Synaxis

synaxis: Blog Post: Who Owns Your LinkedIn Profile?: At first, this seems an absurd question. Of course, the individual own... http://bit.ly/9QK54y

At first, this seems an absurd question. Of course, the individual owns it. But, is this accurate? And what dowe mean by “own”? What what is owned? What if you work at a company? What if that company supports your LinkedIn actiivity? What if that company pays you to make contacts? To be sure, there are many questions of ownership. In this discussion, I’d like to focus on one, specific question: who owns the expressions about your current employer?

First of all, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even know if this is a real question. This question came up at the intersection of two contexts. One is this article in Wired on a LinkedIn-related laysuit. The other context was a project where we’re doing a LinkedIn aocial media plan for a client.

To begin, I’d like to define some terms. By “expressions” I mean anything on your LinkedIn profile that could mean anything about a company. By “own” I mean have legal control over. So, my question amount to this: can a company control expressions about it on your profile? There seem to be 3 levels of expression.

1. Outright trademarks

It seems obvious that clear, trademarkable material is owned by the company. This is true in just about every instance. So, if you put the IBM logo on your website or use any of its material, they might be interested.

2. Direct Claims

What about claims you make about a company? If I said that Company X was great (or not great), what could Company X do about that? Could they make you change it? Assuming it’s not true, then I think that they defnitely could. What if it’s true but different than what they want you to say?

In this case, could they make you use their own formulation?

If controlling brand-related materials or trademarks can be controlled, then why not other expressions? It could just as easily be argued that any expression is central to a company’s brand or trademark.

Fair use?

Does fair use come into this at all? Could it be said that an expression about a company is just a quotation or sorts?

3. Indirect Claims

What about implied claims? Implied claims could exist in your own text. I am thinking here of job decriptions and professional specialties and goals. To the extent that this text means something, then it just seems to be a less clear case of expressions of type 2, q.v. It’s no different to mean indirectly than to mean directly.

The Argument

So, my argument is this:

Your current employer can control not only anything you say about it directly but also anything you imply about it in your job description or anywhere else.

So, if this is true, then a company could make you alter your text to reflect their own. I suppose you could just refuse to talk about the company, but that would mean you can’t say that you work there. Nor could it be reasonably known that you work there because then, by implication, people would know what company you are “talking about” when they read your job description.

This seems like a strong claim. There must be something wrong with it. But, what?

At first, this seems an absurd question. Of course, the individual owns it. But, is this accurate? And what do we mean by “own”? What what is owned? What if you work at a company? What if that company supports your LinkedIn activity? What if that company pays you to make contacts? To be sure, there are many questions of ownership. In this discussion, I’d like to focus on one, specific question: who owns the expressions about your current employer?

First of all, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t even know if this is a real question. This question came up at the intersection of two contexts. One is this article in Wired on a LinkedIn-related laysuit. The other context was a project where we’re doing a LinkedIn social media plan for a client.

To begin, I’d like to define some terms. By “expressions” I mean anything on your LinkedIn profile that could mean anything about a company. By “own” I mean have legal control over. So, my question amount to this: can a company control expressions about it on your profile? There seem to be 3 levels of expression.

1. Outright trademarks

It seems obvious that clear, trademarkable material is owned by the company. This is true in just about every instance. So, if you put the IBM logo on your website or use any of its material, they might be interested.

2. Direct Claims

What about claims you make about a company? If I said that Company X was great (or not great), what could Company X do about that? Could they make you change it? Assuming it’s not true, then I think that they definitely could. What if it’s true but different than what they want you to say?

In this case, could they make you use their own formulation?

If controlling brand-related materials or trademarks can be controlled, then why not other expressions? It could just as easily be argued that any expression is central to a company’s brand or trademark.

Fair use?

Does fair use come into this at all? Could it be said that an expression about a company is just a quotation or sorts?

3. Indirect Claims

What about implied claims? Implied claims could exist in your own text. I am thinking here of job descriptions and professional specialties and goals. To the extent that this text means something, then it just seems to be a less clear case of expressions of type 2, q.v. It’s no different to mean indirectly than to mean directly.

The Argument

So, my argument is this:

Your current employer can control not only anything you say about it directly but also anything you imply about it in your job description or anywhere else.

So, if this is true, then a company could make you alter your text to reflect their own. I suppose you could just refuse to talk about the company, but that would mean you can’t say that you work there. Nor could it be reasonably known that you work there because then, by implication, people would know what company you are “talking about” when they read your job description.

This seems like a strong claim. There must be something wrong with it. But, what?

Website overhauls often cause a rousing and lively discussion leading to long meetings, lists of lists to be collected, strategic decision-maker input, and sometimes even talking to the end users about the site. And it seems inevitable that all of these goals and ideas need to be wrapped in a cleaner and newer interface design with a dash of the latest marketing trends. And it has to be better than your competitors (or other departments). Then the technology questions hit.

Ever changing languages, applications and security concerns require knowledge of the latest terminology and an understanding and skill that are impractical requirements for the majority of users and decision-makers in this process. These people simply need to find information or get a job done. Furthermore, most technology implementers are woefully unskilled in translating technical jargon and information to anything resembling modern business parlance.

Combine all of these needs and communication breakdowns, and it’s suddenly much easier to realize why web refresh projects, large or small, bog down. Thus, the requirements laid forth in a business meeting aren’t always found in the final digital project. Thus, the artistic layout created by an external party (typically disconnected from the rest of the process) can not be applied to the chosen technology infrastructure in the manner it was designed. And, in the end, the content stays confusing, the navigation isn’t clear, and users still jump out to use Google to find pages on your site instead.

If this situation sounds familiar, it’s because most people involved in any marketing or general web redesign project have seen these issues time and again. This most happens when the process is purely internal and led by a few people with a specific agenda to address their personal needs. This unknowingly overlook concerns or people who need to be involved–people and issues which someone outside the organization could instantly recognize as crucial to the process.

The only way around this impasse is to bring key people from all groups involved early in the process together and discover whether the core working group is capable of communicating clearly. Business, marketing, design and technology can work together. But each role unconsciously assumes the others have an understanding of their operations and only certain details need to be remarked upon. In reality, a much more robust information sharing needs to happen. Technologists are often the worst in this respect, and many in our field must work hard to overcome this deficit.

And if the internal project group can’t do that, punt early and bring in outside help.

Website overhauls often cause a rousing and lively discussion leading to long meetings, lists of lists to be collected, strategic decision-maker input, and sometimes even talking to the end users about the site. And it seems inevitable that all of these goals and ideas need to be wrapped in a cleaner and newer interface design with a dash of the latest marketing trends. And it has to be better than your competitors (or other departments). Then the technology questions hit.

Ever changing languages, applications and security concerns require knowledge of the latest terminology and an understanding and skill that are impractical requirements for the majority of users and decision-makers in this process. These people simply need to find information or get a job done. Furthermore, most technology implementers are woefully unskilled in translating technical jargon and information to anything resembling modern business parlance.

Combine all of these needs and communication breakdowns, and it’s suddenly much easier to realize why web refresh projects, large or small, bog down. Thus, the requirements laid forth in a business meeting aren’t always found in the final digital project. Thus, the artistic layout created by an external party (typically disconnected from the rest of the process) can not be applied to the chosen technology infrastructure in the manner it was designed. And, in the end, the content stays confusing, the navigation isn’t clear, and users still jump out to use Google to find pages on your site instead.

If this situation sounds familiar, it’s because most people involved in any marketing or general web redesign project have seen these issues time and again. This most happens when the process is purely internal and led by a few people with a specific agenda to address their personal needs. This unknowingly overlook concerns or people who need to be involved–people and issues which someone outside the organization could instantly recognize as crucial to the process.

The only way around this impasse is to bring key people from all groups involved early in the process together and discover whether the core working group is capable of communicating clearly. Business, marketing, design and technology can work together. But each role unconsciously assumes the others have an understanding of their operations and only certain details need to be remarked upon. In reality, a much more robust information sharing needs to happen. Technologists are often the worst in this respect, and many in our field must work hard to overcome this deficit.

And if the internal project group can’t do that, punt early and bring in outside help.

We spend a lot of our time working very hard to get sales and marketing teams to work together. And this involves questions like the following. What is an effective way in which marketing teams can refer leads to sales teams? What do sales teams do with the leads handed to them from marketing? What happens if the leads are not fully qualified, or if, after qualification, it is deemed that the client is not ready for a company’s services but soon will be?

Many times the sales teams and the marketing teams are under different mandates and use completely different metrics as well as different forms of communication. Recently a number of very intelligent people spoken about how the marketing and sales teams at their respective companies function in a closed loop. Thinking harder about this closed loop, what would happen if it was decided to eliminate the two separate spheres, thus having a closed-loop system as a starting point?

With this model, there would be no “lobbing” leads over the fence in blind hope that they are good. This model would also eradicate the repetitive echoes: “Well, I did my part,” and “What am I supposed to do with this?”.

This one group’s goal would become client acquisition, and this group would be named as such: “Client Acquisitions.” This group’s one concern will be bringing in new clients. The newly formed group, now titled “Client Acquisitions,” will be challenged by the same MBOs, only in this scenario the individual will be measured for results. Our ability to produce actionable pipeline assessments would be greater, and the client’s ability to make quick changes would be easier. At any point in the funnel, a company can thus measure the success of a team and its members. In addition, gap analysis will return much more precise data. The dynamics would change from finger-pointing to finding the right contact point and person for a specific stage of the deal that is in the process of being worked out.

We spend a lot of our time working very hard to get sales and marketing teams to work together. And this involves questions like the following. What is an effective way in which marketing teams can refer leads to sales teams? What do sales teams do with the leads handed to them from marketing? What happens if the leads are not fully qualified, or if, after qualification, it is deemed that the client is not ready for a company’s services but soon will be?

Many times the sales teams and the marketing teams are under different mandates and use completely different metrics as well as different forms of communication. Recently a number of very intelligent people spoken about how the marketing and sales teams at their respective companies function in a closed loop. Thinking harder about this closed loop, what would happen if it was decided to eliminate the two separate spheres, thus having a closed-loop system as a starting point?

With this model, there would be no “lobbing” leads over the fence in blind hope that they are good. This model would also eradicate the repetitive echoes: “Well, I did my part,” and “What am I supposed to do with this?”.

This one group’s goal would become client acquisition, and this group would be named as such: “Client Acquisitions.” This group’s one concern will be bringing in new clients. The newly formed group, now titled “Client Acquisitions,” will be challenged by the same MBOs, only in this scenario the individual will be measured for results. Our ability to produce actionable pipeline assessments would be greater, and the client’s ability to make quick changes would be easier. At any point in the funnel, a company can thus measure the success of a team and its members. In addition, gap analysis will return much more precise data. The dynamics would change from finger-pointing to finding the right contact point and person for a specific stage of the deal that is in the process of being worked out.

Strategy and tactics are two of the most common terms in the marketing world. Yet, perhaps because they are so common, it’s hard to know what they really mean. The trouble with this is two major challenges. If we don’t know what these things really are, then how can we evaluate them? That is, without an understanding of these tools, how can we recognize, manage, or buy good strategy and good tactics?

In addition, without a full understanding of these two things, it’s hard to connect them. As we all know, strategies are all too often shelved or ineffective. And tactics are all too often directionless. That is, strategies are often empty and tactics are often blind.

In the end, not fully understanding what these things are and aren’t can easily result in wasted time and money as well as in frustration and indecision.

In this presentation, I will offer definitions of strategy and tactics. Based on this, I will discuss the features of good strategy and good tactics. And I will add to this a crucial missing element, often overlooked: measurement.

Understanding Strategies, Tactics and Measurement

View more presentations from Synaxis.

Strategy and tactics are two of the most common terms in the marketing world. Yet, perhaps because they are so common, it’s hard to know what they really mean. The trouble with this is two major challenges. If we don’t know what these things really are, then how can we evaluate them? That is, without an understanding of these tools, how can we recognize, manage, or buy good strategy and good tactics?

In addition, without a full understanding of these two things, it’s hard to connect them. As we all know, strategies are all too often shelved or ineffective. And tactics are all too often directionless. That is, strategies are often empty and tactics are often blind.

In the end, not fully understanding what these things are and aren’t can easily result in wasted time and money as well as in frustration and indecision.

In this presentation, I will offer definitions of strategy and tactics. Based on this, I will discuss the features of good strategy and good tactics. And I will add to this a crucial missing element, often overlooked: measurement.

Understanding Strategies, Tactics and Measurement

View more presentations from Synaxis.