Editorial Articles

The popularity of social networking sites means most consumer-facing brands have some kind of presence there, whether it’s a fan page, profile, channel or advertising. But the nature of social networks means that brands can’t guarantee the quality of content that appears on them. So how can you avoid the risk of inappropriate user-generated content appearing next to your brand name? 

A worrying number of brands believe that the social networks assume responsibility for all content posted on them, and so their own pages (and reputations) are kept ‘safe’. Not so. The sheer volume of content makes it impractical for networks to monitor each post before it appears online – and understandably, the legal responsibility for that content is not something they want to take on. So who is responsible for content? And how can brands exploit them and protect their brand?

If you think of social networks as content hosts rather than producers, it becomes clear where the responsibility lies (or doesn’t lie). After all, if you make a malicious phone call, you’re the one who ends up in hot water, not your phone company. Simply put, responsibility for content posted on social networking sites lies with the person that posts it. That person has a duty to comply with the terms and conditions of the network.

That’s all well and good, but what if your business has a popular Facebook group with thousands of members, one of whom decides to post an offensive comment? Only if the post is reported to the social network is it legally obliged to remove it..

Brands that don’t moderate the content posted on their branded pages are risking much, primarily the safety of their consumers. They have a duty of care - particularly if they are targeting children - to make sure content that is posted in their names is safe, legal and free from abuse of any kind.

But a brand’s reputation is also at stake. Content posted by users on a branded page will reflect on the brand itself. If a fan sees a racist remark (for example) on a branded page, they may well believe that the company endorses that view.

It is possible – and sensible - to moderate user-generated content on brand pages across the major social networks (Facebook, YouTube, MySpace and Bebo). These are open forums, and no matter how well brands believe they know their users (and trust their behaviour), there is always a chance that a bad apple will turn up and start posting on your site.

However, it’s important that brands don’t confuse moderation with censorship. Protecting users does not give brands a licence to delete posts that criticise the brand. (If anything, this is an opportunity to engage with users, and listen to their feedback. That’s a whole new article.)

It’s not just abusive or illegal content that brands need to watch out for. Other, more subtle content that’s inappropriate might include:

• Abusive or obscene usernames, or avatars
• Off-topic posts that are ‘spammy’ (particularly if they include a link – it could lead to a site that is infected with a virus or contains offensive images, for example).
• Non-fans - people who are leaving harassing messages (threatening ‘chain mail’ style messages, for example) or people who are just trying to sell a product.

Social networks can offer brands huge benefits in terms of user engagement. But if the content on branded pages is not moderated and controlled, the risk to the brand and its users is significant.

This article is based on eModeration’s white paper, Moderation in Social Networks, available from www.emoderation.com/about/publications.

Tamara Littleton
CEO, eModeration
Twitter: emoderation
eModeration Blog