Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Representing and
Misrepresenting
Yourself on Social
Networks
A Cautionary Tale for Marketers
Amy Pospiech
12/16/2008
This assignment is an individual research paper on the topic of social and ethical
issues of technology. The issue is authenticity in social networks as it relates to
public policy and marketing. Includes a summary of different perspectives or
responses; conclusions and implications for marketers and public policy makers.
Pospiech 2
Social networks are now a big part of mainstream culture in America and
throughout other parts of the world. Facebook, myspace, Flickr, blogs, YouTube, and
all aspects of Web 2.0 are now literally used by everyone and their mothers
(Elevenmoms 2008), in some cases even babies (Menscher 2008) and plants (Bray
2008) – sort of. Because of their ease of use and widespread adoption, many
creative uses of the internet and Web 2.0 have developed, not only by tech-savvy
individuals but by consumers, kids, artists, and marketers with a little time and
energy. However, amidst all this content, it can be easy to get lost, confused, or
frustrated. A user may begin to wonder, “How reliable or credible is the source of
this information?” “Who is actually responsible for the creation of this content and
what purpose does it serve?” “Is this content purely for entertainment or does the
worthless, and the author is either condemned or ignored. Other times, a creative
even after it has been “discovered.” It seems that the issue is one of authenticity.
Especially now, with more marketers and businesspeople entering the Web
2.0 circle for professional rather than personal purposes, consumers are delighted
to point out when someone has failed to adequately disclose their purpose. Even
with proper disclosure, some users are upset by ideas like “Pay-per-Post” which
example, Chris Brogan’s “Sponsored Post-Kmart Holiday Shopping Dad Style” was
enough to set the tweet-o-sphere (via Twitterers) and the blogosphere (via
Bloggers) on fire, even though it clearly stated that it was a sponsored post in the
Pospiech 3
title and first few lines of text, and it appeared on his Dad-O-Matic blog. Some
responses were along the lines of, “My beef is that I would rather hear from a real
shopper. Can’t Kmart find *someone* who’s shopped there for years who wants to
tell you and me why they like Kmart?”(Fialkoff 2008) and “I think he caught flack
due to the brand he chose to associate with.” (Singer 2008). So the issue here was
not just whether the post was sponsored, but whether it was solicited or “real,” even
veteran of using social media and technology to build digital relationships for
businesses, organizations, and individuals. Chris speaks, blogs, writes articles, and
Advertising Age Power150, and in the top 100 on Technorati” (Brogan 2008). It
made sense for Kmart to choose such a high-profile blogger to raise awareness for
their brand. But the approach may have seemed too market-y, as Chris Brogan was
only leveraging his status as “dad” for the brand which, perhaps, he had not
Owyang states that when doing sponsored posts, “Bloggers will simply have to
ensure that they are delivering trusted content to their audience (transparent), and
it’s relevant to their current topics (authentic). If readers are going to a tech blog,
and expecting tech content, they may be surprised if the content shifts to a
different medium – like consumer goods… The good thing about the blogosphere is
that it self corrects, the community members will let the blogger know what they do
Chris wrote his own post, justifying his choice for doing the sponsored post. It
included his relationship with the sponsoring company, Izea (formerly associated
with the controversial Pay-per-Post), and his wanting to “experiment” with the paid
post system. His response to the buzz about the “purity” of the blogging platform
and the internet was, “My job isn’t to keep the Kumbaya chants going. It’s to equip
businesses (and that’s on the blogger side *and* the big business side) with
knowledge and actionable next steps” (Brogan 2008). This entry, entitled
“Advertising and Trust,” received 222 comments of its own in just over three days,
with the original paid post receiving over 400, as entries into Kmart’s holiday
contest. So the post exposed two things: First, a sponsored post must be a perfect
alignment between blogger and sponsor, or else it will come off as fake and
misaligned sponsorship can generate some buzz about a brand or contest, and may
generate some excitement from those that aren’t upset over the whole sponsorship
idea, such as these bloggers: “Kmart was very smart at reaching out to Chris
Brogan. Far away from scholastic definitions of marketing and social media, Chris
Brogan has a heart. His followers know it. What is the value of that? I think you -and
Kmart- will find out” (Hart 2008) and, “After all he is a blogger who works in the
business and marketing field, giving useful advice for free and never too busy to
reply to a serious email or tweet. He’s not some kind of anarchist grimly struggling
against authority and many of the usual suspects in Chris Brogan’s blogosphere
So, while some people feel slighted by the idea of paid posts and
endorsements, or even jealous that they’re not getting paid for their own opinions
yet, others don’t mind them and see them as a normal part of business (“you’ve got
Pospiech 5
also mentions that “recent research shows that corporate blogs are not trusted, but
we know that consumers trust their peers, so savvy brands will want to benefit from
word of mouth” (Owyang 2008). Yet this case study shows that there is more to it
than soliciting “peers” to advocate a brand, as these “peers” must not only spark a
reader’s interest, but their trust. They must be seen as speaking from the heart, and
adding value for the readers of the blog. Finally, a sponsorship must feel organic,
not contrived.
promote their brand, to a mild degree of success, is with AT&T’s new campaign,
“Lost in America.” This campaign consists of a video series featuring two young
starlets being taken on random adventures throughout the country. Unlike the Chris
Brogan sponsorship, these characters were chosen based on their relevance to the
Karen: Karen has a very healthy and normal obsession with social media,
fruit and "The Wizard of Oz". She is heavily involved in online social
communities like Facebook and Twitter and enjoys trying out new web
technologies. She continues to shoot and edit short videos whenever
inspiration strikes and regularly blogs on her site karenism.com about
technology, film and food.
iJustine: With a catalog of more than 300 videos and 3,000 photos published
online, Ezarik "is the Internet". A connoisseur of all things Internet, a gadget
girl and a comedienne; iJustine represents a new kind of media star.
Interesting to note, iJustine was first made famous by her extremely lengthy
iPhone bill, making her the perfect selection for AT&T’s campaign. There are
“Alaska Ep. 1 'The Drop-Off’” and described: “In the premiere episode of Lost In
America, our participants Justine & Karen are dumped out of a van in different parts
Pospiech 6
of Anchorage, Alaska.” Similar episodes follow, with the girls using only their AT&T
phones to navigate their way around the country. While the sponsorship is clearly
evident, the campaign received some heat from an AdAge reporter, “The series is
heavy on AT&T, but light on storyline, unless you find it interesting that Justine
could be booted out of the competition if she drops her phone a fifth time”
two social media mavens and a tech company, but because it is so overtly
promotional in nature and lacking real “content,” it has received little buzz and the
viewer stats aren’t as impressive as, say, iJustine’s own YouTube channel.
Moving from weak sponsorships and partnerships, there are some inspiring
the Web 2.0 world. One to note is the Darth Vader character from Star Wars who
tweets regularly. Clearly, it is not Darth Vader himself behind the mask. Or is it? He
stays remarkably on-character and his tweets are entertaining enough, or strange
advocate a particular brand but jives with the current economy: “Tarkin says we
have to make cut backs. Stupid union clone troopers make $70 an hour and
naturally, there's like a million of them. 3:59 PM Dec 12” and one which apparently
does advocate a brand: “Totally had Tarkin convinced they named Black Friday after
me. He was waffling until I whipped out my Vader Master Card - http://bit.ly/UAeh
9:20 PM Nov 28.” The link takes the user to a Darth Vader Master Card promotion.
While it doesn’t seem that Darth Vader receives any type of a compensation
for his work, he has over 20,000 followers and could drive significant traffic to
another site. The point is: here is someone who remains anonymous and takes on
Pospiech 7
the persona of a famous character. His “followers” know it’s not really Darth Vader
behind the tweets as much as they know it’s not really Santa who delivers presents
on Christmas morning, but it’s the kind of thing people don’t mind seeing because it
is entertaining and even a bit inspiring. And it doesn’t even matter who the guy or
girl behind the tweets really is, or if they’re paid off or not. Of course, if some
individual was contracted to make a Twitter account and try to generate “buzz,” the
stream might not be as popular, seeming phony and scripted. Yet, if that individual
were James Earl Jones, well then you might have a quality social media
implementation. The point is not to try to “fool” users, but to use spoofs that are
highly-entertaining or obvious.
In previous years of Web 2.0, some marketers and public relations staff
misused technology, such as forums and review sites to post positive feedback on
their own products, generating bad PR and backlash from the community. This was
a violation of user’s trust and pitted them against the evil “marketers” who violated
their social spaces. In current years of Web 2.0, public relations staff has become
overly protective of their brand and brand image, and now the marketers don’t trust
the users, either. There is a concern over copyright infringement and of course, fear
that someone else may destroy a brand’s image through parodies and spoofs via
sites such as YouTube and blogging platforms. It comes as no surprise, then, that
when unsponsored “Mad Men” characters from AMC’s fading TV series set in the
1960’s started signing up for online profiles and gaining a large following, the
The “characters” Don Draper, Roger Sterling, Joan Holloway, and Pete
Campbell were supposed employees of Sterling Cooper Advertising from 1962 and,
consistent with the television drama, their Tumblr.com and later Twitter.com
Pospiech 8
presence maintained their characters’ voices. They offered advice to other users
and even a subtext to the television series. However, when AMC discovered what
was happening, they took a fearful approach. Twitter was contacted and the
offending accounts suspended. This attempt at controlling the “fan fiction” may
have caused even more damage than good; the company’s negative response was
the call to action for a website, WeAreSterlingCooper.com, with the manifesto, “Fan
fiction. Brand hijacking. Copyright misuse. Sheer devotion. Call it what you will, but
we call it the blurred line between content creators and content consumers, and it's
not going away. We're your biggest fans, your die-hard proponents, and when your
show gets cancelled we'll be among the first to pass around the petition. Talk to us.
Befriend us. Engage us. But please, don't treat us like criminals” (Caddell 2008).
Many blog articles and Twitter streams were created as a result of this. “As
lawyers often do, their threats had created far more controversy and negative
publicity than the fans could have possibly threatened” (2008). The website offers
series of events, called “Becoming A Mad Man,” written by one of the Mad Men
named Bud Melman, real name Bud Caddell . His account was not one of the 9 shut
down by AMC because his presence was invented solely online and not in the series
itself. Caddell acted as a facilitator in the post-suspension phase, gathering all the
Twitter users and concerned members of the community together to create unity
When I asked why each person had chosen to start twittering as a fictional
character from a television show, the answers were varied but shared a
consistent theme: love. Our strange new behaviors and identities were the
result of an advanced relationship to the world of AMCʼs Mad Men. It was our
appreciation of the subject matter, the writing, the acting, and the product as
a whole that spurred our expression. We were contributing freely, and no
conversation about compensation was had. We were operating under the
typical fan community “gifteconomy.” But regardless of why we got started,
Pospiech 9
we all saw this as an opportunity to prove a model, that fans and brands
should work together and create together (and we all still hoped AMC would
respond to us). We were all very much invested in the success of our
characters as a new form of engagement and as a way to create more
meaning and relevance with fans.
So, with all of this Web 2.0 jumble of good-and-evil content, how do
marketers ensure the consistency of their brand image and message, while
promoting active user communities? It seems that the trick is a mixture of “listening
in” along with “guerrilla” tactics that make use of current user communities. If
consumers are creating positive fan fiction and it does not harm your own
company’s reputation, message, etc., then let it live. Promote it. Encourage the
authors. Feature them in a press release. Do an interview with them. Link to their
sites / content. E-mail them. Friend them. Whatever the case, if they already love
your brand enough to spend significant time developing content about it, it’s almost
guaranteed that they’d appreciate the recognition. If the number of self-help blogs
and articles written recently is any indication, and the number of replies many of
them receive (Chris Brogan’s included), this is certainly the case. So a starving
creative would most likely be thrilled by a contact from a real company that they
of the listening before reacting like AMC’s representatives. Figure out what’s wrong.
Solicit opinions. Ask how the product / service can be improved. By asking to shut
company representative will fuel the hatred that was brewing when the content was
being created. Do not upset the influential users of the Web 2.0 world, as they will
surely make it known to others and find a way around the obstacles being
superficially created for them. They can always set up a copycat website, create a
Pospiech 10
new profile, etc. This is the gift and the curse of the ever-changing, constantly
This will cast the company or brand in a much better light. The author may even
change their opinion, or reveal that they don’t even mind the brand all that much
anyway, as was the famous case where Starbucks attempted to sue comic-book
Dwyer’s green-and-white siren carries a cell phone and coffee cup, and is
tagged with the text “consumer whore.” However, he didn’t really mind the brand
all that much – just the waste that came to his neighborhood once Starbucks moved
in. It was only after the lawsuit that he stopped drinking their frap’s every morning.
He writes, “as much as I was mocking Starbucks and their rampant consumerism,
there was also self-awareness and some irony to it because I was mocking myself
and everybody else who was making their way like lemmings off a cliff to Starbuck’s
every day” (Dwyer ). Sure, the logo was offensive, but a polite notice or initiation of
a conversation with Dwyer would have sufficed to have its circulation halted. At that
point, if Dwyer was unresponsive, a lawsuit may have been necessary, but not
before. From a public relations perspective, the approach of Starbucks was uncalled
for. After all, isn’t Web 2.0 all about engaging your customers with conversation?
Armando Alves, author of the blog A Source of Inspiration, writes about the
“brandjacking” phenomenon and how companies can prevent or control it. “Brand
Hijacking happens when consumers appropriate the brand for themselves and add
and providing tools and materials (if you’re really hip, wrap it around a Creative
Pospiech 11
described earlier and goes on to list some best practices for companies to prevent a
These suggestions will help prevent such practices as cybersquatting, where a user
registers a domain name similar to your own brand, with negative intentions –
either for money or recognition. Even so, brandjacking may occur in obscure ways,
so companies must always monitor social sites to discover relevant discussions and
“employee” of Exxon Mobil’s via a Twitter page. Janet’s completely unverified posts
Within three days “Janet” was discovered to be a fake. Here is the response of Alan
Jeffers, a real an Exxon employee: “There are only people that are authorized and
not-authorized, even people with the best intentions, may not know what the
want to be misleading people and there’s a lot of errors what the person is posting
Pospiech 12
even if it was something that had the best of intentions could be misleading. It’s our
perception that social networking is based on honesty, transparency and trust, it’s
important that they become forthcoming about who they represent” (Owyang
2008). While this brandjacking only lasted for three days before it was discovered, if
it had gone on for longer it could have caused some real damage to the company,
since she had most of the Twitter community’s belief and support behind her. When
she was discovered, she even refused to take down her account and give in,
claiming she was in fact “an employee of ExxonMobil, who has decided to put
forward her pride in her own company” (Diaz). But since verifiable Exxon executives
denounced any relations to her, the feed has since been removed. This case
highlights a slightly scarier view of social media: that users blindly trust certain
content, such as this Twitter page, because it offers them opinions that they want to
hear.
landscape that someone is there to help, or perhaps “Janet” is a huge nutcase who
actually just thinks of her lying self as an Exxon brand advocate. But comparing that
to the Chris Brogan case and the other “brand advocacy” cases where sponsorship
was involved, and the situation becomes even more interesting. A fully-disclosed
sponsorship agreement from two credible sources received a lot of negative heat,
even though both brands were well-liked and respected in general. An undisclosed,
unverified brand advocate for a generally un-liked brand (i.e. Exxon Valdez) receives
more “hmm, stinks for Exxon” reactions than “how dare she/they!” And if she were
an actual employee, doesn’t that necessitate her payment for this undertaking? So
it can’t be about the paid / unpaid thing. This whole “social media networking”
People weren’t sure whether the Mad Men were sanctioned by AMC, but they
didn’t care as the accounts were not representative of real people, but characters
playing a role in a fictional drama set in the 1960’s. They were entertaining. Darth
Vader uses a similar setup where he plays a role, regardless of whether he’s backed
by the Star Wars creators or not. Fellow Twitterers don’t expect him to be a real
person and follow him simply for amusement. No one really criticized “Janet” for her
blatant misrepresentations, but instead wishes that Exxon would get involved in
conversations with consumers in the future. No one can even criticize iJustine
partnering with AT&T, because she was essentially made famous with the iPhone, so
her approach is totally on-brand and in character, albeit a bit tired and dull. But
Chris Brogan, Pay-per-Post, used car salesmen, and salesmen in general appear
“unauthentic,” receiving plenty of criticism and negative attitudes. Sure, they get
some sales sometimes. Overall, the best idea for a marketer: don’t stick your brand
where it doesn’t belong, and where it already exists, find the most enthusiastic
supporters and listen before acting. Figure out what’s working. Find the right
community, find people who already love your brand, and foster that community to
promote the brand equity that is already growing there. Don’t get too “market-y” or
“sell-y” with users, or it will deteriorate the authenticity of that blog, forum,
partnership, brand, etc. That doesn’t mean every “fan fiction” or derivative work
like a little plant who tweets. Something as “false” as a talking plant can still be
Bray, Rebecca, Rob Faludi, Kate Hartman, and Kati London. “Botanicalls >> Kits.”
Botanicalls.com. Accessed December 14, 2008.
<http://www.botanicalls.com/kits/>
Brogan, Chris. “Advertising and Trust.” chrisbrogan.com blog. December 13, 2008.
Accessed December 16, 2008. <http://www.chrisbrogan.com/advertising-and-
trust/>
Cox, Darren Daz. “Should Chris Brogan get paid?” The Fine Art and Design blog of
Darren Daz Cox. December 14, 2008. <http://99daz.com/should-chris-brogan-
get-paid/>
Diaz, Sam. “Internet brand-jacking: What can be learned from Exxon Mobil?” August
7, 2008. Accessed December 12, 2008.
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=9602>
Dwyer, Kieron. “Kieron Dwyer.” Artist bio at stretcher.org. Accessed December 14,
2008. <http://www.stretcher.org/reviews/images/2004/illegal_art/dwyer.htm>
Fialkoff, Josh. “Why Kmart is Wrong to use Chris Brogan.” Josh Fialkoff: Online
Marketing, Wordpress & GTD blog. December 13th, 2008. Accessed
December 16, 2008. <http://www.nooozeguy.com/chris-brogan-kmart-are-
wrong/>
Hart, Ana. “Why Kmart is Wrong to use Chris Brogan.” Comment on Josh Fialkoff:
Online Marketing, Wordpress & GTD blog. December 13, 2008. Accessed
December 16, 2008. <http://www.nooozeguy.com/chris-brogan-kmart-are-
wrong/>
Learmonth, Michael. “AT&T's iJustine Web Series Doesn't Exactly Go Viral.” AdAge.
November 24, 2008. Accessed December 7, 2008.
<http://adage.com/digitalnext/article?article_id=132817>
Menscher, Corey. “Kickbee.” December 13, 2008. Accessed December 15, 2008.
<http://portfolio.menscher.com/itp/kickbee/> and
<http://crackblur.com/post/64705244/a-response-to-some-kickbee-
comments>
Messina, Chris. “Twitter hashtags for emergency coordination and disaster relief.”
October 22, 2007. Accessed December 16, 2008.
<http://factoryjoe.com/blog/2007/10/22/twitter-hashtags-for-emergency-
coordination-and-disaster-relief/>
“How “Janet” Fooled the Twittersphere (and me) She’s the Voice of Exxon Mobil.”
Web Strategy by Jeremiah blog. August 1, 2008. Accessed December 15,
2008. <http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2008/08/01/how-janet-fooled-the-
twittersphere-shes-the-voice-of-exxon-mobil/>
Singer, Adam. “Chris Brogan's Sponsored/Paid Blog Post for Kmart.” Comment on
The New Advertising blog. December 14, 2008.
<http://thenewadvertising.blogspot.com/2008/12/chris-brogan-blogging-for-
kmart.html>
Works Referenced
Anand, Geeta; Basu, Abhijit; Beckett, Paul; Sircar, Subhadip. “Dozens of People
Killed in Mumbai Attacks.”November 27,
2008.<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122772417126260231.html>
Alexander, Bryan; Levine, Alan; “Web 2.0 Storytelling: Emerging of a New Genre.”
Educause Review; Nov/Dec2008, Vol. 43 Issue 6, p40-56, 11p. EBSCOhost.
<http://connect.educause.edu/Library/EDUCAUSE+Review/Web20Storytelling
Emergenc/47444>
C, Omar. “Map of Mumbai attacks.” November 26, 2008. Accessed December 15,
2008.
<http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&ll=18.922445,7
2.832242&spn=0.007054,0.007864&z=17&msid=105055855763538009401.
00045c9d8b16af3ad1008>
“Cartoonist Kieron Dwyer Sued By Starbucks.” Comic Book Legal Defense Fund. New
York, NY. November 30, 2000. <http://www.cbldf.org/pr/001130-
starbucks.shtml >