Google+ Pages off to a good start for consumers

Google released Google+ Pages for brands publicly last night (South African time) to much excitement on the Web. Google+ has, until now, been reserved for humans posting as themselves and Google has been criticized for not allowing brands to create pages and for insisting that users use their real names and not pseudonyms (Google seems to have reversed course on this and is expected to announce support for pseudonyms soon). The elephant in the room has been brands' inability to create a presence on the growing platform.

Google+ Pages have a number of similarities to personal profiles including their basic design and functionality. Businesses can publish posts, photos, videos, run Hangouts (a very appealing and engaging video conferencing solution) and participate in comment threads as the brand. I enjoy using Google+ and have seen some pretty high engagement levels there. It is a product designed for engagement.

That said, there are some very interesting differences between Pages and profiles which are pretty good for consumers weary of the constant flow of direct marketing material. Susan Beebe, a Dell Corporate PR and Social Business Strategist listed a number of differences in a post on Google+:

• Pages can’t add people to circles until the page is added first or mentioned.
• Pages can be made for a variety of different entities whereas profiles can only be made for people.
• The default privacy setting for elements on your page profile is public.
• Pages have the +1 button.
• Pages can’t +1 other pages, nor can they +1 stuff on the Web.
• Pages can’t play games.
• Pages don’t have the option to share to ‘Extended circles’.
• Pages don’t receive notifications via email, text, or in the Google bar.
• Pages can’t hangout on a mobile device.
• Local pages have special fields that help people find the business’ physical location.

Of these differences, the most significant difference for consumers is the first in that list: Pages can’t add people to circles until the page is added first or mentioned.

The reason this is so significant is that consumers must explicitly and specifically add brands to their circles (or, to use Twitter terminology, follow the brands) before those brands can publish posts targeted at those consumers. Until that point brands' Pages remain publicly visible but their posts don't enter consumers' streams until they are followed. This model is similar to Twitter in that Twitter users won't see brands' tweets in their Twitter stream unless they follow the brand's Twitter profile. Like Twitter is also appears that a brand could publish a post which tags a consumer not following the brand on Google+ and get their attention that way.

It certainly appears that Google is thinking about building a product for brands that doesn't overpower consumers' streams with marketing messaging although an option requiring that consumers add brands to their circles before they can be contacted by brands would protect consumers better.

Twitter accounts equated to domain names in trade mark action

I came across an interesting case in the United States on Evan Brown's Internet Cases blog which he also mentioned in a recent This Week in Law episode. The case is interesting because although the ruling appears to be provisional relief as part of a larger set of proceedings (I am not familiar with the court proceedings in that court), the court appears to have equated Twitter accounts with domain names in the context of trade marks.

Viewing a Twitter account as analogous to a domain name (or close to it) for the purposes of trade mark enforcement makes sense to the extent a domain name has similar significance for a trade mark owner although there are some fundamental differences between a Twitter account and a domain name. For one thing Twitter accounts are made available by a private company which theoretically controls these accounts and makes their use subject to its own terms and conditions. On the other hand domain names are typically available for registration with a number of registrars which essentially facilitate registration of a domain name and don't get involved with how the domain name is used.

A domain name is a commodity of sorts. Where a person registers a domain name and uses it to infringe another party's rights, the domain name can be transferred to a stronger rights holder following a dispute resolution process. When it comes to .za domain names, the .za Domain Name Authority has jurisdiction to hear certain disputes and can rule that a domain be transferred to a complainant where a complainant's rights are infringed by the domain name holder. When we talk about domain name registrations we talk in terms of domain names being owned by registrants but this sort of talk probably won't be applicable to Twitter accounts.

Twitter's terms of service contemplate Twitter retaining proprietary rights over its service and this could conflict with this notion of a Twitter user's account forming part of its/his/her trade mark or being considered a protectable extension of a trade mark:

All right, title, and interest in and to the Services (excluding Content provided by users) are and will remain the exclusive property of Twitter and its licensors. The Services are protected by copyright, trademark, and other laws of both the United States and foreign countries. Nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use the Twitter name or any of the Twitter trademarks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features. Any feedback, comments, or suggestions you may provide regarding Twitter, or the Services is entirely voluntary and we will be free to use such feedback, comments or suggestions as we see fit and without any obligation to you.

While there is little doubt a Twitter account has value for a brand and trade mark holder, it will be interesting to see how a court handles a case in which a trade mark owner seeks some sort of protection for its trade mark via Twitter. The idea isn't novel, brandsquatting has been an issue for sometime now but when it comes to addressing this type of attack on trade marks, the matter is usually addressed with Twitter itself in terms of its Trademark Policy. This places the dispute squarely in Twitter's hands and if the complaint has merit in Twitter's view, it will make an appropriate determination and act accordingly. When it comes to domain names, the bodies handling disputes tend to be established by law or some sort of governmental process and operate on a quasi-judicial basis having regard to applicable law.

---

Photo credit: Ev and Biz introduce new Twitter design to world's tech press by Robert Scoble, licensed CC BY 2.0

Smart companies are embracing innovative legal solutions

I noticed that what companies were talking about started to change towards the end of 2010. I noticed that companies were talking to me about how they can best manage the inevitable risks their employees pose as more and more employees embrace and use social media services like Twitter. What I found especially interesting was a growing number of companies are acknowledging that simply cutting off access to social services can be detrimental to their businesses overall for a variety of reasons and that moderate access to social services may even be a requirement for their employees to work better and smarter.

Another trend I noticed and find fascinating is how companies are embracing necessitate fairly innovative solutions for challenges which are starting to emerge as they either adopt social services like Twitter and Facebook in their communications strategies and become more aware of the potential impact their employees may have in their own right. This point may seem like a duplication of my previous one but companies shouldn't just be concerned about implementing adequate internal policy frameworks like social media policies to govern how employees use social media and are made accountable to their employers for that usage. Companies should also take into account the possible implications employees' tweets may have with respect to 3rd parties who follow them. Should an employee's tweets have contractual significance that could bind the company? To what extent should employees clarify their relationship with the company and their ability to represent the company in their LinkedIn profile?

The Wikileaks debate focused a spotlight on radical transparency in the context of organisational and governmental information but what about all those mini-Wikileaks that have arisen and are bound to emerge as time goes on? What impact could an individual armed with sensitive corporate information and a distributed Internet-based publishing network have on the company? "Internet-based publishing network" sounds like a pretty involved and hard to obtain thing but that is pretty much what an average social network on the Web is, especially if it comprises interconnected social networks like Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn. Individuals' reach is growing as their networks grow and just as social networks can be a powerful force for positive change, they can also be mis-used to disseminate secrets maliciously.

While there is considerable debate about whether something like Wikileaks should be permitted to exist and whether it provides a valuable service to us all, Wikileaks has shown us that the tools to replicate its work are pretty readily available. This doesn't necessarily mean that there will be a million more sources of government information being leaked but it does mean that sensitive information could leaks could, and probably have already, occur on smaller scales. This potential could change how companies interact with their customers, how people perceive their brands. The radical transparency Julian Assange works towards could become a new paradigm brands will have to adapt to.

More and more companies are embracing the social Web in their marketing and general communications activities. At the same time the social Web is continuing to grow, evolve and become more complex and this means that the challenges companies are facing are, themselves, becoming more complex. New services are gaining traction. Consider Quora, a social question and answer service which a remarkable number of Web and technology thought leaders are participating in. It is very sticky, contains a growing body of collective knowledge and its not really surprising that it was created by a former Facebook stalwart. Facebook itself is the single biggest only social network on the planet and well on its way to becoming one of the largest communities humanity has ever known. It is also becoming a fundamental part of its users online identity, if not their core online identity. It could become more valuable and useful than national identity. What does that mean for the social Web and the legal solutions necessary to accommodate these developments?

What is clear is that the social Web is a challenging and exciting space, the legalities that accompany its evolution are becoming increasingly complex and the solutions companies will require must be innovative. More of the same from your lawyers has never really been sufficient and it most certainly won't be this year or the years to come.