Strangers, connections and social media

One of the major challenges of social media is letting people connect with folks they don’t know while preventing abuse. Most of the major social networks are trying.
Let’s look at LinkedIn and the tools they give users to stop abuse. Overall, they are pretty good about stopping their platform from being abused, but don’t have many processes to stop folks from harvesting connection addresses off LinkedIn and then adding those addresses to marketing lists. Does it happen frequently? No. But it does happen.
I have a pretty liberal “accept an invite” policy on LinkedIn. If people want to connect with me there and they have real profiles and they’re in a relevant space, I generally accept their invites. This means there are times when I connect with people I don’t know. I’m OK with this, LinkedIn is a great way to meet an interact with colleagues. It also means that sometimes people connect with me, take my information and add it to their marketing lists.
This morning I got an invite from Greg Williams. The name and profile looked like one I’d seen before, so I dug through my mail to see why this raised my hackles. I figured it out. Greg is president of some Tuscon area scholarship fund. A year or so ago he decided to ask all his LinkedIn connections to donate thousands of dollars to his non-profit. I decided this was not a connection I really needed on LinkedIn and removed him.
I don’t really have a connection with Mr. Williams. We didn’t go to the same schools, we don’t work in similar fields. LinkedIn tells me that we have two connections in common. I know nothing about him except that the last time I connected with him on LinkedIn he decided to take this as an invitation to spam me with money requests for his foundation. A foundation he didn’t really tell me anything other than “we give money for scholarships.”
Even more crazy is that Mr. Williams sent me an invite that says “I trust you and I’d like you to be part of my LinkedIn network.” I’m not sure who you are or who you think I am, but I don’t think you know me well enough to trust me.
I’m not against reconnecting with Mr. Williams again, but I want to be sure he understands that just because we connect on LinkedIn doesn’t mean I want to be added to his begging list. I looked for a way through LinkedIn to send Mr. Williams a response. But I can’t. My two choices are to ignore him or report spam. I think I’ll ignore him, for now.
One thing LinkedIn does to stop this problem is get feedback from users. When I click Ignore on the invite I get the opportunity to tell LinkedIn “I don’t know this person.” Hopefully, telling them I don’t know this person will stop future invites.
Social networks are a great thing and allow people to connect and create communities and interact with one another. Stopping users from abusing other members of the network is an important part of that community building framework.
 

Related Posts

Brand engagement in social media

Adobe has a good post up about consumer reaction and interaction with brands in social media like Twitter and Facebook.

Read More

Social media the Home Depot way

I’ve been following Richard the Cat on Twitter for a while. It’s the story of a family and their trials and tribulations with their yard as told by their cat.
The twitter feed (and Richard’s tumblr) are a product of the Home Depot marketing department. And it’s great. Richard has awesome comments on his humans and their struggle to create a happy yard. The tweets are low key and not overly home depot branded, but every Richard tweet I see, I think about the yard and things we might need from Home Depot.
And, of course, who on the internet doesn’t love a cat meme?
To my mind this is one of the better examples of brand social media. There is a theme. The tweets and tumblr does remind followers of the brand – Richard is an orange cat after all. The process is participatory, followers can upload cat photos on the Tumblr and tweet with Richard on Twitter.
Social media is social; a two way street. A lot of brands fail with the social part in that they treat it as a one way street. Home Depot doesn’t do that with Richard.

Read More

Training recipients

Want to see a WWF style smackdown? Put a marketer and a delivery expert in a room and ask them to discuss frequency and whether or not more mail is better.
The marketer will point to the bottom line and how much more money they make when they increase frequency. The delivery expert will point to inbox rates and user engagement and point out that too much mail drives users to ignore the mail.
This isn’t actually unique to marketing mail. Send a lot of mail that doesn’t engage recipients and recipients are trained that they don’t have to actually pay attention to the mail. Some of them hit delete. Some may even report the mail as spam.
According to Cloudmark, this is exactly what happened when LinkedIn informed users of the recent data breach. They estimate that up to 4% of users who received the fully DKIM authenticated mail about the data breach deleted it immediately without reading it. This is higher than notification emails from other social networks.

Cloudmark suggests that part of the problem is that LinkedIn has an unclear opt-in process. Instead of asking users for preferences, LinkedIn assumes that all users want all the mail LinkedIn cares to send them. Then LinkedIn makes it difficult to find the page to change mail settings. This means recipients are very trained to ignore mail from LinkedIn. I know I ignore most of it. Anything that’s not a “want to connect” gets filed in the “I’ll read it when I’m bored” mailbox. So far I’ve not been bored enough to read any of it.
But I’m not sure it’s just about too much email. LinkedIn is a company that is heavily forged in phishing mail. Since May 1, just one of my email addresses has received over 50 messages purporting to be from LinkedIn.

Read More