I totally agree with you.

In the organisation I work for you sign up to agree to abide by a code of conduct.

That conduct is applicable both in the real and virtual worlds.

Getting that message through to our Gen Y’s is not easy.

A really well argued case James, totally agree.

i think it is up to the presenter if they want people to know about there twitter and as for not giving out mobile numbers and addresses when the presenter gives out the twitter address it has no other link to them so noone will ever know how to find them, liseners like to follow some presenters others like to stay loyal to the station surly its up to them to decide if they stay with the station or follow there favorite dj, if the dj didnt want the listener to find him on twitter after all he doesnt need to give it out

James,

The same mistake seems to being made with podcasts too. I note that, for example, the Media Guardian podcast has a iTunes section, a facebook group, but uses http://twitter.com/MatthewWells

Another reason I would have thought for not allowing presenters to give out non-corporate Twitter accounts is that this could easily count as “cross promotion” and lead to another potential regulatory minefield.

And as I am sure you are making sure, this is a very simple problem to fix.

As a Twitter user but a freelance presenter with no fixed gig, I’ve not bothered mentioning Twitter on air. But, if and when the day comes when I am gainfully employed again on a permanent basis, the audience will be coming nowhere near my personal Twitter – or, indeed, Facebook – accounts. Plenty of broadcasters have already noticed the flaws and have altered/ added to their accounts accordingly.

Very valid point.
Doesn’t look like the beeb we’re quick enough with enforcing rules on twitter use, and so far it looks like they are getting away with it so far. Looks like they’ve told everyone to make sure they say that their account is personal and does not reflect the views of the BBC.
I wonder how they would react if the media jumped on criticising something one of the presenters have said on it, such as the very monitored Chris Moyles, the sun love to catch him out on something.

Also, it doesnt sound very professional when the presenters read out their various usernames, from therealnihal to officialvernonk its just a bit of a mess. But do these people want a personal and a public twitter? They seem to be very happy talking about their lives to the same audience as listen to their shows.

Is it too late for them to change to a generic and uniform account?

The “regulatory mindfield” I was on about was http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/bcode09/radioresearch.pdf

[...] It makes an interesting read, if you’d like to read the full post then you can find it on James’ personal blog. [...]

“Doesn’t look like the beeb we’re quick enough with enforcing rules on twitter use, and so far it looks like they are getting away with it so far.”

In fact Emma the BBC has had rules on both personal use of Twitter and official use of Twitter for some years:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/bbcweb/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/advice/personalweb/

I’d have thought that like everything else, this should now be negotiated at the contract stage.

If your station outbids the BBC and hires Jonathan Ross next time around, what happens with @wossy? Do you make him start using @wossy_bigfm instead? Or do you actually quite like the idea that millions of people are already following and using his old address?

It’s no different to having personal websites, with blogs or other sidelines like writing newspaper columns. Writing bestselling books even! Does the station get to censor any of those things?

If I were a self-employed DJ who works from contract to contract, then I’d do everything I could to build a loyal band of listeners. It’s in my interest to have control of them myself but it’s in the station’s interest for it to have control. There might be a negotiation there.

I wonder if the bigger issue here is the multiplicity of URLs that presenters are reading out. No longer is it the station’s website alone; there are Twitter, Facebook and perhaps even MySpace addresses to read out too.

On our internet radio station, we maintain a generic presence on Twitter, Facebook, Bebo, MySpace and other social sites.

We use ping.fm to simultaneously update all channels with messages from the on air DJ – who can advertise his or her show, announce guests or run competitions.

The DJ can only send a few messages per hour and only when on air in his slot. This has proved very successful and allows all DJs to use the same channel to communicate.

DJs still maintain their own personal accounts of course – it would be silly to expect them not to – but when on air, we ask that they only use the station’s own channels.

This all makes perfect sense. In the OLD WORLD. The Beeb (and other institutions) are all going to have to deal with the effective dissolution of organisational boundaries, the blurring of personal and corporate, public and private etc. implied by the new tech. Twitter’s just the first of these challenges to network integrity.

This is unarguable: fortress BBC is finished. Assuming the same old risks apply (regulatory, commercial, legal), the successful organisations are going to be the ones that reconcile this dissolution with the real-world pressures of law, regulation etc.

It won’t be easy (it might actually be destructive) but it’ll be more productive than raising the drawbridge and hoping for the best. Radio networks (and other media entities) will morph into more open ‘platforms’ for talent and content. They’ll be more forgiving of overlaps, conflicts, contractual inconsistencies. Either that or their old-world business models will implode. If you ask me.

Steve Bowbrick: Interesting.

In your brave new world, what is the point of any organization owning a broadcast brand?

(Please answer without suggesting that all radio will be done via the internet).

I like to think that broadcast brands will retain some value – some of them are very precious to me and to millions of others – but I do wonder if we’ve seen high water for the value of these brands. The question is, do the brand owers now spend the next decade fighting the effects of corrosive tech like Twitter – amending and enforcing contracts, closing accounts, attempting to defend corporate brands on social networks – or do they acknowledge the inevitability of these inside-outside changes and invent new structures, commercial models etc. I’d like to think the latter. But if the continuing efforts of the record labels to turn back the tide are anything to go by I don’t hold out much hope.

Steve Bowbrick: I’m not sure. If you are a little net venture then you are certainly right.

But the reach of existing radio brands is massive, such as the 11m for BBC Radio 1, 13.5m for R2, 2m for R3, 10m for R4 and non-BBC station such as Talksport (reach 2m)

These do seem to be, at this stage, bigger brands than their employees, on the whole.

I can’t see the logic in saying that the bands should destroy themselves because the individuals who work for them want to brand themselves.

I agree with most things James says, but on this I can’t.

My main problem with the notion that you have to brand a twitter feed with your station is that it loses it’s authenticity.

Tim Westwood’s lost car saga (http://twitter.com/TimWestwood/status/2264387414) wouldn’t have been nearly so funny to follow if it’d been branded @timwestwood_bbcradio1, because it immediately feels like it is part of an act, or sanctioned by the editorial bods at the BBC.

Equally, @wossy talking about his pets is not an extension of his radio show, it just wouldn’t work if it came from @jonathanross_bbcradio2

Even XFM’s Marsha has a large number of followers on her personal feed, and simply switches to her @marsha_xfm feed for when she is on air. I’m not sure she’d be happy that her comments about running through the streets of London at 4am become part of her “on air” self. Nor Simon Mayo talking about being a dad of a child going through A Levels.

I agree with those who have said it is presenters *need* to take responsibility for their output, and if Wossy can’t be trusted with a microphone/twitter feed then he shouldn’t be paid for it. And, if @wossy does leave the BBC, you can guarantee that it’ll be in many more places than his twitter feed.

Finally, one wonders where you draw the line. Does BBC regular Stephen Fry require an approved twitter feed? What about the district reporter at a BBC local radio station?

I think you need to credit your presenters with the intelligence that they realise that Twitter is a public platform, and credit your listeners with understanding the difference between a tweet posted at 11pm on a Saturday night and what is said on the radio at breakfast on Monday.

Olly has a point.

Twitter and microblogging work best when they are a mix of personal and work related stuff. The answer is not to try and “brand” your presenters or force them to use an official brand or tool when they don’t want to but rather to make it clear to them what they can and can’t say about their work in public (and microblogging is public).

It’s a lot more effective if a presenter is allowed to talk about their work spontaneously and authentically as a part of talking about their life.

My take would be that Twitter etc is humanising, freeing presenters from corporate stuffiness that is mediated by the brand – yet coming with a responsibility to toe the line on the station guidelines on tone and decency so that those who read it as being affiliated with their employer aren’t disappointed, yet it still has the freedom for personal expression.

I’m not sure you can single out presenters as being different from other employees. When I read @jamescridland I read it knowing it’s your personal opinion, but that you’re a BBC employee. (So no swearing before the watershed – oh no, that’s only tv and not radio!) But it’s no different to reading @williamcrawley, a Radio Ulster presenter, who has a mix of promotion and personal stuff on there too.

Alan has it right I think.

One other comment. Some of the personal twitter accounts of Beeb employees, mentioning BBC in their bio sentence, do seem to stray over the line at times – particularly with bad taste topical jokes – and I suspect would fail your policy/guidelines which seem to translate to:

“don’t say anything you wouldn’t feel comfortable being read out by Eddie Mair on the radio!”

The boundary between personal and work is becoming so blurred.

I work for a large telco, very rarely mention it or its products on twitter or blogs. Yet I’m intentional in making sure they (or other bodies I’m associated with) wouldn’t find it embarrassing if I was to “come out” at some point and have to deal with the historic stuff already out there on the internet.

Like your previous relationships, your contribution to the web cannot be swept under the carpet. Something I need to drill into the teenagers at this summer’s Tech Camp!

[...] I discussed what I consider to be the correct way of using Twitter: ways that have kicked off a number of internal discussions at the BBC, my [...]

Im Senior Programming manager + Radio DJ with the BBC midday network based out of Bangalore, India

Your post is an interesting read and brings out a valid discussion topic. But I have to disagree with you on the following counts.

The beauty of twitter and other social media platforms is that while providing an instant connection platform, it also gives enough security for anonymity and

Asking radio presenters to not use social media is the same as asking celebrities like film stars and musicians not to give out their twitter addresses. Years ago when there was no twitter they didnt give out their home addresses. And now on twitter they have this fantastic platform to connect with their fans, followers and friends. At the same time they maintain their personal lives and dont have any intrusion through twitter.

One can control what you say, how much of it you say and when you say it through twitter. Its a fantastic platform for the spread of information effectively.

I agree that Radio Stations stand to lose when presenters give out personal information, but if the presenter is Good he/she will command their own fan base eventually and will grow to be a BIGGEr brand than their station/network themselves. this is not something that can be controlled and this is a bargain that stations play when they hire creative people! :)

And personally I think presenters should be mature enough to edit their own content and “REAL RADIO” does NOT call for Retaining editorial control.

Thanx for letting me give out my opinion
Cheers
Anjaan

[...] aloud whether radio presenters should promote their own Twitter accounts on-air. I said that they shouldn’t – and I still believe it. Phil Edmonds seems to agree, and gives a few examples. A radio [...]