There is no protection. And I have no trust that future “fixes” will remedy this. Further Facebook should not be rewarded for bad behavior.

And what exactly are brands losing by not being on Facebook? A few sales. Probably not even a percentage point in total direct sales.

I encourage every winery to try and quantify their Facebook presence. If the benefits outweigh the costs (including the risk), stay. But I submit that to downplay the risk is pretty indefensible at this point. See below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOEMv0S8AcA

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/09/20/project_gaydar_an_mit_experiment_raises_new_questions_about_online_privacy/

I’m not here to disparage folks who are social media consultants, but you really should recognize that you are putting yourself in a pinch here if you continue to recommend Facebook to your clients without informing them of the very real risks.

Facebook knows they have a problem, and they will either fix it or they will fall prey to someone smarter and more agressive in getting the consumers needs met. That said, I can see no way or no one who would link your presence on Facebook to a flaw in your moral or ethical character.

Facebook is. It might not always be, but it is now. It’s pretty harmless. Privacy be damned, we’re not talking about much more then creepy ad serving practices at this point.

Also would it not be more moral if you were to stay and to educate your “fans” about how to play safe on Facebook? Help to show them that they are able to protect themselves? Rather than run away and leave them there with a ‘?’ where your account used to be? Maybe by helping them you could be taking a higher ground, than leaving them to fend for themselves?

Great post. Hope you’ll be at the WBC so we can have some more fun discussions!

In summary, I have to salute the principle, but I think the conclusion is not correct.

Thanks for the great conversation starter!

I think it’s possible to make convincing arguments on either side of the stay-or-go argument; the fact that FB has explicitly made it so difficult to control access is a tip off to me that they don’t have my interests at heart. That said, one can still make the stay-or-go decision based on the weighing of views such as presented here.

From a marketing perspective, though, you have to consider whether the medium itself will rub off some of its un-trustworthiness onto even its most squeaky-clean users and that you, the business using FB, may be — unfairly — tarred and feathered for your willingness to use the tool.

Staying with Facebook says something about your reputation whether you like it or not so you have to then weigh whether the danger to your reputation is worth the risk — and you know how “easy” it is to repair your reputation once it’s tainted.

You, of course, are free to come to a different conclusion.

But feel free to enlighten me: if the idea of interacting on Facebook is not, at the end of a long process that includes respect, trust, commitment, follow through, and good times, the sale of a bottle of wine, what in the world is the point?

And before you label that as crass, I encourage you to read through my many posts about, talks on, and classes taught on the subject of engagement on social media.

Just make sure you count the costs, including the risk.

If the benefits outweigh the costs, stay. I submit, however, that you aren’t properly counting the costs if a few sales here and there are enough to get you to stay.

You can achieve the same feeling of community without the spying. Which is actually a better community, based on trust and respect.