Entries from December 2007
HEY!
If you find yourself in Louisiana here soon, you might want to catch, what is sure to be an intertaining show…full of diversional tactics, inflated ego, spin, glossy-romantic PR stories and oh yeah, BOOM BOOM BOOM!
I Love You,
WorkFarce
The Louisiana Technology Council’s Signature Luncheon is an annual invitation to meet the nation’s leading technology experts. This year it involves: JEFF TAYLOR:As the founder of Monster.com, Taylor forever changed the way the world networks and builds careers. Recognized as an innovator and visionary in both Internet and careers industries, Taylor reinvented the way the world looks for employment. His “monster idea,” conceived at the dawn of the World Wide Web, quickly became one of the first dot-com companies (454th registered domain on theWeb) and has grown into the world’s leading online career site. Today, the Monster global network consists of 22 local content and language sites in 20 countries and serves 20 million visitors monthly. Jeff Taylor has recently created a new venture at www.eons.com which caters to the 50+ market. His New Orleans appearance will address the following:1) How the Internet has changed from 2002 to 2007;2) Unique ideas that can help small business and Entrepreneurs succeed;3) What Jeff did to separate himself from others in the same business;4) How online marketing is going to change in the next 5 years; the challenges and opportunities;5) How Jeff used Innovation to his competitive advantage;6) The Internet in 2012; What should businesses be prepared for and how will it effect them;7) The Real keys to Entrepreneurship and Innovation; 
What drove Jeff’s success at Monster.com.Call Adele Tiblier, 504.304.2910, for more information or email atiblier@ltc-la.org
Categories: Uncategorized
Like companies in the private sector, federal agencies may eventually be required to notify citizens of an information security breach on a federal computer network that exposes citizens’ personal information, such as Social Security numbers, financial data, addresses and credit card numbers. (The Federal Agency Data Breach Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., in May, would establish standards for how an agency informs the public if it loses personal information as does like legislation passed by more than two dozen states.)
As is the case in most comparisons with the private sector, the federal government would likely not do as a good a job in notifying the public, most people would say. But that isn’t the case in one, real-world example. In its December/January issue (not yet posted online), CSO Magazine compares how Monster.com and the USAJOBS, the federal government’s site for job openings, handled the security breach of monster.com’s database of resumes in August. About 146,000 names and contact information of job seekers on the USAJOBS Web site were stolen.
CSO Executive Editor Scott Berinato offers a side-by-side comparison of the notification letters that the organizations sent out to notify customers of the breach. (He describes such notification letters as requiring “verbal contortionists who must twist words unnaturally and move sentences in awkward, sometimes contradictory directions.”)
The upshot: USAJOBS did a relatively better job in its letter than Monster.com did, according to the two anonymous public relations executives CSO asked to critique the letters. Here’s a synopsis of CSO’s critique:
– While neither organization should have started out their letters using the “dear” salutation (the personal touch doesn’t match the urgent tone of the notice), USAJOBS executives wrote a better letter by stating the facts immediately and clearly versus Monster’s “hollow marketing spin” opening. (“We value the trust you place in Monster,” the company’s CEO wrote.)
– USAJOBS avoids saying sorry and uses the more legally safe word “regrettably.” Monster tells readers that they, too, are a victim in this crime (a no-no) and that many other companies have experienced security breaches as well (another non-no). USAJOBS dos not offer similar excuses.
– Monster violated the rule more than USAJOBS in urging customers to learn more about online fraud. (That makes it sound like customers/citizens are partly to blame for the breach, which is an implication you don’t want to make.)
– Both organizations failed in putting the breach into fuller context of what the breach could mean to the customer.
Maybe one reason for why Monster’s letter was less effective than USAJOBS’ letter is the fact that Monster’s letter had more of a lawyer’s influence. The federal government may be less afraid of being hauled into court over a security breach.
Categories: Uncategorized
December 12, 2007 · 1 Comment
Categories: Uncategorized
