tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post3973530009665157394..comments2008-10-05T19:08:47.845+01:00Christopher Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10660157291722137172noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post-76908738016926387532008-10-05T19:08:00.000+01:002008-10-05T19:08:00.000+01:00The problem with regulation is that it may deter people from content generating. Remember, for every blog that attacks the brand online, there is another blog defending it, so discouraging user generated content may be equally detrimental to the organisation. <BR/><BR/>If regulations are imposed, it is difficult to suggest how the content could be adequately regulated. Although I agree with monitoring the social media for exclusion of obscenities etc, the task of excluding libelous content is likely to prove significantly more difficult. Even if regulations are imposed, stories like this are still likely to appear in the social media. As this article demonstrates, the content only needs to be out there for a short period of time to cause potentially huge organisational damage. If the content is removed, then the organisation cannot respond to the comments and allegations contained therein, eliminating their ability to offer their opinion on an otherwise one sided 'conversation'.<BR/><BR/>In this instance, I believe that the article in question should have been left up. Removing it offers no benefit to anyone. I honestly believed that this could have been turned to Apple's benefit. For example, if Steve Jobs had responded to the report in question, the results may have shown Apple as being in touch with their target market, instead of fearful of it. <BR/><BR/>The importance of the conversation is paramount, and should not be one-sided. I think that what's needed is a shift in mentality; organisations need to to open up and act more transparently. By doing so, the organisation can appear more human in the eyes of the consumer, and benefit from the opportunities this affords.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comment, Danny.The Lovable Rogue also known as Chrishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10660157291722137172noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5285812003538838741.post-55693961862375926642008-10-05T17:59:00.000+01:002008-10-05T17:59:00.000+01:00What this also showed was the need for proper regulation of the new media sources.<BR/><BR/>Sure, the citizen reporter was wrong for running the story in the first place without any kind of fact-checking, yet CNN were just as guilty for publishing it without substantiated proof it was true.<BR/><BR/>Despite their attempts to condone this by using the excuse "they don't want to hold their citizen reporters back", it seems a highly flimsy and unprofessional thing for them to come out with. <BR/><BR/>I wonder if they would have been so forgiving had it been the CEO of CNN as the story, and saw their share prices wiped out?Danny Brownhttp://dannybrown.menoreply@blogger.com