Cisco Social Software Lets You "Stalk" Customers

coondoggie writes "Cisco this week unveiled software designed to let companies track customers and prospects on social media networks like Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other public forums and sites. Cisco SocialMiner allows users to monitor status updates, forum posts and blogs of customers so they can be alerted of conversations related to their brand. The software is designed to not only enable enterprises to monitor the conversations of their customers but to engage those that require service, Cisco says."

Comments

Excellent!

[WrongSizeGlass]

Now I won't have to remember my client's anniversaries, their kid's birthdays, when & where they go on vacation ... because they'll all fire me if they find out I'm stalking them.

Re:Excellent!

[Antique Geekmeister]

As long as it's after you made the sale, you've made this quartert's quotas and you _don't care_..

Go watch "Glengarry, Glen Ross" to get some fascinating insights into your next sales pitch from HP.

Consequences?

[MachDelta]

Awesome. So tell me, what happens when companies start to use this to toss around defamation lawsuits (RIAA style) to squash negative opinions of their product(s)?
Won't someone think of the Apple-haters?!

Re:Consequences?

[postbigbang]

Good heavens? Astroturf? NOBODY does that!

Re:Consequences?

[blackraven14250]

What he's talking about is far beyond astroturfing.

Re:Consequences?

[Denihil]

we need a new term then! so, let's see.... "terminator astroturfing", ala monsanto style?

Re:Consequences?

[Jayemji]

What he's talking about is far beyond astroturfing.

Papers please.

Re:Consequences?

[Anonymous Coward]

What he's talking about is far beyond astroturfing.

It seems more akin to "Agent Orange-ing", no?

Re:Consequences?

[RocketRabbit]

When has Apple sued anybody because of negative comments regarding their comments?

That's just crazy talk.

Re:Consequences?

[salesgeek]

That's already happened... and the Striesand effect seems to be quite the deterrent.

Re:Consequences?

[AltairDusk]

Well one would hope that if large numbers of companies started doing this the people would realize there's a problem with the way things are working and demand the laws be changed so that those lawsuits would be useless.

not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

By posting to these kinds of social sites these people have indicated that they want to be heard. I wouldn't call it stalking if you are doing exactly what the "target" is asking you to do.

Re:not stalking

[Kenja]

Yup, if you dont want people to know the information, dont post it publicly. Seems simple enough to me.

Re:not stalking

[Diddy City]

i agree, the word stalking is greatly overused on social networks and in general these days. is to "follow" someone on twitter actually any different than subscribing to a person's youtube account? no, it just uses a creepier word.

Re:not stalking

[causality]

By posting to these kinds of social sites these people have indicated that they want to be heard. I wouldn't call it stalking if you are doing exactly what the "target" is asking you to do.

Asking to be heard is not the same thing as asking to be rigorously recorded, classified, categorized, and persistently contacted. You might be posting to Slashdot, a public Web site, but that doesn't mean you want every reader of your post to visit your home and knock on your door so they can hear you some more. Or at least, the assumption should be that you don't want that until and unless you say otherwise. So there are degrees to this, which also means there are reasonable levels and then there are extremes.

As an analogy, think of free speech. It has certain limitations. Within reason, you can say whatever you want in the USA because of the First Amendment. However, you may not just shout "FIRE!" in a theater when there is no fire, for example, because the harm this can cause outweighs your right to do it.

I think your rationale should also have reasonable limitations. Yes, you're posting in public to a social networking site. So does that mean anything goes? Any possible use or abuse of said postings are perfectly okay and should occur without any limitations whatsoever? Or is the right to access public information a right that should also have a few limits placed on how it is exercised?

I will say that if everyone understood the full power of tracking, monitoring, and database technology and knew with 100% certainty that it was going to be used against them every time they posted anything to any Web site, it would definitely have a chilling effect. Is the convenience of a few corporations worth a chilling effect on the general population? I don't believe so, not even when the chilling effect is merely a possibility.

For software and practices like what Cisco is promoting here, would it really be so unreasonable to legally require that they occur only with the fully informed consent of their targets and only on an opt-in basis? After all, if people really want this to happen then getting them to opt-in should be no problem. If inalienable, fundamental human rights can have reasonable limitations, why not the practice of tracking people who did not ask to be tracked?

Re:not stalking

[EveLibertine]

Yup, if you dont want people to know the information, dont post it publicly. Seems simple enough to me.

So if I don't want to get stalked I... shouldn't go outside?

Re:not stalking

[Kenja]

No, you shouldn't post a list of your fears and locations where you'll be napping on the internet.

Re:not stalking

[opposabledumbs]

Except that in some instances, the areas where these posts are being made are in what the posters deem to be a closed room, and I'm sure you'd be mad as hell if your comments in private are purposely eavesdropped.

Obviously there is a lack of control over this by most users, and maybe their understanding of the tech they're using is limited, but by posting something on a wall in facebook and thinking that only their friends can see it because those are their privacy settings does make it private to them.

I tend to take your advice for most things, but still, it's stifling to live constantly thinking about whether you can safely voice your opinion. And in my opinion, that is not exactly a free society, either.

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

I think your rationale should also have reasonable limitations. Yes, you're posting in public to a social networking site. So does that mean anything goes? Any possible use or abuse of said postings are perfectly okay and should occur without any limitations whatsoever? Or is the right to access public information a right that should also have a few limits placed on how it is exercised?

No, not everything goes. But I would have no right to complain about someone reading / recording what I posted on a public website. If I didn't want people to see it I would have written it in my diary, not on some website.

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

Going outside isn't inviting people to follow you. Posting on a public social website is inviting people to read your post.

Re:not stalking

[pushing-robot]

Hey, it works for the rest of us.

Re:not stalking

[maxwell demon]

Well, perhaps they would care more about protecting their identity. For example, if I post anything negative about, say, Microsoft here on Slashdot, then all they can tell is that someone who's using the nick "maxwell demon" on Slashdot has said something negative about them on Slashdot. While with a lot of research they could probably infer who I am, it's hard enough that it won't be worth for them for just a negative comment. I don't let Slashdot show my email address publicly (and I trust Slashdot not to reveal it behind the scenes either). I don't give any other personal details (name, homepage, ...). And I don't use the same nick on any other page.

Re:not stalking

[silanea]

Twitter aside, people usually assume that their posts and comments stay within the context where they were published. I would not be too keen on having my Facebook account linked to my /. or ImageFap account, though I am comfortable with each context on its own. I would be sure to hammer every company that dared to 'helpfully' contact me because I voice my opinion about their products outside their official channels - or because they believe they have something to sell to me based on my online posts - with the legal equivalent of a ban hammer.

Besides, I am quite sure that Cisco's software, judging only from the summary, is illegal in many countries and in serious violation of the TOS of many, if not most social networking sites and online forums and communities.

I already hand out either company-specific e-mail addresses or one that I can throw away at any time when I have to give one to a company. I will not tolerate any intrusion on my 'private' (as in not used for commerce) online identity.

Re:not stalking

[clarkkent09]

So you wouldn't mind if someone follows you around and stares at you all day, or even better records everything you do with a video camera? After all by being in a public place you have indicated that you want to be seen.

Re:not stalking

[Mr. Freeman]

This is what I've been telling people for years. If you make something visible on the internet then you also give up all rights to keep that information secret. The INTERNET IS PUBLIC.

I'm appalled at how many people I see running around complaining of "facebook stalking". It's not stalking if you put something in a publicly viewable area. It's like complaining that someone is reading the "wanted ad" you placed on a billboard in a common area.

Re:not stalking

[kj_in_ottawa]

Yup, if you dont want people to know the information, dont post it publicly. Seems simple enough to me.

So if I don't want to get stalked I... shouldn't go outside?

Or connect to networks. But wait, aren't networks Cisco's business? Perhaps they are just after the exhibitionist market.

Re:not stalking

[Faerunner]

When do you have the right to complain? Am I allowed to email you? Can I use your /. username as a Google search term, find someone under that name on another site, and follow them? Can I check for your profile on LinkedIn? Can I look you up in the phone book and call your home to discuss the comment you made?

Do I have to make contact for it to be stalking and harassment, or is there some critical mass of your posts on /. that I have to store before it starts getting creepy? Is it creepier if it's an individual rather than a company doing it?

When I post something online, whether it's to my blog or to /., I have expectations for that post's use. I expect that if it's copied it will be linked back to the original, I expect that it won't be used to market items to me (except where I have opted into the marketing), and I expect that no one's mining it for complaints related to their products. If I want to write a post bitching about my HP printer's waste of ink, I don't expect an HP rep to call me the next day and ask how they can improve the printer.

In some cases it would be useful to provide feedback via that kind of medium, but for most people most of the time, we aren't providing company feedback when we say HP printers suck because they use too much ink, and we don't expect HP to find that comment, track it, and offer assistance (not that they would, anyway - I suspect most complaints that people make outside the hearing range of the company they're complaining about are such things as would not be fixed even if the company knew about them, and there's a good chance the company already does).

Re:not stalking

[BobMcD]

Going outside isn't inviting people to follow you. Posting on a public social website is inviting people to read your post.

You're lacking logical congruence. Why?

Going outside is participating in public space.

Posting on a social network is, too.

What objective criteria do you have for claiming otherwise?

Re:not stalking

[BobMcD]

Well, perhaps they would care more about protecting their identity.

Understand that blaming the victim is counterproductive. You'd do as well to advocate that women wear burkas to avoid rape. But in real society we expect men to control their baser urges when confronted by bare flesh. Just as we can rightly expect data miners to control the same when exposed to data they didn't earn.

Re:not stalking

[ZenDragon]

THAT is pure utter bull shit. I use facebook, mostly to communicate with family, but I am very careful about my privacy and who I allow to see my posts. At least, I try to be. Simply posting on a social network does in no way indicate that I want to be "heard", logged, stalked, or any of the above by some company looking to sell me something. Is my very existance my acknowedgement that it is ok to invade my privacy for advertising purposes?

Re:not stalking

[tlhIngan]

Except that in some instances, the areas where these posts are being made are in what the posters deem to be a closed room, and I'm sure you'd be mad as hell if your comments in private are purposely eavesdropped.

What if your friend who has looser privacy settings decides to re-post what you wrote?

E.g., you write "I'm asd - my dad has cancer" private to your friends only
Your friend writes "Everyone help opposabledumbs - his dad has cancer!"

Boom - what was private... is now public. It's like gossip.

If you want an old curmudgeon's view of it, read the Rex Morgan, MD, comic strips for the past couple of months - the mayor gets a diagnosis for cancer, wants to keep it within family. Next day, everyone in town knows about it. The source? Their daughter texted a few friends and created a Facebook page.

You cannot expect any sort of privacy at all - expect someone to re-post, re-tweet or basically re-blog about something you said privately to the world. If you want ot keep it quiet, don't post it online, or set your Facebook settings so that everything is "Only me" (in which case, why not just use a diary?).

Heck, we treat email with more potential for privacy invasion (and shun any attempts at trying to add "privacy" settings), but Facebook postings are exactly the same. You may think you're speaking only with your friends, but they aren't bound to keep stuff secret, and if you have more than a set of close buddies, you can bet someone may try to repost something.

Once it's hit the Internet and readable by anyone else other than you, assume the whole Internet can read it. It's just like the Facebook locations thing, too. Just because you don't enable it, and you prevent others from enabling it, doesn't mean the information can't leak out. ("I'm here with opposabledumbs!" *Facebook check in*).

Most people don't have the same regard for the privacy of your information as you do. You may want something to be strictly between you and your friends, but your friends may decide there's no harm in posting what you said to THEIR friends. The best way to prevent it, is to not post it. Keep that in mind next time you want to spread some gossip around and realize you're just doing what everyone else on Facebook is doing. Or why some people request that nothing be posted on sites like Facebook (weddings, birth of child, etc).

Re:not stalking

[maxwell demon]

Not protecting your identity on the net is more like a woman going alone in the dark through a park where it's known that there's an active rapist. Is it a stupid idea to do this? Hell yes! Does that mean the rapist is less guilty? Of course not.

Re:not stalking

[bhiestand]

...If inalienable, fundamental human rights can have reasonable limitations, why not the practice of tracking people who did not ask to be tracked?

I'm sorry, I think you must be confused. You see, there actually ARE laws about stalking, but they only apply to the lower form of human life: individuals.

By definition, limitations on human rights only apply to humans. Corporations now have human rights, but limits don't apply to them because they were born without original sin.

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

There are many reasons to go outside; Getting food, meeting people, traveling. A message posted to a public website can only be used in one way, by others reading it.

Complaining about people reading your public messages is like complaining the people are listening to your music when you broadcast it over the radio.

Re:not stalking

[BobMcD]

Complaining about people reading your public messages is like complaining the people are listening to your music when you broadcast it over the radio.

...which actually happens! So yeah, I guess you accidentally found a valid analogy. :D

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

When I post something online, whether it's to my blog or to /., I have expectations for that post's use. I expect that if it's copied it will be linked back to the original, I expect that it won't be used to market items to me (except where I have opted into the marketing), and I expect that no one's mining it for complaints related to their products.

Where are you getting these expectations from? The internet is public. Unless you are posting in a restricted area any can can and will read what you have to say. If you don't want everyone reading it, don't make it public.

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

So you wouldn't mind if someone follows you around and stares at you all day, or even better records everything you do with a video camera? After all by being in a public place you have indicated that you want to be seen.

I'd think they were strange, but that's how public places work.

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

If you used privacy settings then it isn't public.

I'm talking about what you post in a public area.

Re:not stalking

[causality]

...If inalienable, fundamental human rights can have reasonable limitations, why not the practice of tracking people who did not ask to be tracked?

I'm sorry, I think you must be confused. You see, there actually ARE laws about stalking, but they only apply to the lower form of human life: individuals.

By definition, limitations on human rights only apply to humans. Corporations now have human rights, but limits don't apply to them because they were born without original sin.

My sarcasm/irony detector is running at full capacity, so I know you were being facetious. It's a shame I have to claim that explicitly but these days, you're some kind of moron if you respond to the awareness behind the sarcasm and not the sarcasm itself.

Still, anyone with an understanding of Original Sin knows that it is something that tainted the entire world. That means corporations are not exempt from it and can embody it. If nothing else there is the common sense to ask: "Of what are corporations made?" The short answer to that is "people." If people have Original Sin then so do the corporations they create.

What corporations were born without is the inability to get what they want through the political process. They may acquire that inability by never becoming large and taking on a life of their own, but they are not born with it.

Re:not stalking

[Faerunner]

I never said my expectations were fair, reasonable, or easily met!

I have no problem with people -reading- what I have to say - if I took issue with people knowing my views I wouldn't air them. Why are you so caught up on the "reading" aspect?

Re:not stalking

[BradleyUffner]

Because this "Reading" aspect is what story was about. Companies reading people's publicly posted messages, and how some people consider that stalking.

Re:not stalking

[Faerunner]

You completely missed the point if you think this is only about reading. The company is free to search "HP Printers suck" and find and read every single comment I make on the subject.

What I find skeevy and stalker-ish and generally unexpected is when a company rep is being paid to inject themselves into the conversation and attempt to fix the problem. Reading is okay, although if a company "follows" me on Twitter I'm going to be surprised - that's a lot of resources put into watching what I say in case I say something about them! Replying? If the company wants to waste a lot of time and money, they can hire someone to comment on my blog posts or retweet everything nice I say. But pursuing customers day after day, waiting for issues to pop up so they can fix them? A little overenthusiastic, and it doesn't fit with my ideas of a working business relationship. As with any partnership, some "alone time" is necessary and I'd rather not have a company breathing down my neck every time I post online, just in case I say something bad about their product. It reeks of stalking behavior and tells the customers "We don't think you're responsible/intelligent/trustworthy enough to tell us when we could improve or that something needs to be fixed, so we're going to keep a close eye on things ourselves!"

I didn't sign up for any company's "service" contracts and I don't expect or need them to go out of their way to "fix" things every time I make an offhand comment on my blog. I don't care if they take my feedback into consideration when I post it publicly. Mining blog posts and finding out that the public thinks your printers use too much ink is a great way to improve your product in the long run, and if I post a review publicly I expect the data to be used like that.

However, I don't expect or like it when they start using my feedback as a means to push their other products and services on me as soon as the comment is made, which is what the Cisco service threatens to be all about. "Oh you don't like that feature? You should try this NEW printer! We can make it ten times better! You're out of ink? The online store is this way!"

It's the difference between a store manager noticing that a lot of people buy corn flakes (and ordering more next time) and the same manager hiring people to follow you around the store, waiting for you to mention that they're out of corn flakes so they can apologize profusely, suck up a lot, attempt to fix the corn flake problem by ordering more immediately and offering to have them shipped to your home, and then handing you a customer service evaluation at the door on the way out. Maybe some people enjoy that level of service, but you have to at least admit the existence of those of us who dislike being followed around and asked if everything's ok in 5 minute intervals!

Are CISCO crazy?

[bogaboga]

"Cisco this week unveiled software designed to let companies track customers and prospects on social media networks like Twitter, Facebook, blogs and other public forums and sites.

Are they inviting a lawsuit? These folks must be crazy! Anything that breaks the law by being used as the inventor intended breaks the invites a lawsuit. This is one such product Simple as that.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[Kenja]

Explain what law is being broken by reading information that people put out for public consumption.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[ScrewMaster]

Explain what law is being broken by reading information that people put out for public consumption.

Probably the same law that someone scanning for hotspots breaks when monitoring wireless access points owned and operated by stupid people.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[Kenja]

Not even close to the same thing. Putting your information on a public web site results in you having zero expectation of privacy. Much like if you put your wifi information in the paper.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[ikkonoishi]

Companies have been doing this for years. Its just a tool which makes it easier. It looks for keywords posted to social network sites mentioning their products. They then have a CS rep join the conversation to offer assistance. It doesn't track individual customers at all. Mod the article -1 Alarmist rhetoric and move on with your life.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[Airborne-ng]

Thank you Kenja for bringing some enlightenment to those that apparently are most uninformed.....le sigh

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[foniksonik]

This is just one of dozens of services already on the market for more than a year. Look up social aggregators.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sending information over unsecured wifi into public space and sending information into a public webspace are effectively the same thing. Data is data. Why should it be different just because it's in the form of EMR rather than magnetic data on a server?

That said, this is still creepy. Illegal? Dunno, IANAL. But it's just as creepy as someone who goes to the public library and cuts out every news article containing you, follows you and takes pictures of you while you're walking down the street, notes every store you go into, and rummages through your garbage to get your receipts, and then puts it all in a scrapbook. All of those things are legal (with the possible exception of the pictures, again, IANAL), but dangit is it creepy.

Re:Are CISCO crazy?

[ScrewMaster]

Not even close to the same thing. Putting your information on a public web site results in you having zero expectation of privacy. Much like if you put your wifi information in the paper.

Pretty much exactly the same thing. Set up an open WAP, and you have zero expectation of privacy. That's why I referenced "stupid people", i.e. those who are unable or unwilling to configure their access points so that they will have an expectation of privacy. There's no effective difference: in one case you're spreading your crap across the entire Internet, and in the other you're splashing it around your neighborhood. Only a difference of scale, at best. In principle, none at all.

'service' should be in special quotes

[jdogalt]

"The software is designed to not only enable enterprises to monitor the conversations of their customers but to engage those that require service, Cisco says"

I think to get the creepiness quotient expressed properly, 'service' should be in special quotes there.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

"The software is designed to not only enable enterprises to monitor the conversations of their customers but to engage those that require service, Cisco says"

I think to get the creepiness quotient expressed properly, 'service' should be in special quotes there.

You can upgrade to their premium service and it will dig through your trash and call you randomly in the middle of the night and hang up.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[santax]

I'll be damned if someone services my wife!

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[santax]

Let alone engage her!

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I think to get the creepiness quotient expressed properly, 'service' should be in special quotes there.

This stuff is nothing new.
I think its repugnant that a customer needs to make a public sqwak in order to get good service (and thus have your complaining be a permanent public record for data-mining corps). But, on the other hand, at least customers are now better enabled to sqwak in the first place.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll be damned if someone services my wife!

More precisely, you'll be cuckolded if someone services your wife.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[CosmeticLobotamy]

I think its repugnant that a customer needs to make a public sqwak in order to get good service

If you call my company and say you're not happy with our work, we come back out and make it right. If you never call us we never find out anything was wrong and you just bitch to your friends, we can't do that. If we can find out you're upset we can call you and say, "Hey, we heard you're not thrilled. We're sorry about that. Let us come fix it." It would be great if we were a big enough company for it to be worth the cost.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[rubycodez]

Cisco SocialMiner Virtual Voyeurcam 1.002 Report

201011031007 00000023 customer Jah-Wren-Ryel on Slashdot Your Rights Online Story revealed online business news source preference Wall Street Journal www.wsj.com

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Correction: Revealed first hit in google to be Wall Street Journal.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you call my company and say you're not happy with our work, we come back out and make it right.

Your company is not all companies. My experience is that the regular drones are just as likely to not give a damn, or even worse feel that they are protecting their company's interests by minimising the response to a customer problem.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[BobMcD]

Yes, but only if you're still under warranty.

Re:'service' should be in special quotes

[rubycodez]

heh, that's the point. neither cisco nor marketer nor prosecuter for false accusation / show-boat / witch-hunt trial will care if inferences or conclusions are actually accurate

Doesn't matter to me

[Anonymous Coward]

As if I needed another reason to not have a facebook account. If there's not an anonymous option I just create a temporary fake account for whatever forum I'm wanting to comment on and then forget it. I have more hotmail, yahoo and gmail accounts than I can count. In the last 15 years I'll bet I've used hundreds of temp accounts.

Re:Doesn't matter to me

[ScrewMaster]

As if I needed another reason to not have a facebook account. If there's not an anonymous option I just create a temporary fake account for whatever forum I'm wanting to comment on and then forget it. I have more hotmail, yahoo and gmail accounts than I can count. In the last 15 years I'll bet I've used hundreds of temp accounts.

I've run my own mail server for, well, probably close to twenty years now, and I just create addresses like "junk0001", "junk0002", etc. whenever I create an account on a site or forum that I don't trust. That also lets me see who is actually selling my personal information, and lets me easily block any spam that results. It's remarkable how many sites that claim "we don't sell or release any of your personal information to any third parties" do exactly that as soon as you click the SUBMIT button. I've literally had spam appear in my inbox from some of these throwaway accounts within minutes of my signing up for some forum or other. Everything from payday loan offers to V!agka. Fuckers.

I agree with you about Facebook. I don't have an account and am not ever likely to have one.

Re:Doesn't matter to me

[Anonymous Psychopath]

Many MTAs will accept "tags", where your actual address would be something like "barry@whitehouse.gov" but emails with "barry+junk0001@whitehouse.gov" would also get delivered just fine to Barry's account without any additional configuration. This allows you to use unique addresses for sites you don't trust without having to create additional addresses on the server. It works with GMail and MobileMe, and I know it works on Postfix as well.

Unfortunately it seems that many email validation scripts these days wrongly reject the "+" character for some reason.

Re:Doesn't matter to me

[punkmanandy]

What is especially interesting is that google and microsoft can actually correlate the multiple accounts you have with each other, based on login/creation ip, referral email, and probably other characteristics. a few months ago there was a post on here linking to one of those companies' forensics guides explaining exactly that.

Re:Doesn't matter to me

[fotbr]

Unfortunately it seems that many email validation scripts these days wrongly reject the "+" character for some reason.

Two reasons:
1) The folks writing those scripts don't know that "+" is an accepted character.
2) The folks writing those scripts decided to reject it to prevent you from using tags to tell that they've sold your email address.

Incompetence or Malice, run the razor whichever way you choose.

Isn't this what customers want, though?

[Animaether]

Isn't this what customers want, though? I'm rather serious about that.

Say a company has a website and on that website they obviously have a news area, a contact page (perhaps even a listed e-mail address.. rare as that may be) and because they're not totally stuck-up, they also run a forum.

What happens?
People don't read that website for news.. not even if it had an RSS feed. They expect to get those updates from a Twitter feed.
People don't post to those forums. Why would they? It's probably small and won't get very many eyeballs, even if it -is- the official forum and they can get in touch with the actual business people / engineers there. They expect to just go @SomeCompany on Twitter and get their responses there.
People don't use the e-mail forms... again.. @SomeCompany on Twitter.

Substitute Twitter with facebook / youtube / vimeo in some scenarios.

Note that people will do this even if the company does -not- in fact have an account at these social networking sites. Heck, if nothing else, people will just complain on those sites about the lack of the company being on that site.

So I reckon this is exactly what people want. Even if it's not what they want, they in part brought this unto themselves.

And yes.. I realize that part of the reason is because it is oh-so-public. Blaming Company X for a problem with Product Y on Twitter tends to get re-tweeted and picked up right-quick. Saying so on the company's own forum tends to lead to relatively bland responses. So companies, too, brought this requirement to be on social networking sites unto themselves.

But certainly neither party should complain about the development of these tools (and Cisco's is hardly the first).

Re:Isn't this what customers want, though?

[IBBoard]

Isn't this what customers want, though? I'm rather serious about that.

Not in the slightest. I've had companies jump out on me after a vague hint at their brand and say "can we help you? (because we want to hide any potential problem and make it look like we're always fantastic by virtue of shutting you up)" and I found it hugely creepy.

Note that people will do this even if the company does -not- in fact have an account at these social networking sites.

That's their own stupid fault. If I want to target things at company X then I find their account and reference them. If they don't have an account then I'd tell them directly *and* rant publicly. Then again, I'm not one of the drooling masses who thinks that Twitter is for telling the world what you had for breakfast.

(and Cisco's is hardly the first).

I agree. I know of services that have been developed to do this before. I think the ones I know of may have had some degree of sentiment analysis as well.

Re:Isn't this what customers want, though?

[AltairDusk]

I think it depends where they're doing this and how they respond. If they're posing as a normal user and astroturfing then I find it annoying. The good ones respond where it makes sense and clearly indicate they are from the company. For example, on Newegg you'll often see certain brands where a reviewer mentions problems with the product and there is a clearly indicated manufacturer response offering help with the issue (or sometimes straight up offering a replacement) and contact information. Patriot Memory tends to use this a lot.

Re:Isn't this what customers want, though?

[IBBoard]

Product reviews on a site selling a product aren't so bad, especially since a lot are "don't buy this product, it is crap because I'm too stupid to get it to work or got the one bad one in a million". Doing the same thing on social sites is where it gets a bit creepy.

Twitterfall

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this different from just opening up Twitterfall and searching for "cisco"?

Apple will steal Cisco's brand again

[microbee]

Just like iPhone, Apple will start rolling out iStalk soon.

I heard Apple has been testing it internally for a while. Those email replies from Steve Jobs' account really all came from a beta version of iStalk, not Jobs himself.

Caveat emptor

[goodmanj]

Rule #1 of buying stuff: the vendor is not your "friend", on Facebook or otherwise.

Re:Caveat emptor

[martinX]

But once you've bought stuff, they are where you turn to for service.

I belong to a professional forum that has specific areas for commercial equipment. People sign up with their real names. Behaviour is monitored, but posts are not moderated. Company reps (both sales and service, sometimes that's the same guy) sign up and answer questions as they can, in addition to conversations being held by users.

If people are having trouble, they like to help because (1) you want people to use the stuff they've bought and (2) a happy customer will tell people about great service and buy more stuff.

Re:Caveat emptor

[grcumb]

Rule #1 of buying stuff: the vendor is not your "friend", on Facebook or otherwise.

Rule #2 of buying stuff: Don't buy stuff from douches who spy on you.

Fire your customers

[DNS-and-BIND]

I can see this software being very useful to identify problem customers who incessantly complain, no matter what the cause. Such customers consume vast amounts of service resources all out of proportion to their numbers. When they attempt to sign up with your company, you can check if they're a bad customer. If their name comes up on the list, bam, their applications for service is declined. This will make them think twice before moaning and groaning that your product didn't come with a free ass-kisser or that the color didn't match their drapes.

Privacy problems aside

[Target Practice]

This sounds like something companies already have happen, but pay some poor part-timer minimum wage to do. The part-timer has a slower parsing rate, but it's about the same.

In other words: what you put out on social websites is pretty much like what you put on any other website: open to bot scrutiny. I would expect nothing less from a completely free service. If you want privacy, pay someone money to provide you and yours with a contracted service for such.

Re:but but but, this isn't China!!?

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop!

Hammer time!

Only thing new is the Cisco product

[IBBoard]

I think the only new thing here is that Cisco has made a product out of it. I know of services that have done this before.

Personally, I don't like it. If I want the company to try to sweet-talk me into thinking their wonderfully fantastic then I'd contact them. If I wanted a problem solved then I'd try their tech support. If it isn't something that either of them can help with (like "how do you do X?" or "which are the best drivers for Linux?" or "this is terrible, has anyone else had the same problem?") then it goes somewhere public and I sure as hell don't want someone trying to astroturf the situation.

Re:Only thing new is the Cisco product

[Ol Olsoc]

I'm usually wrong about these things, but is this turn out to be a web version of the unsolicited phone call? Will we be having a do not track list in the future?

"Hello Mr. Smith, we couldn't help but notice that you were at our site and looking at garage door openers. We'd like to talk to you some more about that. We've emailed you some information already, and what will it take me to get you to purchase one of our fine openers today?"

Maybe follow you around while you surf..... "Hold on Mr Smith, I was just back to see my manager, and he agreed to take off 15 percent if you'll just buy right now!"

Joy!

Huh? Tech support via twitter?

[bradley13]

Are you serious? People expect companies to provide tech support via twitter? Maybe I'm getting to be an old fogey, but that strikes me as just plain weird... What do others think?

Re:"hard enough"

[TaoPhoenix]

What we're on the cusp of is the transformation between "hard enough" and "easy for Average Joe".

That's why FireSheep was so fun. It was a trick "everyone knew about" but wrote off as Too Hard. Seriously, it's "security through difficulty" and I'm as guilty of it as anyone.

But now we have a "systematic" campaign where everyone in any kind of power trying to connect their two particular dots so that when all 50 of them link up we get a Big Brother system - that *you* can't use (for National Security Reasons).

Overall I think it's the defining issue of the entire decade, and it won't stop until some event Too Big To Ignore traumatizes us into protecting privacy properly.

Re:"hard enough"

[ZenDragon]

Hence why Obama opted to continue his support for the patriot act...

"No personally identifiable information..."

[Loopy]

Hmm...I wonder.