ABA Banking Journal - July 2010 - (Page 34)
compliance clinic | case study
Making social media policy stick
How Arvest controls employee use of new media
By Steve Cocheo, executive editor
Fish caught online The bank’s “anglers” look not just for external parties’ badmouthing or worse of Arvest, but also for postings on social media sites or other web formats by Arvest employees that are inappropriate, embarrassing to the bank, or explicitly
| ABA BANKING JOURNAL | July 2010
photo illustration by melissa zayas
rvest Bank pays three employees to do nothing but fish all week. Of course, they’re not casting for largemouth bass. The three troll websites and the social media scene for mentions about Arvest, and for communications by Arvest employees that, perhaps, ought best be kept off the web. “And when they catch a fish, it’s normally a big one,” says Tammy Kee, Arvest senior vice-president and group compliance director. Arvest, an $11 billion-assets bank headquartered in Fayetteville, Ark., doesn’t kid around.
barred by the company’s social media policy. A blatant example, Kee told bankers at ABA’s recent Regulatory Compliance Conference, was “One Hot Party Girl.” This mortgage lender was promoting loan rates through her Facebook page. Her page update promised, “I can guarantee you a mortgage loan rate at 5.25% email me at firstname.lastname@example.org or my home onehotpartygirl@hotmail.” (These are not the real addresses.) “Party Girl” crossed the line in multiple ways, beyond a questionable internet handle. Her marketing message lacked disclosures triggered by wording and data, potentially exposing Arvest to regulatory issues. And her Facebook page was decorated by a shot of herself in a bikini. “ ‘A small bikini,’ I might add,” said Kee. Normally, an Arvest employee who went that far afield of the company’s employee social media policy would be at risk of losing their
If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.