Chicago (IL) - Marketing 101: How can I increase traffic, visibility and name recognition on my growing website without paying for it? A-ha! Let me change the policies of my website to such an outrageous extent that individuals will become so infuriated and irate they'll blog about it, Tweet about it, start Facebook groups about it, and draw the attention of national high traffic publications. And then, once we've grabbed the attention of the masses, we'll utilize that opportunity to make ourselves not seem to be the evil bad guys, catering to the people's voice. We'll simply revert back to our original policy -- having essentially changed nothing in the process, except now everybody knows about us, and millions have visited our growing site, and all of it has cost us nothing. Brilliant!





Face it! Facebook owned us, even if it was only for a short while.


Originally, the Facebook Terms of Use read that individuals gave Facebook the right to utilize their content for promotion of the site, and additionally within the context set by your privacy settings, basically Facebook agreed to not share your content with anyone you didn't agree to via your privacy settings.

The company then changed the Terms of Use to reflect the concept that Facebook would maintain rights to anything you had uploaded while using their site even after your account had been deleted. The explanation for this change was that when you remove your profile, and your content such as comments, pictures, et cetera, would remain and not cause any inconvenience to site users.

Users were outraged and began launching Facebook Groups, updating Twitter, and blogging like crazy. What did this do? It gained Facebook national media attention landing them on the front page of every publication in print, and even a major story on many televised news broadcasts.

After much public attention and scrutiny, and individuals questioning their privacy and rights the company reverted back to their original Terms of Use.

In the end, Facebook didn't change a thing, and yet several million new Internet users have become bold aware of Facebook.





Wait, what? Facebook got that much attention?
Well, time for Tumblr to utilize that same power to gain a little ground



Tumblr, a microblogging community that hasn't yet gained as much popularity as Facebook, has been known constantly for its positive atmosphere and unique approach to sharing your life and following the lives of others. Bloggers use the site as an outlet to share writing, photography, and even music.


On Monday, Tumblr made the executive decision to remove five blogs from the Tumblr community which the site creators deemed to be in violation a policy which had not yet been established. What was this policy you ask? Making fun of other bloggers -- specifically, making fun of David Karp's friend Julia Allison. [David Karp is the founder and owner of Tumblr. -Editor]



Of course, the Tumblr community launched into immediate upset. Many of the individuals who became outraged were worried the sudden change violated the overall feel of the community they'd come to know and love.



According to individuals on Tumblr, all of the suspended blog were designed to criticize Julia Allison (among other Tumblr users). The bloggers would "reblog" content written by Allison and others with the sole intent of mocking and making jokes. One of the most well known blogs that was shut down is called "Reblogging Julia", and another blog named Trainwrecks was also pulled from the site.



After allowing users to vent, fume, and even remove their blogs from the site, Tumblr founder David Karp retracted the provisions included in the new terms of service, and reverted back to the old ways when bloggers could blog without being censored. The company did however add a "block" feature to the site, to prevent individuals from reblogging and viewing your content.


Coincidence much?



Facebook led the way with their policy change, and revocation gaining national attention, and it was great publicity for the site. For all of the individuals that were outraged, think of how many individuals stumbled upon the site because they heard about it on the news, or read about it on their favorite website.



And that's where Tumblr was ingenious. What makes individuals more upset than the revocation of one of their first amendment rights? There isn't much of anything. So, what did Tumblr do? They revoked the first amendment rights of 5 bloggers for a day, and let the Internet and its wide blogging array give them press.


Opinion



As an active user of Tumblr, I can honestly and openly say that the Trainwrecks site had been around since August, and was not banned right out of the gate for publishing negative content about individuals. Reblogging Julia has archive posts as old as January 2008. Julia Allison herself was quoted as saying, "I haven't asked David to take down any sites in a long time, so I don't know where the impetus for this particular purge came from, but I'm thrilled that he has. I am absolutely in favor of ridding the Tumblr community – and the internet in general - of what one of my readers once called 'mind cancer'. That sort of nastiness is insidious and it will rot communities unless someone says, 'This simply isn't an acceptable way to treat other human beings'."



This removal was not a request of Julia (this time), or any other individuals who felt wronged. It was Tumblr capitalizing on individuals who had been taken advantage of.



Do I believe that making fun of individuals, and cyberbullying is ok? Absolutely not, but I do believe that everyone has a right to free speech. Additionally I believe that in owning a blog I put myself in the public eye. I know the beast that is Tumblr, and I know that at any given time my words can be reblogged, and others can share their opinions. That is half of the beauty though.

Anyone who lives a public life sets themselves up for public scrutiny. Celebrities deal with tabloids, Internet celebrities, lifecasters and bloggers deal with snark blogs, and forums solely about them. It's the nature of the beast, and I am of the opinion that if you cannot take the heat stay out of the kitchen.



Though the suspended blogs may contain questionable content, it was truly Tumblr who pwned its users.



As the story surfaced bloggers became irate, and it quickly caught the attention of the blogging circuit, and eventually landed itself on the New York Times. Tumblrs gave Karp exactly what he wanted and desired most of all, more publicity, and more traffic driven to the site.



Conclusion


In the end I think both of these situations bring up interesting concepts. First of all, do individuals really understand the terms of service they agree to when signing up for social networking site? Should those sites explain their terms of use in simpler terms (rather than legal jargon)? And also how far will site owners go to position their site for mass media attention, and are users getting caught up and used for this purpose?



The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.