Martha, is that really you tweeting? Emerging issue of ethics and the practice of ghost tweeting

I recently came across a thought provoking discussion about the practice of ghost tweeting. If you have no idea what I'm talking about, the practice occurs when a communications professional (either agency or internal employee) is tasked to write for social media outlets, but does so in the name of a higher-up (typically the CEO) who is too busy to be tweeting).

When a company creates a Twitter account in the company's name and attaches it to a corporate image or logo, we assume the Tweets are coming from the corporate communications office and represent the "voice" of the company. With the growing popularity of Twitter, many executives and CEOs feel they need to establish Twitter voices of their own. Sometimes they're Twitter-proficient enough to take on this task alone, while other times it's outsourced. The discussion of whether it's ethical for CEOs to create Twitter accounts where someone is posting on their behalf keeps cropping up on industry discussion boards.

My first thought was that it was not a big deal. Was this any different than how marketing has operated for the last century? When I receive a letter promoting the benefits of cable tv, signed by the CEO of Time Warner, I don't really think he wrote or signed the letter personally. I know it's coming from a marketing department on his behalf. I sort of assumed the same thing of high-level business professionals on Twitter; they probably were too busy with all the meetings regarding government bailouts and inflated stock prices important stuff to be tweeting. However, tweeting, unlike direct mail, involves more of a fluid conversation or dialog. Looking at it from this angle, assuming someone's identity on Twitter becomes a different beast. I believe it does inolve some degree of fraud (at least on ethical grounds).

I decided to at look a few high-profile people on Twitter to see how it's handled. I follow Martha Stewart because...well....who doesn't aspire to be more like her?

When I pulled up her profile, there was no disclaimer stating that the tweets were coming from Martha Stewart Enterprises, rather than Martha. Looking at her tweets (many of them were from places where I'd envision Martha tweeting from...like dressing rooms or her chicken coup), it seemed believable that these were her own. I knew with 99.99% certainty this was Martha from the above tweets about not putting too much coriander in your meatballs. Only Martha can joke about meatballs....or coriander. If a social media intern tweeted casual jokes about coriander and meatballs using Martha's name, she'd be out on her ass (chestnut brown pashmina scarf and all).

For the next example, I looked at the highest office out there. Nobody would expect Barack Obama to be composing his own tweets from the Oval Office. I think he'd probably get a lot of backlash if he were tweeting all day instead of attending to corporate bailouts important stuff.

So, how does President Obama have a Twitter presence without tweeting himself? His account openly states that it is run by the #Obama2012 campaign staff and that any personal tweets would be signed by -bo. Michelle's profile is the same, her personal tweets would be signed by -mo.

I've covered the cases of people posting as themselves and people having others post on their behalf (with full disclosure). What happens when a CEO or executive wants both the presence on Twitter and the "appearance" that he's posting himself (making himself look hip with technology), when he is actually using someone on staff to post on his behalf? Is this an ethical area? Is it different than the direct mail letter with his signature that he never wrote or signed? Does the continued dialog or conversation aspect of tweeting make this a type of fraud?

These are questions we don't have answers for in this new and emerging field. As a communications professional, I would always advise to be honest and open about who is posting. Creating profiles where people are misled to believe the CEO is posting is a dangerous game. Who's to say your social media intern hasn't had a drink or two at lunch, and starts posting about coriander meatballs crazy stuff. It's a lot easier to explain and recover if the account clearly stated it wasn't necessarily the CEO tweeting.

You could try the old "my account was hacked" line, but it didn't work so well for Senator Weiner. Complete honesty and disclosure about who is tweeting behind the account is always the best policy.

Is anyone else upset about the coriander meatballs being a joke? Those sounded good, Martha.