Comments on: New Social Media Guidelines for Reporting Company Information

By: Marcus Antiques

Marcus Antiques — Mon, 27 Dec 2010 20:04:33 +0000

Thanks for the post,
Considering that a very large portion of my monetization strategy for my antiques website will be revolving around eBay I found the information here to be food for thought, however…
I’m not too convinced that anyone is actually listening on Twitter nowadays. The site seems to be clogged up with automated programs belonging to Internet Marketers talking to other programs…
Anyway, just my opinion.

By: Debbie Curtis-Magley

Debbie Curtis-Magley — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 15:07:25 +0000

Richard – thanks for sharing the background story on what led you to use Twitter for earnings announcements and the outcomes from your discussions with Legal/IR. As someone who also works at a global company, it is so helpful to learn from the examples set by others. Many thanks.

Debbie Curtis-Magley
UPS Public Relations

By: Tom Barton

Tom Barton — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:14:33 +0000

Richard – useful info and good that you have put forward some best practice guidelines. At Capgemini, we took our first steps in using Twitter as a channel for financial communications with our FY2008 results which we announced last month. See #cgresults. Very much learning as we go, but looking at how we can develop this as an additional and hopefully effective communications channel.

Best regards
Tom Barton
Capgemini UK, Head of PR

By: Tops

Tops — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 03:46:11 +0000

Here’s an interesting article that indicates “openess” can create problems. It relates to Palm and the iPhone, but I think it may provide some insight into just how easy it is to cross the SEC’s line.:

http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20090310/palm-put-a-sock-in-it-mcnamee/?mod=ATD_rss

Dan, Chris, I’ll say again this is not attorneys trying to muzzle anyone, it’s attorneys trying to ensure compliance with the strict SEC regs (stricter, as I understand it, than UK regs.)

By: Jon

Jon — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 17:39:03 +0000

I’m please that you are focused on the “Full” portion, but the Fair piece seems to have been left out. The idea of the traditional method is that it is Full disclosure that is also immediately available to nearly any audience in any forum that they choose to utilize (that includes corporate news of course). The Fair is left out when anyone who may be interested is not made aware of your results simply because they do not monitor Twitter or your direct website.
My main point is, in this era of corporate malfeasance where the “market” is so concerned about the legitimacy of earnings anyway, aren’t you robbing a majority of investors of Fair accounting and action? I am interested in your thoughts on this.

By: Tops

Tops — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 05:38:25 +0000

The ebay legal department is quite simply and quite rightly ensuring that the Federal Sarbanes – Oxley Act’s Safe Harbor provisions are being complied with by having Richard include the same basic disclosure regarding forward -looking statements as is found in the Quarterly Report/Conference Call itself.

This not only protects eBay, but protects Richard as an individual.

Dan, Chris, how willing would YOU be to face a potentially devastating lawsuit filed because you didn’t bother to include this simple disclaimer?

By: Danna Crawford

Danna Crawford — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 00:43:30 +0000

I enjoy the tweets! Also enjoy Retweeting the tweets!
I do hope you continue to share!

By: Dan Wilson

Dan Wilson — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 22:06:17 +0000

Richard,

Don’t get too chuffed by being the only “Fortune 200 company live-blogging earnings via Twitter”. From my perspective on this side of the Atlantic, I can think of plenty of public and private companies that ‘tweet’ AGMs and all sorts of business information. And I can think of plenty of commercial/political/celebrity individuals who don’t seek to cover their arse with pre-tweet-disclaimers.

Of course, it’s kinda cool that you do it. Maybe it’s worth doing on eBay’s discussion boards too? But broadcasting earnings information that’s already available on other channels (and pre-released to some) via twitter with full disclaimers means that only the channel itself is innovative.

Let’s not argue about ‘reckless’ and ‘radical’. The ‘openess’ debate is more thrilling.

By: Polly Pearson

Polly Pearson — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 20:43:37 +0000

Kudos to you!

In IR, I believe mass marketing the message is key. Build awareness and demand, as the supply is limited.

To do this, you need to be where the masses are, when they are there.

Love to see your taking a brave and leading role in this regard.

RE: The multiple tweets, couldn’t a single tweet to the home of your disclaimer cover it? If necessary, you could always front your next tweet with “Please see this first” (eventually … PSTF!) with one more link to your disclaimer. I realize this isn’t your call, but if in your shoes, I would be lobbying your fine Legal team for just a little less Tweet baggage.

As I see it, IR is there to serve the interests of shareholders, build informed awareness for your company’s strategic relevance, and communicate in an open and transparent way. What you’re doing is right on!

As a former IR VP at EMC for many years, might I just add that this post made my day.

- Polly Pearson

By: Karen Snyder

Karen Snyder — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:55:53 +0000

Richard, I applaud you for working hard to “walk the line” while continuing to use innovative ways to reach your audience. You’re a trailblazer, and you’re giving the rest of us a framework to use as we negotiate with our own legal teams : )