UPDATE: Both Kevin Smith and Southwest have made more blogs on this situation. Please see the end of the entry for the links and updates.

Many people have probably heard of Southwest’s controversial Customer of Size policy. And a lot of people have probably heard of the recent issues with Kevin Smith getting booted off of one of their planes for (according to them) violating this policy. Kevin laid out the entire story in a recent SModcast, but here are the highlights.

Kevin Smith is flying to Oakland for the day. He buys an extra seat because they are cheap, and he prefers not to have someone in the seat next to him. (I think anyone that has been on a plane can understand that feeling.) On the way home, he arrives early and asks to get bumped to an earlier flight, which is pretty common with Southwest. He gets put on standby for an earlier flight, and gets on it. However, there’s only one seat available for him, as it’s a nearly full flight. No problem, he says, I only really need one seat. He gets on the plane, buckles his seatbelt (no extender), puts the armrests down, and is approached by a flight attendant. The flight attendant pulls him aside to say that the captain has deemed him a risk because of his size. Despite falling within Southwest’s policy, he was not allowed to fly. Kevin tweets about it, and here we are.

If you’ve met me in person, or maybe seen photos of me, you know that I’m a large girl. This is a complex, and sometimes emotional situation, that I think has 3 separate facets. I want to look at it from all three.

The Policy

The idea behind the policy sounds logical. You paid for a seat, you should have the space that you bought. It’s to make sure that other people are safe and comfortable. But while that sounds good in theory, there are several problems with it in execution.

First, I do think it’s discriminatory. I fly a decent amount (~25 times a year) and I have had to endure a lot in those flights. Just yesterday, I flew from JFK to SFO and sat next to a young man who had a wild time the night before. He smelled like booze and was clearly hungover. I’ve sat next to people with really bad body odor. I’ve sat next to drunk people (both that boarded the plane drunk and got drunk on the plane). I’ve sat next to chatty people who won’t shut up. I’ve sat next to babies with dirty diapers. I’ve sat next to kids who can’t sit still and smear jelly and other sticky snacks all over the place. I’ve seen people in wheelchairs, people who have casts, and other medical ailments. The point is that while some larger people do take up more than one seat, there are other behaviors, situations, and physical issues that also make people take up more than their allotted room, make passengers uncomfortable, and pose potential safety issues. Yet there are virtually no policies about people in those situations. And the policies that do exist focus on behavior (such as getting drunk before boarding a plane), not on physicality (people using crutches, etc). Large people are easy to spot, easy to single out, and don’t garner as much sympathy from people as someone who needs a wheelchair or crutches. We’re easy targets, both physically and morally.

And if you’re supposed to get all the square inches that you paid for, what about people who recline their seats? Seriously, I’ve had people in front of me recline their seat so far that I could do dental work on them. I’ve nearly had my laptop screen destroyed by people who recline suddenly and without regard to what is going on behind them. Their seat encroaches on the space I paid for, so by the same standard as the Customer of Size policy, the recline function on all seats should be disabled. (I actually do hate when the person in front of me reclines their seat, and I do think it should be disabled. But I know lots of people who vehemently defend their right to recline their seat. Probably some of the same people who would defend Southwest’s Customer of Size policy, which is interesting.)

Second, the policy leaves too much open to personal interpretation. It’s just too subjective. Many people fly on Southwest and are never approached by anyone asking them to buy a second seat or checking to see if they fall within the Customer of Size policy. And then one day *bam* they get hit with it. Whether they violate the policy or not, it starts with one employee’s judgement of that person, and whether to talk to them and investigate their size or not. A policy that starts with individual judgement cannot be uniformly enforced.

Third, and something that thin people probably don’t notice, is that not all seats, not all armrests, and especially not all seat belts are made equally. All three of the planes listed on SeatGuru (a site that helps you pick the best seat on the plane) show that the seats in the back of the plane are narrower than the seats toward the middle. What if a person fits in one of the seats toward the middle, but ends up sitting in the back of the plane and gets kicked off because of it? The armrests on exit row seating usually don’t lift up, and are instead a solid piece of plastic all the way to the bottom of the seat. This can make the seat narrower by a few inches. For some people, this is the tipping point. Finally, and the thing that is so wildly divergent, is the length of the seatbelts. It can vary from seat to seat on the same plane. I’ve had times where I can easily buckle the seat belt, and times where I struggle. You just never know what you’re going to get. I have an extender that I take with me just in case I need it simply for this reason — you just never know. But if your policy is predicated on seats, armrests, and seatbelts, how can that policy possibly be fair when all of these things vary depending on what seat you are in?

The Social Media & PR

Let’s turn from the policy aspect of what happened to how this is being played out online. I first learned about it because I follow Kevin Smith on Twitter. He was obviously angry and the tweets were hard-hitting and coming fast. As the main Twitter person for the SEGA US team, I know what it’s like to have angry customers coming out of nowhere on Twitter. I also know what it’s like to have that situation be something you didn’t know about, can’t control, and/or can’t discuss. So I have empathy for the woman that was on Twitter duty for Southwest when this thing blew up. I will say that I think she did a great job, quickly letting people know that she had seen the tweets, that she had read them all, and that a VP would be following up with Kevin Smith personally. (Whether that actually happened or not is another story. Last I heard, he says he has not been contacted.) But so many companies’ first instinct is to clam up and don’t say anything. No comment… a resounding silence while they scramble to work up a statement. Southwest jumped right into the fray to let people know that they heard and were aware. So thumbs up from me to Christi Day, the Southwest Twitter person, as I think she handled the situation as best she could as it was breaking.

Unfortunately, that’s where my thumbs stop pointing upward and start pointing downward. Southwest then issued a statement (I don’t really think you can call it an apology) on their Nuts About Southwest blog. Straight from the title, I think it’s a little disingenuous. I get that Southwest likes to be quirky and put personality into what they do. But there’s a time and a place, and this is not it. Making a joke upfront just says that you don’t take the situation very seriously. Especially when the joke is somewhat of a negative play on the person that you’re supposedly apologizing to. Yes, Kevin Smith’s character is of Silent Bob. But using “Not So Silent Bob” as your headline implies that he’s being a loudmouth… which is true, but probably not an insinuation it’s okay for Southwest to make. The rest of the statement is just a classic non-apology apology. It’s a “We’re sorry” followed by all the reasons that what they did was right and justified.

I don’t know what goes on behind the scenes there, obviously. I am friends with Paula Berg, who until recently was the leader of the PR/blog/community/social media team at Southwest. She is a good and reasonable person who is very knowledgeable about this stuff and really does care about customers. So I do know that not all Southwest people (or at least former Southwest people) are bad. I also know what it’s like to have to stand behind a company statement or communication strategy that you don’t agree with. So I don’t assume that Christi Day (who wrote the Southwest blog entry and manages their Twitter feed) wrote or agrees with that blog, even though her name is on it. I’m guessing that the statement was scrutinized, agonized, modified, and approved by several people before being given to her to post. And it’s a shame, because it’s a sharp downturn from the positive (well, as positive as it could be) trajectory that she started on via Twitter.

I hope Southwest can go back to a proactive, people-oriented, customer-centric path in resolving this issue. I’m not sure that anything they could do would make Kevin Smith (or lots of other people) fly their airline again, but they have got to try. Stop trying to defend yourself and start making bold moves to take care of your customer, and by extension all of your fans and customers.

The Personal

Anyone who has met me in person knows that I’m a large girl. So I understand all too well the emotional and personal aspect of this issue. I have never been subjected to Southwest’s Customer of Size policy, but honestly I try to avoid Southwest because I figure it’s just a matter of time before I’m asked to demonstrate that I fit within their policy.

There is no one way to be fat. It’s easy to lump all fat people together as the same thing, but it’s just not true. My wife is about the same weight as me, but we carry it totally differently. I have wide hips. I generally wear tops that are 1-2 sizes smaller than my pants. I never have problems with things fitting over my neck, shoulders, or arms. I always seem to have a hard time with things fitting over my hips. I am pear shaped, and I carry my weight on the bottom. My wife is apple shaped and carries a lot of weight in her arms and upper body. She worries about necklaces being too small and sleeves being too tight. Consequently, although we weigh about the same, she rarely has a problem with seat belts and arm rests, and I am more likely to. Even in the fat world, we come in all shapes and sizes.

In his podcast, Kevin Smith said that as a fat person, you have to navigate the world differently. And it’s so true. You always have to think a few steps ahead. And almost nothing is as easy or simple as it should be. I am constantly aware of my size — getting into a car, riding a crowded bus, or trying to get in an elevator. There’s always a thought of disaster in the back of my mind. What if I sit down on that chair and it breaks? (I saw it happen to someone once… they sat down on a wooden folding chair and it crumbled to the ground. My heart broke because I know that’s the nightmare scenario.) Even simple things like fashion are complicated, because there are only 4 stores in the entire city of San Francisco where I can buy clothes. So if I’m told that I need something at the last minute, even if it’s fairly basic, it’s a mad scramble to find it. If I show up to an event and someone hands me a T-shirt to wear, there’s a good chance that it will be too small. (Especially when the largest size is a large.) It’s just always something.

When you’re not dealing with that, you’re dealing with people constantly judging you. It honestly gets a bit tiring to hear how if I would just put down the Big Mac and pick up a carrot everything would be fine. If it was that easy, don’t you think we would all do it? And just like there’s no one way to be fat, there’s no one way to get there, either. Yes, some people do over eat and under exercise. But some people (like me) have medical conditions that lead to larger frames. Some people (like me) have genes that pre-dispose them to being overweight. Some people have had to take medicines that cause weight gain. I shouldn’t need to pull out the medical condition card to make it okay or excuse my size. And people really need to stop assuming that I’m fat because I eat an entire buffet table twice a day. I’ve had people moo at me when I’m exercising. I’ve had medical technicians take my blood pressure 5 times in a row because they just can’t believe that it’s lower than the standard for normal. I’ve had waitresses passive-aggressively bring me diet soda when I asked for regular. Some days, it feels like the whole world is against you, and it’s not paranoia if they really are after you.

If we’re going to focus on health (which I think we should), then let’s do that. But the first step is to get rid of the ridiculous notion that skinny = healthy. As big as I am, I have none of the medical conditions that one assumes I have because of my size. As I mentioned, my blood pressure is below the standard for normal. My cholesterol is fine. My blood sugar is rock solid. Except for a few minor things (that are in no way caused by my weight), I’m healthy. But I’m not skinny. If I stopped eating, started purging, or got addicted to crack, I could get skinny. But would that mean I’m healthier? Uh, nope… I’d be less healthy. We need to focus on helping people be healthy regardless of their size.

This opens the door to a whole other complicated set of issues. I won’t get into them here, but they include access to healthy food (something my friend Kristie just did an amazing video/blog on when she tried to find healthy food in her district in Boston), designing cities and neighborhoods to be walking-friendly instead of relying on cars, and eliminating discrimination in health care. I am lucky that I live in a place where I have access to fresh organic produce and the money to purchase it. I live in a city that’s fairly friendly to walkers and outdoor exercisers. I have health insurance and can pick a doctor who listens to me and understands me. Not everyone is so lucky. If we really want to solve the problem instead of just bitching, judging, and pointing fingers at people, these are the things we need to start working on.

Finally, there’s the issue of dignity. Kevin Smith said this in his podcast, and it really struck a nerve with me because it’s so true. As fat people, we are constantly being put down, made fun of, and generally told how awful we are as people. But when you’ve been humiliated — be it from someone mooing at you on the street, a chair breaking under you, or getting kicked off of an airplane — you have two choices. You can go in the bathroom and cry, or you can own the moment. And at the end of the day, for your own sanity, dignity, and self-esteem… you HAVE TO own it. I know that it can’t be easy for Kevin Smith to share his Southwest story, no matter how much he makes jokes about it. I heard the story at the end of his podcast about the girl he sat next to on his flight home and it broke my heart, too. I can’t imagine what it’s like to see news stories, comments, and headlines about such an embarrassing and humiliating moment, and about something so personal. It reminds me of Joy Nash and her great series of Fat Rant videos, particularly from the video below. She said that fat hate is one of the only forms of prejudice where the people being subjected to it think they are getting exactly what they deserve. And it’s so true.

I know that this was somewhat of an epic and wandering tome. But it’s a complicated issue that needs to be dealt with from a few different angles. I hope that Southwest revises their unfair and poorly implemented policy. I hope they get back on a customer-centric communications strategy that gives them a chance to turn this into a huge positive for everyone. I hope that people start focusing on issues of health instead of just painting all fat people with the same brush of ignorance. I know that the internet affords anonymity that people use to say whatever mean and hateful thing wanders through their mind and out their fingers. I ask you all to please be better than that. Please treat others with the dignity and respect that all people deserve.

Update:

Southwest rep Linda Rutherford finally reached Kevin Smith to talk about the issue. Unfortunately, from what I can tell by reading the blogs on both sides, Southwest is closer but not quite there in terms of making it right.

Kevin’s blog says that Linda did actually sincerely apologize, and admitted that the situation was handled poorly. He says that she also told him that the pilot did not single him out as a safety risk or ask that he be removed from the flight. She said she would update the blog, and all he asked for was that Southwest admit the mistake that they made, and tell the truth that he was not “too fat to fly”.

Linda’s blog says that the captain did not make the judgement call to remove him, and that their staff made a “quick judgement call” that he “might have needed more than one seat”. But she never says that they were wrong, or that he was in fact NOT in violation of their policy. (Something that would have taken ~ 30 seconds to verify.) And then basically reiterates their policy again, and that they stand by it. Like Christi earlier, Linda apparently started off well, and then couldn’t quite stick the landing. All Kevin wanted was for Southwest to admit that they were wrong, and say so in public. Which is really not that much to ask.

Remember earlier when I talked about dignity, self-esteem and needing to own the moment? I think we can all agree that Kevin Smith has a healthy self-esteem and confidence. And he’s not been shy in owning this and discussing it. But I suspected how much it hurt to talk about this experience and have it splashed all over the news, even though it was important. Well, Kevin ends his blog entry talking about “grasping at dignity straws” and how this is going to haunt him for the rest of his life. Even for someone as self-confident and self-actualized about his physical being as Kevin is, there are still deep-running emotions here. These types of situations leave lasting scars.

But the program that helps us grow the most, and most community managers are interested in, is Free Stuff Friday. It started as a way to get rid of swag that was for older games that was just going to be thrown away, as it had little PR value. We started rescuing these items because we couldn’t bear for them to be thrown out. We needed to do something with all of this, so we started the Free Stuff Friday program. It’s been wildly successful, and has gone from a way to get rid of stuff to a planned part of our strategies.

How the Giveaways Work

The SEGA Twitter feed is run by the community teams in the US (that’s my team) and the UK. We each update the feed during our normal business hours. In order to make the administration of the giveaways easier, as well as give more opportunity for people around the world to participate, the US and UK team alternate Free Stuff Friday weeks. Last week’s giveaway was done my me during US business hours, and tomorrow’s giveaway will be done by the UK team during their business hours. There are generally 6 prizes per day. For each giveaway, we’ll tweet an item, a number, and a phrase. For example: “Giveaway! Sonic the Hedgehog T-Shirt, size L. 5th person to DM “Sonic rules” wins!” And, as you would expect, the 5th person to DM “sonic rules” to us will win the shirt. We follow everyone who follows us, so all of our followers can send us DMs.

Where We Get Stuff From

The items that we give away really come from all over. Some things were created for promotional use and we get some of those. Sometimes we partner with other organizations, and we get free items through that. (For example, in the video I have below, I’m showing off some shirts and coupons that we got from Chiquita through our partnership with them on Super Monkey Ball Step & Roll.) Sometimes we get samples and other items from our licensing group, who handles relationships to get Sonic on a t-shirt, for example. We sometimes give away copies of games. We also sometimes pick stuff up on our own to give away. For example, one of our community managers was in Chicago over the winter break and found some old SEGA Visions magazines at a retro games store there. So he bought them, and we gave them away. As you can imagine, we get a diverse pool of prizes because of this, but I think that keeps it fresh and interesting for our followers.

The Preview Video

To promote the week’s giveaways, my team makes a video each week to show off what we’re giving away. It’s also a chance for our community to see and hear us, and that makes us more human. We’re not the big bad faceless corporation, we’re people.

We generally do the videos in one take. This is mostly because I am not a very skilled video editor. But it’s also because the video is supposed to be a little homemade looking. It’s not supposed to be a slick, shiny trailer-style video because that might make it seem less authentic. We generally leave the camera running while we are setting up and deciding who is going to say what about which item. We’ve captured some really funny moments by doing this. Then we film the main segment, where we describe the items. Finally, we’ll leave the camera running while we’re done if we’re still milling around playing with the items or if we’re in need of anything funny.

In terms of editing the video, I use iMovie on my Mac at home. I put some titles on it, put some titles at the end with some music, and add a funny (we hope) bit at the end just to leave people with a laugh. Sometimes they are outtakes, sometimes they are jokes… whatever we had that week.

Here’s the video that we did for last week, and this is fairly typical of our videos.

<

We upload these videos to our YouTube account. We also blog them, and that blog link gets sent to our Twitter feed. We were putting the blog link on our Facebook page for a while, but we found that our Facebook fans (at least the vocal ones) had some animosity toward Twitter, so we stopped.

Results

Once we started doing these giveaways, word spread pretty quickly. We started gaining lots of new followers. We’ve been doing these giveaways for about a year now, and we typically gain 500 – 1000 new followers per week. And although I have no metrics to back it up, I feel pretty confident that we get more new followers on Fridays than any other day. The giveaways are a win for everyone — our fans get some free stuff, we have an outlet to create content and connect more directly with our followers, and we have a way to giveaway stuff that’s of little value to the company but tremendous value to our community. It takes just a few hours of my time every other week, and we see tremendous return on that investment.

How You Can Implement This

Not every company has fun T-shirts or toys to giveaway, and I understand that. But nearly every company has a product. And nearly every company has people who are fans of it. Even just your company logo on a keychain will excite people. But do you have free product you can pass out? Can you feature someone on your website? Basically… what can you give back to your fans? I’m sure if you think about it, you’ll come up with a few things you can give away.

Take these ideas and make them your own. Mold them to the needs of your company and your fans. But it’s a way to use Twitter that’s made us pretty popular with our own fans, so I wanted to share this great idea.

Questions?

I am happy to answer questions about our Free Stuff Friday giveaways in the comments, so please ask away!

That said, I do have some updates! First, I’ve added some new speaking engagements for 2010. I’ll be at the New Communications Forum in San Mateo from April 20-23rd, and at the Social Media and Community 2.0 Strategies conference in Boston from May 3-5th. To see all about my past (and future) speaking engagements, including quotes from conference participants and video, head over to the speaking page.

If you’re planning to attend the Social Media and Community 2.0 Strategies conference but haven’t registered yet, I’ve got a discount code for you! Just use the code SOCIAL10KP when you register for the conference. Hope to see you there!

You’ve probably seen them all over Facebook or Twitter. It seems like nearly every other person these days is calling themselves a “social media expert” with little to nothing to back it up. They have no professional work experience in community or social media. (And no academic education either, because it doesn’t exist.) Their main qualification is that they have a blog, a twitter account, and 500 Facebook friends. It’s annoying, and frankly it’s insulting, to someone like me with over 10 years in the business.

In my reading the other day, I came across a link to this article on Social Media Explorer by Jason Falls. It’s about the explosion of so-called “social media experts”, and Jason’s opinion is that we all just need to get off our high horses and stop being worried about them and what they are doing to our industry. And I don’t think he could be more wrong.

I’ve never really been engaged in a serious business conversation with one of these folks, as I’m usually pretty good at scaring them off once they realize that I actually do know what I’m talking about. But I’ve always imagined the conversation to go something like it does in this video.

Jason opens his article by asking “can we please get off the ego-driven, high-horse pedestal and shut the hell up about “social media gurus?” to which I can only answer… NO. Because this is important.

These so-called experts are giving all of us a bad name. The problem stems from the same problem that caused them to want to hire an expert in the first place. They don’t understand social media. At all. So they don’t know what to look for in an expert. I mean, I don’t know a thing about accounting, so I doubt that I’d make a great hiring decision on our next corporate accountant. So they hire an “expert” that looks good on paper (and the internet), and uses all the exciting buzzwords. And they probably do a few things — make a Facebook page, set up a Twitter account — and that’s it. The company may or may not feel ripped off… but they basically were. These “experts” are preying on people’s inexperience with social media and their fear of getting it wrong (because they’ve seen others do a big painful bellyflop and want to avoid that at all costs).

Jason’s point is that we shouldn’t attacking (or in his words, “whining” about) these people because they are young and trying to make their way in the world. Well, yes but no. In some ways, the influx of “experts” is inevitable because there is huge demand to hire people who are knowledgeable about social media, but there’s no formal education in the field. You can’t (to my knowledge, and I’d love to know about it if I’m wrong) get a college degree in online community or social media. The only way to get experience is to do some stuff ad-hoc (be a moderator on someone else’s forums, for example) or to get on-the-job experience. Take that small bit of experience and combine it with the hiring manager’s inexperience with social media, and you get where we are. So I don’t mind young people trying to make an honest start into the field. In fact, I try to help them along as much as I can. But I think a lot of these “experts” aren’t trying to make an honest start into the field, they are trying to make a quick buck preying on inexperience and fear. I also have an issue with taking on the label “expert” right out of the gate. It was only after 10 years of experience that I started to feel comfortable with that label. Thinking you’re an expert because you have 500 Facebook friends is like me saying I’m a doctor because I’ve seen every episode of ER. It just doesn’t work that way.

So how do we solve this problem? There are a lot of components, and it’s more complex than it seems.

1. Academic education. We need to start seeing actual academic degree programs on an undergraduate level, so that young people can get the background they need to make a solid start in the industry. I have beaten this drum often before, but it’s because I think it’s so important and nobody else is talking about it. The program could probably take from existing business, public relations, and marketing courses, but will need some custom-designed courses. Things like reputation systems and metrics could make for whole courses in and of themselves. Until we start giving people proper education and training for the jobs that are out there in community and social media, they will continue to invent their experiences out of thin air to compensate.

2. Corporate education. Someone, somewhere in every organization needs to know enough about community and social media to make a good hiring decision. They don’t have to be experts, but they need to know enough to spot the actual expert in a field of bullshit buzzword artists. Companies need to stop hiring the first person that sounds like they know what they are talking about because they are so afraid of doing nothing. Until companies stop hiring these “experts”, they will continue to burn companies and sour them on the idea of social media expertise at all.

3. Mentoring programs. Until we do implement the academic programs needed to make this career path sustainable in the future, we need to do something with the new people filling the demand for social media expertise today. Because there is no formal education available in the field, most people’s stories start like mine, with “I fell into it by accident when…”. We all have to start somewhere and climb our way up, and we’re working without a net in this industry. The more experienced among us need to work with people who are just starting out to help them get established, get experience, and get a solid foundation that will serve them (and their employers) well into the future. Until we start sharing our knowledge and experience with up-and-comers in the industry, we won’t have any growth of actual experts in the field. And that hurts all of us in the long run.

4. Certification program. I was at the Online Community Summit last week. During lunch, I was sitting with a group of friends that I do consider to be experts in this field, and the conversation turned to all of these faux experts. One of the things proposed to help solve the problem was some sort of certification system whereby people get accredited as experts (or knowledgeable or whatever) and can use that as currency when interviewing for a job or taking on new clients. I think that this idea has a lot of potential, but also a lot of pitfalls. It would be great to have something that companies and hiring managers can see and rely on when hiring someone. It would also help up-and-comers have something solid to put on their resume. And it’s a decent stand-in for pre-employment education. But who oversees and administers the program? How to they and the program gain the respect necessary for the certification to carry real weight and meaning? These are all things that would need to be worked out.

So yes, I do think that the influx of social media “experts” is bad for our industry. That someone with so little experience calls themselves an “expert” is insulting to the years I and many others have worked in this industry. That companies are falling for their schtick is a big problem. I agree that we can’t be afraid of the new wave of people in this fast-growing industry, but I think that us first-wavers have an obligation to differentiate actual experience and expertise from anecdotal expertise. I also think we have an obligation to continue making the pathway more smooth for others who follow in our footsteps.

I was in the doctor’s office last week (I injured my shoulder) browsing the magazines, and the cover story of The Economist caught my eye. The story was “Sex Laws: Unjust and Ineffective” and it’s an in-depth look at how we classify and punish sex offenders in this country. And, as the title suggests, we don’t do it that well.

As I mentioned in a previous entry, I have a BA in Criminal Justice. Although it’s not the main focus of my work these days, I maintain more than a passing interest in the issues regarding the law, the courts, and the prison system.

It’s never been popular to be against sex offender laws. Certainly, no politician could ever get elected (or re-elected) by being against them. But thankfully I am not a politician. And I am, for the most part, against the current laws most states have regarding sex offenders.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of terrible stories about children being harmed by real predators — including Megan Kanka (for whom Megan’s Law is named after) and Adam Walsh. But just as real are the stories of people who are branded sex offenders for what most people would believe are minor offenses. According to the Economist:

A report by Sarah Tofte of Human Rights Watch, a pressure group, found that at least five states required men to register if they were caught visiting prostitutes. At least 13 required it for urinating in public (in two of which, only if a child was present). No fewer than 29 states required registration for teenagers who had consensual sex with another teenager. And 32 states registered flashers and streakers.

These are not violent offenders. These people are not harming others. And they are certainly not harming children. Yet most people automatically assume that all sex offenders are violent child rapists and molesters. And why wouldn’t people paint all sex offenders with the same big brush? Their government and laws certainly do. Again from the Economist:

The Georgia Sex Offender Registration Review Board, an official body, assessed a sample of offenders on the registry last year and concluded that 65% of them posed little threat. Another 30% were potentially threatening, and 5% were clearly dangerous.

Yet there they all are, lumped into one big pile and treated as if they are all the same. And in most states (and thanks to a 2006 law passed by the US Congress, soon all states) these registries are available online for anyone to peruse, map, and generally freak out over. This is also ultimately ineffective. More from the Economist:

Publicly accessible sex-offender registries are intended to keep people safe. But there is little evidence that they do. A study by Kristen Zgoba of the New Jersey Department of Corrections found that the state’s system for registering sex offenders and warning their neighbours cost millions of dollars and had no discernible effect on the number of sex crimes. Restricting where sex offenders can live is supposed to keep them away from potential victims, but it is doubtful that this works. A determined predator can always catch a bus.

So, at this point you’re probably asking yourself why, outside of just stating my opinion, this is on my blog. It’s because of all the hysteria surrounding sex offenders on social networks like Facebook and MySpace. It’s about Facebook removing registered sex offenders from its registrations. Which, on the surface, sounds like a good idea. We want to keep kids safe online, right?

Well, no. Because again, it’s very easy to get on the registered sex offender list for something as simple as urinating in public. And most of the offenses that land a person on the sex offenders list have nothing to do with children. And most of the people on sex offender lists pose little threat.

But it’s more than that. The bias and fear-mongering are right there in the words they use to describe the situation and the reasoning for it.  From MSNBC:

“The message … is [that] Facebook has an equal stake in solving this problem of protecting children,” said Blumenthal, who along with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper has led an effort remove sex offenders from the social networking Web sites.”They have an equal stake in the predator problem and its solution.”

What they won’t tell you is that registered sex offenders make up approximately the same percentage of Facebook and MySpace registration databases as they do the general population. Barring all registered sex offenders from social media won’t protect children any more than requiring someone who was caught visiting a prostitute to live 1000 feet away from a school protects children. But none of that sounds like good PR.

I think we all genuinely want to keep children safe from predators. But we have to do what reasoned research tells us is right, instead of taking the shotgun approach that we have in the last few years. We need to act logically, not out of panic or outrage. Treating all registered sex offenders like lepers and cutting them off from the online world is just not the best way to achieve the goal, and it’s incredibly unfair to the people who get lumped in along the way.

Anyone who has spent time in an online community, on virtually any subject, has experienced hatred. Almost all kinds of hatred grows wild and multiplies quickly on the internet. The internet is phenomenal for helping people find others who share their interests and views, and helping those groups to organize. This is the driving force behind every online community, from knitting communities to white supremacist communities. My friend Jessie Daniels has just published a book called Cyber Racism about how racism has made the jump from offline means (print and in-person organization) to the online world.

Homophobia is no different. From seemingly innocent comments like “That’s so gay” to explicit “I hate gay people” comments, it’s everywhere. But homophobia on the net is often more innocent-looking, and more difficult to recognize, than other forms of hatred. I’m not just talking about forums that are obviously dedicated to homophobia. Remarks like “that’s so gay” pass by in most every community without anyone blinking an eye. And many communities have cultures that don’t discourage that, even if they don’t encourage it. As managers, culture-makers, and rule-setters in our communities, we have an obligation to make sure our forums are free from homophobia, but we have to do it in a way that’s fair for everyone. Lots of attempts have been made, and I’m not sure anyone has found the silver bullet answer yet.

GLAAD is working to fix that. They’ve recently launched a project to combat homophobia in virtual communities, and they’re starting with a panel discussion on homophobia in the gaming community. The panel will take place from 11am-1pm on July 18, 2009 at the Electronic Arts campus, just south of San Francisco in Redwood City, California.  To RSVP, please email digitaltickets@glaad.org or visit www.glaad.org/digitalevent. You can also join the Facebook Event Page.

From GLAAD’s blog:

I really wish I could attend this panel, but I have a prior obligation next weekend. (My wife is having thumb surgery on Friday.) If, like me, you can’t attend the panel, don’t fret. It will be recorded and distributed for everyone who can’t make it. I’m really looking forward to the DVD of the panel.

In addition to promoting the panel on Facebook, Twitter, and the GLAAD blog, they’ve taken it one step further. Justin Cole, the Director of Digital Media for GLAAD, wrote an Op-Ed this week on Kotaku, a very popular video games blog. This is most definitely not “preaching to the choir”. As I’ve written before, the gaming industry can be a very male and hetero-oriented place. Kotaku, and its readers, are no exception.

In the Op-Ed, Justin cited this video as an example of homophobia in gaming.

From the YouTube description on that video:

Other than maybe a quick “hello” to the chat room or a request to “veto”, I didn’t say anything first or taunt anyone. What was said by these players was done with no provocation on my part. The vast majority of the times I wouldn’t even respond back so the audio would be clear. Things I didn’t include in this video are the betrayals (people on my team killing me), players asking me NOT to party up, or all leaving mid-game so that I’m all alone.

Justin also cited some startling statistics from a 2006 study from the University of Illinois “the social and behavioral demographics of gay video game players” as well as “the role of sexual orientation on gaming habits.” (Emphasis mine)

52.7% of those surveyed said the gaming community is “Somewhat Hostile” to gay and lesbian gamers, 14% said “Very Hostile.”

When asked what forms of homophobia people have seen in the gaming community, here are some of what the surveyed said:

87.7% – Players use the phrase, “That’s so gay.”
83.4% – Players use the words “gay” or “queer” as derogatory names.
52.3% – Stereotypical representations of gay characters in games.
42.5% – Refusal of game designers to include well-developed gay characters.
49.4% – Invisibility of gaymers and/or the gaymer community.
When asked how frequently players experience homophobia, those surveyed who responded “Always” or “Frequently” equaled 42%. Add in “Sometimes” and it brings up that total to 74.5%.
When asked how often those players respond to the homophobia they witness – 50.9% total responded “Never” or “Rarely.”

Given these statistics, it’s no wonder that Justin and GLAAD have chosen to focus on the gaming community first in their battle against homophobia among all virtual communities.

To see how much of an uphill battle this is, one need look no further than the comments on that YouTube video or, more realistically, on the Kotaku article. YouTube comments are notorious for being horrible, obnoxious, profane, and homophobic, and the comments on that video certainly live up to that reputation. The comments on Kotaku are at least more intelligently written, even if the majority of them are still homophobic and unapologetic for it.

I spoke with Justin from GLAAD this week, and we had a great conversation about these massive cultural shifts that are so obviously necessary. There are so many moving parts — the rules we implement about what is and isn’t appropriate in our communities, the consistent enforcement of those rules, and the people who are tasked with setting a positive example in our communities. But it’s also about the development of games (diverse and non-stereotypical characters), and the promotion of games. I also strongly feel that we need to have more diversity in the workforce of the gaming industry in order to really bring about change from the inside out. I know that’s easier said than done — at the end of the day, companies need to do what they can to sell the largest amount of games they can, and hitting that demographic sweet spot (ie: the young, straight, possibly homophobic male) is really tempting. But all of these things need to come together to move this ship forward.

Justin and I had a great conversation, and he asked me to help out with GLAAD’s initiative beyond the panel. I’m so excited and honored to be working with them on this important issue. He is interested in hearing from community managers from all types of communities, so I’ll probably be pulling in many of the people I know in the CM world to help with this project.

In the meantime, I urge all community managers to re-examine your approach to fighting homophobia in your communities. If you’re a member of a community, especially a gaming community, I urge you to re-evaluate how you treat people in the communities you participate in, to see if you can do more. If you live in the SF bay area, I encourage you to sign up for GLAAD’s panel on this issue. I urge all of you to treat people with kindness, fairness, and equality.

I have been a big fan of danah boyd for a while. When I think about my own aspirations and what I’m interested in learning more about, her name routinely comes up in my reading. Her work looks beyond the norms in online community research — how to be a better marketer, get more followers, get better ROI. Her research delves into the architecture, the politics, and the culture of communities and social media.

At the end of June, she gave a speech at the Personal Democracy Forum called “The Not-So-Hidden Politics of Class Online”. In it, she shared her research on exactly who was using MySpace, who was using Facebook, and why. The results were interesting and sometimes surprising.

Before I read her talk, I would have told you that hardly anyone uses MySpace anymore. I would have told you that most people have transferred over to Facebook. After reading her talk, I understand why I thought that, even though I was wrong.

The talk started with danah asking the audience to raise their hands if they used Facebook, and then again for MySpace. 90%(ish) of the people used Facebook, but only a few used MySpace. This reflects my experience (I was never a heavy MySpace user, but I don’t use it at all now. 90% of my friends, business associates, and acquaintances use Facebook and not MySpace, too). However, danah points out that while we’re touting Facebook’s growth, we’re missing a crucial piece of the puzzle — that just as many people are now using MySpace as they are using Facebook. While Facebook’s numbers have been growing exponentially, MySpace’s numbers haven’t changed.

Two weeks ago, comScore released numbers showing that Facebook and MySpace were neck-and-neck in terms of unique user visits in the U.S. The meta-narrative was that Facebook was winning in the States and that MySpace was dying. I would argue that the numbers can be read differently. The numbers show that MySpace has neither grown nor faded in the last year while Facebook has expanded rapidly and has finally reached the same size. Of course, this is not to say that Facebook isn’t doing tremendously. In a business environment where monetization is shaky, the only definition of success is “growth.” Given that, it’s reasonable to see Facebook as more successful than MySpace this year. But we still need to account for the fact that as many people visit MySpace as Facebook and that, as exemplified by the people in this room, that’s not because there’s a complete overlap of users. Even if you think that Facebook is winning the game, we need to account for the fact that *70 million* people in the US visited MySpace. That’s not small potatoes.

When danah dug deeper, asking teenagers which site they were using and why, the answers were astounding. Some cited feature differences, but many of the answers were around culture, and by extension, class. One teenager called MySpace “ghetto”, while others said that Facebook was more high-class, more adult.

Craig (17, California): The higher castes of high school moved to Facebook. It was more cultured, and less cheesy. The lower class usually were content to stick to MySpace. Any high school student who has a Facebook will tell you that MySpace users are more likely to be barely educated and obnoxious. Like Peet’s is more cultured than Starbucks, and Jazz is more cultured than bubblegum pop, and like Macs are more cultured than PC’s, Facebook is of a cooler caliber than MySpace.

If this language seems harsh, danah says that’s with good reason.

In looking through my data, I found that teens who prefer Facebook are far more likely to be condescending towards those who use MySpace than vice versa. Teens who use MySpace may lament teen Facebook users as “stuck-ups” or “goodie two-shoes” or the “good kids.” But they’re not nearly as harsh in their language as Facebook users are of those who use MySpace.

I agree with danah’s characterization of what happened when people abandoned MySpace for Facebook — it’s a modern-day, internet-based white flight. Whites, the educated, the suburban, the wealthier were all more likely to leave MySpace and go to Facebook. Given this, descriptions of MySpace as “ghetto” and Facebook as “more cultured” take on a whole new light here. To help illustrate this, danah talks about the sociological concept of homophily, which basically means “birds of a feather stick together”. You are most likely to know people like yourself. And how this is one of the driving forces behind why people choose MySpace or Facebook — they are attracted to the spaces where the people they perceive to be like themselves are.

This concept of homophily also shows why I would have told you that nobody is really looking at MySpace anymore. I don’t, and most of the people that I know are like me. Although my group of friends, acquaintances and associates are fairly diverse in terms of race and sexual orientation, they are almost entirely liberal/Democrat, well-educated, and wealthier. Because of who I am, and because of homophily, the people I know are less likely to choose MySpace over Facebook.

The implications of this, as danah rightly points out, are increased social divides.

We can accept when people choose to connect to people who are like them and not friend different others. But can we accept when institutions and services only support a portion of the network? When politicians only address half of their constituency? When educators and policy makers engage with people only through the tools of the privileged? When we start leveraging technology to meet specific goals, we may reinforce the divisions that we’re trying to address.

If you want people to connect around politics and democracy, information and ideas, you need to understand the divisions that exist. Many of us in this room see social network sites as a modern day incarnation of the public sphere. Politicians login to these sites to connect with constituents and hear their voices. Campaign managers and activists try to rally people through these sites. Market researchers try to get a sense of people’s opinions through these sites. Educators try to connect with students and build knowledge sharing communities. This is fantastic. But there isn’t one uniform public sphere. And if the ways in which we construct the digital public sphere reinforce the divisions that we’ve been trying to break down, we’ve got a problem.

I can’t recommend enough that you read the entire text of danah’s talk. It is just this kind of research and critical thinking that we need to understand where we are, why we are where we are, and where we are going. We need to consider a world outside of ourselves and our own experiences. Until we understand it, we can’t compensate for it, let alone work to make it better.

I have a BA in Criminal Justice. My interest in the justice system started in high school, when I took the Government class required by the state of Ohio in order to graduate. The class was taken by seniors, and it had a reputation for being incredibly hard. I went into it without a lot of knowledge or interest in the subject, but I left the class wanting to be a Government teacher. I found the subject matter engaging and interesting, and I often got As on my work. I did the extra credit assignments that the teacher regularly gave because they sounded interesting, not because I needed the credit. When I got to college, I quickly changed my major to Criminal Justice. My aim was to become a lawyer, and I went as far as to take the LSAT and apply to several law schools. Ultimately, I decided to “take a year off” (famous last words), and never went back. But I’ve never lost my interest in government and specifically in the court system.

My work is now in social media and online communities, and some would say there’s some overlap there. So it is with interest that I read this article by Kathy Ossian about the use of social media by jury members, and how that can and cannot affect the impartiality of the jury and ultimately, trial outcomes.

Juries are typically instructed not to access, discuss, or read any information about the case or the subject matter of the case while they are assigned to the jury. Where this would be difficult-to-impossible, juries are sequestered. That’s pretty rare though — most jury members serve during the day and go home at night. But access to social networking, and even the web at large, is starting to play a role in motions for mistrial.

While two of the three cases that Kathy Ossian cited are in regards to jury members accessing informational websites (United States vs. Hernandez, and United States vs. Siegelman), but she also cites a civil case in Arkansas where a court determined that a party was deprived of the right to a fair trial when it was found that a jury member sent messages via Twitter indicating that he was biased against one of the parties. 

As services like Twitter grow in popularity, courts will have to face this more and more. Mistrials are expensive and time consuming. As jury members, it’s important that we abide by the directions given to us by the judge, and refrain from seeking information about the case or discussing the case with anyone — including Facebook friends and Twitter followers. 

I really do believe that social networking and online community can open up lots of avenues of communication, but there are some avenues that need to remain closed for the sake of fairness and justice.

Photo by http://www.flickr.com/photos/candiedwomanire

I’ve been thinking about starting a PhD. This is the point where everyone who knew me while I was working on my MBA starts shaking their head. Being a full-time grad student while working full-time wasn’t easy, and I’m sure being a PhD student while working full-time is even more difficult. Outside of the time, money, and sanity issues involved, I have another problem. I don’t know what to study. There are really no degrees in social media or online community. I already have a degree in business and marketing. (Also, criminal justice, which some might say comes in handy at times too.) 

I had never really thought much about anthropology until I saw this video of Michael Wesch speaking at the Library of Congress about the anthropology of YouTube. It’s a long video (55 minutes), but if you haven’t seen it and you’re at all interested in culture and social media, I highly recommend it.

Culture is one of my favorite things to speak about at conferences or when talking to people about their online communities. A lot of “behavioral” issues with members boil down to culture issues. Have a troll wreaking havoc on your forums? He’s violating your community’s culture. Your users are all being mean to the new people? They’ve gone off on their own and formed their own culture and norms. Culture is one of the most overlooked things in setting up and forming community.

It’s easy to think of the internet as having one culture (how many times have you heard the phrase “internet culture”?) but it’s not really true. The internet is full of smaller groups, each with their own distinct culture. For example, the behavior that is expected on LinkedIn is different than what is expected on I Can Has Cheezburger. 

Because of my interest in the cultural differences on the internet, I read this article an Microgeist with much enthusiasm. The walkthroughs of society, culture, norms, language, values, status, roles and other anthropological  items in relation to social media is fascinating, and so true. I agree wholeheartedly with the conclusion — when dealing with the mostly-impersonal internet, it’s easy to forget that you’re still just talking about people and behavior. We should all keep this front-of-mind as we build, manage, and maintain communities. Because it’s what community is ultimately all about — people, behavior, and relationships. 

The article states that communities and social media have not received a lot of anthropological study. I really wonder why, because it seems both timely and absolutely fascinating. I am so inspired by Michael Wesch’s videos and work. Maybe I should think seriously about that PhD again.

image courtesy of matthamm

As an online community manager, I long ago came to terms with the fact that my personal life and professional life will overlap. The tools that many of us use in our personal lives (such as Facebook and Twitter), I also use in my professional life. You can try to keep your personal and professional worlds separated, but that only goes so far. There is inevitable overlap — your co-workers will friend you on Facebook, your community members will find your Twitter, and your boss will look you up on LinkedIn. 

Perhaps community managers just faced this problem earlier than most people. After all, we were using these tools for business long before everyone else. However, now it’s become more common for people to mix the business with the personal on social media. Companies are starting to see all of their employees as potential spokespeople — with all the positive and negative things that come along with that. Companies can choose to focus on the positive benefits of that, or to focus on the negative implications. Both are inherently there, it’s just a difference in point of view. Think of it as “glass half full” vs. “glass half empty”.

Two things happened last week to drive this point home to me. First, I was on a panel at Community 2.0 with Kelly Ripley Feller from Intel, who shared Intel’s social media guidelines for their employees. Second, I read an article on Mashable about the Wall Street Journal’s new social media policy. To me, the difference between the two is striking. And the first indication of how they differ is right there in the name — guidelines vs. policy. Guidelines are the bumpers on the side of the road — you have a wide road to go down, but the guidelines will nudge you back on track when you stray. Policies are hard lines that must not be crossed.

Intel’s Guidelines

Intel’s guidelines come from the position of assuming that their employees will participate, and encouraging that, but wanting to provide some ground rules and best practices for doing so. In other words, Intel is focused on how employees participating in community and social media can help the company, and how to equip them with the best knowledge and practices for doing so.

Many of Intel’s policies are straightforward and should be obvious — respecting proprietary and confidential information, not spamming or posting offensive remarks, for example. But there are other guidelines that are maybe not as expected from a large public corporation. 

“Be Transparent” is probably not something you’d expect to hear from Intel. Of course, this is not to say that employees are encouraged to disclose company secrets… but they are expected to use their real name, identify that they work at Intel, and be clear about their role. 

“It’s a Conversation” is another guideline that a lot of companies could learn from. Intel encourages people to show their individual personalities, to encourage comments, and talk to readers like they are talking to real people. So many companies have their blogs and social media participation incredibly sanitized, approved, and PR-ified. Intel gets that showing the personalities inside the company is showing off some of their best differentiating assets.

Other guidelines, such as adding value and creating excitement, are also something you don’t see in most policies. But they’re really important parts of an open and engaging social media program.

Wall Street Journal’s Policy

WSJ’s policies come from a place of grudgingly accepting that their employees are going to participate in social media, and wanting to protect themselves against anything bad that might happen. They are not interested in helping their reporters and editors be more engaged in social media with best practices. They simply provide guidance on what not to do — unlike Intel, there’s no corresponding “what to do” advice.

Again, some of the things included are obvious. Most people know not to use a false name or to recruit friends and family to promote or defend their work. But there are other guidelines here that seem… well, antiquated. 

Reporters and editors are not allowed to discuss how an article was reported, written or edited. They cannot discuss articles that have not been published, meetings they’ve attended or plan to attend, or interviews they’ve conducted. They are not to mix “business and pleasure” on sites like Twitter. I can understand needing to protect proprietary information about workflow and competitive information such as sources and upcoming articles. But surely that can be done in a way that doesn’t forbid all communication about it across the board. By flatly disallowing all conversations about these items, the WSJ is missing huge opportunities for their reporters and editors to connect with their readers, and for their readers to make deeper connections to their reporters, editors, and the WSJ brand.

In terms of mixing business and pleasure on Twitter… well, frankly, that’s one of the things that I like best about Twitter. Celebrities and other well-known figures (if they’re doing it right, and doing it themselves) mix professional and personal posts that give their readers some insight into the personality and real life of the poster. For example, I know that:

•  Sarah Haskins (from Current TV) saw the new Star Trek movie. 
• Ana Marie Cox (founder of Wonkette, currently on Air America a lot) just bought a whole trunk full of plants for her yard. 
• Adam Savage (from Mythbusters) had cookies for lunch. 
• Rachel Maddow’s (from MSNBC) mother-in-law got a new TV, and her sister-in-law has a great sense of humor. 

I could continue on and on with examples. The point is that none of these posts would pose a threat to the companies they work for. And they all give me, the reader, some behind-the-scenes info on them as people. Rightly or wrongly, I feel that I know them better because I have this information. This makes me feel more connected to them on a personal level. And having employees/celebrities with large fan bases is a boon to any company that employs that person.

What You Can Do

Does your company have a social media policy? I don’t think it’s a must for every company, but it is necessary for many. If you don’t, and you think you need one, make sure that it encourages and guides people to participate in positive ways instead of just telling people what they can’t do. If you don’t have any community or social media experts in your company, there are plenty of independent consultants in the field that can help you draft good policies. Think about how to empower your employees to show their personalities, be thought leaders and subject matter experts, and create positive experiences around themselves and the company’s brand. 

If you have a policy that is more closed than open, talk to your company’s social media expert (or your boss/executive, if you are the company’s expert) to make some changes. You know your own situation and restrictions best, but take every opportunity to educate and train your people on the best practices for contribution, instead of just giving them a list of things they can’t do. 

What policies are in place in your company that you love or hate? Know of other companies with particularly good or bad guidelines and policies around social media participation? Let me know in the comments.