Evan Schuman's StorefrontBacktalk

So, obviously, the first step in designing a social networking program is to define what type of behavior is “good” and what type of behavior is “bad.” This is not always easy to do.

Some good behavior is easy to spot. Customers purchasing products, recommending them to others, giving good product reviews, promoting the product itself and providing constructive feedback that helps improve the product are all examples of good behavior by customers. Some types of bad behavior are also easy to spot, things like hacking Web pages and destroying content.

But a lot of the behavior that may occur online is in a broad, gray area. For example, a customer criticizing a retailer or its products on a social networking site and encouraging other customers to do the same may be good or bad, depending on how the retailer reacts. If the retailer uses social networking sites to constructively engage those who criticize, by investigating their allegations and responding appropriately to them, the retailer can demonstrate that it cares about customer satisfaction.

If, on the other hand, the retailer engages in a flame war with its customers—particularly its disgruntled customers—or, worse, uses a heavy-handed manner or tries to take down the Web site, that retailer may generate more bad publicity than good.

The trick to having a good social networking policy, from a legal standpoint, is for a retailer to have a thick skin, a good sense of humor and a commitment to customer service. Then, and only then, should it show a willingness to take legal action.

Trying to plan for innovation and creativity is difficult. Two examples illustrate this point. The first involves a university in the United Kingdom that, after having students for years walk across the lawns and damage them, chose to replant new sod throughout the campus. The university tore up all of the paths and roads that had been carefully designed and left the entire campus with newly planted sod. Then it simply waited to see where students actually walked to get from building to building. The more heavily trodden the path, the more students had traveled it. After a year, the university was able to determine where students actually walked, and to then lay down paths along those routes. Sounds great, and innovative.

Then there’s the case of downtown Boston. Three hundred years ago, the area around Boston Common was mainly farmland. People would come to the Common to graze their sheep. Naturally, the routes sheep, goats and countless other animals used became the most heavily worn paths. When farmers went to market, they traveled the same routes as their animals, creating primitive roads. As the city grew, these primitive roads were paved over, creating permanent roads. Shops, houses and other buildings eventually were built on these roads. This is why the streets of downtown Boston—unlike the streets of Manhattan, Washington, D.C., or other “planned” cities—are narrow, haphazard and crowded. What worked for 17th Century Boston may not work for the 21st Century hub.

If you disagree with me, I’ll see you in court, buddy. If you agree with me, however, I would love to hear from you.