“With the new ‘FB timeline’ on its way this week for EVERYONE…please do both of us a favour. Hover over my name above. In a few seconds you’ll see a box that says “Subscribed”. Hover over that, go to “Comments and Likes” and unclick it. That will stop my posts and yours to me from showing up on the side bar for everyone to see, but MOST IMPORTANTLY IT LIMITS HACKERS from invading our profiles. If you repost this I will do the same for you. You’ll know I’ve acknowledged you because if you tell me that you’ve done it I”ll ‘like’ it. Thanks”

My friend commented that her friends have shared an article about how the above status update that is circulating is a hoax. She gave me this link to the article on a website called thatsnonsense.com reporting it is a unfounded rumour. Upon read this article, I became aware how myself and the author differ in our understanding of the term hacker. To clarify for my friend I started to write this response in a comment on my status update. Given the length of my response, I’m sharing it here. I responded with the following.

1. Source of web information

Always consider who is the source of the information before sharing it. I know why I shared the status update (see 2-4 below) and which friend I first saw it circulating, but I was curious on the source of this article also. Perhaps it is all about interpretation.

I wondered who is thatsnonsense.com? The author of this article, whose name is not published (red flag) on a website whose owner is not transparent (red flag) gives some good advice about privacy settings, but then directs readers to their Facebook page and blog for more information about online hoaxes and a website surrounded by pay per click advertising. Many websites use these forms of marketing to generate revenue to fund their content, but credible sources of website content especially about technology and privacy (e.g., Mashable) are very clear about the authors of their posts and what is the company status – if it is a company. Thatsnonsense.com is a website is run by craigspace.co.uk, which is not a company but a 22 year old IT graduate from Plymouth University. He goes by craigy_lad on Myspace. From the site it appears to money is made out off the traffic to thatsnonsense.com and a Facebook Fan page is used to generate traffic to to the articles. Great if they are accurate and credible content. Not a problem. But why do none of the posts indicate the post authors name, the authors bio or where he/she is located, perhaps I missed it. The whois server indicates Canada (where the webpage is probably hosted). Even the ‘contact us’ page is questionable, no contact details, just a web form.

So would I trust what this site tells me given I don’t know the author of the posts and how revenue is being generated through it. No, not really! I am sure the author is very knowledgeable, but given how anyone can build a website today and offer advice, to me, the source is always very important and should be transparent, especially in this context to help readers evaluate credibility and accuracy of the information being reported.

The author (and others) are correct that your privacy settings are most important on Facebook, but so too is understanding what we mean by ‘hacking your Facebook’ profile and the purpose of the Facebook Ticker.

2. Who is the hacker?

Mainstream media would have you believe a hacker is someone who breaches security to access systems illegally and unethically. A computer villian. However this is a cracker, not a hacker. There is much controversy around how popular culture – driven by media journalists and film have used the term hacker. Some of us still hold true to use of the term as a positive creative computer geek who is different in intent and authorisation to a cracker, i.e., someone who cracks into secure systems with negative intentions. You can read much about the controversial history of these terms on Wikipedia and the sources this article provides for a good historical read.

In sharing this status update, the geek that I am, I looked upon “a hacker” NOT as someone who will violate my Facebook privacy and security settings from the outside, but as someone who will hack the code and content of the Facebook system and my profile – with authorisation – to what they believe is for a positive reason. For Facebook that would be sharing more information. In this, a hacker is someone who likes to mashup content, code and systems to create things and they often work in paid respectable professions, coming up with solutions and ideas to IT and business problems. For example, Hackers created the Internet at APARNET (big applause  for that one!). But hackers are also increasingly are working in Digital Marketing – mashing up code and content to create ways and means to acquire, share and profit from through advertising with the information I share through social media.

In this, Facebook could be seen as a hacker of their system to find new and differing ways to access, mash together and share our personal information and that of our friends.

3. The Facebook Ticker

The Facebook Ticker is about sharing ‘everything.’ This appear to be the ethos of Facebook. Sharing everything as a ‘good thing’. What is unclear about the ticker is ‘with whom’ is this information – updates, uploads, comments and likes shared with. Friends = yes! Friends of friends = depends on your and your friends privacy settings. Third party app developers = yes. Marketers or advertisers = of course! Inside Facebook has an interesting article on this.  The main way to protect your information is to not post anything on Facebook and to stop using the service. If though this is too big a step, ensure ALL you’re your settings are at ‘Friends only!” and that all the social apps you have downloaded to your Facebook profile (e.g., Spotify, Netflix) are not integrated with your Facebook or the settings on these apps . Sharing content between accounts and with friends on Facebook is a personal choice. But know what you are agreeing to when you sign-up to a service, click “login through my Facebook account” or ‘Share with X App”.

The Facebook Ticker includes Facebook sponsored stories. Mashable.com, a respected source on all things social media, provides some insight to Facebook sponsored stories. In this, and some may disagree with me, Facebook is hacking my newsfeed and personal information mixing personal updates from Friends with advertising (Yuk!) to relay in the Facebook Ticker. A feature I can’t easily remove from my profile. Given how we are not used to seeing advertising in our wall feeds the Facebook Ticker, immersing updates, likes, comments with advertising – that is sponsored stories, is the next best thing.

So who is the ‘hacker?’ Facebook perhaps! Not some IT geek hiding away in a basement in the dark somewhere.

4. Why unsubscribe from Friends Comments & Likes (and ask friends to unsubscribe to yours)?

Facebook is hacking a lot of their system to find ways and means for us to share more with others, more often and more personal information. Sharing is their business and the Facebook Ticker an interesting addition.

Sharing comments and likes with my friends is a personal choice, not Facebooks choice. If a friend asks you to unsubscribe, unsubscribe. Unsubscribing means friends won’t see the conversations you have with other friends (if privacy permits) and pages or comments your like. Coupled with privacy settings, unsubscribing enables some control (albeit a little) control of what ‘conversations’ (comments) and ‘social interactions’ (‘like’) are shared with friends, friends of friends, and become mashed up with advertising through the feature: Facebook Ticker. For both you and your friends. It limits some of the social viral effect of Facebook.

For example, I’m interested in updates from Debra, I’ll see them in my wall and comment on them. Debra as my friend will get a notification that I’ve commented. We have a public conversation. But all our ‘mutual friends’ or ‘friends of friends (if privacy settings are such) will not get an update in their Facebook Ticker on their profile page that this conversations is going on. Let’s call it Facebook eavesdropping or friend spamming. In the past I could tick a box in my privacy settings that indicated ‘not sharing pages I liked and comments’ with friends. Interesting how Facebook has hacked this privacy option in the new Timeline and I find myself spending time to reinstate this option by asking friends to unsubscribe.

I agree, that asking friends to unsubscribe won’t limit Facebook hacking their system, but it places choice back in the users hands, to have a little more control over what you share with whom. For example:

1. To share updates, photo uploads on you wall and timeline etc just with friends: Ensure privacy settings are set to ‘friends only’ on every thing (updates, photos etc) so only friends will see them when they are updated or uploaded. Friends can comment and like on said content.
2. To share comments and likes (social interaction through Facebook) with only the friends you are having those interactions with: Ask friends to unsubscribe from your comments and likes – (so your conversations don’t appear in their  Facebook Ticker feed) and do the same to for them, so you don’t see their social interactions.

5. In summary …

The moral of this long blog post that started as a comment on a status update on Facebook …

1. Consider the source of information. Dig deeper to the source of information that is not transparent about who they are and the information they provide, especially websites offering advice. That includes the ‘copy and paste’ viral status updates’s and articles by authors who make money through web traffic to articles (true or not) about what is or is not an online hoax or breech of privacy. Find a credible and transparent source you trust, especially when it is about online privacy.
2. Consider who the hacker is. It might actually be someone who you have granted permission to use your information how they see fit. Don’t trust a company whose business model is built on ‘hacking’ their systems to find new and different ways to share your personal information, mashing it up with paid content like advertising in order to make money. Not everyone believes sharing ‘everything’ is a good thing. If you participate, become informed or in the least, tick “Friends Only” for everything while you are learning. I’m still learning and work in this business.
3. Consider who you are sharing with. Chances are all your Facebook friends won’t have their privacy settings set to ‘friends only’ or will have the same friend network on their profiles as you do. Your friends are possibly connected to people who you ‘wouldn’t want’ to see your updates, uploads, comments and likes. So although there is no negative intention in this, be aware that the definition of sharing is: “a part or portion of a larger amount which is divided among a number of people, or to which a number of people contribute” (Oxford English Dictionary).
4. Consider the sharing choices of your friends. Respect your friends on Facebook, the choices they make in what they share, and what they ask of you – as their friend – to share or not share about them. If they ask you to unsubscribe – unsubscribe. This goes for photos and tagging too. Facebook is meant to be a friendship network, wherein we keep up to date with friends, keep in contact and share. But like most social gatherings and social groups, the meaning of word friend and our expectations on how a friend behaves is fluid. We all see the world differently. Here is a talk I gave on Rediscovering Friendship for TEDxCardiff  last year. In it I talk about how friendship is a behaviour – something we do, enact and share. It is not a word or connection on Facebook.

I hope this blog post is of value to others, both connected and not connected through my Facebook profile. In the very least I hope it helps to raise awareness of both the personal and commercial implications (and our individual responsibilities) of communications through the digital social network that is Facebook.

Smiles

Share and Enjoy

How important REALLY is online word of mouth? How could an online community of music consumers use social networks to oppose an international music franchise and make British music history?

‘Rage against the X-Factor’: it was real; it happened in real time, and it had a real impact!

CASE Insights reviews the music campaign launched by Jon and Tracey Morter from Essex who showed Simon Cowell that they, their friends and their friends-friends certainly have much more than the X-Factor.

The X-Factor is a franchise originating in the UK in 2004, devised as a replacement of Pop Idol. Produced by executive producer Simon Cowell and his company Syco TV, X-Factor is franchise spanning 24 European countries.

The format sees aspiring pop artists and performers drawn from public auditions compete, with finalists being voted for by the viewing public for a recording contract and publicity. Despite, being highly criticised as exploiting aspiring music artists and for it’s lack of artistic integrity, it has been a hugely popular reality TV show watched by millions.

The UK Christmas Number 1 selling single is Britain’s most hotly-contested music chart of the year. Compiled by the Official UK Charts Company, for the past 4 years Simon Cowell‘s X-Factor winners, from Shayne Warne, Leonia Lewis, Alexandra Burke and JLS, have dominated the Christmas charts. However, this came to an end in 2009 with one of the most exciting and anticipated music chart battles ever in the UK. The British public sick of the manufactured artists widely supported and promoted a social web campaign to ‘Rage against the X-Factor’.

Fed up with the possibility of yet another X-Factor Christmas No. 1., Jon and Tracey Morter from Essex, started a protest campaign through a Facebook Group. They promoted the sale of their favourite single ‘Killing in the Name’ by artists Rage Against the Machine (RATM) as a possible contender for the 2009 No. 1 Christmas chart position.

‘Rage against the X-Factor’: Through over 1 million Facebook fans, over 50,000 YouTube search results and endless Twitter chatter, individuals encouraged their friends, followers and fans to buy a download of the single by rock band, RATM by the end of Saturday 19^th December (23:59pm).

The aim: to firmly contest conventional marketing techniques by publicly bringing down a major players mass media campaign through online social networks and word of mouth (WOM). Jon and Tracey felt passionately and wanted to stop the domination of the Christmas music charts by X-Factor manufactured artists and in that make a statement about the power of online WOM and marketing ethics.

The results: ‘Killing in the Name’, the single by RATM, officially released over 15 years ago, spent very little on it’s marketing activities, yet in December 2009, in one week, they sold over 502,672 copies of it’s single, beating X-Factor winner Joe McElderry by approximately 50,000, making it the 2009 Christmas No.1 in the UK.

In taking the title for 2009, ‘Killing in the Name’ also set two new landmarks for the music industry. It became the UK’s first download-only Christmas number one and notching up the biggest one-week download sales total in British chart history.

This has been matched with numerous fake websites, dozen of mock twitter accounts, hundreds of new blog posts, and thousands of YouTube entries for the single – Killing in the Name. The No. 1 search result on YouTube has received over 12 million views and been rated by 40,000 visitors. HMV’s Gennaro Castaldo said “This is a truly remarkable outcome and possibly the greatest chart upset ever”.

The campaign also raised through Just Giving over £93, 000 for the charity, Shelter.

In response: RATM announced on 19th December 2009, that they will be holding a FREE concert, a massive ‘Thank You Gig’ in the UK in Spring 2010 to celebrate the victory of the people’s campaign.

Marketers (and Simon Cowell) can learn a great deal from this social web campaign and how reality TV shows, audience voting systems and mass media ratings are not necessarily reflective of wider societal opinion and consumer choice.

WOM has always been a very important channel in marketing, but now coupled with increased reach and awareness because of digital social channels, it is by far the most powerful channel in marketing today.

For the digital immigrant or newcomer and the marketing traditionalist, take note: “The RATM campaign shows that marketing through the social web is about being real, in real time and having a real impact!”

Share and Enjoy