Since then there have been several instances of what Jason Calacanis might describe as the ‘madness of the mobs‘. From Hotmail users fighting against the new design, virtual protests and self immolations on Second Life against a steep purchase and maintenance fee increase, to relatively harmless breast beating on Twitter and Facebook, there has been a lot of action happening all around.

A few recent incidents have made me look at the otherwise wonderful features of the social web in a negative light again. Rex Hammock recently wrote about a Dilbert strip in which its creator Scott Adams did a bit of ‘in house’ product placing – for DilbertFiles.com, an online sharing and file storage service that was the result of a deal between Adams and Sendyourfiles.com, which Adams had explained on his blog. In fact he also points out that

As the number of traditional newspapers continues to shrink, this is the sort of thing that will help keep Dilbert free online.

But several readers took exception calling it a ‘shameless plug’ and ‘unethical’. Thankfully there were many in the crowd who were objective enough to see it as ‘lame but not ethical’, and several others who found it interesting, and a great way of promoting the service. I, for one, thought it was some neat ‘brand integration’. The debate is now over, i guess, and Scott Adams made some candid, cool closing remarks on the issue. You can read them here.

The other incident that caught my attention was the case of James Andrews (@keyinfluencer on Twitter). Here are the details. In short, this is what happened. James Andrews, from a company called Ketchum, in Atlanta flew to Memphis to visit FedEx, one of his agency’s biggest clients, to talk to their corporate communication team about social media. Being a regular Twitter user, he tweeted on landing

“True confession but I’m in one of those towns where I scratch my head and say, ‘I would die if I had to live here.’”

Instead of the lil argument that would’ve happened on Twitter over this, it became a classic ‘tempest in a tea cup’, when a person from the Fedex Corporate Communication Group took this up and sent a mail to Andrews. And thus it became a story of the agency guy (Andrews) talking ill of his client’s city. (the entire mail can be read in the link I shared earlier) All the poor man did was give a personal opinion about the place he landed in. That is a crime in social media, according to a few social media storm troopers. Suddenly, there are statements to be made, the agency has to apologise on behalf of Andrews. I say, FedEx, thats #FAIL. Kudos to Funkidivagirl for defending her husband so eloquently, and putting things in perspective.

Both the situations made me think of expectations. Scott Adams is perhaps thinking of greater good (keeping the online strip free) when he makes a deal like this. He even explains the reasons on his blog. He doesn’t have to. And the crowd, or at least a part of it, loses it. James Andrews tweets personal views about a nameless place  (Fed Ex’ reaction ensures everyone knows about Memphis now) and his agency and work are judged based on that!! We’re supposed to be careful of what we tweet.

The last and most recent incident is the worst, because unlike the other two, this one’s effect was real and physical!! And at the receiving end was none other than Tech Crunch’s Michael Arrington. As he was leaving a conference, someone walked up to him and spat on his face. The pain in his words are unmistakable as he relates the incident. It doesn’t matter whether you agree, disagree, love or despise TechCrunch or Arrington, but their contribution to the web and startups transcends that, and cannot be denied. If this has to do with what he writes about as part of his job, this is a despicable reaction. I, for one, would really want to know what provoked such an act.

We expect transparency, honesty and sharing in the social web.  But are we always ready to handle it maturely when its given to us? Yes, brands and people have a responsibility towards us, but shouldn’t that be reciprocated by us too? By having unreasonable expectations from brands and people, especially in a scenario where the rules of engagement are only beginning to be formed, are we forcing these entities to stop sharing and stop being transparent? As RWW correctly notes,

Whether you believe in monitoring yourself online or not, don’t forget the point of the social Web: to get to know other like minded people, share resources, have fun, and leave the place a little nicer than you found it.

Let’s have some of this spirit back, and show some maturity not only when we share or tweet or try to engage an audience as a brand/PR person, but also as a reader, when we consume this content. After all we are human, and I like to think that with web 2.0, we’re on our way to making this cold machine driven entity called internet , human. Lets not make the reverse happen.

until next time, you have the right to remain silent, sometimes the duty too..

PS. but you should comment

]]> https://www.manuprasad.com/2009/01/29/crowd-control-by-the-crowd/feed/ 6 https://www.manuprasad.com/2008/06/12/first-life/ https://www.manuprasad.com/2008/06/12/first-life/#comments Thu, 12 Jun 2008 10:27:09 +0000 http://brants.wordpress.com/?p=99 MMOGs have always fascinated me, but I have never managed to get hooked on to Second Life. And I’m yet to read Neal Stephenson’s Snowcrash, though its been on my shelf for sometime now. But yes, I insist that I am interested nevertheless and still play a browser game set in the middle ages.

So, when Wipro became the first Indian brand (or is it VR1? ) to get into Second Life, to me, it was a kind of defining moment. But then, Wipro, to me is a very tech organisation and less connected to a normal consumer inspite of the bulbs and oils. So i wasnt surprised with a “Offshore Development Center (ODC) model campus with facilities like Client engagement center, Learning Center, 3 floor ODC setup with cubicles….Admin, Data center and Library.” presenceon the virtual world. But it was also mentioned that resumes could also be submitted at the virtual campus, wonder what stage that is in.

And a few days back, Amul also decided to get a life.. a second life. The popularity of Amul’s hoardings is legendary, which is why it was surprising when Amul’s presence was stated to be “…a simulation of its production and distribution facility.” But thankfully, there also seem to be plans for having ice cream parlours which, other than the products, would also feature communication.

But honestly, I’m still not convinced. Amul is a consumer brand- the taste of India. Also, its no secret that the ‘utterly butterly’ babe on the hoardings played an integral part in building the brand. Isn’t it logical to carry the two components into a virtual platform? Billboards on Second Life showcasing the unique Amul perspective on issues. Isnt it perfectly placed to be a sort of spokesperson for India on global issues? For example, when Bush makes his trademark absurdities (like how India’s prosperity led to a global food shortage) Amul can be the champion of India’s cause, with a trademark oneliner. While I understand that the Bush channel is soon to be closed, and there need not be an Indian perspective on everything, the perspective can be on anything – sports, movies, politics. All of this and more interest the Indian audience. By doing this, Amul becomes the ‘Voice of India’ (not the show, though that can also be done virtually..after all the world does go gaga over Eendian music ) and is able to showcase itself as a vibrant brand.

Ah well, for the second life to be good, there should be clarity on the first life. Most brands are yet to reach there. I, for one, would love to have Amul play a much larger role on Second Life, not strictly related to its product range, but more as a brand, with an utterly butterly babe avtar to boot. Whatcha think?

Meanwhile, this one’s a must read, especially for those of us who are hooked on to 2.0

until next time, life’s like that?