unqualified social media consultants gaming clients who don’t know any better for an easy buck.

Popularity only matters as social proof if it comes with true influence. But the two are not one and the same. It’s time the PR community stopped confusing the two.

If you want attention, via social media or elsewhere, earn it for the right reasons. Don’t get caught up in meaningless metrics. Looking like a big deal is fun and all. But being a trusted source and someone people actually want to do business with is even better. That’s where real influence comes from.

The post Social Media Continues to Miss the Mark: The Overemphasis on Popularity appeared first on NakedPR.

Has digital media contributed to the under-30 crowd being the “dumbest” generation to date? Sure, I may be biased, but I think not. I find the accusation pretty amusing.

Take a look at the article, and then come on back for a reality check.

1. When you try to give your arguments credibility by citing sources with a sensationalist book on the market, you only make yourself look stupid.
2. When you quote one teenager and think it represents a generation, you look even worse. Just think about how different the article would have been if my 17-year-old sister had been quoted instead (not a social media junkie, very actively involved in extra-curricular activities from sports to school plays, holding down a job, spending plenty of face-to-face time with friends, without a cell phone glued to her, an honor student who can get into pretty much any school her heart desires, and who always seems to have her nose in a book). If you go out looking for an idiot to quote, you’re bound to find one – in any generation.
3. If you’re going to quote a source, do your job and ask some questions to give that quote even a hint of credibility (seems to be a key word here) – for example, exactly how many under-30s has Dr. Wong hired? There’s a big difference between making a generational judgment on two employees versus 20. And what positions are we talking about here? Is she paying enough for someone with brains to care about the job? And does it really say anything about the younger generation, or is Dr. Wong perhaps “behind the times” and simply uncomfortable around tech-savvy youths? One more thing – if someone really has a lot of trouble finding qualified employees, does it really say something’s wrong with the employee pool, or does it show that the employer is simply incompetent when it comes to finding and securing qualified people? Hmmmmm.
4. Under 30 is a rather broad group to be lumping together, don’t you think? Hell, I’m 28, and I can still remember life before social media and cell phones quite well. You all know how I feel about playing with anything and everything just because it’s new versus focusing on what’s actually useful. And I do think teens are a bit more gadget-happy than folks my age (not much). But are these things not useful in the bulk of cases? I think implying that all of these things are a waste of time shows ignorance on the part of the writer and sources here regarding the extent to which these digital tools are used.
5. Current 20-somethings are quite possibly the most entrepreneurial group in history. Why don’t we ever hear about this when people are whining about things like issues of entitlement or “lack of dedication” in the workforce? It’s become so easy to go out on your own these days, that a lot of the smarter folks are doing it (even if only part-time at first). So the issue isn’t necessarily that the generation is “dumb” – perhaps it’s more that we’re smart enough to know we don’t need all of the corporate bullshit if we don’t want it. Do we feel entitled to something better than companies that ditch us after 30 years, or lost pensions due to corporate scandals? You bet. Had previous generations set a better tone of employee loyalty after the regular company loyalty of our parents’ and grandparents’ generations, maybe they wouldn’t be witnessing a backlash. (And companies that do have excellent employee relations don’t seem to complain about these same things – maybe there’s a lesson to be learned there.)

I could go on (like about all of my under-30 friends out pursuing advanced degrees or those in that group I know who are smart enough to be running brilliant companies), but I won’t. I’m sure most here aren’t ignorant enough to make claims of stupidity over an entire generation.

The post Social Media and Stupidity appeared first on NakedPR.