<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Is It Time to 86’ Corporate Social Media Policies?</title>
		<description>Discuss Is It Time to 86’ Corporate Social Media Policies?</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 04:07:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/215/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>Anthony Verre says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-972</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Michael, I hear you. I think that's central to the issue (and truthfully felt too big to address in this post). The line between "buying your time" as an employee and outright "owning you" as an person-employee get very blurry for me when it comes to social media. Where does the first end and the second begin? Can "Jim Doe", employee of Corporation X, truly effect stock valuation from a honest and critical comment about Corporation X's product? Perhaps. And, I see the argument from Corporation X's stance as well. "Disgruntled employees who are looking to torch the place isn't going to happen to us. We're putting our thumb down on it." Would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that, particularly on the "buying time" vs. "owning" issue.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Anthony Verre</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:17:49 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-972</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Anthony Verre says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-971</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Glen, It is incredibly tough for companies to walk a line between protection and engaging people at a human level. I wouldn't be so certain that companies WILL HAVE TO do anything. It's been my experience that when pushed on something, corporate world pushes back even harder in the opposite direction. We're all going to learn together how to create the balance between alignment and engaging social personas. Thanks for the great comment!]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Anthony Verre</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 22:09:05 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-971</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Michael Martinez says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-970</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I can't speak for anyone other than myself, but I suspect that publicly traded companies like Apple may be compelled by their attorneys to take a hard line on "public" comments by employees that might have an impact on stock values, as such comments might be construed as attempts to influence trading values. If you are speaking in a venue where your relationship with your employer is easily identified, you may have encumbered more liability than you realize or want.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Michael Martinez</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 21:27:13 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-970</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Glenn Ferrell says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-969</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great line: "vanilla doesn’t echo or influence in streams" :) And great advice. It is really tough for companies to walk that fine line between having some "alignment" in their voice to the world and at the same time fully benefit from the sheer 'humanness' of their employees. The overwhelming importance of social media is going to force companies to take a bit of a "leap of faith" here.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Glenn Ferrell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-969</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Glenn Ferrell says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-968</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Great line: "vanilla doesn’t echo or influence in streams" :) And great advice. It is really tough for companies to walk that fine line between having some "alignment" in their voice to the world and at the same time fully benefit from the sheer 'humanness' of their employees. The overwhelming importance of social media is going to force companies to take a bit of a "leap of faith" here.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Glenn Ferrell</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2011 16:20:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20111207215/Social-Media/is-it-time-to-86-corporate-social-media-policies.html#comment-968</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
