Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Big Brother Friends Facebook

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the it's-like-alabama-for-everyone-else dept.

Social Networks 82

storagedude writes "Clara Shih, who created the first business app on Facebook in 2007, is back with a new venture: Hearsay Social, which makes Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn more palatable to corporations by adding features like SEC and FINRA monitoring and compliance and analytics. Conversations are monitored around the clock, regardless of where employees access pages from — work, home or mobile — and workflow tools let companies approve or suggest content before it appears. Those features appear to be making financial companies a little more comfortable Facebooking, as State Farm and Farmers Insurance are two early customers. Shih is backed in the new venture by veterans of Facebook, Twitter and YouTube."

cancel ×

82 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Oh Yeah... (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102644)

This is what "free" as in "free market" is supposed to look like, right?

Re:Oh Yeah... (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102678)

No. The "free" actually refers to the right of the customer to exercise his/her Pro-choice decision of which company they want to deal with (or not). For example I chose to exercise my freedom to boycott Comcast TV when they raised their prices from $30 to $70/month and give my money to hulu.com instead.

THIS decision is about what employees can or can not post on the company's facebook page. Employees are expected, while on the clock, to present a positive image of the man paying them cash.

Re:Oh Yeah... (3, Interesting)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102700)

Employees are expected, while on the clock, to present a positive image of the man paying them cash.

Conversations are monitored around the clock, regardless of where employees access pages from — work, home or mobile —

And now while off the clock, apparently.

Re:Oh Yeah... (0)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102786)

I don't see how a company can monitor my home or phone internet & postings, if they have not installed software on those machines? Hmmm.

I guess I just need to use anonymous IDs from now on (or at least until the government makes that illegal).

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 3 years ago | (#35105206)

I am guessing they monitor the actual accounts, and not the systems where you are checking them from.

Re:Oh Yeah... (3, Informative)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103172)

They monitor your posts to the *company* Facebook page 24/7. If you post to the company page on your off-time, they still want to make sure that you're not posting stuff they don't want to see on the company page. At a guess it works like this: No human has write access to the company Facebook page, the password is kept secret. Instead you login to the service's page, and compose your post. When you hit "submit" rather than going to Facebook, it goes into a queue to be reviewed. Probably their are a number of people who can review and approve posts. When one of them (or some percentage of them, or if you're really paranoid, all of them) approve the post the software then posts it to Facebook.

Chats could have a similar setup, but with less of an "approve/disapprove" option and more "I can interrupt or take over your session if needed through the proxy". I'm betting Kenneth Cole wishes they'd had something like this about now...

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

imakemusic (1164993) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103232)

Thanks for clarifying. That makes a lot of sense and seems a whole lot less big-brother than the summary or my (admittedly brief) skimming of the article seem to suggest.

Re:Oh Yeah... (2)

Stooshie (993666) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103774)

You are obviously new if you read the summary as reflecting the actual facts in any way whatsoever.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 3 years ago | (#35108880)

But he's obviously newer if he actually reads the article anyway ;-)

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

Magada (741361) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103942)

Indentured servitude. The bedrock upon which America was built.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35122346)

I don't see how a company can monitor my home or phone internet & postings, if they have not installed software on those machines? Hmmm.

I guess I just need to use anonymous IDs from now on (or at least until the government makes that illegal).

Re:Oh Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35130938)

Your question was already been very politely answered [slashdot.org] the first time you asked it.

If you're not going to bother listening to other people's responses, why even ask questions in the first place?

Re:Oh Yeah... (4, Insightful)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102844)

No. The "free" actually refers to the right of the customer to exercise his/her Pro-choice decision of which company they want to deal with (or not).

Aha, you're talking about the mathematically undemocratic "vote with your wallet" thing, where the more money you have, the more votes you get?

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102884)

You consider it undemocratic that if I offer to trade 2*N widgets, I can get twice as much in return, and that it would be better if I got the same as some other guy who only offered to trade N widgets?

Re:Oh Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102958)

You consider it undemocratic that if I offer to trade 2*N widgets, I can get twice as much in return, and that it would be better if I got the same as some other guy who only offered to trade N widgets?

No he said running a country based on the principle that the more widgets you have the more votes you get is undemocratic.

Re:Oh Yeah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103134)

Ahhh. There's no way you can prevent government power from being abused by those with money. It's impossible. The solution is to stop expanding government power, not to expand it even further in some attempt to stop such abuses.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103736)

Ahhh. There's no way you can prevent government power from being abused by those with money. It's impossible. The solution is to stop expanding government power, not to expand it even further in some attempt to stop such abuses.

But even with smaller/more limited government power, what's to stop those with money from abusing the power the government does have?

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

Mr.Z of the LotFC (880939) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103930)

The less power the government has, the less power there is for them to abuse, & thus the less worthwhile it is for them to bother. Also, smaller programs often have fewer bugs, so perhaps a well-designed small government would be considerably harder to abuse in the first place.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

chgros (690878) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106018)

Like in the good old 19th century.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103816)

... Employees are expected, while on the clock, to present a positive image of the man paying them cash.

Which of course is institutionalized lying, sometimes.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

BradleyAndersen (1195415) | more than 3 years ago | (#35104574)

hulu.com is 32% the property of NBCUniversal, which is now 100% the property of Com-crap. Sorry, pard-ner.

Re:Oh Yeah... (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35122372)

No. The "free" in free market actually refers to the right of the customer to exercise his/her Pro-choice decision of which company they want to deal with (or not).

For example I chose to exercise my freedom to boycott Comcast TV when they raised their prices from $30 to $70/month and give my money to hulu.com instead.

Wrong summary? (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102648)

In the article there's no mention of monitoring employees conversations, SEC or FINRA..Am i missing something?

Re:Wrong summary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102686)

Check out Hearsay's Facebook page, where they discuss exactly those three things: http://www.facebook.com/hearsaysocial [facebook.com]

Re:Wrong summary? (1)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103032)

Damn, the link is blocked at work!

Re:Wrong summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102692)

Absolutely correct! There's nothing in either the linked article or any of the articles that that links to that mention anything about SEC, FINRA, or continuous employee monitoring. Where did that come from?

Yet another prime example of why "citizen journalism" and blogs will have a hard time overtaking properly-vetted stories written/EDITED by trained professionals.

Re:Wrong summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102804)

Yet another prime example of why "citizen journalism" and blogs will have a hard time overtaking properly-vetted stories written/EDITED by trained professionals.

Not to say that professional journalism doesn't exist, but I'm just curious: Have you ever had an article written about some local thing you are very familiar with? In my experience journalists often get at least something wrong or they slant things a bit too much.

I've worked for a small paper myself, interviewing and writing stories and of course I tried not to twist things, so there must be other honest people out there too, but for big mainstream papers I'd say most often than not, they are not epitomes of accuracy.

Re:Wrong summary? (1)

dingfelder (819778) | more than 3 years ago | (#35105272)

easy:

  • step 1: click the one link in the summary,
  • step 2: click the first link in that page, which it brings you to http://www.hearsaylabs.com/ [hearsaylabs.com]
  • step 3: click the cirst link on that paage, to bring you to their other page (on facebook)
  • step 4: profit!

There you see:

Eliminate compliance concerns with foolproof FINRA and SEC regulation monitoring. Conversations are 100% monitored and archived with no downtime, whether reps access local pages from work, home, or on the go.

Re:Wrong summary? (4, Interesting)

Jarnin (925269) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102714)

Shih said the service is particularly well-suited to companies that have franchises and branch offices that want to provide a local flavor to their Facebook content, but also must comply with corporate rules and leverage content from corporate and other users in the system.

In other words, they get to approve all comments made on not only their facebook page, but any of their local franchises, or the local users of those franchises. So if I go to my local McDonalds and get crappy service and decided to later post that on the local McDonalds facebook page, the corporate office AND the local franchise would have to approve my message before it was displayed for others to see.

Re:Wrong summary? (1)

mvar (1386987) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102726)

Thanks for clarifying this. The summary gave me the impression that this is an app that companies can use to monitor their employees conversations

Re:Wrong summary? (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102926)

My corporate blacklist keeps growing:
ADD:
State Farm
Farmers Insurance
REMOVE:
Google (under new management)

Re:Wrong summary? (1)

DrgnDancer (137700) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103276)

I don't see where they talk about monitoring customer comments and the like. They're monitoring *employee* comments to the *corporate* website. WTF is the problem here? I own a company. I setup a company Facebook page. I'd like to make sure that my employees do not post illegal or damaging information on my company Facebook page. I can't stop you form making negative comments on your personal page (I could conceivably fire you if I found them, but that could happen anyway). I can't monitor customer comments (any more than I could already by reading and potentially deleting them). It just provides a way to monitor official company posts to the official company page.

You can also monitor chat when the employee is using the company identity. This is all about ensuring that employees of the company do not do illegal or ill advised things while operating under the identity of the company. The most recent example of the value of this is Kenneth Cole's problems over some ad guy's Twitter post a couple days ago.

Re:Wrong summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35108054)

More like, if you work for a local franchise, normally had permissions for their fb page, and think your boss is a dickface, McDonalds corporate can keep you from posting "Mr X is a dickface!" on the franchise's page.

With or without this, most co's would probably nuke a comment like the one you mentioned.

Makes perfect sense, honestly. I don't let just any employee post whatever they want to our company blog, either. McD's fb page represents the company, and as they already do, they want to maintain control of it. This is just a more streamlined way to do so.

Re:Wrong summary? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102762)

Sorry for the confusion - as someone else pointed out, it was in the Hearsay Social Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/hearsaysocial), and I just added it to the article.

Let me guess... (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102656)

TFS:

State Farm and Farmers Insurance are two early customers

The biggest incentive was the presence of FarmVille as new market niche, but until know not enough support for the employees to create a coherent sale pitch for this segment. Now, this is possible... loud an clear... mooo!

Re:Let me guess... (1)

supremebob (574732) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103166)

Excellent... I can't wait to buy insurance on my virtual tractor and fake crops in FarmVille.

Can I get drive-by insurance in Mafia Wars as well? :)

Multiple facebook profiles (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102740)

Employees will just create multiple profiles. Idiot companies can monitor the public one, while the alter egos come out and play at night.

Stop trying to monetise, captilalise and otherwise sodomise both social networks and your employees and return to a culture where performance is rewarded instead of babysitting braindead employees.

Re:Multiple facebook profiles (3, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102862)

That's the whole idea. You don't want you sales rep using their personal facebook page for your marketing and mixing it in with their drunken adventures in Bangkok. You want them to use a facebook profile just for their work - but now you run into compliance issues since what they say is clearly said as part of your company.

And the sales rep likely doesn't want to have all their annoying as shit clients as friends on their personal facebook page either. So win-win.

FTFY (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102748)

"But Shih said Facebook profiles are a marketer's wet dream because users reveal so much about their interests, such as favorite sports, hobbies and product preferences."

FTFY

Personal e-mail too? (4, Insightful)

Manip (656104) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102758)

I've been concerned for a while now that my corporate overlords haven't had enough access to my personal life or to monitor me during my personal time. I have already given them access to GPS on my phone, my personal e-mail, and my Facebook account - so I would be happy for them to automate this so my wonderful employers can, at a click of a button, see me every minute of every day, and so we can both work together to prevent negative thoughts or words that might impact my performance or more seriously the companies image.

I would also like to thank my boss, Mr. Smith, for allowing me to post this message to /., I realise it was expensive for PR and legal to sign off on its wording and I will work to pay back the costs it incurred the company (by having them take it out of my pay each month).

Re:Personal e-mail too? (1)

gox (1595435) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103646)

You know, you don't have to work there... In this case at least, your enemy is your drive for "success". If we all could balance pursuit of immediate monetary/emotional gain with other concerns, there wouldn't /be/ corporate overlords.

Re:Personal e-mail too? (1)

celle (906675) | more than 3 years ago | (#35105138)

"If we all could balance pursuit of immediate monetary/emotional gain with other concerns, there wouldn't /be/ corporate overlords."

That might have true seventy years ago when the public was more spread out and independent and law wasn't written to support corporations outright but it's not so much now. People have moved to the cities that just can't function without corporate support(privatisation). We're largely dependent on corporations now, need examples: fcc net neutrality decision, all the various corporate bailouts, food generation, etc.

Re:Personal e-mail too? (2)

pnuema (523776) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103690)

This all has to do with SEC regulations covering communications with clients. If you are a broker, and you tell a client a stock will go up, you have committed fraud. The SEC requires ALL communication with clients be monitored for this compliance. If you are adding clients to your social network, by Federal law your employer has no choice but to monitor that communication - which is why at my last job for a brokerage firm, IM and webmail were forbidden - even though I was in IT. If my employer did not fully control the communication channel, I was not allowed to use it from work.

Nothing to see here, move along.

Big Brother? What? (3, Insightful)

MikeRT (947531) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102800)

FTFA, all it sounds like is a workflow system for controlling what can be done through a company's official presence(s) on Facebook. For example, it allows managers to moderate both employees handling those presences and other Facebook users trying to post on their wall, etc.

How is that "big brother?" That's almost like calling Slashdot comment moderation a form of Stalinist repression (when we all know, that label rightly belongs to Digg)

Re:Big Brother? What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103030)

If it's limited to PR reps and the associated official profiles/pages then that makes perfect sense. I expect that is exactly what this is intended to do and wouldn't function very well for monitoring what the drones post about Aunt Sally's birthday party.

However, if one of these companies goes and says "Hey, I should take this to the next level so I can really control my 'web presence'", then we would be looking at a big brother type scenario.

Re:Big Brother? What? (1)

uncledrax (112438) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103566)

I was always under the impression that Big Brother was a repressive Government.. and didn't have anything to do with corporations anyway.. and I believe the US Government [youtube.com] has already [time.com] embraced [ohmygov.com] social [facebook.com] media [twitter.com] .

Re:Big Brother? What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103812)

And "de Nile" is a river in Egypt, but that doesn't mean oppression can only come from the gov't.

Privacy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35102802)

Isn't this... Illegal?

I don't understand companies on Facebook (2)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102910)

I'm someone who's only been to Facebook a few times, due to Google searches taking me there. I understand that it's a social site for people to post information about themselves and communicate with friends who use the service. I don't understand it when I see a product saying "Come visit us on Facebook!". Is this just a glorified web page? Why not just put up a website for your company, and let people link to it? Maybe it's like software APIs or something, where the company's Facebook page is a sort of wrapper that makes their interface match that of other Facebook users?

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (2)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103036)

I'm someone who's only been to Facebook a few times, due to Google searches taking me there. I understand that it's a social site for people to post information about themselves and communicate with friends who use the service. I don't understand it when I see a product saying "Come visit us on Facebook!". Is this just a glorified web page? Why not just put up a website for your company, and let people link to it? Maybe it's like software APIs or something, where the company's Facebook page is a sort of wrapper that makes their interface match that of other Facebook users?

Its all about communicating with customers, and getting new ones. If you can get a customers to friend you what you post shows up on their wall and when
they friend you it shows up to all their friends. So the idea is very simple, get a bunch of people to friend you, send content out them and then get them to bring in
their friends.

Honestly with the size facebook is I would be worried about any company that was *NOT* on facebook.

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (3, Interesting)

AchilleTalon (540925) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103148)

You forgot to mention it is all about gathering personal information on customers rather than just communicating with them. Unless you consider communication is a one-way thing. Companies with a Facebook page can pump all about you from your profile and knows about your friends and possibily more depending on how you manage your personal info.

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (1)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103658)

This is true. I work for a marketing agency and leveraging facebook user data is of utmost importance to our clients. You can take some comfort in knowing that our clients don't know what to do with that data once they get it. They have a database somewhere that says you like Miller High Life, and carrots. Some execs pat themselves on the back for gathering this data, then they forget about it.

Honestly, what we have observed time and time again is if a company uses their facebook page to actually engage their audience in conversation, it does far more to further the product than simply gathering bizarre statistics that they don't even know how to use.

.

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#35104354)

"Honestly with the size facebook is I would be worried about any company that was *NOT* on facebook."

Did they close their Second Life and Myspace account first?

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103406)

"Come visit us on Facebook!" == "Spam your friends for us on Facebook!"

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (2)

pinkushun (1467193) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103436)

Companies like it, because it is a platform for exposure to a _lot_ of people, with a minority of companies using it as a web presence.

Users like it, because it's a central hub for various services: status updates, friend connections, image hosting, music liking, video sharing, relationship statuses... just what lusers gravitate towards.

Its problematic, for example, to the point where I can't find out whats happening around my city anymore, without resorting to FB (I don't most of the time). We need FB to stop, and normal web life to continue.

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103568)

I have a hard time understanding why large companies do it, in spite of what the other posters' answers to you.
What I do get is that for SMALL companies, FB is a very affordable way to host a site and be guaranteed a lively guestbook. Compare that to how IT costs go up when you have entire GUIs to design, maintenance, downtime SLAs, databases to user-populate/de-spamify and so on... no wonder even some large companies that have done all that on their own end up burdenening their potential watchers with ads to balance those budgets.

The above is a daunting task that normally got outsourced to a trusted local company. Now it can be given to a single media/PR guy who posts updates through a user-friendly system all FB users are acquainted with, and generate reports based on who's been visiting and from where (I wonder if they also get the same free demographics data youtube analytics gives any ol' free subscriber.) Matter of fact, Youtube itself has become the defacto video-hosting site even for large companies --despite our knowledge that a corportate blocklist is MORE likely to deny youtube than apple.com. You can bet your hiney that it's due to the much-improved chances for going viral as well as getting trackable user-feedback to improve your future ad campaigns.

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35104282)

> What I do get is that for SMALL companies, FB is a very affordable way to host a site

A site that looks just like every competitor's site, which nags visitors to "Sign up to Facebook" and each page of which contains dozens of errors per the W3 Validator?

Not terribly professional or effective, I'd say. Perhaps they could include a Hotmail-hosted contact e-mail to complete the act.

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35105162)

A site that looks just like every competitor's site, which nags visitors to "Sign up to Facebook" and each page of which contains dozens of errors per the W3 Validator?

<sarcasm>Yeah, because the curious caaan't just do a read-only check on the company or monarch if they aren't a facebook member. And of course, those W3 Validators reaaally prevented facebook from gaining 500 million registrees, since they are all slashdot geeks with a script with that pet peeve and a script that nukes any browserpage at all, INCLUDING slashdot itself! </sarcasm>

Re:I don't understand companies on Facebook (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35105098)

I've gotten customer support, information about upcoming events, deals, promotions. I've even entered contests. It's just easier than going and checking a site every day or getting email from a company. You don't understand because you don't use Facebook. But enough people do that makes it worth while. It's like my grandmother asking why companies have web pages, when you can call them or send them a letter or read about them in the paper.

And it's full of FAIL (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35102940)

You can, like I do, create TWO profiles. one that is my professional profile, and one that is my private profile. my private profile does not have my name or any of my real info linked to it, and it is kept separate completely, I'm not even a friend of myself!

And if I wanted to out my company for doing bad things, I'd create a third unconnected account to oust them on. So this system they are making is only good for getting the stupid people, and give corporations a "nice fuzzy feeling"(tm) they get when oppressing their employees.

Re:And it's full of FAIL (1)

Zachary Kessin (1372) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103042)

I expect thats what most companies want, one profile that has your family and college buddies and one that has you friended to work people. You do work stuff from
the work profile. I think that what we do for those people at my office who are on facebook for customer relations.

Re:And it's full of FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103144)

A lot of people I know have a "friends" FB and "family" FB. Mainly due to tagged photo's and status up dates like "walk of shame but well worth it" etc etc.

Re:And it's full of FAIL (1)

WillDraven (760005) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103246)

I did this myself, and somehow facebook connected the dots because it keeps recommended that I friend myself.

Re:And it's full of FAIL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103456)

The presence of a workaround does not negate the fact something sucks.

The Real Big Brother(tm) (1)

trollertron3000 (1940942) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103154)

The Real Big Brother(tm) checked into Facebook a long long time ago. They signed in as "Accel Partners investment group".. *walks away casually*

Not Big Brother - just another provocative summary (2)

JonnyCalcutta (524825) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103236)

Before you all jump on the bandwagon, this is about monitoring and being involved in the workflow of company accounts, not controlling what employees say on their personal accounts. I cannot see anything bad about this and in fact when I first saw it yesterday I thought it was a nice business idea.

Effectively it is for companies with local branches (like a franchise) where head office wants some control over the official social media accounts of their sub-branches or franchisees. It means branches can run their own social media marketing, but head office can be involved in the workflow to ensure it fits in with corporate policy and marketing.

I'm sure its open to abuse, but what isn't?

Re:Not Big Brother - just another provocative summ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35104460)

I suspect this is because all the internal company social media sites (rapidly created after social media became the trendy thing) all failed. The next step is to use the social media sites people are using anyway.

Split Personality (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103288)

I love the split personality of Slashdot.

Company accused of insider trading – claims it will take months to recover the e-mail. The tragedy!

Company wants to monitor employee’s conversations to monitor of insider trading [and because the SEC, FINRA says those records must be kept for 7 years.].and is lambasted.

Talk about a double standard.

I know a couple of brokers who would like to use social media to keep in contract with their employers but can’t. Now, I am troubled that because everything that can be recorded these days is. But that is a different story.

Re:Split Personality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35107158)

Isn't that weird? Almost like "Slashdot" consists of more than one person...

Ok, so now... (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103352)

how would I go about convincing my employer that our accounting form would benefit from being a part of these social networks?

Re:Ok, so now... (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103362)

accounting firm....not form

Re:Ok, so now... (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103534)

Are you big or small?

Throw a seminar every 6 weeks or so. A little coffee, some cookies, a little FUD – which is easy with the current tax code. Hey – in 2 years you are going to need to report every transaction over $200 to the IRS. Changing rules on your car. Etc. By the way, if you keep receipts we will do the heavy lifting.

Draw in new customers, retain old customers. Network with stock brokers, estate lawyers, print shops, etc. Accounting firms is a weird combination of 1. application of knowledge and 2. networking with people. Because you actually have to convince people to pay you money to apply your knowledge.

I have seen big accounting firms do this all the time – bring in a high powered partner to talk about the latest application of FASB 161 – or something like that. On the other hand I see my Uncle, who runs a 1 man IT support business, also use social media to good advantage.

Re:Ok, so now... (1)

Stenchwarrior (1335051) | more than 3 years ago | (#35104802)

We're fairly small...26 employees, 6 of whom are partners. I'm the first IT guy they've had in 90 years of business and I just started a couple months ago. I'm trying my best to incorporate new technology to set us apart from some of the other guys in town. When you think of accounting services, you don't think of technology but I think current and potential clients would like to see us leverage some of the e- services out there. At the same time, of course, we need to be able to convey stability and give people that "old business" feel. It's a delicate balancing act and convincing the old-boys to implement such technology is a challenge that, for the sake of growth, I'm willing to take on.

Re:Ok, so now... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103728)

You could pitch a marketing scheme based on facebook questions.

FOaD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103574)

"Is Facebook ready for business? That's a question that's been bandied about for years as a growing number of companies have hoped to leverage the popularity of the social networking site that has exploded to more than 500 million users worldwide."

Dear management types,

Thank you SO much for showing up on the Internet. Thanks for the things you did with Napster and MySpace. Thanks for SCO. Thanks for patents, DRM, the copyright extensions. Thanks for insisting that everyone use Microsoft products. Have I told you how happy I've been since I started saying "fine, I'll accept your friend request" to my co-workers?

There's a brand new, totally awesome, cutting edge tool making the rounds that would be absolutely fabulous for your bottom line, in addition to making some damn fine publicity. I'd strongly recommend that you be a first-comer rather than late to the party on this one.

It's called "fire." Jump on in!

Re:FOaD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35104470)

Yep, the Internet would be SO much better without those evil corporations. Totally free and open. A complete utopia. Of course, I am not quite sure how it would work without all the chips, fiber, wires, computers, routers, switches, etc that the evil corporations provide. Or the money that they provide from ads, etc. Of course there would also be no Google or anything like that.

What If... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35103730)

What if we all just... stop using Facebook? (or never start, in some cases)

Will it become compulsory?

God, save me... (1)

P. Legba (172072) | more than 3 years ago | (#35103746)

...from ever having to work at places like those.

Alabama for everyone else? (1)

Peter Trepan (572016) | more than 3 years ago | (#35104962)

Could someone explain the "it's-like-alabama-for-everyone-else dept." tagline?

Yes, I know my state sucks in a lot of ways, but I have a bad feeling I didn't get the memo about how it's sucked lately.

Success. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#35105532)

If the measure of success in our society, is to work for corporations that would treat their employees like chattel, then I'll always be proud to be a "loser".

Makes Facebook... more palatable to corporations. (1)

nuckfuts (690967) | more than 3 years ago | (#35106418)

Now if only someone could make it more palatable to me.

And in a related note, given all the current buzz about The Social Network cleaning up at the Oscars, am I the only one around who thinks that movie completely sucks ass?

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?