Sitting with my Sunday tea, I came across this: Of there is the usual Adams' dry humor. But it points out the elephant in the room that isn't often spoken about. What happens if companies choose to start gaming the system when it comes to social networks? Quick definition: gaming the system refers to someone who exploits weaknesses in a set of rules to further their own needs. An example would be someone who creates lots of fake Web sites to point back to their real Web site, just to increase their Google rank. Back to the question. Are companies, and for that matter individuals, gaming the system? For instance, do companies have hired reviewers that create favorable review on Amazon? Early on, given the size of social networks, there was a lot of self-policing. We would talk about meritocracy and how you had to earn your right to have a voice—well, at least a voice that would reach the masses. But now social network sites are much larger and more mainstream. FaceBook alone had 222 million visitors in December. How can that large of a group police itself effectively? Who sets the rules? There have been several notable cases of companies and individuals getting caught faking reviews, creating biased articles on Wikipedia, or voting up their articles on sites like Digg. Despite these challenges, it would seem that there are many factors that help to keep companies in check. Many people take it as a challenge to try to expose someone gaming the system. Consumers can be skeptical by nature; this plays into it as well. Perhaps the largest factor is trust. The strongest social networks are built on trust and if you want people to take your post, review, comment—whatever—seriously, you have to have built up social capital. Social network pioneers like Robert Scoble earn our trust even when they tell us they have been hired by a company as an evangelizer. As such it behooves companies not to lose that trust for quick gains. In addition, the ability for consumers to join in on the conversation and have their voice be heard, not only keeps a company honest, but can also increases trust in the company. As their social capital builds, so does a new level of trust in the company. How can companies make sure they don't appear to game the system? Here are some tips:
Prepare a strategy for how your company should use social networks.
Appoint a team or lead person to be responsible for you presence on the Web, not just your Web sites.
Provide guidelines for employees and make sure your employees know the rules. It may be that an employee that means well will falsely promote a product or service because they feel it will help the company. Let them know how this can actually damage the company. Let them know what they can blog, tweet, talk about and how to do it.
Join the conversation openly and honestly. If someone leaves a negative review or comment, don't respond as a "fake individual", but rather as the company. Be transparent.
Include social networks as part of your touch points in your brand management strategy
Of there is the usual Adams' dry humor. But it points out the elephant in the room that isn't often spoken about. What happens if companies choose to start gaming the system when it comes to social networks? Quick definition: gaming the system refers to someone who exploits weaknesses in a set of rules to further their own needs. An example would be someone who creates lots of fake Web sites to point back to their real Web site, just to increase their Google rank. Back to the question. Are companies, and for that matter individuals, gaming the system? For instance, do companies have hired reviewers that create favorable review on Amazon? Early on, given the size of social networks, there was a lot of self-policing. We would talk about meritocracy and how you had to earn your right to have a voice—well, at least a voice that would reach the masses. But now social network sites are much larger and more mainstream. FaceBook alone had 222 million visitors in December. How can that large of a group police itself effectively? Who sets the rules? There have been several notable cases of companies and individuals getting caught faking reviews, creating biased articles on Wikipedia, or voting up their articles on sites like Digg. Despite these challenges, it would seem that there are many factors that help to keep companies in check. Many people take it as a challenge to try to expose someone gaming the system. Consumers can be skeptical by nature; this plays into it as well. Perhaps the largest factor is trust. The strongest social networks are built on trust and if you want people to take your post, review, comment—whatever—seriously, you have to have built up social capital. Social network pioneers like Robert Scoble earn our trust even when they tell us they have been hired by a company as an evangelizer. As such it behooves companies not to lose that trust for quick gains. In addition, the ability for consumers to join in on the conversation and have their voice be heard, not only keeps a company honest, but can also increases trust in the company. As their social capital builds, so does a new level of trust in the company. How can companies make sure they don't appear to game the system? Here are some tips: 
. What are your thoughts? Leave me a comment and let me know. I started a poll on LinkedIn that asks: Do you think corporations should join in social networks, if you have a second, I would appreciate your input. blog comments powered by Disqus