The game is up, “Janet” is not an official Exxon representative
A few days ago, the Twittersphere was curious, interested, and excited to see a member of Exxon Mobil’s employee ranks to join the twitter conversation and engage in conversation…sadly, she’s not a real employee. You can see the fake Twitter account called ExxonMobilCorp
The mystery unraveled –in 3 days
Shel Holtz was one of the first to discover this (update: he’s posted this thoughts), as he commended Exxon for their efforts, their response was “It’s not us”. The mystery continued to unravel as I received an email from the Houston Chronicle Press wanting to talk to me about what I knew (Update: The Chronicle’s story is now live) –the word hit mainstream analysts and press in three days, secrets don’t remain secrets for long in internet speed.
“Janet” has been posing as an Exxon employee, answering questions about the direction of the company, where philanthropy resources are being spent, and even responding (a few, which were very off-tone) about the Exxon Valdez.
A real conversation with Exxon
I spoke to Alan Jeffers, Spokesperson of Exxon Mobil a few minutes ago to get his side of the story, and to offer some words of wisdom, which I’ll share below. First of all, Exxon has been “brand jacked”, (and will now make the official punk’d list), they were caught off guard because they were not monitoring and responding to their own online brand.
Alan was forthcoming, honest, and appears to want to do the right thing, I posed a few questions to him, his responses in quotes:
What if this was an employee in a remote arm of the company, would it then be ok?
“It’s not really relevant, there are only people that are authorized and not-authorized, even people with the best intentions, may not know what the appropriate position is or the facts, we think that there’s a problem, as we don’t want to be misleading people and there’s a lot of errors what the person is posting even if it was something that had the best of intentions could be misleading.
It’s our perception that social networking is based on honesty, transparency and trust, it’s important that they become forthcoming about who they represent”
This is slap hands on everyone’s hands, Exxon hasn’t really done anything wrong, they were just caught unaware. In fact, the whole Twitter community (myself included, see my write up) has been fooled including this list of brands on twitter.
What message do you want to give to Janet the supposed company representative?
“Be forth-coming about who you are, it’s ok to be in support for or against something, but you should be forth-coming about your identity”
What lessons have you learned about monitoring your brands in social networks?
“We need to be diligent about what is being said about you, by you, and those pretending to be you”
I see a lot of opportunities for Exxon here, it’s clear the community wants to talk to you, you can roll with this by coming face forward:
“We’re going to examine what is going on, and if indeed if there is anything to do, I want to underscore we’re not trying to prevent anyone from going out. There’s lots of opportunities, we want to speak to people, and to learn what people think”
Alan and Exxon employees have a big opportunity at hand –once they’re ready.
Options for Janet
It’s also interesting that Janet tweeted this, just a few hours ago: “btw, @jowyang , thanks for that wonderful piece: http://tinyurl.com/6nol2e”. Janet, I highly recommend that you do one of the following: 1) Turn over the Twitter ID keys to Exxon, 2) indicate that you’re not an official representative. I see that you’re attempting to preserve the brand, but you can be a brand advocate to Exxon without attempting to pretend to be an employee –in fact, you may be hurting the brand. (Update: Aug 3, Janet has deleted that tweet thanking me and continues to pose as an official Exxon representative)
Key Takeaways
Lack of identity confirmation continues to plague the web
Identity is a serious issue on the web, we’ve no great way of confirming true profiles, therefore, going forward, before we can conclude a blog or twitter or Facebook account is official, we need to see trackbacks coming from the corporate site, or contact info and get confirmation.Companies must monitor their brand
Brands should be monitoring the discussion and instances of their keywords in social networks –failure to do so results in becoming case studies.An opportunity for the real Exxon to step forward
The power has shifted to those that participate, so while Janet may have achieved momentum by participating, further opportunity lies within Exxon when they’re ready to come forward.The community (myself included) need to first validate identities
This fourth one, I just added. It was too easy for someone to assume a brand’s identity and we all fell for it, myself obviously. We need to first determine if these are the real employees and validate. I’m exploring some ways to do this, we’ll revisit this topic soon.Legal and Trademark issues complicate
Update 12 hours later: It’s become clear that even more issues are bubbling up from comments, and the social media club dlist, which I’m part of. For example, in UK there are clear laws (not just guidelines) about being transparent about buzz marketing campaigns, and some are suggesting that Twitter be responsible for being a brand cop, while some say brands should be accountable. Some are suggesting that Janet become the “Scoble” of Exxon while Marshall Kirkpatrick says Exxon should walk completely away from Twitter.Corporations should have internal social media policies
Update August 8: Zdnet has additional coverage on this bizarre case, Janet, in a recent tweet suggests she’s an actual employee, that’s standing by her employer. Zdnet suggests that companies should have internal social media policies, dictating where the guidelines are, a good point.
Note: I incorrectly had Dallas Chronicle, and have subsequently changed it to Houston Chronicle.
Jeremiah, who do you think these sorts of situations are really worse for — the companies (in this case Exxon) or Twitter and its community? It seems to me in this instance that Twitter and its users (and yes, I am looking at you!) were the ones who really got punk’d….
And/or Exxon can be told by the group of people hoping to change media, communication and the world – that the company can take a long walk off of a short pier. The Alaskan oil spill is one matter, working with Indonesian death squads is another (http://dte.gn.apc.org/50Ach.htm for background and google Exxon human rights for an update this summer from Yahoo News – 2 URLs are getting my previous comments moderated for spam). These are presumably just two examples among many.
I almost always argue against people who say that “Twitter is trivial’ but when it comes to “What Exxon Mobile should do” – I think that’s exactly what it is.
Sorry, that URL is http://tinyurl.com/64njmg – US Supreme Court just 6 weeks ago rejects Exxon’s appeal to drop lawsuit against it for employing Indonesian soldiers engaged in a campaign of rampant human rights abuses in defense of their natural gas extraction facilities. You want to hear horror stories? This case is full of them – what the company does on Twitter is irrelevant imho.
Twitter’s Terms of Service clearly spells out the process that any company can take to defend its trademarks and copyrights. http://twitter.com/tos
I’m no IP lawyer, but isn’t incumbent upon the trademark holder to defend their intellectual property?
You do realize this is someone having some geeky fun by jerking people around. I can picture some kid in a college apartment with other techie roommates giggling their assess off as they cull out facts from Wikipedia about Exxon and using them as Twitter fodder. Safe to say no one is super psyched about oil companies now, so using them as a spoof is pretty ingenious. That said, I hope they go away soon as it’s muddying things up for us Twitter purists.
twitter is soooo waayy over-rated. So what if there’s a fake Exxon out there? Perhaps it will matter to, say, a dot.com firm – but an oil company? C’mon!!
That’s the problem with a lot of you guys. You like to over-rate your importance.
I think that we tend to confuse online trust and community. At the end of the day, it’s about people. People who behave poorly in the offline world have more space to do so online because there is a misconception about trust. A month ago I started following a fellow employee on Twitter; she sent me an email saying that she is now following me since she checked on Cisco directory and I was legit. I never thought twice about checking her out.
Those of us who get value from Twitter want to promote it. But we need to proceed with caution and use the same common sense as we do offline. This is an important lesson but does not lessen the benefits of Twitter in helping to create networks.
In other news: exxonmobile123@hotmail.com is also not the official voice of the company, and that guy emailing you from Nigeria is shockingly *not* the prince looking to launder millions of dollars through your bank account during a coup.
Seriously, is this your first day on the internet?
It's so ridiculous how people like to fake an identity. Crazy!