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like deleting spam or abusive blog comments, or even deleting old posts when there’s a valid administrative reason to (outdated content you don’t want to promote to readers anymore or timely announcements that are now irrelevant for example).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.

Their question would apply to any website or social media profile where you have censorship ability.

Here is their question, paraphrased:

Assuming someone posts a derogatory comment on your company’s page, do you take it down to address it, or do you leave it up with a note that you will contact them if you know how to get in touch?

First, I’m happy to see the question wasn’t a case of simply censoring negative comments. The reader is still willing to address them even if the comments are removed.

But look. There’s no clear cut answer for this one. Here are a few things to consider though when deciding how to deal with negative feedback:

1. Does the person want an actual solution to the problem, or are they complaining just to complain?

My philosophy is this: complain to your heart’s content as long as there’s a real problem, but be prepared to take credit for your comments.

If your commenter isn’t giving you any option to contact them (no phone number, email address, or even a website link), then they don’t want a personal solution that badly.

Does that mean you should delete anything that’s anonymous? I don’t think so (and definitely not when we’re talking about reviews — deleting any honest review makes you inherently dishonest yourself, and that’s not someone worth doing business with).

That said, there are anonymous comments making reasonable complaints that you should address because they likely affect a broader group of customers. And there are anonymous comments that are unnecessarily heated because someone posted while pissed. There’s a difference.

You don’t need to tolerate abuse from customers, and neither to other visitors to your website or profile.

2. Is the language inappropriate for your site?

What’s considered tolerable language for one audience may be completely inappropriate for another. If you don’t want to allow swearing on your incoming comments, that’s fine. But make that clear up front in a comment policy, so there’s no question as to why something may have been removed.

If you don’t have a comment policy in place, you run a bigger risk of your censorship stifling conversations with other customers. They might worry you’ll delete anything you don’t agree with.

If someone posts a negative comment filled with swearing, and if you deem that inappropriate for your site, my personal preference is to keep the comment, remove the problematic bits, and add a note about what you removed with a link to your comment policy.

3. Is it libelous?

There’s no place for libel. Period. And your company doesn’t have to host it or support it just because you don’t want to be known for overly censoring feedback.

4. Is it really a derogatory comment?

I don’t think it’s acceptable for any company to censor comments just because they don’t agree with what was said. I’d be careful about limiting the scope of what the company considers inappropriate. You don’t want to turn away potentially valuable constructive criticism. Look at it this way: it’s free market research.

There are cases where deleting feedback may be the most appropriate course of action, whether you respond to the commenter privately or not. But remember, there are consequences. If you’re too liberal in using your delete button, you could turn potentially mild situations into heated ones. Your site is not the only place people can go to complain about you. Piss them off even more there instead of trying to help, and you risk even worse feedback being published elsewhere (where you have no ability to censor or even directly respond).

One of the greatest things you can do for your company’s reputation, especially online, is to be responsive to legitimate customer feedback. That doesn’t mean you should respond to everything. Just don’t turn a blind eye by censoring everything that’s critical of your company. That would make you an asshole. And people don’t like doing business with assholes.

Plus, that’s a surefire way to get your company some scathing reviews on consumer reporting sites. And they won’t censor unflattering feedback for you. I have a client of my own in that industry, and I can tell you that even if you tried to sue those sites to get negative reviews removed, you will lose. So don’t push customers to that point to begin with.

When you respect and appreciate your customers, they’re much more likely to respect and appreciate you. Focus on being helpful, and don’t get your panties in a twist every time someone criticizes your company. You don’t have to please everybody (let’s face it; some people are just piss-ants and you’ll never please them). But your goal as a business owner should be to please as many of your customers as possible. And a big part of that is listening to them. So let them speak.

Note: This post was originally published in 2009 and has since been updated.

The post Derogatory Customer Feedback Online: Should Your Company Delete It? appeared first on NakedPR.

I avoided getting into it here for a while, but the discussions around the community continue — the same few people saying the same few things.

This topic came up again when Eden Spodek commented on Mack Collier’s post “Are Companies Targeting the Wrong ‘Influencers’ with Social Media?“

To say I cringed would be an understatement. I left a few thoughts there. I planned to follow up with more in response to a comment from Brandon Carlos, but the comment ended up practically being a post in itself. So rather than hijack Mack’s post over this particular case, I’m posting those thoughts here in the hopes they’ll sink in with at least one sane person out there in social media land.

Before this, I suggest reading Mack’s post. It’s a great discussion on how much influence those “influencers” actually possess, especially when a company doesn’t bother researching exactly who they exert “influence” over to begin with.

The Original Comment

I think the real problem is companies becoming content with getting bloggers to say “Oh, they’re so nice to invite us,” or “They hosted a super-cool event,” while completely ignoring relevance.

I follow several “influential” social media bloggers for example. When I visit their blogs, I expect to read about social media issues — not beer, not soda, not anything unrelated unless there’s a heck of a good reason.

Telling your readers how Molson decided to give you free beer to pour down your throat isn’t a good reason. Unless perhaps you’re a food & beverage blogger, or you blog in a pop culture kind of niche full of cheap beer drinkers who want to pat you on the back for the great mooch. Even attempting to spin it as “a great example of blogger relations because they ‘bought’ me with free beer” doesn’t cut it. If anything, that’s sad.

Personally, I stopped following a few bloggers who went on about that event, because frankly they showed me they didn’t “get” blogging’s role in social media. That makes them unreliable sources. As a member of the type of audience those bloggers were targeting, I couldn’t respect their opinions on that blog anymore seeing they could be bought. There’s no other way to describe it after reading some of those posts. Even a hint of that can turn off blog readers – the very people those companies are hoping you can influence.

Now as much as I despise the BS surrounding the Brew 2.0 event, I’ll at least give Molson a tiny bit of credit for trying. But they should try harder.

How can companies do better?

1. Focus on better targeting (more quality over quantity).

2. Actually give the bloggers something no one else has – something worth blogging about that their readers would care about – a story to break, etc. (And “they hosted a blogger event” hardly counts when it’s irrelevant to the bulk of their target market / customers.)

3. Get it through your heads that blogger relations isn’t about kissing the ass of bloggers, parties, and events. Far more often a blogger wants advanced info (a big deal for most of them to break even something tiny). Or bloggers might want your direct interaction on their blog. Those in the food & beverage industry or those industries companies like Molson otherwise sponsor would probably love a high-level company rep stopping by and leave a comment. Or offer to do an interview. Or offer to host a special contest or promotion through their blog. Do something of value to them. Build a relationship that amounts to more than manipulation through freebies and schmoozing.

What matters in blogging? The information, not showmanship.

It doesn’t matter how generally “influential” a blogger is. If their audience doesn’t care about your company or product (or wouldn’t want to hear about it in that particular place), that “influential” blogger has very little real influence over their readers when it comes to that particular post.

Did Molson get some blog coverage? Sure. But I didn’t see anything truly substantive (and I saw a lot of it). I saw the same old “ooh, it was so cool they asked me to go… blah, blah, blah.” Not much product info. Not much actual value for each blogger’s readers. Nothing truly new.

If Molson asked people in PR and social media specifically because they wanted them talking about how the event itself operated, that still wouldn’t be good blogger relations. But it would at least be slightly less absurd. When asked publicly however, they made it clear they had no intention to get that kind of coverage, or pitch that kind of angle to bloggers.

“We’re in no way interested in publicizing our social media capabilities, rather we want to ensure that we’re present, and can contribute somehow if possible, when beer or related topics are being discussed online.” – Green Banana

Instead they opted to put on a fake face and say they really expected nothing at all.

I’m sorry, but by telling those bloggers there that you didn’t expect it, you’re bringing it up with the hope of planting that idea in their heads. And if it were really about “being present” as a future resource for beer-related posts and nothing more, they wouldn’t have targeted social media “influencers.” They would have targeted people already talking about beer.

Thoughts?

The post When a Blogger is “Bought” How Much Influence do They Really Have? appeared first on NakedPR.