Recently I began to think that (as a marketer – predominately online) why is there not some sort of professional standard that Marketers can be assigned. If an accountant can be a CA, a Lawyer can become an advocate and a Financial planner can get a CFA why don’t marketers have a professional association.
I found this particularly unusual as Marketing is becoming a very technical and in depth job description. As an online Marketing specialist I must be able to identify SEO best practises, make recommendations on SMO, be responsible for the creation of websites, online campaigns and multi-level strategies. In fact some of you reading this probably do not know what SEO and SMO are…that alone tells me that there should be a professional designation.

Anyway, moving on… I then went in search of a professional association and to my surprise…. there are lots. This was a reasonably exciting revelation as it seemed to provide me with the opportunity to gain recognition in a professional stream. Then the phrase “little did he know” gave me a smack in the head.

Before I explain why imagine the following: What if the creators of the CA designation had never actually used their own standards in the application of the Designation? Would it be respected in any way shape or form? if you went to the CA offices (pretend) what would you expect? I would expect it to be exemplary of the ideals of what accounts are like as well as the industry it is in.

So back to the Marketing designation. I deal in basic online concepts everyday. I give my clients best practise in the marketing world. My clients expect me to be able to provide this. Why then when I go to the “Marketing professionals designation” sites do I feel like someone is trying to sell me a second hand car? If you know where to look you can assess the online astuteness of a organisation. If you look into their source code you can see what practises they are applying…. Basic Practises…. that these Professional Organisations obviously have no idea about. The least they could have done was hire someone to do a good job. No it is just a sale.

Having seen this, I am particularly disappointed. I am not going to join an organisation that cannot (themselves) execute basic online marketing strategies. overall the “Professional Marketer” designations are currently a Fallacy.

Also, don’t ask me for money just to submit basic information and you even give me a chance to be considered. I want a professional designation but I want it to be worthy of professionalism

Dont believe me: google: “professional marketer”

The online enviroment is one that is becoming difficult to navigate and impossible to control. Any business that has not come to the realisation that they do not control their brand is living in the stone age and needs to take the blinkers off.

In this speed increasing environment many company’s are making rash decisions with regard to online presence. One in particular is the personal brand of an employee which some companies desperately try to take control of or outright obliterate. Is this really what they should be doing?

It is in my humble opinion that companies should leverage against their employees online brands. Why?
•    Free marketing: Employees have their own followers, networks and connections who interact with their profiles daily. This means that your brand is viewed as well (if in a indirect manner)

•    Public Relations: Every employee has the ability to be a brand ambassador and to contribute to the public awareness of your company

•    Sales: Those networks we mentioned…. They provide access to a market  you may not have otherwise reached

•    Thought Leadership: If an employee has a bright idea and posts it online, it can rub off on the company’s image and make it appear innovative or ‘out of the box thinkers’

•    Branding: BRAND AMBASSADORS. Your employees are capable of cost effectively reaching the market to sell your brand

(source: blog.hubspot.com – Five reasons Businesses should support their employees personal brands)

At the end of the day you want your employees to take brand ownership for the company, to treat it like it was their own.
In today’s world it is natural that 90% of employees will have social profiles and online presence in one form or another. Companies can try to: 1. Prohibit social correspondence with regards to the company:  2. Regulate what is being said by getting the employee to friend/follow the company or 3. They can encourage and guide the employees online personal brand

There are Pros and Cons to the situation but the following is what I believe is the best measureable action that a company should peruse when dealing with employees and their online presence.

I Vant to hear only von Click….

Sometimes companies forget that their employees are human too. They come to expect that the person’s life revolves entirely around work. As such the company should have complete control when it comes to the actions of the employee including what they say and do whether online or other…. If you believe this you will very quickly have a company that consists of a building, some machinery and not much else.

It occurs to me that employees who are treated well , whose working environment is stimulating and challenging will organically become true brand ambassadors of the company. It is possible that the company can guide the online actions of the employee through positive interaction. This organic Ambassador will then naturally promote the company online and (if the culture of the company is widely accepted) be in-line with the brand strategy.

Pros:
•    As with SEO (search engine optimisation) a positive ORGANIC result is better than one you need to pay for

•    A brand ambassador  will have true passion for the company and this will shine through when they communicate

•    An open culture will bring you the best people. The company will not garner a reputation of heavy handed techniques with their employees. This is ever more an increasing factor as people literally become DEPENDENT on their social profiles to maintain their daily activities. Refusing this could result in some very negative results

•    There is an opportunity to turn your employee’s  network connections into brand ambassadors and create a community around these connections

Cons:

I can only think of one Con (and it is a duzy that covers all possible complications). I like to call it ‘village idiot syndrome’.

When you give people the freedom to act, most will do so diligently with the understanding that they have a responsibility to act in a certain way. However there is always at least one person who does not grasp the idea that with freedom comes responsibility and will, invariably, do something stupid and damaging.

An example can be seen from Nike employee Jason Petrie who made a questionable tweet with regards to an NBA player who had recently signed a mega-deal  with Addidas. Petrie had the opportunity to remove the tweet and apologise but instead went on a twitter parade causing Nike some brand damage. (Source: www.opposingviews.com)

Should a company control employees profiles? How?

“A wolf is most dangerous when backed into a corner.” As odd as this quote seems here I feel it is quite prudent. Trying to take control of your employee’s profiles by force can have more negative results than positive. You could lose that employee (and others), Those employees can then tweet, post etc to their hearts content about your policies. All of which is damaging.

Rather a business should try to guide employees with their personal brands. They should help employees grow their personal brands and therein the brand of the company. However the online environment does provide a place where unhappy or facetious employees deliberately try to cause brand harm. To this end it is not unusual to have online social media principles which the employee is required to adhere to.

This does not disallow the employee from engaging in online personal branding and socialising but rather provides a guideline as to what would result in a dismissible offence. This would be in-line with the general policy of dismissal as a result of intentional harm to the companies brand (which is a contractual obligation standard).

One of the best examples I could find was Coke’s Online Social Policy (www.thecoco-colacompany.com/socialmedia/). Here coke emphasised their understanding of the importance of social media engagement and provided a framework for employees to use when acting on behalf of the brand

The last question is how can a brand monitor its employees?

Use the tools at hand. A good ORM (online reputation management) tool (like Radian6, Saidwot) can allow the company to listen to some of the conversation going on online and allow them a degree of measurement and control. Also, keep your eyes and ears open. If an employee says something of importance someone will retweet, post it. Keep in touch with the online community yourself as a manager/Brand manager/ Marketing manager. Remember, an employee’s online brand is built around interaction, if you become a part of the general conversation you can keep a good track of events

Welcome to WordPress. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!