NECC Ning and Vendors

Thursday, January 15th 2009 by Wes Fryer
Posts Wes Fryer

One of the best things about a blog is the opportunity it can provide for feedback on unanswered questions. One question which arose last year in the 2008 NECC Ning involved the role of vendors in the conversations there. Should there be rules or guidelines covering how vendors should or should not engage in discussions there?

I suppose my greatest fear, when it came to this question, was that an educational conversation environment could potentially be transformed into a direct marketing / sales pitch arena. Of course vendors and commercial products are an essential part of our lives, both within and outside of education, and I don’t mean to imply I have a bias against vendors per se. I certainly am sensitive to the proliferation of spam in my own inbox, however, and I wouldn’t want my participation in an online social learning environment to result in an increase in email spam or unwanted marketing by educational vendors.

What are your thoughts on the potential roles for vendors in official NECC-related social networking environments? Should vendors be encouraged to participate as individuals but not as official representatives of their companies? Should guidelines similar to IBM’s Social Media Guidelines be adopted formally? Is this even something we should worry about?

Technorati Tags:
, , , ,


Similar Posts:

    None Found

adobe acrobat 8 pro instructions Adobe Acrobat 9 Pro Extended download scan using adobe acrobat

4 Comments

Jeff Windsor

Wednesday, 21st January 2009 at 11:30 am
 

I like the idea of guidelines – it’s a proactive response that will still encourage participation within boundaries. While it may not have been an issue last year, the changing role of social networking in the marketplace could potentially blossom in the near future.

I would hope that vendors will be encouraged to participate as individuals – not necessarily hiding their affiliations but not flaunting them either. Based on the discussion thread from last year’s post I think most people would agree that every voice of the conversation should be heard, as long as everyone is polite and stays on topic.

Candace Hackett Shively

Wednesday, 4th February 2009 at 1:37 pm
 

As one of the people who participated in the “vendor” discussion last year, I am delighted by the IBMer example. There are many attendees, presenters, and exhibitors at NECC who wear multiple hats: teacher, tech coordinator, adjunct college faculty, “moonlighter”/ consultant, association rep, etc. The most important thing is to be transparent about your role(s). Many of us were teachers for a full career before moving into our current roles while others straddle both teaching and consulting. Once you live the life of a teacher, it is in your soul. It would be a shame to lose the voices and wisdom of those who can bring both experience and enthusiasm to the conversation. I like to learn, too!

I hope all will be welcome, as long as we tell who we are. The IBM policy says, “Be who you are.” I don’t know many teachers who can be anyone else. Just ask my F2F social friends. Teaching is “in me.”

Disclosure: I gave the link to my blog as my “website,” but after 27 years of teaching, I now work full time for a non-profit. Here is the parent company’s URL: http://www.sourceforlearning.org and the URLs for my primary responsibilities as Director of K-12 Initiatives within that company: http:www.teachersfirst.com and http://www.teachersandfamilies.com.

–Candace Hackett Shively (”Candy”),
wearing my “vendor” hat but still thinking like a teacher (and my job does not “sell” anything, anyway… it’s FREE!).

Candace Hackett Shively

Wednesday, 4th February 2009 at 1:40 pm
 

Geez, I can’t type. Correction to one URL above:
http://www.teachersfirst.com
How embarrassing!

Leave a Comment

« Back to text comment