Should Your Off-Hours Citizen Marketing Impact Your Job?
March 22nd, 2007
The source behind that brilliant Hillary Clinton/1984 “Vote Different” spoof has been revealed and it turns out to be off-hours work of a former employee of Blue State Digital - the team that built Barack Obama’s website. The creator, Phillip DeVellis, is very clear that the piece was created on a Sunday, at his home, on his personal equipment and that neither Barack, nor his former employer had anything to do with it.
Mr. DeVellis claims that he resigned from his company “so as not to harm them, even by implication”. Blue State Digital claims that they terminated him for the following reason:
“Pursuant to company policy regarding outside political work or commentary on behalf of our clients or otherwise, Mr. de Vellis has been terminated from Blue State Digital effective immediately. Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement [on technology pursuits] with the Obama campaign.”
Because Blue State Digital has a policy in place, it seems clear that the two parties needed to part ways regardless who is telling the truth about how it happened. How many companies are so sophisticated in their employment policy, however? This issue is not new - in 2002, famed Mommy-blogger Dooce lost her job because of the views she expressed on her personal website, but as tools to express ourselves publicly have proliferated, discussions about expectations do not seem to have kept up.
Do you know what your employer expects you not to do in your off hours? For employers, think about the full spectrum of what your employees might be doing at home and how that could impact your business. I think the major wake-up call from this incident is to open up discussions about what is appropriate and isn’t so that employees know what they’re signing up for when they accept a job and both parties have clear expectations.
Other posts by Virginia.
Mack Collier says:
I was somewhat ok with this till I read this:
“Mr. de Vellis created this video on his own time. It was done without the knowledge of management, and was in no way tied to his work at the firm or our formal engagement [on technology pursuits] with the Obama campaign.”
So they are saying that the company had no idea what he was doing, and that it didn’t affect his work on the Obama campaign, but that they are going to fire him anyway. Huh?
But if you’re DeVillis, wouldn’t you WANT Blue State Digital to fire you? This just draws more attention to him, and his work.
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:47 amVirginia says:
Probably true, Mack.
I have been giving more thought to the role that the amplification of some new marketing activities play in this discussion. In the olde days, would an employer have prevented you from going to a political rally or giving to a candidate? Or is it the additional element of having your views be seen by more than a dozen or so people that makes it a potential liability for a company…
March 22nd, 2007 at 8:59 amEvie says:
I think the nature of your company’s work is relevant– DeVillis worked for a company that has political clients, and he made a political statement that could legitimately conflict with his company’s charge. Our friend who worked for a political office also encountered such a policy, with the idea that it’s difficult to separate personal and professional politics. (Also, don’t forget that John Edwards blogger who just got fired for making strong statements on her personal blog.).
The entertainment industry magazine I work for, on the other hand, would probably have a hard time firing me for political activity on my own time, since no case could be made that it had anything to do with editing stories about Enrique Iglesias. But who knows.
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:42 amJoshua Blankenship says:
It brings up all manner of thoughts in regards to how the employee/employer relationship landscape has drastically changed in the internet age.
“We like your resume, you’ve got great work, but what’s this we see buried on the 6th page of Google results for you? Tsk, tsk.”
I don’t have to deal with nearly as much flack as the average Joe because I actually work IN the internet industry (more often than not), but I do have quite a few qualifiers in interviews now, mostly some variation of:
• “You know I blog, right? A LOT. About things that go on in our industry. And competitors. And anything, really. And I’ll call stupidity stupidity.”
In my opinion, as an employer, I’d rather have motivated, self-starting, informed and opinionated employees - even if that means it spills onto the web in their personal lives. (So long as everyone is clear what the rules and boundaries are… that seems to be the root of the issue.)
March 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 amStephen Denny says:
You know, it’s not hard to understand. This was viewed a million times, was an anti-Clinton pro-Obama spot, and Obama has gone on record as saying he doesn’t support this kind of negative advertising.
Then, one of your direct reports does it — and goes on record at HuffPo claiming it, incredibly.
What do you do? You fire him. Immediately if not sooner. Why? Your client doesn’t condone this kind of thing, had disavowed it, and your firm just got fingered for doing it. Unprofessional behavior will get you every time, especially when you’re playing on a national stage like this.
March 22nd, 2007 at 4:37 pmPatrick says:
When I saw this for the first time on You Tube I didn’t think, “Oh what a clever piece promoting Obama.” No my first thought was, “Oh by they are so unoriginal they had to steal from Apple or the company who created the ad for Apple in 1984.
I watched it because I read about it on a web site but not because I thought I had to see this “clever piece” which it wasn’t.
March 27th, 2007 at 5:36 amMr. Steve says:
Here’s where I thought this was dumb…Politics is unlike any other industry. Sure, Obama and Clinton are running “against” each other right now, but the likelihood of them merging is very high. In fact, an Obama/Clinton ticket is very likely come 2008.
It seems to me that this guy just did something stupid, and the company responded exactly right. Now, the biggest question I have is this…what if it were about Bush instead of Clinton? How does that change things? Does this guy get fired or promoted?
Just thought I’d add that.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:52 am