Who carries your Web 2.0 banner?

What’s at stake when you let others step in your online footprint?

I wrote here about the possibility of something resembling agency through social networking / Web 2.0 / user-created content a short time ago.  I am now in the fortunate position to be examining this issue first hand, as I’ve been asked to provide content for the Tazzu blog.  My first piece there is going up simultaneously with this piece.  On the Tazzu blog, I suggest that you monitor how others perceive your relationship with those whom you authorize to use your name, your goodwill, your reputation, your platform, etc.  Here, I would like to get into a little more detail answering a specific question:

What is the difference between goodwill risks and liability risks with Web 2.0?

First some definitions:

From the Canadian Oxford Dictionary (1998):

Goodwill:  2.  The established reputation of a business etc. as enhancing its value.

Liability:  2.  A person or thing that causes one problems or puts something at risk.

From Black’s Law Dictionary (8^th Ed., 1999):

Goodwill:  A business’s reputation, patronage, and other intangible assets that are considered when appraising the business, esp. For purchase; the ability to earn income in excess of the income that would be expected from the business viewed as a mere collection of assets.  Because an established business’s trademark or servicemark is a symbol of goodwill, trademark infringement is a form of theft of goodwill.  By the same token, when a trademark is assigned, the goodwill that it carries is also assigned.

Liability:  1.  The quality or state of being legally obligated or accountable; legal responsibility to another or to society, enforceable by civil remedy or criminal punishment.

Vicarious liability:  Liability that a supervisory party (such as an employer) bears for the actionable conduct of a subordinate or associate (such as an employee) based on the relationship between the two parties.

From this, we can see that goodwill has to do with the perception of your enterprise, and liability has to do with getting into real legal trouble.  How are they connected by this Web 2.0 stuff?  Well, let’s look at that vicarious liability thing.  It refers to being liable for what someone does in your name, and requires two parts.

First, something has to have happened that is actionable.  Stating an opinion, such as that you don’t like a particular person, company, or political stance is not actionable.  Stating a falsehood about a particular person or company, however, may be libel.  Suggesting that businesses should not adopt Web 2.0 technologies to survive the economic meltdown is a matter of opinion.  Suggesting that employment laws are out of date and a business runs no legal risks when surreptitiously investigating potential employees’ Facebook profiles could run a risk of liability if readers assume you to be authoritative.

In other words, being obnoxious, opinionated, or siding with one side of a contentious debate will not likely create more than a bad taste in the reader’s mouth.  Being wrong, when you carry a banner of knowing better, can create a problem.

Both of these are contingent on the second part of the Black’s definition of goodwill.  If you assign a trademark, you assign goodwill.  In other words, if you let someone else carry your banner, you may create a relationship that indicates that they speak on your behalf.

I’m going to use the Tazzu example to illustrate how each side of this could be turned around through the perceived relationship.

Being opinionated in Tazzu’s more-or-less public forum, posted to by all of its members, reflects directly on the writer.  If there is fallout on Tazzu, it is minor, and brushed aside with relative ease.  Leaving a bad taste in the reader’s mouth when I post to the blog could be more problematic.  Though not likely to incur legal trouble for Tazzu, it could damage their goodwill.  Though the reader will probably not assume my opinions to be shared by Tazzu, they will perceive them to have at least been sanctioned.  The upside to this is that if I write something people like in the blog, it reflects well on Tazzu, whereas in the forum, they don’t get to bolster their goodwill except by an aggregate of good posts.

Now let’s look at being flat-out wrong.  Tazzu was very careful selecting its bloggers, hand-picking writers unlikely to write anything that would get them in trouble.  Of course, they could always delete, correct, apologize for, and disavow a troublesome article, but some damage may already be done.  Why?  By choosing such a small group of writers, they have created a perceived relationship of these people having been hand-picked to provide content on Tazzu’s behalf.  That is the perception of the reader, and it may carry a fair bit of weight.  By contrast, if I post bad advice in the forum, there is no established goodwill relationship; no one would reasonably believe that my bad advice has Tazzu’s approval.

That said, Tazzu does moderate the forum, and has been very careful to remove potentially libellous posts.  There is an ongoing debate as to what this means if an actionable post sneaks past the moderators.

Tazzu is an excellent example of doing things well.  They err on the side of caution, and are keenly aware of the benefits and risks of using Web 2.0 technology.  Remember to guard your banner.  Enabling discussion and the propagation of your brand through social networking and user-created content is a great way to build your enterprise in the information age.  But be careful who you allow to carry that banner and be perceived as part of your voice.  Always ask yourself what behaviour is acceptable to your goodwill, and to what extent the relationship you build with your users reflects back on you.