Throughout my career working at public relations agencies, political campaigns and non-profits, we always had a simple rule. It was called the "Washington Post Rule."  (Or the Chicago Tribune rule ... or New York Times rule, etc., etc.)

It was a basic principle:  never put anything in writing that you wouldn't want to see on the cover of the New York Times. 

This referred to emails, memos, letters, etc.

It stemmed from an abundance of caution, yes.  But also realism.  Put something in writing and it's bound to beyond the boundaries within it was originally intended to reside.

During the course of my career, I saw why this was such an important rule.  Depositions, press leaks, lawsuit "discovery" processes, misplaced laptops, hacked computers, dumpster divers, disgruntled former staffers.

There is an endless array of reasons your "private" memos and emails may end up splashed across the news pages.

And so it has always struck me as fascinating how some people treat their Facebook profiles and Twitter accounts.  I see young professionals dropping F-bombs on a regular basis on Facebook and Twitter.  Pictures posted on Facebook profiles that you certainly wouldn't want prospective employers to see.  Profanity, sophomoric language, untoward photos.

I mean, yes, your Facebook profile is "limited."  You have to approve the "friends" in your network.  But do the common sense rules of basic common sense no longer apply?  Do you trust each and every one of those people in your network not to download and forward one of your stupid photos?  Are you so sure that each and every one of your "friends" isn't a little peeved by your profane language? 

This entire time -- have you really actually thought that "what happens on Facebook stays on Facebook?"

Get real. 

Ever since the dawn of email I've been as careful as possible not to put stupid things in an email — even to people I "trust" — on the off-chance that any given email could be forwarded to someone outside my "circle of trust."

These days, I rarely post pictures of my kids or family on my Facebook profile, and I'm reasonably trusting of most of the people in my network.  Why?  Simple:  "Open Graph" or not, I'm not entirely trusting of the extended network and friends of those people in my network.

It amuses me that the same people who are now feigning righteous indignation over Facebook (and even deleting their accounts in "protest") are the same people that have no problem with online ads that bombard them with cookies.  They have no issue with posting to Google Buzz — or even using Google as their search engine, for that matter.

These people quitting Facebook is like giving up your car simply because someone spotted you picking your nose while you were behind the wheel at a major intersection.  Was your privacy violated because you were in your own car?  Maybe.  But it was your choice to pick your nose while being "hidden" by nothing more than transparent glass.

I very much appreciated Robert Scoble's take on the issue in this recent blog post.  Here's the key paragraph (IMHO) from that post:

Remember, I worked at Microsoft. What happened in 2000? The DOJ took all of Microsoft employees’ supposedly private emails and put them into public. So I knew back then that anything I put on a computer could end up on the front page of the New York Times.

Bingo.

If you are so concerned about privacy and about having your private information "out in the open," then why are you dabbling in social media, anyway? 

If you don't want people to see what articles and blog posts you "like" — then don't click the "like" button.

In my opinion, if the new Facebook "Open Graph" is giving you enough fits that you want to quit, then perhaps you shouldn't have been there to begin with.

Just my two cents...

A high school cross country coach once told me, "The day before the day before is always more important than the day before." What does that mean? How does it apply to online communications?

Read my latest post at my company Web site to find out.

One of the most frequently asked questions of marketers looking to engage with "social media" tools is:  what's my return on investment (ROI)?

The number of blogs (and even books) that have been written on this topic is seemingly endless.  

I think we should stop looking for the "ROI" and instead start talking about "Benefits of Engagement" (BOE).

Here's why ...

Too many folks begin their social media odyssey with an eye on how they can turn a quick buck.  That leads to the all-too-common "tweetbot" syndrome that causes people to fill your Twitter accounts with spam, online coupons and other junk.

Looking at your engagement with online tools with an eye first on profits leads to impatience, attempts to cut corners in order to make fast cash, and hurts the long term effort of your communications program.

It also can lead you to utilize online tools as a one-way communication device, focusing on eyeballs and clicks — rather than truly engaging in conversation, networking and providing real value.

For someone like me, who works with many advocacy and political clients, focusing on "ROI" is simply a drawback.  These clients especially want to focus on how they can utilize online tools as an ATM machine.  They see a handful of candidates like Barack Obama raising huge sums of money, and want to do the same (ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign spent almost a year engaging in conversation and creating a narrative before they ever asked for even a dollar donation from their network.)

We also work with think tank clients, where looking at "ROI" simply isn't a good measure.

That's why I like the term "Benefit of Engagement."  It puts the focus where it should be (on engagement) and takes note that the benefits your organization receives may not simply be financial — but measured in a host of other ways.

In the end, it's all just semantics.  But these types of semantics are important when trying to get newbie organizations into the right mindset on how to engage effectively online.