Peer to Peer of Open Blogs etc

I pretty much say what I think and against my onw name on peer to peer Blogs such as this at IFA-Online, Citywire's adviser pages, Moneymarkeing and FT Adviser, but I do think one has to be wary of comments on Facebook, Twitter and anything which is directed at the general public. If the general public log on to a sight knowing it is aimed at professional advisers and NOT the general public, one would hope that in Law, thc courts would respect the right of peer to peer discusses, NOT to be interpreted as advice of any kind. I do NOT however have much faith in the FOS and it is them that perhaps people like IFA On-line should be asking to state their position on this NOW and publicly.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Financial services doesn't yet 'get' Social Media because it hasn't taken the time to learn what it is

Understanding and getting to grips with new communication technology is going to be painful for large brands in any industry - particularly highly regulated industries. There is however a misconception as to what Social Media is all about. Yes it can be used for marketing and sales, but this requires new (online) communication skills to be learnt to get it right. Within our industry Social Media can far better be used to: * Listen. To listen to your clients, your market and what people say about you and your profession * To improve your knowledge, to learn news skills and to share best practice * For search engine optimisation and to attract website traffic * Thought leadership * Networking and relationships * To collaborate with others on projects and issues * To comment on issues online and to share expertise * To contribute to debates and to add value to people's online experience * Build Brand loyalty and create buzz around your proposition * Customer service and answer questions * Build Community around your Brand No mention of promoting investments or mortgages in there. The industry must stop hiding behind compliance and PI etc and really get to grips with Social Media. Consumers and the media are using it to talk about us every day, so we can either ignore them or get on board, learn what it's all about and then leverage it to ours and their benefit. This is a very useful resource: http://www.ifalife.com/socialmediaFS2 Philip Calvert IFA Life

Posted by: Philip Calvert

140 characters

Is there really a risk of giving 'advice' within the 140 character limit on Twitter? I'm yet to meet an IFA who can contain their advice to 140 words, let alone 140 characters!

Posted by: Martin Bamford

Advisers advise; media speculates

I think it's sad that advisers should be curtailed in expressing views. However I think it also prudent to caveat any comments appropriately. When there is contention then the use of an alias works. The fact of the matter is that the prudential sourcebook gives scant attention to this area - I don't think we can presume that social sites are classed as 'media' unless comments are by the media. I also think it would be unwise to rely on the absence of a ToB since this has been no escape in the past. No - if an adviser is identified as such then would the FSA consider it 'fair' that an investor might act upon what they say - particularly in this increasing DIY world? Being penalised for an investor acting on a frolic, based on what they read, with no fee, no file - would probably be the most ironic slap in the face for IFAs devised. If we start curtailing freedom of speech then the FSA might as well regulate the media because the horse has usually bolted!! This is of course of particular nuisance to adviser 'pundits'. Sites such as IFALife can add an automatic caveat to protect members or close down sites to non-professionals. During this unsettled time - what is important is that we don't lose the forum to discuss - we are talking more now than at any time; devoid of the usual kwaff over the sherry!! Better late than never! For you contrarians - my blog: jon-beckett.blogspot.com It's good to talk! JB

Posted by: Jon Beckett, ASCI

Sloppy journalism

Keith obviously doesn't understand Twitter, so as with most others in the industry the knee jerk reaction is to ban its use. Short sighted as ever! Also, what the hell has the 118 118 bit of this story got to do with the rest of it? Sloppy journalism.

Posted by: Fred