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

“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’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.

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 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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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/

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?