ESPN Charged with Roughing the Reporter
The blog/twit(osphere) is still abuzz with questions, comments and criticisms of ESPN’s new guideline for social media engagement. While it is important that organizations create a code of conduct for online engagement, I think the newly published ESPN rules of engagement are heavy handed. My former colleague Todd states that these rules are about exercising ‘some editorial control over social media content’ and perhaps making sure that the company who pays the reporter’s paycheck has the ‘opportunity to monetize the story.’
My take:
I think these rules are an overly aggresive attempt to limit the creation of content that is helpful to the overall ESPN brand
In this day and age, knowledge of your personal brand and the fact that anything you say and do online can and will be held against you should be good enough to keep people in check. But it is not - and that’s why organisations create ‘codes of conduct’.
Enterprise technology companies such as Intel or IBM have developed a code of conduct for their employees (and contractors) regarding how they should act on social networks. Its pretty clear cut - but mainly it is about using common sense in engaging online. You are always a brand ambassador whenever you are out in public. That includes your online presence. Personal content created by indivudals outside of sanctioned areas usually contains the disclaimer: “This blog/tweet/profile is only a reflection my personal views and not that of my employer blah blah blah” and often times that should suffice.
What is intersting today is the comments of Rob King, ESPN.com’s VP and Editor-in-Chief who was intimately involved in the policy creation process. (via Mashable) King states,
“the question of personal branding comes down to the real truth that all of these folks that are doing this as ESPN employees … are establishing these relationships by being ESPN talent … there really isn’t a question of establishing personal brand … whatever is viewed as a personal brand is intricately intertwined with ESPN.
ESPN provides the platform and paychecks to consumer-facing talent - and as such has the right to dictate that this talent protect the ESPN brand whenever in a public forum. And yes - one can argue that being a sports commentator on ESPN provides much higher visability and perhaps establishes an ESPN brand for that individual. ESPN however is a platform - and we watch ESPN both for the content and the characters who deliver this content which is shaped by a team of writers.
I’m not sure what kind of personal brand one can actually create by JUST being on ESPN. I believe that social networks enable the establishment of a personal brand OUTSIDE of ESPN. Heck, the Sports Guy had one prior to joining Page 2 and that’s what made him an attractive addition to the ESPN family. Rick Rielly had a tremendous following at SI prior to his jumping ship (obviously because he was in SI - but a known brand nonetheless outside of ESPN by his/SI’s efforts) - and there are countless other individuals in all facets of online life that have a tremendous personal brand outside their employer that makes them appealing to traditional media.
So I disagree that the personal brand is intricately intertwined with ESPN - and I believe that ESPN is doing itself a disservice by trying to sharply constrain the voices of their front-facing talent. Social networks are about sharing information, ideas and content and occasionaly providing back-channel chatter and perspectives that ‘traditional’ news organizations rarely publish.
I look forward to ESPN’s integration with social networks on a corporate level and I admire them taking a stand in establishing some guidelines - but I think that ESPN’s social media policy should really just focus on this one point in their policy:
If you wouldn’t say it on the air or write it in your column, don’t tweet it. Exercise discretion, thoughtfulness and respect for your colleagues, business associates and our fans.
