As I mentioned in my WSJ Europe post on tips on defending your digital reputation, video has taken off and is an excellent means of communications and telling your business narrative for CEOs. Especially for getting CEOs comfortable with social media in general. As I quoted in the article, 75% of Internet traffic will be video this year. In our research on Socializing Your CEO, we talk about the benefits of using video for your CEO, particularly the ones who are wary of too much attention and visibility. Therefore I nodded to myself when I read about the major expansion of the WSJ's video unit. Now it is producing 3 1/2 hours of live daily programming. I did not realize that the Journal produces more live video than other newspapers in the US. I think we will be seeing a WSJ business network soon that rivals CNBC (who they partner with) and Fox (their parent company's network). Will be interesting to watch and as I said, a good opportunity for CEOs as well. How much trouble can you get in three minutes live?
When I was researching and writing an article on safeguarding your digital reputation for the Wall Street Journal Europe's website this week, I found this interesting article on how the International Olympic Comittee (IOC) had issued social media guidelines for "athletes and other accredited persons" for the 2012 games. Now we all know that many companies and organizations have such guidelines, but this was different in that the IOC made it clear it would be monitoring online content and would withdraw accreditation "without notice, at the discretion of the IOC, for purposes of ensuring compliance with these Guidelines." That will surely keep athletes and any other accredited individuals from using social media for commercial purposes and harming the reputation of the games and committee. At first I thought this was a bit harsh but on second thought, many companies and organizations monitor what employees are saying but don't outright admit it. Sounds like the IOC is being very transparent about keeping its reputation clear. I only wish they had defined "accredited" persons. They have a definition of terms at the end of the guidelines but do not define what it exactly means. I assume they mean third-parties but I did not have much luck online figuring it out either. Does that mean only third-parties must follow the social policies set forth? What about fourth or fifth parties -- meaning four or five degrees of separation away from the first and second parties? I guess I am getting too technical and asking too many questions. But I think it would help to know if a vendor or supplier is an accredited person of interest!
Anyhow, please read my article on digital defense and the five essential tips to safeguarding your reputation.