Tag Archives: LinkedIn

Get vanity

Posted on by
1

Amused by the fact that when you go to complete your LinkedIn profile it gives you the option of customizing the url to something more people friendly. For example changing your public profile from http://www.linkedin.com/pub/king-kong/10/466/577 to www.linkedin.com/in/king-kong.

What’s amusing about this is that the page link to more information about ‘customizing’ your url is: http://www.linkedin.com/myprofile?editwp=&locale=en_US&trk=mypro_getvanity. So I guess it’s not customization but vanity at play here? Do tell LinkedIn, which is it?

And on the subject of vanity urls: RT @soltran: Vanity URLs coming to Facebook soon! Get ready for the landrush! http://bit.ly/1aUhfa

But of course there’s always the option of using a service which gives you one url for all these various services too, I believe the jargon is ‘identity management platform’. For example check out chi.mp!:

Chi.mp gives you your own domain and Web site – your social hub. With chi.mp, you can bring together the many pieces of your digital life – your content, your contacts – to create “Centralized You”. And you control “who sees what”.

How to trigger E2.0 genetic mutation in a 1.0 organization?

Posted on by
Reply

The question “How to trigger E2.0 genetic mutation in a 1.0 Organization?” posed by Stefano Masciocchi in LinkedIn inspired my reply below. Thought it worth re-publishing as a blog post:

• Hmm, good question, it says on one of my recommendations on LinkedIn that I am expert on E2.0 and cultural change, thanks to my current E2.0 software partner, so I’ll try ang give an expert answer;-)
• I first must say that my previous role I brought in lighweight web 2.0 tools such as Im amd wikis and they helped improve the efficency of communication for offices worldwide, but that was not planned with ROI savings in mind.
• In current role again looking at it from purely ROI point of view I can’t really add anything if you are talking genetic mutation, as that’s an ambitious context. But looking at the question and leaving ROI out for now what I can say is of course it’s extremely difficult, even when money is no object, to achieve such a change.
• So what you really I think are trying to do is two things. Convince the boss using ROI that it’s worth the investment; and use ROI as the key to implement the plan which is effective with staff. In other words at every step the boss will ask ‘what the benefit to the business bottom line’ and the staff will ask ‘what the benefit to me?’. In both cases you are selling the benefits, with ROI at the core.
• I would have thought the best way to accomplish this is to start with where people are already. Thus to go back to my previous example you could argue for corporate wide use of internal messaging to improve effciency and reduce email overload. The cost is small so the boss likes it; you have to come up with a way of proving the ROI. Beware that with implementation you need a policy in place on proper use of IM, restricting personal use for example.
• If you are using new kit like wikis to improve collaboration for heaven sake don’t get hung up on calling it a ‘wiki’ in other words leave out the jargon. It may sound cool, but it puts a lot of people off.
• With something like a wiki along the same lines, start off with all the bells and whistles stripped out, it costs more and the ROI can drive extra functionality as and when it proves its value. Scalability in other words.

Stefano’s response is also worth quoting, “Thanks Stuart, some of your comments sound familiar. In fact, lots of us internal resources are already familiary with major social platforms, use IM even from desk-to-desk (sometimes I wonder what “social tools” really mean, huh?) and, even if most of them are unaware, they are probably willing to be part of a true holistic agency.

“But, as you wisely pointed out, there’s an ogre in almost every tale. Since some of our working processes are already travelling in a 2.0 fashion, best politics is to underline the advantages, trying also to evolve this DIY way into something more company-integrated, proceeding step by step and, eventually, discover that ROI can turn from ogre to friend. Or, at least, a known face.”

LinkedIn discussions

Posted on by
Reply

“LinkedIn Groups has always been the central place on LinkedIn for users to form communities around professional interests. Thus far, users have used Groups to search and contact one another. But, today’s release adds the most requested feature of them all – Group Discussions. ” [More..]

PS: Apparently (Euan, thanks) though it doesn’t include RSS feeds.

Are employers bleeding social capital?

Posted on by
Reply

Piece in the FT on 15 August which follows on from recent case, highlighting trends on employer vs employee social capital:

Do I ‘own’ social networking contacts?

I run a national retail business employing over 100 sales representatives who are encouraged to use social networking sites, such as LinkedIn, to market the business and build contacts. I’m concerned that if one of my sales reps leaves, they could take these contacts with them. Where do I stand on this, given that these contacts are built-up during work time?

What is clear is that where a list of addresses is created, maintained and contained on an employer’s email programme and backed up by the employer or by arrangement made with the employer the list belongs to the employer and should not be copied, used or removed by the employee for use outside employment or after the employment comes to an end.

This may still be the case where the employee brings his own contacts list to his employer when he joins but subsequently during the course of his employment makes further contacts whose details are recorded in his employer’s email programme. Even if the list contains purely personal contacts as well as business contacts, the employer will own the list. This is because the employer’s position is protected by the general (common) law and in many cases by a set of regulations: the Copyright and Rights in Database Regulations 1997.

Do the same rules apply to lists or databases contained in social networking sites?

I think it is very arguable that you do own the ”database” of contacts particularly as the internet medium through which the sites are accessed are owned by you and the networking is done as part and parcel of the employees’ contractual duties.

>>David Ludlow is a corporate partner at Barlow Robbins, a law firm

PS: And of course this was backed up  was the recent case in the UK where an ex-employee of recruitment firm Hays was ordered to disclose details of his profile at social networking site LinkedIn. As Roderick Parks from Trampoline Systems said on this issue said at the time on my blog, these “developments represent the first signs of an impending turf war over social capital”. Of course employers may not be saavy to realise they are losing substantial social capital as individuals get away with taking their online contacts, another risk to consider as web 2.0 becomes even more embedded in the workplace. Wonder where they go for help in this regard? I suggest Trampoline Systems is a good place to start. There’s also discussion of this issue on Fresh Networks.