The True Cost of Facebook
By Charlie Pownall, Director, Digital Communications, Burson-Marsteller Asia Pacific

Social media has recently been hitting the headlines in Australia, making life awkward for the government, opposition and newspaper editors.

Most visibly, the fingerprints of the Prime Minister’s Office and a host of government departments were exposed all over Wikipedia. Meantime, Jack Marx was sacked by the Sydney Morning Herald for lampooning Kevin Rudd’s strip club visit on his blog.

But companies are also asking questions about the value of social media in the wake of the estimated AU$5bn cost to Australian business of its employees using Facebook and other social networks. Ouch, if accurate.

But does it matter?

The answer, surely, is yes, though the important costs are not time-related but principally about reputation.

After all, birthdays are routinely celebrated and bosses disparaged both inside the office (the so-called ‘water cooler effect’) and outside it. Online social networks are merely another channel for sharing this information, albeit faster and more broadly.

So should organisations encourage, limit or ban employee access to Facebook and other social networks? Should staff be allowed to edit Wikipedia?

Do they really have a choice?

Goldman Sachs is one of a number of firms that have reputedly banned their employees from accessing Facebook. But a quick search reveals nearly 3,000 GS staff on its network page (ie. using their GS email addresses to enter the platform) and over 100 groups, including its New York and London offices.

Institutions have to accept that the lines between people’s professional and personal lives are going to get even more blurred, and that information will continue to free itself from the corporate firewall.

So what can they do?

For one, accept that your staff will go and play with Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia. Why shouldn’t they ask people for tips on the best delicatessen on the local newspaper discussion board, participate in an industry discussion on a Google Group, or respond to a post on an obscure blog that is plainly incorrect?

But also make sure that they clearly understand the consequences of their actions.

Revealing confidential information, something about their boss or someone in the industry that could be construed as libelous, or making clearly non-factual updates to Wikipedia about their employer or its competitors, is potentially damaging to the company’s reputation.

Second, with employees increasingly exposed to an interacting with customers and other stakeholders, organisations should look to engage their people more deeply than ever before, motivating them and winning their trust and loyalty (hint: social media provides them a new and powerful tool to help do this).

Establishing real employee trust would also provide companies with the opportunity to establish more explicit links between employee engagement and external marketing.

GlaxoSmithKline, for instance, is turning its 8,000 strong US sales force into official ‘public relations ambassadors’ for the company, encouraging them to get stuck into grassroots activities such as speaking to local community groups, addressing local school students and building relationships with local journalists.

It would be highly unlikely if social media was not to play a part in this programme.