Since Lori Lewis joined the Jacobs Media team, we have hacked our way toward a better understanding of the ways in which social media and our radio stations work together for positive results. But along the way, there are some tricky issues that every station must confront. And in Lori’s guest post below, she takes on one of the biggest ones facing talent and the stations on which they work. – FJ
Because many brands jumped on social platforms with no real sense of “rules of the road,” we are slowly but surely entering an era where Twitter and Instagram followers, and even Facebook “likes” are becoming part of quasi “custody cases.”
Who owns these fan bases – personalities and shows OR the stations they work for?
This is a major issue for many broadcasters for obvious reasons. When a DJ or show leaves a station and goes across the street – a common occurrence in radio – contracts may have a “no compete” clause, but what about the ownership rights of social media fans and followers?
The management point of view is social accounts that have been grown and nurtured by their on-air talent are in fact station assets. On the other side, talent in many cases worked hard to build these accounts and may have a desire to take them along wherever they land next.
The truth is that “followers” and “likes” on social platforms are valuable business assets. And because this has become a legal matter, I reached out to Ellyn Angelotti, an attorney for The Poynter Institute who also teaches about social media issues.
I asked Ellyn to speak specifically to the radio industry as our issues are different than others. We have talent using individual accounts every day to grow their social brands, but oftentimes, the station isn’t included in this social activity.
And while some companies have started to confront this issue internally with new hires, we know there are many personalities who created social accounts 6 or 7 years ago and are using them extremely well.
Lori Lewis: What are your recommendations for employers and the employees who did not confront this issue at the start of employment?
Ellyn Angelotti: No clarity causes confusion. Start the ownership conversation now. Perhaps it starts with developing mutually agreed upon terms. That includes, the amount of time the employer expects the employee to spend on the station’s social accounts vs. their own “station-themed” accounts they set up.
LL: So if a talent is using the station’s legacy and reputation to build up their own social following, who owns that social audience?
EA: It depends on what the contract states. Many times, if a contract reads that the employer owns any digital media created on the station’s behalf, digital could mean social media, too.
There are a few things the courts consider if there is no contract, or the contract is vague:
- Who created the account?
- If the talent did – did the station ask them to create the account?
- Or did the talent do it without permission?
- Did creating their own account(s) violate any rules?
- Did the talent bring the social account(s) to the job?
LL: What would be your most logical and persuasive argument to talent that does not want to tweet or post on behalf of the brand?
EA: You should want to be strategic as a team and collaborate socially with your station. When we help the “mothership,” as you call it, it benefits you as an employee and exposes the brand that hires you. Why wouldn’t you want to put the station first? Or are you just using social media for your own personal gain?
LL: Personal and professional social media accounts can be blurry. How does the law differentiate this – or is it too much of a gray area?
EA: The law doesn’t provide too much guidance regarding personal and professional accounts except that if the content is clearly personal, meaning there’s no interaction with fans, and no mention of the station, ever, it may not be such a blurred line.
So few people have pursued litigation over this due to the overwhelming costs – so we haven’t been able to really see what the law will say. We haven’t had enough cases yet to clearly answer this.
LL: If there is a dispute over who owns the social media accounts, how can ownership be determined?
EA: There’s the costly way – arbitration – where the two parties turn it over to attorneys and agree to an answer. But a more reasonable way is to negotiate a resolution.
This means sit together and craft an agreement. For example, the talent may decide they are willing to sell the Twitter account by putting a price on the amount of followers and the station agrees to pay that amount in return for the Twitter account if the talent ever leaves or is terminated.
That’s just one way of looking at it. There are ways to be creative and confront this issue now. But if there’s never been a conversation about this – it’s time to start.
LL: Knowing that you may get fired over social media behavior, what’s your best legal advice to anyone using any of these platforms?
EA: The First Amendment right does not guarantee you the right to speak without consequence from your employer. If you’re not representing your employer the way they expect, whether it’s in person or socially – there are consequences to your actions. If you clearly acted inappropriately, the first amendment does not protect you from being stupid.
You can read more from Ellyn as she offers tips in her latest piece, “Who owns your Twitter followers?”
But as she has noted in our conversation, legal issues regarding ownership of these assets are still in their infancy as it pertains to talent and stations. But what is clear is that the conversation needs to start now. Work together on a mutual agreement between management and talent before providing policies. We need to address the ownership issue and use of business-related social media accounts – but we also need do it as cohesively as possible.
It’s a conversation that has to happen.
Great post – as all “personalities” and Stations are different – these issues will have to come down to individually negotiated agreements.
The most a company can claim to “own” is the access to a Social Media account – the followers will forever be able to come and go as they please. Companies are quick to point out that personalities use the Radio medium to build massive followings – and I’d be quick to point out for every “personality” they have on that exact same Radio medium – only a small percentage build those massive followings. Perhaps it’s not just “being on the radio” that leads to Social success? Perhaps the person doing it is even more important?
Personally, I follow people – not brands. If ESPN tried to step in front and make me follow ADAM_SCHECTER_ESPN instead of Adam directly – I’d follow because I value Adam’s work. But if Adam left to go to FoxSports – does ESPN “own” me? No. I stop following the ADAM_ESPN account and follow Adam at his NEW account.
That said – I would caution any Personality against reliquishing the rights to the equity they’ve built (or are building) in their own personal brand to any company.
Please let that last sentence sink in. Equity. Building an audience on Social Media is the only way for personalities to transition from “employees” forever dependant on the whims of a radically irrational “employers” to being able to work directly for the audience with which they’ve built a direct connection and bond via the Social Space. Don’t give that up.
Or, if you do – get PAID! It’s that valuable.
Always enjoy hearing from you, Jeff. It’s an important conversation for every media outlet to have. My hope is that everyone works on this issue cohesively in order to mutually benefit all involved.
Jeff, realistically, there is a chicken/egg of this argument. What enabled the personality to aggregate these likes and followers? Didn’t the brand come into play to help build and energize that activity? The station makes an investment in time, energy, and in many cases, texting charges, that help build these databases. On the other hand – as you point out – many people have a tendency to like or follow people.
The truth is that, as Lori suggests in the post, is that this is a conversation that needs to happen between personalities and the stations that hire them. In the same way that an MLB player makes the All Star team – and is incentivized for that – the team helped him accomplish that feat. It is a shared effort, and compensation and ownership will need to be handled and negotiated accordingly.
Certainly is a tough issue since we are so early in yet. Personalities use the station brand for legitimacy and the station benefits from the talent of the person behind the social media. At this point, I would say personal accounts can take their fans with them. People might listen to that station for that particular person and will end up following them elsewhere anyway.
Hi Chuck! Every situation will be unique. I really appreciate Ellyn’s advice to simply negotiate a resolution that fits both parties. It just takes the maturity and business sense to carve out time to do this. There’s a way to address this without it getting noisy.
It’s interesting to read this. I was on Maternity Leave from a station in Philly when I started my twitter/facebook in 2008. The landscape of radio changed that year and social started taking over. I got in on the ground level and created an amazing community online. When the station eliminated my position the day I was suppose to return from maternity leave – it became my ‘morning show’. I was able to REALLY have conversations with the TARGET DEMO. Women 25-44. Here I am with almost 100,000 followers because of my passion to pursue the digital media space. I have grown exponentially online through YouTube, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, Facebook and more. My husband is a Program Director at a sports station, and I told him it was only a matter of time before stations try to take over talents hard work. And I was 100% right on. I have more followers by tens of thousands than the station I was on! And I would NEVER hand over that. I earned my community. Not the station. Fortunately, I make 3 times what I made in radio. I’m doing national tv as brand ambassadorships and spokesperson opportunities. I have companies that spent money with the station – now spend money with MY company because they see the value of my communities more than they did on air. I have a tangible audience that I can deliver real numbers on. Am I bitter at radio? I am a little. Because I SAW what was coming – and the stations didn’t want to adapt to it. And when they finally did I was already way past them. Instead of talking in mornings TO an ‘audience’, I became it and controlled all of my own content. Women don’t sit in their cars listening to the radio waiting for the answer to a trivia question or to hear a bigtime celebrity anymore. We have so many devices in our reach, I can’t even tell you the last time I actually LISTENED to the radio.
I do miss the fun of being on air though. Who wouldn’t?
Thanks for the great read!
And I am now following you on Twitter, Joey. You are a great example of evolving with the times and never, ever quitting. I look forward to connecting with you on Twitter!
Joey, kudos to you for recognizing the opportunity and building your fan base socially. Your story typifies the “gap” between management/ownership and talent. Because most radio execs were excessively slow to understand the value and power of the social base, you were able to accrue these communities while the salespeople were out selling time. In your case, social became your radio show.
Today, stations and personalities have to forge new relationships that allow each side to protect their interests, while respecting the power of both the station and personality brands. It’s never easy, and once again, technology forces us to confront issues that can be best described as gnarly. Thanks for sharing, reading our blog, and taking the time to comment.
Legalities aside, a company that tries to own followers, outside of a corporate account, doesn’t likely understand the concept of social media or it’s audiences. Save for maybe an account like Comcast[name].
— We follow brands and people for different reasons. (Again, unless CSR)
— How would a brand/radio station intend to engage, communicate, or activate me when I followed a DJ (person), not the radio station (brand)? Brands are one false assumption away from turning me off.
— Brands will want the benefit of employees with strong following, but in typical selfish fashion desires to prevent people from taking them elsewhere.
— This concept is almost like telling people they can’t take a reputation with them.
If a radio station is this worried about their followers, they should probably drop back and review what value they bring to their audience.
Kevin, your points are well-taken. But how much of a personality’s “reputation” and ability to attract followers is due – in some part – to the transmitter, the tower, and the credibility and “aura” of the station itself? That’s the crux of the conversation, and while a blanket policy might not be the right thing, sitting down with personalities individually and making this a part of a contract conversation makes a lot of sense. Thanks for commenting.
Of course, but that doesn’t change the fact that NBC didn’t “own” David Letterman’s audience. When he left, a percentage of that audience followed him to CBS. To simply re-brand “@daveletterman” to “@newguy” based on the transmitter would be an epic disconnect from what people expect, will accept, and would likely do significantly more harm than good. That is business and law thinking rather than people thinking. You can’t form a contract with the audience.
I’m not suggesting that anyone’s personal account be owned by “the company.” But doesn’t it make sense for talent to have two accounts – one for personal/family use and the other to handle celebrity socializing?
Fair question, but I am not a fan of the concept of having separate accounts, in most situations, for far too many reasons than I could elaborate on in a comment. Like: Who are they really? Would they have two separate cell phones. Separate laptops/computer. Everything is duplicated? Just so a brand can do what? What are they going to do with the account, outside of preventing the talent from using it.
And to your own point above wouldn’t @davidletterman still be owned by NBC because they provided a vehicle to growth, even if he also owned @LetterMansAct (or whatever). To what end? This seems like legal vs. logic.
Kevin, it’s thorny – no doubt about it. Look, the station should have solid accounts of their own and insist that talent uses them. That’s another part of the disconnect. I think personalities can (and should) work these issues out up front, or at least when the next contract cycle is set to begin. It’s too important to leave up in the air. Each side has brand equity to protect, but the fact that so few conversations are taking place just underscores how so many broadcasters under value and ignore social UNTIL a major talent leaves a station (for whatever reason) and takes 40,000 Twitter followers with them. Reputation is a key issue for any brand, and in the social space, it’s at the fulcrum.
Thanks for engaging in this back-and-forth. This is precisely what I love about this blog, and I appreciate readers like you activate and respond.
If I were running a radio station these days, the answer would be simple. Any personality that walks in the door has to start new social media accounts that has their name and call letters (i.e. JoeDeejayWXYZ) and gets treated the same as their corporate email accounts. You grow, cultivate and represent the station through these outlets. As a programmer or someone in management of a radio station, I’m there to grow the station brand, not a personal brand for the deejays. Go ahead and have your personal account and do as you wish on your own time, but when it come to representing the station, you do that on our time under our rules, just like when you open the mic to speak on-air. Then, once you leave the company, the accounts get closed. Any deejay that would not agree to those terms would be shown the door. I’m surprised that radio stations haven’t instituted policies like this yet.
Mike, too many stations simply don’t give the matter a whole lot of thought – until it’s too late. And then panic and misunderstanding sets in. You’ve laid out a rational plan, but the conversation has to start way back at the beginning during the hiring process – or during the next contract renegotiation cycle. Thanks for commenting.