Beware of the blog

Nov 7 2006 Anastasia Weiner, Evening Gazette

In 2004, the word "blog" officially entered the Oxford English Dictionary.

Originally created as a way for people to keep online diaries, blogs have quickly become an addictive ingredient in our digital diet.

Infectious and pervasive, their reach is seemingly beyond measure. Google's Blogger.com, for example, currently attracts some 15 million visitors a month. Rivals Yahoo and Microsoft also offer blog hosting, as do numerous lesser-known players.

But as fun, thought-provoking and informative as blogs are, they also have a dark side. Blog mob attacks, brand bashing, and smear campaigns constitute new forms of online "corporate terrorism".

The consequences are far reaching from damaging a company's brand or product, to having a negative impact on share value.

The tactic is nothing new. The internet has long provided the disgruntled, frustrated and annoyed a global platform.

But while "bash the company" websites represent a significant risk to a company's reputation (substantiated or otherwise) the viral nature of blogs means that it can reach a much larger audience.

Furthermore, the anonymity of blogs means that it is impossible to tell whether a rival is sponsoring its publication.

The fall-out from malicious blogging has become a key area of concern for companies in the US as reflected by the number of agencies specialising in digital "watch your back" services for nervous clients.

The American Management Association suggests that unmanaged blogging dwarfs e-mail and instant messenger risk with copyright infringement, trade secret theft, financial disclosures, productivity drains and mismanagement of electrical records as just a few of the problems.

Until recently, British firms have been largely unconcerned by the rise in popularity of the personal blog.

But the highly publicised Waterstones Case has sharpened their interest.

Although the blog by Edinburgh bookseller Joe Gordon was largely a comment on everyday life, he occasionally wrote about his work colleagues, likening them to the famous Dilbert cartoon characters including his own version of the "Pointy Haired Boss" - Evil Boss. When Waterstones discovered the blog he was sacked for gross misconduct.

His dismissal was by no means the first of its kind.

In the US, Michael Hanscom was fired by Microsoft for posting a photo of an Apple Mac G5 sitting on a Microsoft loading dock.

Ellen Simonetti was sacked for posting "mildly suggestive" pictures of herself in her Delta Airlines uniform.

So frequent are the sackings, that blog-related dismissal now boasts its own term "dooced".

Indeed, follow the blog trail from Joe Gordon's site and there are many similar, albeit less high profile, sackings in the UK.

Needless to say it provoked a backlash from supporters who said they would never shop at Waterstones again, potential tribunal action, and negative press coverage. Mr Gordon also claims that Waterstones never had a blog policy in place.

According to Croner, UK experts in workplace issues, the rise of the blog raises important legal issues for employers.

Since many blogs refer to personal dissatisfaction with work or customers, there is the risk of libel claims, not only against the blogger but the employer, particularly for firms who actively encourage employees to blog perhaps for marketing purposes - or to dilute malicious blogging.

To date, the application of the law of defamation to modern technology has been steadfastly applied by reference to traditional principles.

"Other issues may also arise under the Data Protection Act 1998 if blogs written on an employer's computer discusses other employees," said a Croner spokesman.

"The blog issue is further complicated by the fact that most blogging is done out of office hours.

"Governing the behaviour of employees when not in work is without precedent. There are also human rights angles such as freedom of speech and privacy laws."

Paul McNulty, ICT advisory service manager at Business Link's Tees Valley operation, said: "The internet is an essential tool for businesses which can improve communications with staff, customers and suppliers. However, employers need to be aware that with its increased use there can be consequences such as internet abuse, which could include wasting work time or more serious risks such as distribution of offensive or abusive material, particularly with the increasing popularity of blogging which can be difficult to control.

"To help avoid incidents of serious misconduct which can in the worst cases involve legal proceedings, employers should consider introducing an internet policy stating what is acceptable internet usage, both inside and outside of work, to help protect the business from potentially damaging material being sent about the business via the internet. Employees should be made aware of the policies and the consequences of breaching them."

Unlike the US, network providers who fail to remove a defamatory blog when notified are in danger of losing the statutory defence of "secondary responsibility" under the Defamation Act 1996, and the Electronic Commerce Directive.

But that is little comfort.

Firms need to act now or face the possibility of handling a PR crisis on a truly epidemic scale.

Croner's advice

• Decide if blogging at work should be banned.

• Should there be a ban on any blogging - even if done at home?

• Employees must make it clear that any views expressed in their blogs are their views and that they do not represent the views or opinions of their employer.

• Consider the links to confidential and proprietary information rules.

• Employees should be made aware that the employer\s grievance procedure is the appropriate place to air any concerns or problems they may have.

• Employers should request that employees confine their blogs to topics that are unrelated to the business of the company and reserve the right to request that blogs are suspended (temporarily or completely) to comply with any applicable laws or regulations.