http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com How To Start And Grow A Thriving Web-Based Business Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:40:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/2009/11/web-business-freedom-episode-2-fools-gold/comment-page-1/#comment-719 Starcraft 2 Fri, 25 Dec 2009 09:40:22 +0000 http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/?p=718#comment-719 Web Business Freedom empowers individuals to take advantage of the power of the web to start and grow their own businesses online We Web Business Freedom empowers individuals to take advantage of the power of the web to start and grow their own businesses online We

]]> http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/2009/12/trouble-with-social-media-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-723 BrandonUttley Sat, 12 Dec 2009 08:03:25 +0000 http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/?p=723#comment-723 I appreciate both Becca's and Jim's comments about the role of "traditional" media and communicators. What really fascinates me is this idea that suddenly, with the advent of social media, companies must now be transparent. "We the people" now have a tremendous say-so, and we're holding those in power accountable. So Jim is right in a keen sense, that at this point the dialogue itself is the transparency. That might be the best we can hope for. Many communicators have longed for and crusaded for openness for hundreds of years, and it's a constant tug-of-war between legal, management and other factions who have institutions' "best interests" at heart. And in fact, sometimes the right thing to do is not to disclose every single thing that happens. This is a whole other argument surrounding transparency that should be debated in the coming year. I appreciate both Becca's and Jim's comments about the role of “traditional” media and communicators. What really fascinates me is this idea that suddenly, with the advent of social media, companies must now be transparent. “We the people” now have a tremendous say-so, and we're holding those in power accountable. So Jim is right in a keen sense, that at this point the dialogue itself is the transparency. That might be the best we can hope for. Many communicators have longed for and crusaded for openness for hundreds of years, and it's a constant tug-of-war between legal, management and other factions who have institutions' “best interests” at heart. And in fact, sometimes the right thing to do is not to disclose every single thing that happens. This is a whole other argument surrounding transparency that should be debated in the coming year.

]]> http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/2009/12/trouble-with-social-media-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-721 BrandonUttley Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:47:12 +0000 http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/?p=723#comment-721 "Transparency is a good model"--that seems correct. It's more of an ideal, really, and something companies should strive for. But for a lot of reasons, most will never be fully transparent. “Transparency is a good model”–that seems correct. It's more of an ideal, really, and something companies should strive for. But for a lot of reasons, most will never be fully transparent.

]]> http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/2009/12/trouble-with-social-media-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-722 Jim Mitchem Sat, 12 Dec 2009 04:48:31 +0000 http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/?p=723#comment-722 Transparency is openness. That's all it is. Who creates the ads for the Super Bowl, C-level people at the company? No. So we have traditional thinking that says it's ok to have other people who are more qualified to do a brand's mass communications - communicate for them. Only until now, there's only been one-way dialogue - from brand to constituency. Social Media's offers the opportunity for open dialogue. And that dialogue itself is the transparency. I still believe most brands are probably best served by letting communicators do the communicating (traditional-think), but now the dialogue is interactive instead of one-way. I'm all for brands hiring people. That's not necessarily a transparency issue as much as a good business decision. Transparency is the openness to dialogue itself. Transparency is openness. That's all it is. Who creates the ads for the Super Bowl, C-level people at the company? No. So we have traditional thinking that says it's ok to have other people who are more qualified to do a brand's mass communications – communicate for them. Only until now, there's only been one-way dialogue – from brand to constituency. Social Media's offers the opportunity for open dialogue. And that dialogue itself is the transparency. I still believe most brands are probably best served by letting communicators do the communicating (traditional-think), but now the dialogue is interactive instead of one-way. I'm all for brands hiring people. That's not necessarily a transparency issue as much as a good business decision. Transparency is the openness to dialogue itself.

]]> http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/2009/12/trouble-with-social-media-transparency/comment-page-1/#comment-718 BrandonUttley Sat, 12 Dec 2009 02:03:25 +0000 http://www.webbusinessfreedom.com/?p=723#comment-718 I appreciate both Becca's and Jim's comments about the role of "traditional" media and communicators. What really fascinates me is this idea that suddenly, with the advent of social media, companies must now be transparent. "We the people" now have a tremendous say-so, and we're holding those in power accountable. So Jim is right in a keen sense, that at this point the dialogue itself is the transparency. That might be the best we can hope for. Many communicators have longed for and crusaded for openness for hundreds of years, and it's a constant tug-of-war between legal, management and other factions who have institutions' "best interests" at heart. And in fact, sometimes the right thing to do is not to disclose every single thing that happens. This is a whole other argument surrounding transparency that should be debated in the coming year. I appreciate both Becca's and Jim's comments about the role of “traditional” media and communicators. What really fascinates me is this idea that suddenly, with the advent of social media, companies must now be transparent. “We the people” now have a tremendous say-so, and we're holding those in power accountable. So Jim is right in a keen sense, that at this point the dialogue itself is the transparency. That might be the best we can hope for. Many communicators have longed for and crusaded for openness for hundreds of years, and it's a constant tug-of-war between legal, management and other factions who have institutions' “best interests” at heart. And in fact, sometimes the right thing to do is not to disclose every single thing that happens. This is a whole other argument surrounding transparency that should be debated in the coming year.

]]>