Eric Schwartzman

The number of social media policy violations by employees has doubled over the last 16 months.

 Ann Handley didn't violate anyone's social media policy, and those aren't schadenfreude likes from Beth, Shel and Richard.

They're only there to demonstrate what kind of screen capture you need to take of a Facebook post if you're documenting a social media policy violation.  

Don’t get us wrong.  We love social media and value free speech.

We’re not condoning violating anyone’s personal privacy rights or their rights to discuss wages, hours and working conditions concertedly.  

Used effectively and responsibly, numerous research reports show that social media increases profitability, productivity and job satisfaction.  

But when social media is used by workers who haven't been taught to play the social media compliance game, violations are more likely to occur. And enforcing a social media policy requires proof of a violation.  

With social networking as popular as it is, social media misuse has become one of the costs of doing business.

This show is about documenting misuse when it occurs, before it's removed.

We talk to former broadcast journalist and Red Cross public affairs officer Ike Pigott (@ikepigott) -- who currently serves as communications strategist to Alabama Power (@AlabamaPower) -- who walks us through what he’s learned in the trenches about documenting social media policy violations.   Best Practices for Documenting Social Media

Policy Violations Discussed:  

Overcoming social media policy enforcement challengesJob titles that typically enforce social media policyRequired skills for enforcing social media policyHow to document social media policy violationsUse of screen capture tools to record violationsDocumenting social media policy violations on FacebookDocumenting social media policy violations on TwitterDocumenting social media policy violations on LinkedInRisks of storing social media policy violations in the cloud

Photo by John Schnobrich on Unsplash

What steps has the FDA taken to provide the pharmaceutical industry with guidance and regulations around using social media for marketing, and what should their social media policies be?  

We talk to John Mack, editor and publisher of the Pharma Marketing Network, about the issues and challenges of regulating pharmaceutical companies on social media.    

What the FDA has done so far to try and deliver social media guidance to drug companies:

The FDA has embarked on a significant journey to provide social media guidance to pharmaceutical companies, recognizing the growing importance of digital channels in the healthcare sector. Over the years, the FDA has released a series of draft and final guidance documents addressing social media platforms' unique challenges and opportunities. These documents have outlined best practices for the pharmaceutical industry when engaging in online communication and advertising.

However, the FDA's efforts have been met with complexities, as the rapidly evolving landscape of social media often outpaces regulatory frameworks. Given the dynamic nature of digital platforms, the challenge lies in keeping the guidance relevant and up-to-date. Pharmaceutical companies eagerly await further clarity from the FDA to navigate the intricacies of social media marketing effectively.

The difference between social media "guidance" and actual regulations:

It's essential to distinguish between social media "guidance" and formal regulations in pharmaceutical marketing. While the FDA has issued guidance documents to provide direction and recommendations for drug companies operating on digital platforms, these are not legally binding regulations. Instead, they serve as valuable reference points and best practice guidelines for industry professionals.

Regulations, on the other hand, carry legal obligations and enforceable consequences. They are codified rules that must be adhered to by pharmaceutical companies to ensure compliance with the law. Currently, the FDA's social media guidance provides flexibility and insights but without the binding nature of regulations. This distinction underscores the need for pharmaceutical firms to stay vigilant and align their practices with guidance and existing regulations to maintain transparency and compliance in their digital marketing endeavors.

Challenges for pharmaceutical companies associated with maintaining Facebook Pages:

Pharmaceutical companies face unique challenges when maintaining Facebook Pages due to the stringent regulations governing drug advertising. The FDA's strict guidelines require any promotional content related to medications to provide balanced information, including benefits and risks. Achieving this balance within Facebook's character limits and format can be daunting.

Moreover, user-generated content on Facebook Pages poses another layer of complexity. Companies monitor and moderate comments, ensuring user-contributed content does not violate FDA regulations or misrepresent their products. Striking the right balance between fostering engagement and adhering to regulatory requirements is an ongoing challenge for pharmaceutical companies on social media platforms like Facebook.

How drug companies are hedging their bets and marketing on social media instead of guidance:

Without comprehensive FDA social media guidance, pharmaceutical companies navigate social media cautiously while actively participating in digital marketing strategies. Many firms have adopted a proactive approach, leveraging available guidance documents to develop their social media policies and practices.

Pharmaceutical companies often focus on disease awareness campaigns to mitigate risks rather than direct product promotion. These campaigns provide valuable health information without explicitly endorsing specific medications. Additionally, companies invest in robust monitoring and compliance systems to ensure that their social media activities align with existing regulations.

By staying informed about evolving social media trends and continually refining their strategies, drug companies are finding ways to engage with their audience and deliver valuable content while remaining compliant with regulatory requirements.

The British Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority's informal guidance:

The British Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) has played a pivotal role in providing informal guidance to pharmaceutical companies operating within the United Kingdom. Although the PMCPA's guidance is not legally binding, it offers valuable insights and recommendations to the industry regarding promotional activities, including those in the digital sphere.

This informal guidance covers various aspects of pharmaceutical marketing, emphasizing the importance of compliance with ethical standards and regulations. It addresses issues such as promotional materials, interactions with healthcare professionals, and engagement on digital platforms like social media. Pharmaceutical companies operating in the UK often turn to the PMCPA's guidance as a reference point to ensure their marketing practices align with ethical and regulatory expectations.

Mobile Medical Apps:

Mobile medical apps have emerged as a transformative force in healthcare, offering innovative solutions for patients and healthcare professionals. These apps encompass various functionalities, from monitoring vital signs to managing chronic conditions and providing educational resources.

The FDA recognizes the significant impact of mobile medical apps on healthcare delivery and has issued guidance to clarify the regulatory framework surrounding these digital tools. The guidance outlines which apps fall under FDA oversight, addressing intended use and risk assessment factors. It also recommends that developers ensure their mobile medical apps comply with safety and effectiveness standards.

As the healthcare landscape evolves, mobile medical apps promise to enhance patient care and empowerment. The FDA's guidance plays a crucial role in fostering innovation and ensuring the safety and efficacy of these digital health solutions.

Photo by freestocks.org on Unsplash

In a podcast I recorded with Doug Bonney, the chief counsel and legal director for Kansas's American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), we delved into the complex web of issues surrounding the Kansas Board of Regents' social media policy.

As a public relations agency leader, I was interested in the Kansas Board of Regents social media policy story due to its potential impact on their reputation, the crisis communications component, stakeholder engagement challenges in the educational community, the issue of academic freedom advocacy, the media relations side, and as a trend monitoring case study. This one covers all the crisis management bases.

This policy, which has sparked controversy and raised concerns about academic freedom, is entangled with money, politics, and the pressing problem of gun violence.

Money Talks: The Influence of Funding

One of the key aspects discussed in the podcast was the influence of money in shaping social media policy. As universities often rely on funding from various sources, including state funding and private donations, they are inevitably influenced by the priorities and interests of their financial backers. The podcast highlighted how specific donors and organizations may pressure universities to adopt policies that align with their agendas.

Political Pressure: Navigating the Landscape

The intertwining of politics with academia is another critical dimension explored in the discussion. Bonney pointed out that public universities that receive state funding can be particularly susceptible to political pressures. In the case of Kansas, a state known for its conservative solid leanings, there can be heightened expectations for universities to toe the political line.

Gun Violence Concerns: The Catalyst

One of the driving forces behind the Kansas Board of Regents social media policy is the concern over gun violence. Recent incidents of gun violence on college campuses have understandably raised alarm and prompted calls for action. However, the question arises as to whether the policy, which restricts what faculty and staff can say on social media, is a suitable response to this concern or if it potentially infringes upon academic freedom.

Academic Freedom at Stake

The heart of the matter is academic freedom, a fundamental principle in higher education. Faculty members and researchers have long enjoyed expressing their views, conducting research, and engaging in open discourse without fear of censorship or retribution. As discussed in the podcast, the social media policy has ignited concerns that it may curtail this cherished freedom by imposing limitations on what can be said, particularly on contentious issues like gun violence.

Conclusion: Navigating the Intersection

The podcast conversation with Doug Bonney sheds light on the complex intersection of money, politics, gun violence concerns, and academic freedom within the context of the Kansas Board of Regents' social media policy. It underscores the importance of critically examining the motivations behind such policies and their potential impact on the core principles of higher education. As this issue unfolds, it prompts us to consider the delicate balance between security and preserving essential academic values.

In a world where these discussions are increasingly relevant, the implications of policies like this extend beyond the borders of Kansas, serving as a significant topic for broader academic discourse and reflection.

In this eye-opening podcast discussion, Corynne McSherry, the Intellectual Property Director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), delves into the intricate details of FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler's proposal to repeal net neutrality.

The proposal, which became available for public comment via DearFCC, prompted McSherry to scrutinize its potential ramifications meticulously. Net Neutrality was officially repealed in 2017.

Net Neutrality Repeal Insights

Various crucial topics related to the net neutrality repeal are explored during the conversation. One key area of concern is the impact of paid prioritization on news media diversity. Paid prioritization, which allows internet service providers (ISPs) to offer faster speeds to specific content, raised questions about whether it could lead to the concentration of power in the hands of a few media giants, potentially stifling diversity and independent journalism.

The debate over regulating ISPs as utility-like entities, akin to phone companies, forms a central theme. Advocates argue that such regulation is necessary to ensure that ISPs treat all internet traffic equally, preventing discriminatory practices. On the other hand, opponents contend that overregulation could stifle investment and innovation in the broadband industry.

A significant facet of the discussion revolves around reclassifying ISPs as telecommunications services. This reclassification has been proposed to provide the FCC with more robust authority to enforce net neutrality principles, but it remains a contentious point of debate.

McSherry references Al Tompkins's article, which highlights the potential impact of net neutrality on journalism. The discussion delves into the various stakeholders involved and examines their roles in shaping the current state of net neutrality regulations.

The question of whether the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should be involved in regulating unfair competition within the realm of ISPs is also explored. This consideration adds complexity to the broader conversation about how best to oversee and regulate internet service providers.

The podcast conversation underscores the looming threat of consolidated ownership among ISPs and content providers, which could have significant implications for competition and consumer choice in the digital landscape.

McSherry also shares insights into best practices for mobilizing the public to engage with complex policy issues, emphasizing the importance of public participation in the ongoing net neutrality discourse, which may interest listeners working at public affairs agencies.

Lastly, the discussion provides valuable guidance on how individuals can file public comments with the FCC, offering a practical avenue for citizens to voice their opinions and concerns regarding Chairman Wheeler's proposal.

Photo by Florian Klauer on Unsplash

This is a deep dive interview with Marcia Stepanek. She is a journalist, new media strategist, NYU professor and an award winning news and features editor.

Eric:  Tell us about yourself.  

Marcia:  I have been covering the intersection of technology and its impact on society and business, for pretty much the past 25 years. I did a new media fellowship at Stanford and went out there all primed from Hearst Media in Washington to cover the shrinking middle class in America and the increasing division between the haves and have‑nots.  

Instead, when I got out to Silicon Valley everyone said, "Are you crazy? We are in the middle of Silicon Valley, and there's a revolution happening here." Certainly, there was at the time I was out there with the rise of e‑commerce and with the rise of technology.  

I switched my entire curriculum in order to study the impact of communications and new media technology and the law on business, on technology itself, and on the way people advocate for social change. Even back then, we saw the center of power moving from the center of establishment organizations to outside the organizations.  

The evolution and implications of that happening, as you well know, has been going on for over a decade and is still continuing.  

Eric:  You had to shift from class warfare to digital revolutions.  

Marcia:  Often, they're the one and the same.  

Eric:  Now you've got this book coming out about digital swarms, which talks about digital swarms becoming even more powerful and more sophisticated.  

Marcia:  It's more about how networks and communities have been evolving and scaling. As they mature, a more sophisticated and permanent presence is created.

We're seeing a lot of people organizing themselves into networks. Certainly this is also occurring politically around various interest groups. It also occurs in more of these informal communities and around communities of political interest.   In many ways, we have seen them start to exercise their muscle.

I'm not talking so much about the Arab Spring.  I'm not talking about all of that.  I'm talking, now, about a communities ability to organize very rapidly as accountability networks.  

For example, a couple of years ago, the Komen Foundation, a foundation that was dedicated to fighting breast cancer, made some controversial decisions. 

The organization did not communicate these decisions very transparently or openly with so many of its supporters 

In fact,  it started trying to dissuade people when they found out about some of the decisions that were being made, from commenting.

This kicked up an angry swarm among supporters who, over the course of three days, were not only were able to hold some of the leaders of the Komen Foundation accountable for those decisions, but wouldn't stop organizing around this until some of the leadership had in fact been changed.  

We've seen this repeatedly. We've seen this when people get angry at Rush Limbaugh, or get angry at any number of incidents.

We saw this with the Stop SOPA campaign.

We can see communities organized very quickly to achieve something, a singular goal, very rapidly and very clearly. 

All in the course of a week or less. These aren't accidents.

This basically show that these networks have matured and that they're pretty consistent.

They don't organize overnight.

They don't always express themselves, but when they have a reason to do so, they can.

That's what a swarm is. 

We're going to see more of that. It's about not so much about the toppling of establishment organizations, but like sand against limestone we see the corrosion,  the uncomfortable reshaping of the status quo.  

Eric:  You've been looking at this space for a long time, and you have some perspective here.

Let me give you my take, my uninformed take compared to yours, of what I see with these digital swarms.

To me, it seems like they lack stamina.  

You see people organize around these flash points, around these wedge issues, around these issues that they're emotionally invested in.

Then when it comes to the drudging work of something like policy‑making, they seem to dissipate.  

I'm thinking about Egypt, for example.

When it came to organizing to overthrow the Mubarak regime, everybody had their hand in that.

When it came to the hard work of organizing behind parties and changing the political landscape, it didn't seem like people really had the stamina for that.  

I also think about the type of responses I get from my social networks to issues that are serious.

I'll post once in a while about an issue like climate change or net neutrality, and honestly, it doesn't seem like people have a lot of patience for that type of stuff unless it's really some sort of a flash point.

Is that your perception?

Am I missing something?  

Marcia:  I don't think it's about stamina. I think there are permanent accountability networks.

I do think that, yes, if it gets to a flash point, you're going to be there, and I'm going to be there. 

In a lot of cases, I'm not just going to be online. I'm going to be out in the street, as well.

We saw this, again, with Stop SOPA.

We've seen it on small‑scale actions. We've seen it in neighborhoods who are organizing.

We've also seen it evolving out of so much of the crisis. We look at organized neighborhood groups, like IOB and other things that are basically organizing themselves as permanent accountability networks around a very singular goal.

In IOB's case, to build park space out of urban blight in Brooklyn. I think pieces like that represent the transformation of some of these flash‑in‑the‑pan anger groups that are permanent organizations.

Most of this works very well on a local scale. There's always been the challenge of moving people from online to offline action.  

There's always been the challenge of, for lack of a better term in the nonprofit sector, transforming people from "click‑and‑givers" to actually rolling up their sleeves and attending the walk. [laughs] Attending the fundraising events and so on and so forth.   So much of this is still in transition from getting people and more inclusive voices to be organized and to see that they can have a say.

And then strategically figuring out how to organize not only keeps people engaged, but keeps them engaged across multiple platforms, including face‑to‑face engagements.  

We're seeing some groups doing this better than other groups.

Chiefly, I am impressed with this area, and I think we're going to be hearing a lot more about, a lot of feminists with the small networks.

We're seeing a lot of women organizing online, in very effective ways, and in ways that create offline engagements as well.  

We're also seeing it in the neighborhood, as I just mentioned, of IOB. We're also seeing it in certain pockets of students working for long‑term change around educational reform.

There are some areas that are doing it well and some areas that are doing it not so well.  

To the extent that there is no such thing as viral anything that is more of a strategic engagement, some of the leaders and top influencers in some of these networks are getting wise on how best to lead some of these new organizations and social networks that can become swarms when the energy around it is right. 

It's a new kind of leadership.  

Eric:  We see elected officials and politicians working to build their digital networks, which would say that they do see the value in it.  

I've been told by policy wonks that elected officials discount the digital storm or swarm, rather,  compared to the calls and the letters.

Is that true?

Are those basically placid bureaucrats talking about this storm coming?  

Marcia:  No, I think the game is all about listening.

Mubarak became a verb, don't get “Mubaraked,” the sense of the politician discounting power and not even listening [laughs] to some of the networks.  

Of course, so much of social media is about listening and being wise to the conversations and the pulse of what's happening, of course, setting up lots of monitoring systems, lots of tracking and metric systems to be able to do this.  Social media keeps maturing and evolving.   

Eric:  When you look at this space and turn back the clock to when you started as a Fellow at Stanford and you made a shift from division to the digital revolution, looking at the impact on the law and this idea of digital swarms, what surprises you most about where we are today?  

Marcia:  That people still tend to underestimate in the short term the power of change.  

I think that's always been the case with technology.

The systems are woefully behind technological advances and our ability to deal with or understand or connect with technology as fast as it's occurring and our systems ability to catch up with it.  

What's interesting here is that this isn't about our systems being able to keep up with it, but power, again, moving outside of the organization to create alternatives and also to create new ways of doing things.   We're not always talking about revolution with a capital R. We're not always talking about marches in the streets.

We're not always talking about the occupation in the Arab Spring so much. These were merely the early muscle‑flexing going on around this.   Now, we're seeing this kind of chafing happening in a small company, in a small nonprofit, in the donor space, in the startup space.

It's now pretty much creating swarms around how you raise money, how you keep money, how you organize people, how you deal with customers, with donors, how you make change in ways both big and small.  

It's about learning how to be strategic with these tools against certain measurable goals and knowing where you're at. 

At NYU,

Anyone can create an online course. On the other hand, making it an engaging and educational experience is a whole other question.  

In this simulcast of FIR on Higher Education episode 7 Kevin Anselmo interviews Eric Schwartzman talks about how to make content interesting and educational in an online learning format.

Eric has been conducting social media trainings in different parts of the world for several years.

He recently took his courses online through his company which helps employers manage risk and scale engagement through innovative online social media training courseware. 

He talks about how to deliver curriculum online versus in person, the importance of high quality production and the future of MOOCs, among other related topics.  

Also on episode 7, Harry Hawk gives an update on how he has integrated Twitter into his classroom, while I provide a short book review on why Gini Dietrich’s new book Spin Sucks is an important read for higher education communicators, administrators and academics.  

Get this Podcast:

Download the MP3 file (39.8 Mb, 41:18)Subscribe to “FIR on Higher Education with Kevin Anselmo RSS feedGet the show at iTunesGet the FIR app for your mobile device - iPhone | Android | Windows

Kevin Anselmo is the Founder and Principal of Experiential Communications, a consultancy focused on education.

He helps brands within academia - whether individual or corporate - communicate with stakeholders. He also teaches communications and public relations workshops to different individuals and groups.

Previously, Kevin was Director of Public Relations for Duke University’s Fuqua School of Business and prior to that managed the media relations for IMD Business School in Switzerland. In addition, he was an adjunct communications professor at Nyack College in New York.

Currently based in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, Kevin lived and worked in Switzerland for eight years and in Germany for two years.

He has led public relations initiatives in various countries around the world.  

Find Kevin on Twitter: @kevinanselmo.  

Photo by Florian Klauer on Unsplash

Earlier this week the Los Angeles Chapter of the Public Relations Society of America hosted a panel discussion on what it takes to prevent a social media crisis.  

In my opinion, PR spends too much time talking about crisis management and not enough time thinking about how to prevent them from happening in the first place.    

The panel was moderated by Karen North, Chair of the Online Communities Graduate Program at USC and this is an audio recording of the discussion.   Panelists

Siobhan O'Neill, VP, Edelman Digital (@angelcityblues)Chris Baccus, Executive Director, Digital, GolinHarris (@cbaccus)Laura Knapp, President, Social Spotlight Media (@LauraKnapp)Eric Schwartzman (@ericschwartzman)

Despite the PR industry's growing digital expertise, online crises continue to play out and leave professional communicators scrambling to minimize the damage.

This panel is about what can be done to prevent these volatile situations in the first place. 

This program examined recent high-profile digital disasters and what steps could have been taken to prevent them.   If you're interested in practical solutions for managing social media risk, check out my free social media training courses.

They're all online, self-paced and ready to go.  

Special thanks to chapter president Erik Deutsch (@ErikDeutsch) for producing the event and inviting me to participate.

Photo by NeONBRAND on Unsplash

I had a chance to interview Dr. Marc Teerlink, Global Strategist & Data Scientist at IBM recently.

He's a fascinating guy, and we spoke about using social media monitoring tools to separate the signal from the noise, how to use past conversations to try and predict the future, why teens are the most difficult audience to monitor and the dangers of relying too heavily on sentiment when predicting outcomes.

You can listen to a recording of our conversation or read it below.

Eric:  You're floating around somewhere in the ocean, yeah?

Marc:  Yeah. I do this like once or twice a year. I try to still take a serious race ‑‑‑ serious crossing, actually ‑‑ together with some buddies that I know for quite some time. We go back like 20‑plus years. Those are the good moments in life, I can tell you. Just to be away from it all.

One of the best things about being on the ocean is that the moment you really leave the shore, you have a satellite telephone for emergencies, but nothing else, which means that your team really has to show that it's as great as you hoped, when you hired them.

Eric:  Charting a course in a boat is a very precise exercise. One or two degrees off over the long haul and you're in the wrong country, yes?

Marc:  Yeah, in the wrong country or as Columbus said, "The wrong continent even."

One of the things I find is actually one of the best management experiences is to be part of a sailing crew. You learn that you are actually the most important of the team. I don't want that line to be quoted by itself, but if I fail, everybody else fails.

The team is going to be as good as I can make them as an individual, and as the next individual. The first part is, I really need to focus on optimizing myself on a boat, whether I'm the captain or just one of the people pulling some ropes and hoisting some sail, and the moment somebody else said it.

We as a team, are as good as each individual wants to be for the team. Can I optimize myself for the team? Do I have the trust in my fellow team members actually, when we do a handover, the moment I'll shout that they will hear me and they'll pick up?

Do I feel comfortable in the decisions, the person who does the navigation, or which the captain makes? The more you become that navigator, that captain yourself, the point is ‑‑ in what matter will I listen to my team members? What moment when I say, "Guys, when I say tack we will tack. We can evaluate later whether it was good or bad, but that's what we do."

I think the essence of a good strategy, whether it's for Big Data or for your company or even for your career or your life is saying, "I am here. I want to be at point X at the horizon. I know what my destination is, or at least, what are the points I'm going to tack? What are really the most important points that I will be heading to, that I need to capitalize to make it to the next step?"

When I coach people that work for me, I always ask them, "What are the points in your life you've been able to capitalize so far? Forget about your job experience. Just let's look to who you are. What can you capitalize, and what's the next point you want to do?"

The same I have, when we do projects, where we do analytics. What are the core questions you want to answer? I understand, we all want to have in the words of Bob Crandall, "An unfair, sustainable advantage." [laughs] But what is it you are going to in the meanwhile? What are your key points you can attack, that you want to capitalize, to get there in your market, to make a difference to your customers, to your employees, your suppliers or the stock market ‑‑ whatever is important for you.

Eric:  When you think about solving a problem like charting a course for a ship, you're using maps and you're using a sextant, and you're using numbers to figure out your destination. But you're considering all that information against your knowledge of the atmosphere and the ship, and the crew and the wind.

You're able to model that information which is a lot of complex information, in your head. Then you think about this idea of Big Data and converting Big Data technologies into business insights. If you're three degrees off there, you're going to come away with an insight that is false. In effect, the more data you put into the hopper, the more potential for misinformation there is. How do you balance that precision against, I guess, the imprecise nature particularly of human language?

Marc:  That's a real good point, and I'm going to take that in three pieces of question. Question number one is how do you deal with a large amount of data that you cannot review? I really find it's important to realize that facts are more important than gut feeling.

That doesn't mean you need to disregard your gut feeling, but when you have a series of facts about you, like how the weather is going to be, what the atmosphere is, which ships have been on this course, what has been your past experiences, that's something you can't disregard. You can still, especially in races, have a hunch. You take a Hail Mary, but at least then you know the facts, and then you've got to build on your facts and you put a hunch on top of it.

I don't think you can ever have 100 percent complete set of data. That brings us to the next point. How do you deal with pollution, or noise? One of the things I like about people like Nate Silver is they made it so clear for data scientists in our profession that separating the signals from the noise gets much harder when you have more data.

Then the point is how I'm going to use the data when it's sailing our business. I'm not just taking historic data to extrapolate. I think a lot of things go wrong by companies that keep extrapolating, that companies that built predictive models based on classic analytics.

For instance, when you do business intelligence, you do phenomenal reporting, sophisticated reporting, looking back to the past. Nothing wrong with that, gives you a great explanation where things happened.

The next point is what's going to happen. You can extrapolate. You can say all the cars standing in front of the city of New York trying to enter Manhattan at 8:00, if I can extrapolate it, the city will be filled with cars by 12:00, and they will be stocking cars on top of each other by 3:00. But at the moment, it tops off, and how do you recognize the top off moment? How do you know that it's a [indecipherable 0:07:33] pattern?

I think the biggest thing is in those three percent that you say, is that a lot of people that have had some statistics or did some business intelligence, they start to do data science in the way that they used to do it. They try to make models that actually are explained by past data and by past datasets, and you're never ever going to predict with that. You're going to stay within the safe margin of error, and that's OK.

Columbus, to go to a new metaphor, really was convinced that if the earth was round and he just went westward, he'll made it to India, not taking the assumption with a lot of other data that there might be something in between the coast of Spain and the Japanese east coast.

Eric:  When you think about the Watson, Watson was 2011. In 2011, Watson winds up beating the two top "Jeopardy!" champions, and that's natural language processing. The thought when we saw that was, "Oh my god, we're finally going to be able to call our cell phone provider and tell their voice recognition system what's wrong, and they're going to route us in the right direction."

That really honestly has not been the result. A lot of these voice recognition systems that you talk to still get things wrong. What's holding us back from really realizing the power of this type of computing?

Marc:  Wow, that's a really good question. I think it's maturity, to be honest. When people saw Watson in "Jeopardy!" in 2011, beautiful Valentine's Day victory, the reality was Watson took natural language, said, "Do I really understand the question? Do I have enough information to have context?"

If you were talking about Hilton, Paris, and I was talking about Paris Hilton, are we both talking about the socialite or is one of us talking about a hotel in the capital of France? You needed some context, and in "Jeopardy!" you actually got that context.

Those were the clues, like "Chicks dig me" is actually a category. It's a category. The moment I get the first question, I know it's about female archaeologists. When I say the word bats, there's a lot of bats around here. Am I talking about the animal? Am I talking about the American baseball bat? Am I talking about the British cricket bat? Again, I need a little context that says, "The category is American sports."

IVR in speech recognition systems are unprepared for that context. They get accent, they get intonation and I would really recommend a lot of people, let's just start with text. Let's not even start with spoken words, because you can get write, Mrs. Wright, right now, kind of confusions. Let's start with texts. Let's then put text in a context. Can I understand that context? Can I then apply machine learning, so every time there's an interaction, I learn what works and what doesn't work.

I don't program with Q&As like Watson did. Watson did machine learning, and infers, can I give answers based on confidence? And then you come with Watson and we're two years on the road and we do phenomenal impressive things in health care. I think the work with Memorial Sloan‑Kettering is ground breaking and profound, and yet, the moment I come to the next company, and that's the reason we opened up the ecosystem. I realize it's not the external data that's going to be the issue. It's going to be understanding their internal data.

The good thing about all these medical companies, these health care providers, they have cases. They have hundreds,

So you're using social media for business. And sometimes customers and prospects actually notice. 

But you can't figure out how to scale engagement more consistently.  You need to get more people involved because on social networks, reach is a factor of engagement. 

You've thought about getting your coworkers involved.   But they don't all know how to use social networks for business. And they're not skilled in the art of public disclosure. 

They might make the mistake of saying something discriminatory or defamatory, or inadvertently leak proprietary information. And you could wind up a lot of hot water.  

Altimeter Group social media analyst Ed Terperning (@edterpening), Plein Air Artist and Anders Zoren loyalist can help.    

His new report Social Media Education for Employees, coauthored with Charlene Li (@charleneli), details how organizations design and implement social media training programs for employees that reduce social media risk and activate employee advocacy programs at scale.

In this exclusive audio interview, Ed discusses the four different types of social media education programs, managing risks through social media policy training, social media training formats and modalities, motivating employees to complete on-demand courseware, required resources for keeping social media training courses current, strategies for knowledge transfer assessment and more.  

Photo by Austin Distel on Unsplash

In a rapidly evolving landscape where data is the new currency, the power of big data analytics cannot be understated. In a recent podcast interview hosted by Eric Schwartzman, Jeff Jonas, an IBM fellow, delves into the world of big data analytics, discussing its profound implications for digital marketing success, personal privacy, and the future of data-driven decision-making.

Unearthing Insights from Big Data

One of the core topics of discussion in the podcast is the art of extracting valuable business intelligence from vast pools of big data. Jeff Jonas emphasizes the importance of collecting and analyzing data in real time, highlighting how this approach can significantly enhance the accuracy of predictions for data-driven marketing strategies.

Connecting the Dots: Comparing Data Points

Jeff Jonas introduces the concept of comparing data points, explaining how it can uncover hidden connections and patterns within the data. This approach not only aids website marketing companies but also has applications in various industries, from gaming to financial services.

Catching Card Counters: The Casino Connection

Drawing from his extensive experience in the gaming industry, Jeff shares insights into how casinos have successfully employed data analytics to catch card counters and maintain the integrity of their operations. This real-world example showcases the practical applications of big data analytics.

Eliminating False Positives with Watson

Jeff discusses how IBM's Watson leverages contradictory information to eliminate false positives, a crucial aspect of data analysis. This technology not only streamlines decision-making processes but also holds promise for enhancing marketing strategies.

The Limitations of Social Media Monitoring

While social media monitoring services and sentiment analytics are valuable tools, Jeff Jonas points out their limitations when used in isolation. He emphasizes the need for a more comprehensive approach to data analysis for effective marketing.

Navigating Privacy Regulations

The discussion also touches on regulatory considerations, such as the Fair Credit Reporting Act, highlighting the importance of ethical data practices in marketing and beyond.

Fantasy Analytics: The Pitfall of Inadequate Observation

Jeff Jonas sheds light on the concept of "fantasy analytics" stemming from insufficient observation space. This term serves as a cautionary note, underlining the significance of robust data collection and analysis.

The Future of Data: Secrets and Corporate Training

As the conversation nears its conclusion, Jeff Jonas provides valuable insights into the future of data analytics. He stresses the importance of corporate training and business process improvement in harnessing the full potential of data.

Conclusion

In an era dominated by data, Jeff Jonas' expertise offers valuable guidance on leveraging big data for marketing success. As organizations seek to refine their strategies, understanding the intricacies of data analytics becomes paramount. Jeff's insights into real-time analysis, data point comparison, and the elimination of false positives provide a roadmap for marketers aiming to harness the power of big data effectively.

In a world where data-driven decision-making is the norm, this podcast interview serves as a valuable resource for professionals seeking to stay ahead in the ever-evolving landscape of big data analytics. Jeff Jonas' diverse experiences and deep understanding of data science make this conversation a must-listen for those interested in the intersection of data, marketing, and privacy.