Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 9, 2013

Terms and Conditions: A Snapshot of Confusion


Go to article

Like ghosts, magnets, and the Force, terms and conditions influence us in mysterious ways. They tell us what we can and cannot do with a product or service, just not in a way that’s easily understood.
Recently, Instagram’s revised Terms of Service ignited outrage, quite a few account deletions and, in some extreme cases, reasonable discussion. What the revision did not do was provide clarity or set expectations.
Terms of service (or terms and conditions) are important and necessary, but they’re also largely inaccessible. Attorneys write them to protect the intellectual and material rights of their clients (the software vendors) and do so in the parlance of the legal system. In a court of law, these terms make sense. On a website intended to be read by non-lawyer humans [insert hacky “lawyers aren’t humans” joke here], these terms are gibberish.
Gibberish, as we all saw in the Instagram aftermath, tends to incite confusion: Do I own my photos? Is this picture of my half-eaten ham sandwich going to appear in an ad?
Maybe it’s time we think of terms of service as an extension of user experience. Yes, terms need to set legal parameters, but they should also set expectations, provide guidance, and serve the end user. For instance, Twitter displays a human-readable translation of their terms as “Tips” in tandem with the legalese. The translation doesn’t replace the actual terms, but it at least gives end users the gist of the agreement.
Bagcheck (also owned by Twitter) takes a similar tack by displaying the “Plain English Highlight” in a column next to the legalese in question.
Instagram’s current terms are not too onerous: 15 basic terms, six general conditions, and seven proprietary rights, all in semi-plain language. It’s not exactly conversational, but phrases like “You are responsible for any activity that occurs under your screen name” are pretty clear.
The UX/PR problem stems from Instagram’s proposed terms, where the terms—and the presentation of the terms—are more complex. What was presented in sentence case now appears in some combination of all caps, sentences, and numbered subsections. What once took 1,139 words now takes 5,149. A more robust agreement is one thing; a contract over half the length of Poor Richard’s Almanac is an undue burden.
The Instagram problem seems to be twofold: users were surprised by the changes, and unsure what the changes really mean. Both of these problems could have been mitigated with a bit of consideration.
To illustrate, let’s consider another recent update: Evernote recently launched a new version of its software. Not just new, but different: it marked a sea change in the UI. To prepare users for this change, the Evernote team followed two simple steps:
  1. They showed what was coming beforehand to ease users into the changes.
  2. They explained the effects of the changes.
It’s not exactly apples-to-apples: software updates are optional, and terms are (for now) compulsory. But Evernote’s considered approach to change demonstrates a path forward: Perhaps we should think of terms of service updates as we would software updates.
Apps like Evernote and iTunes set expectations by show-rooming their forthcoming changes, explaining what's different, and giving users a chance to digest what's in store. Show. Explain. Back off.
What did Instagram do? Announce. Foment outrage. Put up a quick “Ohnoes!” blog post.
What could they have done? Let’s translate the software update model:
Describe what’s changing. Explain why. Illustrate with real world examples. If Instagram had taken the time to translate what was in store (We’re cashing in and will need to use your photos to do so) and offered some real word examples of how this might effect users (All your ham sandwich photos belong to us), the reaction might have still been severe, albeit less so.
It’s likely that Instagram’s forthcoming Terms of Service Revision 2: Electric Boogaloo will be just as inaccessible, but slightly less distasteful. It’s also likely that the furor will slowly dissipate as users decide that an un-photographed ham sandwich is less tasty than an artfully composed still life with sandwich.
You know what would be delightfully surprising? If Instagram begins speaking to its 100 million-plus users with consideration and respect, in terms they can understand.

Image of tasty ham sandwich courtesy Shutterstock

Thursday, September 20, 2012

How to Integrate a Legal or Compliance Review into Your Content Production Workflow


Go to article


Posted on September 19, 2012 by Brody Dorland - 1 comment
Earlier this month, we spoke at Content Marketing World on how to restructure your internal team and processes in order to improve your organization’s ability to create quality content in a sustainable way. Immediately following our presentation, an attendee approached us and asked for some guidance on how to best integrate a legal/compliance review step into the content production workflow. What a great question (Thanks Adria!) and I’m sure this is a very real pain that many of you have to contend with on a regular basis!
Basic DivvyHQ content production workflow with a legal review step

Real Divvy Customer Scenario

I can’t name names here, but let’s just say we have a customer that is a huge company in the insurance industry. Almost every piece of content they publish has to go through a compliance review. They have multiple Divvy calendars set up to manage their blog content, email content, webinars/presentations, news releases, internal communications and all their social content. Using Divvy as the backbone, they’ve done a nice job of formalizing their workflow for each calendar/content type, and their compliance folks are just part of the normal flow of production for each piece of content that is produced (example diagram above).
Obviously, every company is unique, so your team structure, workflow and compliance review requirements may be a lot different, but using a simple, flexible workflow tool like Divvy can make your world a lot more efficient, not to mention cut down on the mass amounts of email your folks probably have to deal with.

“Send To” Your Compliance Person

Here’s a quick video that demonstrates how this process works. Note that the video uses a slightly different context (sending a blog post to your editor for review), but same steps apply when sending a content item to your compliance/legal team for their review and approval. The same scenario also applies if you’re sending to a client or other stakeholder.

Forgive the Commercial

Sorry if this blog post sounds like a Divvy commercial, but I just want to get the point across that integrating a compliance review or legal review into your content production workflow doesn’t have to be that hard. As you ramp up the amount of content you are producing, your team may have some growing pains and need some time to adjust to a new process. If you’re using the wrong tools, all of this will be more painful than it needs to be.  We built Divvy to be a super-simple tool that can help you facilitate an efficient planning and production process AND cut down on the amount of email correspondence that swallows up your day.