Here’s a (not so) little secret, though. When you log onto Google, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, etc., your information is out there. You signed up for a Gmail account or to have a Twitter profile, you understood there was a risk. So why so many complaints about your privacy being infringed upon? Because we all need something to take issue with nowadays.

Let’s be perfectly honest, if we were all so worried about our privacy, we wouldn’t be sharing photos of what shoes or suits we like on Pinterest, we wouldn’t let people know that we were “in a relationship with so and so” on Facebook, and we certainly wouldn’t let everyone know we just purchased a venti java chip at Starbucks via Foursquare.

Privacy is something we like to throw around like we still value it. Sure, I don’t want people to know my bank account statements or medical history. But, I’ve chosen to be on social networks and if you are reading this, so did you.

Remember the uproar over Facebook’s privacy changes? Yup, it didn’t last too long. Here’s what Google had to say in an email they sent to users over the weekend:

Dear Google user,

We’re getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that’s a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.

We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.

Pretty simple, right?

The bottom line here is that we have chosen to live our lives online now. If you don’t agree with the changes to Google, Facebook, or whatever social network adjusts their policies, shut down your profile. It’s that easy. However, I’m thinking you’ll continue to go on posting updates and photos just like everyone else.

• 8 February 2012 : Drop the Salesman Mentality
• 7 February 2012 : Giant PR Lessons from the Super Bowl Champions
• 6 February 2012 : Video: Job Interview Conversations That Should Be Had
• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR

At issue is the inability for Facebook users to have control over who sees their private information (name, picture, city, gender, friends, etc.) and who doesn’t. Twitter has also been a Target of the FTC, and settled a similar case back in June of 2010 for failing to safeguard user information.  

The FTC investigation centered on Facebook and Twitter’s inability to obtain user approval before changes in the way personal data is shared, which is why they put pressure on the social behemoths to tighten their data security belt with their investigations.

When was the last time that you typed in personal information to a Web site without either reading their policies (if one exists) or understanding their consequences if loosely defined? Do you know what your rights are when it comes to social portals sharing your personal information or making it public to advertisers, marketers, or sales departments? I’d venture to guess that most people don’t know what their rights are or understand the amount of money that these groups will offer to know more about you and your consumer habits.

The Information Age is big business for data miners and companies will stop at nothing to better customize ads that reach their target demographics. As society increasingly becomes more fragmented in our consumer tastes, beliefs and habits, (Seth Godin’s book “We Are All Weird should help explain that point better than I) the control of personal information in the social media digital age is sure to become a hot button issue, at least one that all of us as consumers should be concerned about. Privacy is a growing concern globally as more and more people share personal information without a clear understanding if it really is safe.

Ever since the beginning of the social media explosion there has been growing concern about how user data was stored and shared. Cases like these are stark reminders of just how much of an impact a single Facebook posting can have when information falls into the wrong hands. Facebook also saw a tremendous outcry from privacy advocates over their facial recognition photo tagging software upgrade this year which purportedly opens the door to identity theft by allowing tagging without a user’s consent if they haven’t upgraded their privacy settings.

The fact is that Twitter, Facebook and other large social media data repositories should be held accountable for their actions and assume a higher level of responsibility to protect our personal data. The FTC’s recent settlement is a reminder that the fight for access and protection to personal information will be staunchly fought by privacy advocates and social media titans for years to come. Don’t forget that a lion’s share of Facebook’s revenues comes from those with profiles, which includes me and probably you. Big money.

Will 2012 be the year that we see privacy legislation pass in large measures to appease consumers/ voters heading to the polls in November? What other social media sites are not protecting our personal information from companies seeking to obtain it? Just how bad is the problem anyway? How will biometric platforms like facial recognition be used to identify us even if we don’t wish to be found and what impact will this have on our privacy rights? Many more questions need to be answered so pay attention to the unfolding issue because its sure to get increased attention as more and more people use social media on a regular basis.

FYI – Click on this link from the FTC if you are interested in reviewing the proper steps to store and dispose of consumer personal information.

• 8 February 2012 : Drop the Salesman Mentality
• 7 February 2012 : Giant PR Lessons from the Super Bowl Champions
• 6 February 2012 : Video: Job Interview Conversations That Should Be Had
• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR

While you may not have the flair of good ol’ “Diamond” David Lee Roth, this time of year can still be a perfect opportunity to show your networking chops. Ok, so you are shuddering at the thought of going back to school. Don’t. You should really be relishing the chance to grow your relationships: in school and in the community.

See, we are always networking… whether it be at school, out with friends, or online. Think about your last PRSSA meeting, Twitter chat, or Facebook group discussion. Did you talk about how you can help with an event or talk to a respected pro about setting up a lunch discussion? Bingo! You are networking.

One of the greatest tools for networking nowadays is social media. I find Twitter to be a wonderful opportunity to not just establish friendships, but grow them.  It takes networking to foster those relationships. I may not be telling you something new, but it helps to hammer home the importance of social media and how it can be used to better our lives and careers.

I’ve spoken to enough groups in the last year to realize that social media’s networking power still isn’t realized. You may be reading this and saying to yourself, “But, I get it.” Good! Then, take the time this academic year to teach at least two friends how to get on LinkedIn. Tell them the opportunities to network for a internship via Twitter chats.Think about how many times we have seen people post thanks to a friend made on social media avenues because they were able to get an interview or even a job.I posted this on Facebook a few months back:

Friendships can be the foundation for life. Some of us have many, others a few. It’s not the quantity, but the quality. Think about it…

We make our foundations stronger by the quality of people we surround ourselves with in life. One great example is when friend tells their friend(s) or colleague(s) about you.  Maybe you’ve helped them in the past or provided advice.  They’ve now networked and provided another opportunity to meet someone who could help you down the road. Don’t take for granted what your friends know and certainly don’t pass up the chance to make another “quality” friend.

Remember… the contacts you make today could result in success tomorrow.

• 8 February 2012 : Drop the Salesman Mentality
• 7 February 2012 : Giant PR Lessons from the Super Bowl Champions
• 6 February 2012 : Video: Job Interview Conversations That Should Be Had
• 3 February 2012 : Considering Making the Switch from Agency to In-House?
• 2 February 2012 : Apple’s Positive Earnings Report Creates Bad PR

However, I don’t think having a solid definition of engagement is a real issue. Why? Because we all talk about engagement in certain ways. Some see that re-tweet that directed me to a blog as the ultimate form of engagement, while others believe that it is responding to a post on Facebook. And if you got into an argument, both of these answers COULD be correct.

How I see engagement is probably a bit different than you. Am I right or are you right?

Here is how I go about defining engagement-

1) Listening to your client(s) – What are they looking for? What do they want to achieve?
2) Understanding the audience - Who are your followers and what are they saying already?
3) Give them something to talk about - You can’t just sit back and watch. Get your “brand champions” energized.
4) Provide a service - Your fans or followers want to listen. Make sure to provide value and build trust.
5) Make the content great - You want to make sure they continue to come back. If the content is compelling, you’ll have champions in no time.

A five-step definition may not be simple, but it is effective. That is what all our clients, supporters, and bosses would like.

As I tweeted earlier in the day:

keithtrivitt: Prediction: Ad buyers will be all over Google+. More open analytics plus more targeted networks to tap into http://t.co/usHznta

I like that Google has started out by opening Google+ to only a select few and allowing them to invite their friends. That’s exactly how Gmail started and we all know how massively successful that has proven for the company, and also how much buzz (for lack of a better word and not to be confused with Google’s much maligned former foray into social networking, called … Google Buzz) that built for the company as your friends and colleagues were eager to get a Gmail account before the company made them public a few years back.

From a marketing standpoint, I think Google has hit a home run with its rollout.

I’m also a fan of keeping the social networks you build on Google+ somewhat private and small, at least smaller than those we now have on Facebook. That’s a smart way of:

a) keeping government regulators off the company’s back (especially as it faces not one but two big regulatory investigations, here in the U.S. and a similar but separate investigation by European regulators over anticompetitive practices); and

b) of making the nascent social network far more appealing to marketers. Give an ad buyer a targeted market, combined with Google’s open and deep analytics platform, and the company may have a goldmine on its hands.

That’s not to say this thing will be a huge success right away. It’s Google, after all, and the company has a long history of failing in the social space. But of all its splashy social efforts thus far, this one seems to have the most potential to actually stick and make an impact in the massively growing social space.

What do you think? Is Google+ the next Facebook (or the Facebook killer, if you like), a better and more sustainable Ning or something all together different?

* UPDATE (8:30 a.m. EDT, June 29): The Financial Times summarizes some more excellent analysis from Danny Sullvian of Search Engine Land:

[Google+] has some interesting twists on the social networking model but is far from a Facebook-killer. If you’re already happy using Facebook, you may have no more incentive to use Google’s new social network than someone already happy using Google has to switch over to Bing.

After all, for the last n number of years Facebook has been your playground and you’d like to keep it that way – at least a little bit. Further, for the “older” folks who have a larger outside-of-work life they’re now dealing with the question of friending clients on Facebook.

And that’s where lists come in – to separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to updates, because really – Little Rosemary’s Brownie Troupe leaders don’t necessarily need to be included when you’re seeking social media case studies.  Not that there’d be any harm in that, but the point person at your Fortune 100 client probably doesn’t need to see the vacation pics from you winning the top prize in the Wet T-Shirt contest in Cancun.

And so – the primary question becomes, “What lists do you have on Facebook?”  As a starter set I can easily see creating and using:

• Workmates,
• College (HS, Grad School, etc.) Friends,
• Book (or whatever) Club folks,
• Those who can see everything I have to say and will still like me (somewhat long of a list name, but wt-heck),
• Significant Other’s workmates and/or friends,
• Clients,
• People I shouldn’t be connected to, but for some reason am,
• Dragons (just wanted to make sure you’re paying attention).

So, do tell reader – what additional lists do you maintain?

Regarding the recent ethics flap, I made quite clear last week my belief, as well as that of PRSA, that the tactics B-M engaged in were unethical and improper. Now, I want to turn my attention to The Economist’s examination into what this incident portends for the future of media.

Writing in the May 19 print edition, the venerable British newsweekly (which has previously made clear its disdain for PR) attempts to make the rather bizarre connection between the growing number of PR pros, combined with declining ranks in journalists, as somehow causing PRs to engage in ever more shameless tactics.

To which I say, hogwash.

There is no evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. I know where The Economist got its message points for this article — from a recent feature on the growing influence of PR in the Columbia Journalism Review. That article eloquently and objectively laid out the facts and came to the conclusion that while PR’s influence is growing, the profession shouldn’t be blamed for the rise in journalism, no more so than one should blame the rise in speeding on the decline of police officers on patrol.

Of course, it doesn’t help matters that The Economist, as it often does, presents its points as though it were still 1950 and PR pros were happily laughing it up with reporters during a three-martini lunch. A  paragraph from this same article practically says just that:

“More seasoned PR flacks might have done it differently. First, lunch the journalists concerned, ostensibly to discuss some other story. Then … casually slip into the conversation the poison that their secret client wanted them to spread.… The reporters would follow up on the scuttlebutt without mentioning its source…

Well, all right, then.

I’ll leave this topic with one final thought: The majority of PR pros are ethical and modern practitioners — a far cry from the under-the-table dealers of “scuttlebutt” and leaked information to reporters, as portrayed in The Economist’s outdated illustration.

Turning to the other Facebook issue…

In other Facebook-related matters, there is growing concern that the fascination among marketers and clients over Facebook ‘Likes’ is reaching breathtaking levels.

Writing for PRWeek, Ged Carroll asks a most prescient question: Are Facebook ‘Likes’ turning into the social media equivalent of the AVE (Advertising Value Equivalency)? Unfortunately, I fear that is the case.

Far too often, we see PRs and marketers passing off ‘Like’ as a broad metric to please management. In a client meeting, it often goes something like, “Well, that video we posted on your brand’s Facebook wall had 6,000 Likes, which means it got X number of views for X number of minutes viewed … a total win for your brand!”.

This couldn’t be further from reality.

Unfortunately, I don’t see any easy answer to stopping this madness beyond educating clients and management that Facebook ‘Likes’ are but one of many measurement tools we now have in our arsenal. And much like the derided AVE, Facebook ‘Likes’ aren’t a panacea to long-term issues for PRs and marketers seeking to properly measure the value of their work.

Like most things in life and business, doing proper measurement isn’t easy; it takes considerable time and it surely is not as easy as equating ‘Likes’ to brand value. I’d like to say I’m hopeful the hype will calm down a bit, but as it is with most things Facebook touches, if it brings eyeballs to the page, all the better for some.

Interesting question, right?

As I contemplated that question, I started thinking about my personal stance on that issue. By nature of being a solo consultant, I tend to view this issue a bit differently than I would if I were working for a large agency. After all, the client is really buying “me”–not ACH Communications (or any other brand name). So, when a client buys you–it usually means 1) They feel you know your stuff, and 2) They believe you’re easy to work with and like you (and not always in that order). So, for me, the “friend” issue is pretty darn important. And, I actually put a lot of time and effort into breaking down the barriers with my clients.

Back to the question: Should we be ‘friends’ with our clients?

You know my view on this topic now, but let me lay out the reasons I think this is a good idea, even for those not in my particular position (solo consultant):

* Helps build a stronger partnership. By letting your client into your life via Facebook, they’ll learn more about you. They’ll see what you’re up to with your family. They’ll learn more about your interests and passions. They’ll even know when your birthday is (provided you disclose that). All of this makes for tighter partnerships in the end.

* It’s a small world. Sure, your client is the brand manager at X company now. But, where will she be in 5 years? 10 years? Chances are, with a different company. So, if you’re that woman who I worked well with at agency X 8 years ago when I was on the client side, who do you think I am going to come calling when I have a PR need now that I’m with a different organization? You guessed it. By cementing relationships and growing deeper friendships, you set yourself up for “repeat business” down the line (note: This could easily be in the form of a full-time job, too).

* It’s harder to be rude to a friend. I’ve seen rude behavior on both sides of the fence–from agency partners and clients. So, agencies aren’t off the hook here. But, it’s MUCH tougher to be an absolute prick (excuse my language) to a client if you’ve developed a deeper friendship with them–and vice versa. Again, in the end, it makes for a better team–and isn’t that what you’re really after?

* It just makes your day more enjoyable. This one’s for that “I just go to work everyday, do my job and come home” crew. While I can’t tell people in that camp what to do, I can only imagine that kind of existence is pretty stagnant. If you like and enjoy the folks you’re working for and with, your days will go by much faster. Now, I realize we’re not going to be friends with every client. For a variety of reasons, we just don’t get along with some people as we do with others. And, that’s OK. But there will certainly be one or two clients you develop stronger friendships with–stick with those people. And watch your days fly by.

What about you? Where do you stand on the whole “friending” a client issue? I realize my opinion may be in the minority here, so I would love to hear your thoughts.

Note: Photo courtesy of a_sorense via FlickR Creative Commons.

Long story short: things blew up — dramatically — in one of the most egregious displays of unethical practices our business has seen since Edelman got caught in 2006 for its fake blogging tactics on behalf of Walmart. Let me be clear: B-M’s actions on behalf of Facebook were unethical and improper.

All of the details of this epic tale have already been fleshed out (including new revelations over the weekend from WIRED.com reporter Sam Gustin that B-M was deleting negative posts about the firm on its Facebook wall) in the hundreds of stories that were written last week. Now, it’s time to consider the long-term impact this will have on PR.

Will our profession use this as a teachable moment; an opportunity to reassess our commitment to serving the public interest and being ethical counselors to our clients? Or will we just brush it aside as yet another instance of an ethical lapse taking center stage for a couple of news cycles.

Speaking as someone who manages advocacy for PRSA, a professional organization that strongly advocates for stringent ethical standards in PR, I sincerely hope it is the former. This unfortunate incident has cast a negative shadow upon our profession; one we can ill afford to become the de facto standard operating procedure.

And I believe that, on the whole, the majority of PR professionals are ethical and have the public’s best interest in mind. While B-M certainly made an ethical lapse in this case, we should give the firm some credit for admitting in a statement that “When talking to the media, we need to adhere to strict standards of transparency about clients, and this incident underscores the absolute importance of that principle.”

All that said, I was a little shocked to read in PRWeek UK a quote from Speed Communications MD Steve Earl that, “Smearing is an integral part of PR.”

I won’t try to get too high and mighty about this topic, but I will say this: Smear campaigns and unethical non-disclosure of clients and/or clients’ intentions are most certainly not an integral part of PR. That type of work is unethical and against most recognized global standards of ethics in the profession, including the PRSA Code of Ethics.

Thankfully, Mr. Earl’s assertions were counterbalanced in the same PRWeek article with a more sane statement by Fraser Hardie, senior partner of Blue Rubion, which just so happens to represent Facebook in the UK. Mr. Hardie made it clear that his firm had no knowledge of the B-M smear campaign and he went further by taking the stance that his firm is not willing to cross the line between advocacy and smearing.

This incident was an embarrassment to all parties involved, and more broadly, to the PR profession. It was also unethical. But I’m confident we’ll learn from this and add additional value to our work by keeping the public’s best interest in mind, even if that comes at the expense of our clients’ wishes.

We just need to take statements like Mr. Earl’s with a fine grain of salt to get through the murk.