Twitter hires 140th employee

The fact that Twitter now employs 140 people is a nice little coincidence which probably had to happen sometime…

image

What’s more interesting is that the company has pretty much doubled in size since last summer. and there are still at least 27 more job openings available at the moment. While things have been quiet for a little while, is this a sign that the core product is going to ramp up in terms of development or is this the cost of dealing with so many users producing so much content, along with increased threats from hackers etc?

Twitter continues to expand the team…

Twitter has been making some more hires recently – first up is Robin Sloan, who joins to handle media partnerships. Sloan previously worked as a strategist and executive at Current TV. During the first presidential debate of 2008, Sloan built an application to overlay tweets on the bottom of the screen. Spookily he was also the author of Twitter’s 5 billionth tweet.

Also joining is user experience designer Mark Otto, who worked at ZURB, an interaction design firm whose listed clients include TinyPic and CC:Betty. And finally Dan Webb, the London web developer behind Twaudio, which brought MP3s to Twitter through direct uploads or recording.

(Hat tips to Venturebeat and Louis Gray)

Louis estimates the total number at Twitter to be around 158 following a regular weekly pattern of hiring. It seems as if the desire to evolve and most importantly monetise, will be the main drivers. After all, the user experience of the Twitter website hasn’t changed in great detail for some time (The main added features have been the new Retweets and Location), and meanwhile 3rd party clients are constantly finding new ways to improve on the default experience.

Beyond the UI for consumers, this could really be about improving the experience for the monetisable advertisers, marketers and customer service teams. Big businesses are generally used to working with well-polished, expensive systems, and polished controls/dashboards for business use will add to the draw for mainstream business.

Private companies, ID cards, data and employees

Anyone else making a link between the uproar when UK Home Secretary Jacqui Smith revealed plans for private businesses like chemists and photo shops to record fingerprints and biometric data for the proposed national identity card scheme, and the news now that T-Mobile UK employees have been caught selling consumer data to outsiders?

Data is valuable, and valuable things are a target for people to try and obtain via nefarious means. And while I’m sure the employees of my local chemists are doubtless wonderful people, I’m not sure they’re paid and monitored enough to ensure they could never be tempted to accidentally pass on some details at some point.

As data becomes increasingly valuable, companies need to ensure they meet all legal regulations and ethical guidelines, and also think about who has access to the data, and for what reason. And whether or not they should be trying to put those people away from temptation in some way.

Or just make the move towards VRM and let me look after my own data.

When concerns over social networks go way too far…

Businesses and organisations can either embrace the opportunities and challenges of increasingly easy social interaction, or they can react against it. And two recent examples show how worrying that reaction can be.

Most digitally-aware people realise that anything you put on a public (or even supposedly private) social networking site can be seen by people including your employers.

But how about Bozeman City, in Montana, which requires job applicants to hand over their log-in information and passwords to any internet chat rooms, social networks or forums?

Why should potential employees have any right to privacy at all?

And then a media company, which by rights should know better, gets shown up. The Associated Press has issued social media guidelines, which not only match the restrictions put out by other media outlets such as the Wall Street Journal,  but actually asks employees to monitor and edit what appears on their social network profiles, even when it’s written by their friends.

From the guidelines (via Mashable)

“Q. Anything specific to Facebook?

It’s a good idea to monitor your profile page to make sure material posted by others doesn’t violate AP standards; any such material should be deleted. Also, managers should not issue friend requests to subordinates, since that could be awkward for employees. It’s fine if employees want to initiate the friend process with their bosses.

The News Media Guild, which represents 1500+ AP employees is rightly speaking out about the matter, which could, in theory, see AP employees punished for something written by someone else on their profile wall etc. Or, as is equally likely, a spambot.

An odd experiment in webcam marketing….

Just a quick heads up – I was just about to log off from Twitter when Darren Rowse (@problogger) flagged up an interesting intiative which was then sent into chaos by a reasonable number of his 12,509 followers!

Creative Agency LisaPMaxwell has set up a site which allows every employee to chat via webcam when they’re available. Those who are online are the ones moving around on the main page as far as I can tell! Despite being bombarded with a lot of Twitter traffic thanks to Darren, I’ve just been chatting to PR Director Aneisha Howard.

Apparently the initiative started yesterday, and they’re measuring it for links, buzz and everything available, rather than just leads generated as they demonstrate their commitment to a viral mindset…

I’m not sure how sustainable or scalable it will be – although Aneisha was coping pretty well after Darren singled her out! But to generate buzz, it certainly seems to be working.

A warning for employers – block social networks and lose employees

In the spirit of the internet, I found this fascinating bit of research, which originated on Vnunet.com, via Rialtas.net and eventually the Wikinomics blog!

“A survey of 1,000 office staff has found that nearly a third of younger employees would consider quitting their job if Facebook was banned in the workplace.

The survey by IT services firm Telindus found that 39 per cent of 18 to 24 year-olds would consider leaving if they were not allowed to access applications like Facebook and YouTube.

A further 21 per cent indicated that they would feel ‘annoyed’ by such a ban.

The problem is less acute with 25 to 65 year-olds, of whom just 16 per cent would consider leaving and 13 per cent would be annoyed.”

As someone in the *ahem* slightly older age bracket (closer to 25 than 65 though!), I paused for a moment to consider my own response. Considering my role in community strategy and management, I surprised myself by starting from a position of thinking quitting was overreacting and I’d just do my networking via mobile/at home. Then I thought about how useful and valuable the networks have been to my company, considering the knowledge, experience and contacts it’s given me.

Why would I spend time networking to benefit my company (rather than just myself), without my company giving something back? It’s exactly the same value exchange that drives user-generated content, and yet employers seem quicker to accept the general internet population need a value exchange more readily than for their own employees!

(Obviously some of the survey respondents might be less brave if the situation presented itself, but then again, in an age in which the network is probably the most valuable asset, companies risk losing the employees who are most valuable)