WebProNews

Tag: Phonedog

  • Former Employee Sued Over Twitter

    Former Employee Sued Over Twitter

    Noah Kravitz, was recently sued by his former employer PhoneDog, for keeping and renaming his Twitter account he’d kept for that company. Phonedog seeks $340,000 in damages – $2.50 per follower (Kravitz had amassed 17K during his time at Phonedog), per month, for 8 months. Kravitz argues that PhoneDog has overestimated the value of the account, and that Twitter is the legal owner regardless.

    While still at Phonedog, Kravitz went by the handle Phonedog_Noah on Twitter, and racked up thousands of followers. Kravitz told the The New York Times that when he left Phonedog, they asked him to “tweet on their behalf from time to time and I said sure, as we were parting on good terms,” adding that Phonedog said he could keep his Twitter account. But then he switched his handle to NoahKravitz, keeping all the followers he’d amassed while still with his old employer.

    This is when Phonedog got angry, and sued, citing that the Twitter list was their customer list. Phonedog’s sole statement on the matter was this- “The costs and resources invested by PhoneDog Media into growing its followers, fans and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of PhoneDog Media L.L.C. We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.”

    Kravitz has claimed that the real motives behind the lawsuit surround back pay and his 15% ownership of Phonedog’s gross ad revenue as an investor. Legal analysts assume the Kravitz/Phonedog case depends exactly why the account was created in the first place, and whether or not any release forms were actually signed in regards to the function and use of the Twitter account in question.

    Still, the case could set precedent in regards to the ownership of certain social media accounts, where companies have been hiring popular Twitter users, in part because of their social media presence. Sree Sreenivasan, a professor at the Columbia Journalism School, states “it’s a terrible thing to say you have to leave your Twitter followers behind. It sends a terrible signal to reporters and journalists who care about this, and this will make it less attractive to recruit the next round of people.” He adds that companies who are smart don’t attempt to control the social media surrounding their brand, and just let it take its own shape.

  • Follow-Up: PhoneDog Discusses Twitter Lawsuit

    On Tuesday we ran a story about a lawsuit brought by PhoneDog against one of their former employees, Noah Kravitz. When Kravitz left the company in October 2010 he took the Twitter account – formerly Phonedog_Noah, now NoahKravitz – with him. The company asked only that he continue to post about them periodically. Then, eight months later, PhoneDog sued Kravitz for $340,000 – $2.50 per month for each of the 17,000 followers he had when he left. The suit claimed that Kravitz’s followers were a “customer list,” and therefore PhoneDog’s property.

    In the course of preparing Tuesday’s story, I sent a request to PhoneDog for comment. This morning they replied. Here’s what they had to say.

    First, they asserted that the Twitter account in question was created specifically as a marketing tool for PhoneDog:

    The primary objectives of the account were to promote PhoneDog’s published paid for content, giveaways, and live blogging events, and to provide the audience a way to follow Noah during his daily activities as a representative for the company. PhoneDog has always strived to provide a very personal user experience by frequently communicating with its audience, and all of our editors were and are encouraged to tweet personal aspects of their life to the account.

    In other words, though Kravitz’s account may have included personal tweets, its primary purpose was spreading Phonedog’s brand. They also assert that the Phonedog_Noah name was chosen according to their company’s naming policies:

    When creating the account, PhoneDog management permitted and directed Noah to establish the account using the PhoneDog_Noah naming convention. An additional email memo was sent to the editorial staff in January of 2009 reiterating the Company’s Twitter naming policy.

    Furthermore, PhoneDog asserts that the 17,000 followers Kravitz had when leaving the company were acquired because of his association with PhoneDog:

    As a representative for PhoneDog, Noah published and was compensated for hundreds of blog posts and videos created during his career with PhoneDog. All of the content included the PhoneDog_Noah Twitter account information for users to follow. Our YouTube channel http://www.youtube.com/phonedog and web properties www.phonedog.com, facebook.com/phonedog and other Twitter accounts attract millions of users each month. The size and the targeted nature of the PhoneDog audience were the primary drivers to grow the account’s followers.

    PhoneDog’s statement concludes:

    Since the creation of our very first account, our primary Twitter accounts have utilized a naming convention with the PhoneDog trademark to purposefully promote the brand along with the company’s editorial team. All of our social media accounts, content, and their related websites are extensions of our online publications. Our social media efforts were established to increase exposure for our web properties and to increase the brands’ identity and not any one individual after he or she departs the company. The costs and resources invested by PhoneDog Media into growing its followers, fans, and general brand awareness through social media are substantial and are considered property of PhoneDog Media LLC. We intend to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands. Many of the statements made regarding the facts of the case are inaccurate. We intend to prove this in due process.

    So, to sum up, PhoneDog’s claim is that Kravitz’s Twitter account was created specifically to market PhoneDog’s brand, and that those 17,000 followers came from Kravitz’s association with PhoneDog. If that is so, then PhoneDog may have a point. There are still a few unanswered questions, however. For example, what is PhoneDog hoping to gain from the suit (apart from $340,000)? Do they want the account back? Do they want only those 17,000 followers? It seems a victory for PhoneDog could give them a pretty significant logistical problem, too. How would they sort those 17,000 from Kravitz’s current 25,000 followers (assuming all 17,000 still follow him)? I asked about that in my original request for comment. The response I received included the above-quoted statement, and a promise of “more to say after the holiday break.”

    Given the potential ramifications for social media in the business world, this is definitely a story that we’ll be keeping an eye on.

    What do you think? Should employees be allowed to take their company Twitter accounts with them? Sound off in the comments.

  • Company Sues Former Employee Over Twitter Account

    In 2006 Noah Kravitz went to work for Phonedog, a news site specializing in mobile phone related news. During his four years as a writer for Phonedog, his Twitter profile, Phonedog_Noah, picked up 17,000 followers. When he left the company last October, he was told that he could keep the account, provided he tweeted about Phonedog once in a while. When he left, Kravitz changed the profile’s name to NoahKravitz, and proceeded to continue tweeting – including the occasional mention of Phonedog, as requested.

    Now, however, the company is taking Kravitz to court. Over the summer Phonedog filed suit against him, claiming that his 17,000 followers were a customer list, and therefore Phonedog’s property. They are seeking $340,000, or $2.50 per follower per month for the eight months between Kravitz’s departure from the company and the filing of the suit.

    A request for comment from Phonedog has not yet been answered, however the company told the New York Times that they intended “to aggressively protect our customer lists and confidential information, intellectual property, trademark and brands.” In what way Kravitz’s Twitter followers constitute “confidential information,” and how his tweets are supposed to infringe on Phonedog’s “intellectual property, trademark and brands,” is unclear.

    There is, however, another wrinkle: Kravitz is a vested partner in Phonedog, and believes that the lawsuit is a retaliation for asserting his claim for his share of the sites gross ad revenue. Whatever the reasons behind it, however, the results of this lawsuit could have significant ramifications, establishing precedents on ownership of employee social media accounts and the valuation of social media followers.

    What do you think? Do company’s have any ownership rights to their employees’ social media accounts? Sound off in the comments.