Last year, I covered the landmark SEC decision to recognize corporate blogs and potentially other forms of Social Media as a recognized form of meeting public disclosure requirements under Regulation FD (Fair Disclosure) – in some cases. It was a significant validation of a widely recognized medium for sharing information between publicly-traded companies and stakeholders. Jonathan Schwartz, CEO of Sun, among many others, successfully lobbied over the years for official recognition of blogs and the SEC finally took notice. The real question is, did other public companies and their communications and Investor Relations teams take notice? Just under a year later, all was quiet on the social IR front until recently. But questions are swirling. While PR, marketing, advertising, branding, HR, and customer service are rapidly adopting participatory communication channels such as Twitter and Facebook, IR has (wisely) observed the landscape to ascertain the risks and opportunities present within the new SEC guidelines. It’s time to bring this discussion into the spotlight again in order to connect IR, PR, and legal in the dialogue that will prompt new policy and regulation to better serve investors, customers, and influencers. Recently, I hosted a discussion on this very topic at the NewComm Forum in San Francisco. I assembled an expert panel that included those active in covering and defining the world of corporate disclosure in the era of the social web, including: Richard Brewer-Hay of Ebay, Bryan Rhoads of Intel, Tom Foremski of Silicon Valley Watcher and ZDNet, and David Gelles of Financial Times. The experiences and lessons shared in this discussion brought to light the real world internal concerns, challenges, and possibilities for integrating blogs, Twitter, and other social networks into the portfolio of disclosure tools. In reality, social media is reshaping disclosure and the practice of investor relations. As the social web begets a human voice and genuine transparency, it also raises the risks of meeting and maintaining legal compliance. It’s true, the SEC has recently modified its stance on blogs, but as new social tools continue to innovate and gain traction, a gap may be widening between the ability for companies as well as the SEC to keep pace with a rapidly evolving landscape of social networks and the means to meet investor demand and simply keep up with all of the emerging opportunities for engagement and communication. Analyzing SEC Guidelines In last year’s post, I playfully tossed out the idea of killing the press release in favor of new electronic formats and hubs that connect stakeholders, not because I believed that the press release is dead, but because I wished to challenge legal and communications teams to expand their reach to the communities that currently grip the attention of the people they wish to reach – especially when the news is favorable. According to the SEC, “As we have developed EDGAR to facilitate and promote electronic availability of information, we also have encouraged companies to make their Commission filings and other company information available on their web sites. We believe that company disclosure should be more readily available to investors in a variety of locations and formats to facilitate investor access to that information.” However, before we get too far ahead of ourselves, the SEC published a 47-page report that outlines the boundaries for sharing information as well as holding companies and their employees liable for the information that they post on blogs, networks, communities, and discussion forums. If public companies are not proactively analyzing these guidelines and establishing internal policies, frameworks, and penalties, then they are exposed to the dangers that loom in the form of overly enthusiastic employees who are enamored with new and shiny social tools and objects. One wrong, irresponsible or casual post, comment, tweet, or status update can produce a domino effect of consequences that have yet to establish precedence. While a tweet, for example, may seem harmless, the activity and response sparked by an update could result in repercussions that trigger SEC investigation and shareholder retaliation. Corporate and marketing executives who normally rely on self-restraint and common sense across the organization aren’t employing common sense at all. Investor Broadcasting vs. Investor Relations Traditional Investor Relations serves analysts, investors, stakeholders and influencers through a combination of strategic outreach and the ongoing distribution of material information using compliant channels. With the extension of the model to now include social networks and also the experimentation of publicizing personalities in the process, companies are potentially emphasizing the “relations” in IR. This opens up a particular area of focus as maintaining relations with analysts for example, is considered outside the realm of traditional disclosure. Engaging in conversations with investors in the public timeline (statusphere), on Web sites, and in the blogosphere, potentially place companies in jeopardy of backlash and legal action. In a discussion with several corporate bloggers, social media strategists, and also IR professionals, how and when to engage in social media was a shared concern. While each were divided in their position on corporate brand versus personal brand when distributing information in social networks, they were united on two important fronts that set the tone for any organization exploring and documenting best practices for participation. The first contends with individuals, particularly those of influence, who share glaringly incorrect information that will most likely have a negative impact on trading and value. Every person I spoke with agreed that a public response in these cases is most likely necessary and that the tone of the response should introduce information poignantly and factually without added perspective or personality. In the instances when public discussions bash or question company decisions, news, or value, all were in agreement that these conversations are better left untouched. As I mentioned in a recent article published in the Financial Times by David Gelles, “If the people doing social media for a company aren’t informed enough to do the right thing when using these tools, you’re in danger.” Gelles explained went on to explain, “Companies are using social media to good effect in several ways. Through new dialogues with their customers, some companies are improving their public relations. With opt-in marketing, other companies are generating additional sales. . . . But when it comes to investor relations, it’s not clear how much social media can contribute. The SEC has strict guidelines about disclosures. Regulation Fair Disclosure necessitates that material information distributed through social media be consistent in timing and language with conventional press releases. Moreover, companies so far seem uninterested in using social media to foster new conversations with investors about their stock’s valuation. So while companies may be applauded for embracing new communication tools, there is little additional value that social media can bring to investor relations. Even if companies do use social media as an additional method to broadcast earnings or material information, at this point those efforts are more about public perception than investor relations.” Integrating New Technology with What Works Today Yes, it’s the company’s responsibility to reach people where they are actively seeking and sharing information, but the SEC also cautions communicators in doing so. Just because blogs, social networks, and micro communities such as Twitter and FriendFeed are the current flavors of our digital generation, their conversational roots and culture do not relinquish companies from their responsibility to share data in a way that complies with federal securities laws. The SEC guidelines clearly state, “While blogs or forums can be informal and conversational in nature, statements made there by the company (or by a person acting on behalf of the company) will not be treated differently from other company statements when it comes to the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Employees acting as representatives of the company should be aware of their responsibilities in these forums, which they cannot avoid by purporting to speak in their ‘individual’ capacities.” Companies must not abandon or sacrifice the bridges and services that already effectively connect information to people today and also comply with SEC regulation. It’s the responsibility of any community-focused organization to use all of these tools and channels in a way that extends and supplements each other. While press releases are among the top choice for meeting disclosure, they are not necessarily inexpensive and therefore encourage the exploration of new conduits. Companies report spending $15,000 - $50,000 or more per year on issuing press releases in order to satisfy Reg FD. Traditional and social solutions can also be considered as they are sometimes as or more effective than a traditional press release, especially in a recession where every penny counts. The sometimes-exorbitant costs of meeting disclosure have also fueled the study and technological evolution of corporate blogs, wikis, and social media releases. They represent exciting, modernized possibilities to adapt to and connect with constituencies and influencers in ways that some rely upon in order to make decisions and also process and produce content based on material company information. This isn’t an ” either, or” discussion. The Wall Street Journal reminded us recently that corporate blogs and tweets must keep the SEC in mind. I’d also include that companies must ultimately keep investors and their communities in mind while using the SEC guidelines as the map in which to connect with them according to meeting disclosure requirements. Playing by the Rules: Amplifying Corporate Reach and Resonance There’s a difference between mandates and guidelines and it’s your responsibility to understand the nuances in order to comply with Reg FD, while not missing the prospects associated with new and influential online communities. When you read the SEC guidelines, you’ll quickly realize that they do not provide specific instructions and boundaries that dictate permissible and prohibited procedures and activities. In its current form, direction is gray at best. However, analyzing the guidelines based on the framework implied by the SEC, as it correlates to the culture and interworking of any organization, provides a blueprint for constructing a compliant and most likely, more effective, communications infrastructure. Companies will need to consider whether and when postings on their Web sites, communities, or networks are “reasonably designed to provide broad, non-exclusionary distribution of the information to the public.” While the SEC specifically mentions Web sites, forums, and blogs, it does not specifically name popular networks such as Facebook or Twitter – at least not yet. But that does not mean that they are excluded from the potential communications channels companies can use to reach stakeholders today. The guiding principle is pervasive throughout the document

Original post:
Corporate Tweets and the SEC: Sometimes It’s Better To Keep Your Mouth Shut