Not considering the consequences of poor management or planning

[Irfanabdulla1111]

From time to time, not only memes but also reputation crises caused by poor social media management or the dismissal of large agencies due to a complete lack of results or even worsening of a company's situation go viral.

This is often because agencies tend to forget crucial points such as being clear about what would happen in a negative connotation if:

Results are not achieved.

If mismanagement is carried out, what can it trigger?

In this way, they would be clear, in the first instance, that there must be a specific crisis management protocol for that company.

On the other hand, it would also allow them to have a list that all the people involved with the account could pay special attention to, not only aimed at eliminating risk factors but also at deeply and sincerely understanding the human needs of that company.

What do I mean by “human needs”?

Companies do not really exist, it is a concept of a social agreement, what really exists is the set of people who work precisely within that agreement to achieve a common goal.

When agencies are aware that their work positively or negatively influences the lives and happiness of these people, then they are able to truly commit themselves beyond the numbers.

Taking over your customers' networks
You'd assume that this kind of thing doesn't happen in real life, that you only see it in low-budget movies where they don't have much to invest in a more diverse plot.

However, in the agency where I work, it is common to hear: “the agency we worked with does not want to give us access”, “they tell us that they created it and that is why it belongs to them” and a few other arbitrary things.

Which makes me wonder: where did professional ethics go?

At what point did pseudo-agencies or pseudo-community managers begin to think that the fac email database lists poland t that they create a network makes them owners of it?

Perhaps intellectual property rules on social media are not well defined?

Won't they realize the simple rule that everything created and produced through a paid service belongs to whoever pays for it?

I think my questions alone answer my perspective on this topic.

Do not deliver access and developed content
In continuation with the previous point, it is also common that they not only keep the social networks created but also the editable versions of the developed content.

Which brings me to the same point: the content created always belongs to whoever pays for it.

What is the strange reason why some pseudo-agencies consider it should be different?

Companies should always have full access to everything produced for them.