At a time many companies are looking at creating a social media policy or maybe beefing up the one they have to address new issues and opportunities, the Chartered Institute of Public Relations has released a social media update to their 2007 guidelines.

The update is for their members and the larger public relations audience. This comprehensive set of guidelines was created to not just help members and users to avoid problems while in social media, but to set straight the details surrounding social media and take advantage of the opportunities that await them in this vast, albeit still new, world.

See the PDF here. So how does the 2009 version of guidelines differ from the 2007? If the size of the index is any indication, they know more so they must have more advice to impart. The first newbie in the list is “social media measurement.” Recognizing the importance of providing ROI calculations and metrics, their basic advice is to remember it is just another media, treat it normally, and not to do it in isolation. Integrating it with your mainstream media analysis gives you a larger and more complete picture on which to base future decisions.

Search engine optimization also made the list as an essential part of any online marketing campaign. Explaining not only the benefits of good search engine placement and increased rankings, they also warn of “white hat and black hat” approaches to improve these search engine rankings and remind their members they are required to adhere to the CIPR codes of ethical conduct.

Online tracking and advertising also appear for the first time in this version of guidelines. Addressing again the ethical codes surrounding the gathering of personal information and how that information is handled, shared and stored is prominent. Lifted up as an example of a social media pitfall is Facebook’s Beacon, which received a number of complaints when launched in 2007.

The last new topic addressed in the guidelines is user generated content. With the invasion of YouTube and web casts, as well as the popularity of on-demand television, this is the genre that is the hardest to manage. The CIPR reminds members of their ethical code recommendations and the requirements that online product placement needs to be transparent and not disguised in a cloak of artsy, backyard filmmaking.

All in all, the guidelines seem to be much more comprehensive than the last version and have evolved to address the continuing areas of concern that organizations face. Though the CIPR is based in the United Kingdom, the guidelines can apply across the world just as social media knows no borders or walls.

The SSN Take: Remember social media is just another form of media.

Melody K. Smith, March 10, 2010

Note:   Post not sponsored.

A recent Fort Lauderdale Sun Sentinel column by Seth Liss: “As social media usage expands, how will it change us,” dissected social media’s impact on our culture. While the piece did a great job of showcasing positive results, it hardly touched this phenomenon’s negative cultural impact.

The article stated users age 8-18 are focusing on social media approximately 7.5 hours a day and possibly 11 hours a day when you count multitasking. The article optimistically cataloged the benefits of this lifestyle: an increase in online reading means that literacy rates will increase since knowing how to read is essential to social networking; more interactions with a wide variety of people will enhance a child’s communication skills; and this leap in multitasking (such as simultaneously managing Facebook, iPod and doing homework) will improve critical thinking. While promising and thought provoking, its results fail to notice how these same benefits can severely wound our culture.

Conversely, British newspaper, The Guardian, article “Facebook and Bebo risk ‘infantilising’ the human mind“ warned: “children’s experiences on social networking sites ‘are devoid of cohesive narrative and long-term significance. As a consequence, the mid-21st century mind might almost be infantilized, characterized by short attention spans, sensationalism, inability to empathize and a shaky sense of identity.’”

While shocking, this is still only theory since barely any hard research has been done on the subject. However, The Guardian claimed there were other ways to show how critical thinking and attention are negatively affected. It stated prescriptions for methylphenidate, an attention-deficit hyperactivity drug, have gone through the roof for young people in the last five years, roughly the same stretch of time the social media phenomenon has taken flight.

In addition, this piece argued that an 8-18 year old social media fanatic’s communication skills will not be enhanced, but rather diminished. “Real conversation in real time may eventually give way to these sanitized and easier screen dialogues, in much the same way as killing, skinning and butchering an animal to eat has been replaced by the convenience of packages of meat on the supermarket shelf. Perhaps future generations will recoil with similar horror at the messiness, unpredictability and immediate personal involvement of a three-dimensional, real-time interaction?”

While both viewpoints agree it’s still too early to definitively understand the benefits and dangers of social media interaction, they both state our culture is shifting rapidly. The question is, which direction is it headed?

Patrick Roland, March 4, 2010

Note: Post not sponsored.