Three Things We Learned from the Instagram TOS Fiasco

Instagram's abrupt TOS changes may have lasting negative effects.

In December, users of the popular photo sharing site Instagram (now owned by Facebook) were treated to a proverbial piece of coal for the holidays. Based on media reports from Reuters, this is how it played out:

• On December 17^th reportedly, Instagram abruptly changed its Terms of Service (TOS) to note that it could use its members’ photos, likeness and username for advertisements without permission.

• Users of the site didn’t notice at first but, rest assured, some did. News of the changes went viral.
• National Geographic magazine reportedly announced they were leaving the site due to the new terms.
• By New Year’s Eve, according to AppData reports, about 6 million of Instagram’s 16 million users who access it via Facebook left the site as well. (Although,Instagram disputes AppData’s numbers)
• A class action lawsuit was launched in California shortly following the changes.
• December 20^th , according to Reuter’s,Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom apologizes and reinstates the old TOS via a blog, and added the thought that  some users had misinterpreted the intent of the new TOS.
• Instagram users will reportedly be bound by a new TOS as of Jan 19^th.
• As of today, I cannot find out the true impact of the fiasco as ‘Facebook no longer reports new data for this application’ according to a new search I’ve conducted on the AppData site.

We all make mistakes.

Do I blame Instagram for the way it handled the changes? Absolutely; to mask such a large change in the TOS without pointing it out is simply wrong. Whether the intent was to work on ways to monetize Instagram in the future or to take Facebook’s already robust, intuitive advertising platform and put it into place on Instagram, it was wrong. In business, it’s better to be up front with ‘customers.’

Do I blame Instagram for attempting to monetize the business? Absolutely not; although some businesses are founded to serve a greater good, most are in business to make money. If you are signed up for a free service, make no mistake, it is not free. If there is no product being sold, no membership fee, no identifiable means to distinguish how it is making money, chances are, the product is you and your data.

Data is a valuable commodity these days given we are a largely consumer society.

Browsing habits, referring sites, demographic information like family size, your job, what school you graduated from, your birthday; even the titles and subjects of your pictures, can tell marketers something about you. Facebook and the multitude of free apps don’t care about when your birthday or anniversary is but, they do care how old you are and your marital status so they can use your demographic information to sell themselves to potential advertisers.

So what lessons have we learned from Instagram’s PR nightmare?

Buyer beware: Instagram is not the first business in the world to change its TOS (or a contract) to reduce your privacy or to get more data (in this case your pictures) from you. The problem with most TOS statements is that they are written by lawyers, for lawyers. They are also arduous to navigate through, often having 20 or more headings; each with 10-20 subheadings. How many times have you seen the little box on the screen, scrolled quickly to the bottom and clicked I agree? I’ve done it plenty of times.

Small print and multiple pages are not generated by accident. Not only does it reduce the chance that you will read it in full; it almost guarantees it, while indemnifying the company against potential legal action. Read the TOS every time you sign up for a service and when it changes to know what you’re agreeing to.  

Honesty is the best policy: It’s much harder to win a disgruntled customer back  than to be upfront with potentially bad news (anyone remember MCI WorldCom's 'delayed future billing' or Bank of America's debit card fees?). You can rely on the fact that many customers will not care or not take any action whatsoever. However, you lose credibility and relevance, even with the masses, when you anger your top customers. Maybe this was a case of anchoring to make a watered-down monetization scheme seem less ‘bad’ to users but I doubt it; a third of your users (your data) is too high of a price to pay.

Instagram will go away: Call this my first bold prediction of 2013 (although I don’t know how bold it really is). Instagram lost a third of its Facebook users in 10 days. I think the rest will eventually follow. Without a way to monetize its data without severe scrutiny now, it is virtually worthless to Facebook unless there is some proprietary code that is of value to them. Now the only way they’ll be able to realize the app’s full potential is to pawn it off on an unsuspecting suitor. If they can’t sell it, it will go away; sooner than later. Why invest in a product that is losing money that shows little chance that it will make money in the future?

Do you read the TOS statements of your favorite sites? Have you uncovered some shocking revelation when you read them that made you leave? I’d like to hear about it.

Josh Kaplan writes on various subjects including management, information technology breakthroughs, healthcare IT recruitment and innovations, big data, IT staffing and recruitment, and technical news and trends.

    

Sick of social media? Think twice before you go offline.

Can going offline make you look suspicious to employers?

In the past, we've talked about the separation of professional and personal lives; putting different faces out front when it comes to social media. We've also discussed old school and new school views on social media for business.  A recent article looks at the other side of the equation.

Forbes' Kashmir Hill brings a new twist to the world of social media. She argues that lack of a Facebook presence can make you look suspicious; in life, at work and to perspective employers.

She discusses recent media stories that suggest a minuscule online persona may be a trait mass murderers share and might be a reason for suspicion. She then tells us why the lack of a Facebook page might make you want to think twice about becoming someone's lover. She also brought up a point that immediately came to my mind as I started reading: What does it mean to employers when someone is not using social media?

I feel especially compelled to expand on this subject as electronic communication has become such a large part of how the resourcing industry does business today. Much of what used to be handled by snail mail, hard copy files, and faxes has now become as immediate and timely as social media itself. Reaching out to candidates found on LinkedIn and other social media can be done in seconds instead of days.  

As careful as you need to be now that your online persona is examined and scrutinized in many professional situations, you need to be just as careful to have something out there about yourself. Given that social media has become so popular, the lack a presence not only makes you potentially invisible to employers, but you could lose out on a position because of being so far out of the norm.

I am not suggesting that removing yourself from social media is wrong but, like it or not and despite the potential discrimination and privacy issues, it has become an important tool for many employers during the hiring process.

For example, let's take a look at LinkedIn. Simply having an account doesn't make you visible. The number of connections and the groups of which you are a member can impact your visibility to potential employers and likelihood of being considered for a position.  If you are a salesperson or recruiter who has 50 connections and isn't active in any groups, at a minimum it tells a potential  employer that you aren’t keeping up with the times and new tools of the trade, and at worst, you may be really bad at making connections.

These days it's more important than ever not only to be careful WHAT you put online, but to make sure that you do, in fact, put SOMETHING online. To take it a step further; it's not enough to simply have a presence, but to keep your presence active and updated.

Facebook vs. LinkedIn: An Unfair Fight for Jobseekers or a Lesson in History?

Is there a fight for candidates in the making?

I ran across a recruiting piece in Forbes last week that discussed the swirling rumors and challenges surrounding Facebook’s entry into professional networking to take on LinkedIn. LinkedIn already has the data, the tools, the recruiter functionality, and the reputation for being professional. Facebook is known as a ‘fun,’ almost completely personal, social media platform. Most in the recruiting field would call this an unfair fight.

Me? I am starting to experience déjà vu.

I seem to recall the days of yore: When a young, eccentric genius (and a Harvard dropout) was consistently told his work will never amount to anything. Microsoft will never be big because people won’t want PC’s.  Microsoft is not a threat because it’s only used in offices. Microsoft can never succeed in the gaming world because they are a ‘stodgy, uncool company.’ We all know where these predictions went.

I am willing to concede that it is a stretch to compare William Gates, III to Facebook’s Zuckerberg, but not too much of a stretch. That’s why, if the rumors are true, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt to see how things play out in the later rounds.

Here’s why:

1. There is huge power in numbers and influencers.   With 8x’s the users, Facebook’s launching point will be far ahead of any other company trying to take on LinkedIn. If it weren’t for the sheer numbers, I would be skeptical. Many argue that it’s not the same. Facebook isn’t the same audience. As stated before Facebook is for ‘fun.’ Need I remind you of the X-Box? How many LinkedIn users also use Facebook? Facebook can unseat LinkedIn.  With 8X the user base, it doesn’t take many people to join in the professional side and match the professional powerhouse immediately. 

2. Yes, people want to play in a play space and work in a workspace…wait…what? No. People play at work now. Offices have ping pong tables and masseuses.  People hop jobs like the Easter Bunny, and it’s become the norm.  Integrating your personal and professional lives into ONE brand of confidence, where the tool that the brand provides enables you to quickly and easily keep the two separate may be Facebook’s saving move. 

3. Integration provides a bigger punch than an app. Much is discussed about the advantages LinkedIn has over the various Facebook job apps. If the professional networking is integrated and not an application; we’ve got ourselves a whole new fight. What if Facebook is successful in producing a professional network AND a personal network?  A different purpose for both. With whatever crossover people WANT to have.  Right now it’s impossible: It’s LinkedIn OR Facebook. Personal OR business. (Too many words in CAPS? I’m rolling…) What if Zuckerberg has already begun to take on the question of ‘why?’ and said ‘why not?’

4. Geniuses have a way of always bouncing back. I’ve already mentioned Bill Gates and Microsoft. What about what Zuckerberg has already faced?: A division in the upper ranks, pushback to the timeline, email, other changes, and a shaky IPO. Last time I checked, Facebook is still the world’s largest social media platform and still in business. Yes, people are leaving but people are joining everyday too.

It’s kind of funny that I feel the way I do since I, and other colleagues, actually think Facebook may very well fade out, but integrating professional networking into Facebook might be exactly what saves it.

A fight is never over until the ref calls it or the final bell sounds and we’re only in the locker room warming up.

Facebook for jobs? It’s time to SWOT up.

by Josh Kaplan

If you’re job hunting on job boards and corporate websites, you might be missing something right in front of you. It could be time to take Facebook more seriously.

18,000,000 Americans found their current job through Facebook. Not a date for Saturday night. Not a great new Vietnamese restaurant downtown. Not a video of a giant panda sneezing. They found a job. That’s equivalent to the combined populations of New York and L.A.

If professional connections are the serious side of social media, then Facebook is getting serious. And why wouldn’t it? At the end of the day, contacts and relationship management are the key to a strong career path and while Facebook may have been created as a means for people to share personal and informal information, its incursion into the world of work was inevitable.

For jobseekers, that means it’s time to think about how they use Facebook and where the dangers and possibilities lie. This week, we use a very business-led model to help you navigate the issues. We present a SWOT analysis of Facebook’s potential for jobseekers.

Strengths

Accessibility

Facebook has all the obvious benefits of any online media. – 24/7 access, live access and real time news and events.

Segmentation

If job advertisers want to reach the 35-50 year old market of engineers in Frederick, Maryland – they can. And they don’t have to pay for all the extraneous exposure. Expect to see this activity increase, especially among smaller employers with limited budgets.

Passive Job Seekers

Relevant jobs can land on your Facebook profile without you even asking for them. The best candidate for any job is a passive candidate. If you’re a company trying to recruit, finding a candidate from among active users on Monster or CareerBuilder may result in a great deal of competition with other employers.

Scale

500,000,000 people means massive potential in any context. Period.

Weaknesses

Generation gap

A great many of the key skills in most demand, particularly in engineering, are only available among a demographic group that is relatively inactive on Facebook.

Current functionality

While talk of Facebook-Jobs continues, current functionality,  does not allow users to silo content in the same way that Google+ does, so that your football buddies see one thing and your business contacts see another.  G+ may be dead on arrival, but it would have been of greater benefit for jobseekers in time.

Opportunities

Future Functionality

Whatever Facebook lacks, it can develop - and based on its track record, it probably will.

Overall Market share

In the online job world, market share is very important. Monster is great example. If you’re first, you have a major advantage in attracting investment and reinvesting in marketing to further boost your intake. At that point, it’s your ball to drop. Facebook does not drop the ball very often and they are a light year out in front of the pack.

Threats

Work / Life balance

It remains to be seen if Facebook users en masse simply don’t want to integrate their personal lives with work. They may look for an entirely different product, just on principal. (Someone run down to the basement and dust off Google+?)

Fear of Embarrassment

We’ve all seen those e-mail examples of Facebook mistakes and misjudgments. It has ended marriages and careers too. Many people may choose to stay on Linked-In rather than risk their career and reputation by linking their CEO to their college roommate. This may threaten Facebook’s ability to control the market.

So there it is, early days for Facebook as a dominating online job resource. One thing is certain, it is currently playing a role in landing people work. The question is whether it can bring one of the side benefits of its model into a central role without compromising its central purpose.