Are today's job applicants bright enough to know about privacy?

With news reports that employers ‘investigating’ prospective employees through their social networking sites could be in breach of privacy laws, is it really any different to opinions formed down the pub? 

It seems fairly obvious, but employers who use the likes of Bebo, Facebook or MySpace to do some unofficial research on candidates for jobs are now facing criticism for breaching their privacy.

According to John Carr, chairman of the UK Children's Charities' Coalition on Internet Safety, employers and education officials shouldn’t be screening young job applicants on Google.

"If that really is happening, then it could be illegal - when the kids are posting a picture of a party, they are only doing it to let their mates look,” he claims. “They are not doing it for an application form."

Even the Information Commissioner’s Office, Britain’s privacy watchdog, has stepped into the row, saying it could be a breach of data protection.

The whole idea of the social networking phenomenon is so these ‘young’ people can make friends with people with similar interests. I don’t see how it’s any different from writing on your CV that your hobbies include deep-sea diving or the like. Every internet page is now the equivalent of a CV or shop window, so if you don’t want people to know you climb lampposts in your underwear, don’t post pictures of it online.

I once worked for someone who used to swear by the recruitment policy of randomly splitting job applications into two piles and binning one, with the justification ‘would I want to hire someone that unlucky?’.

Similarly, if an applicant for a job is not bright enough to set their security settings to prevent me seeing their profile, do I really want to hire them? 

From Guinness to gorillas

How did they manage to sell it to the client? I'm a big fan of leftfield advertising, but I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when the client was pitched the idea for the Cadbury's gorilla. 

Your chance to nominate up-and-coming industry talent

We're looking for nominations for our 'Ones to Watch' feature in January.

Do you know someone who represents the brightest and the best in the UK's digital marketing industry?

Simply contact Hayley at hayley.pinkerfield@haymarket.com

And if your nomination is selected they'll get their name in shining Revolution lights for ever more.

KerryKatona.com - what a load of trash

There have been two topics floating around Revolution of late: one, frivolous, and the other, more weighty.

First off, the nation's consciousness has been ruffled by a series of bordering-on-insane TV interviews - including the washed-up and ever more demonic-eyed Kerry Katona on GMTV.

Which led Revolution to wonder - what on earth is happening to the world when a former-all-round-nice-girl and Atomic-sex-Kitten turns into a front-runner of the 'get off your head at all times, especially when pregnant and perched on GMTV's lovely and salubrious sofa, club'?

The second issue in point was, more somberly (or less somberly, depending on your life view), the so-called Wild West terrain of the affiliate marketing sector.

In December's issue of Revolution, you can see what top affliate experts had to say on the thorny issue of affiliate management and regulation. 

But here's a clue: it's a baton of responsibility that is less popular than a red-hot potato. Who should bear the brunt of ensuring affiliates aren't able to get their grubby mitts on a brand and plonk it onto any old site, such as  www.kerrykatona.com?

Take a look at the site. It's pretty tawdry stuff. Some would say it shows undeniable integrity to brand consistency, but, enough of that - what the site demonstrates, without a doubt, is the essence of why affiliate marketing needs to be regulated in some form - and now.

Kerry Katona might be guilty of appalling reputation management, but at least no one can blame her personally for this shocking eponymous website.

Which affiliate marketing party should take responsibility for preventing low-rent name-hijacking such as this?

Networks, affiliates, agencies? You tell us.