Shahram Ahari swears he had no idea he was going to be videotaped when he sat down in December to discuss — some might say criticize — his former employer, Eli Lilly and Co.

But when the reporter came in and his camera came out, Ahari started talking anyway. And the video ended up on www.YouTube.com for all the world to see.

"We were instructed to downplay those side effects," explained the ex-sales rep, who used to hawk Lilly's antipsychotic drug, Zyprexa.

With only 20,000 views on YouTube, the unauthorized video isn't exactly a public relations nightmare for Lilly.

After all, the Web site's most popular video — "Evolution of Dance" — has been viewed more than 50 million times.

Still, Lilly and an increasing number of companies are having to decide how to deal with Web-based criticism.

"Companies used to have much more control over the information they put out," said Sarah Robbins, director of emerging technologies at the Carmel, Ind., new-media marketing company MediaSauce. "Now, the informal media have much more direct contact with the public.

Take a cruise through You-Tube, and you will find videos that mention companies such as Lilly, WellPoint, Best Buy, Vonage, AT&T and McDonald's.

Not all of these videos are negative, or produced by ex-employees or dissatisfied customers. But some are, and it's up to companies to understand this new public relations territory and decide how to tame it.

So far, Lilly has taken a hands-off approach.

"Emerging media play an important role in today's society," Lilly said in a statement. "However, open forums like YouTube are not without their limitations. Anyone can post content without regard to accuracy, objectivity or important disclosures."

For example, Lilly pointed out, Ahari is a paid witness in a case against a New Hampshire law prohibiting the sale of prescription data. But you won't find that mentioned on YouTube.

On the Web, employees and former workers who criticize a company — whether in a YouTube video or on a personal blog — can end up in hot water.

FREE SPEECH LIMITED

A person's First Amendment right to free speech isn't protected if it ends up defaming a company or divulging trade secrets, said Nancy Flynn, executive director of The ePolicy Institute, a technology consulting firm.

"You could find yourself on the wrong side of a civil lawsuit," she said.

Two percent of employers have fired workers for offensive content on blogs, according to a recent study by the Ohio company. About 12 percent of employers also check blog search engines to see what people are writing.

Flynn advises companies to adopt written policies on what employees can and cannot expose electronically, whether it's via video, blog, podcast, e-mail, instant message or MySpace.

CONTROL ILLUSORY?

Some experts say that kind of control is just an illusion, though.

"You can try, but you can't. Not effectively," Robbins said. "No one company can shut down everybody."

Consider that two-thirds of Americans are active Web users, and 40 percent of them create content, such as blogs and videos, said Eric Moll, director of Word of Marketing, a division of the New York marketing firm ID Society.

Instead of restricting employees from spouting off, some say companies should encourage it. Blogs and videos reach audiences that traditional forms of advertising may never reach.

Companies should make a place for employee-created content on their Web sites, or refer customers to it, Robbins said.

Of course, the trick is keeping the employees happy so their Web thoughts are positive.

"It takes a lot for a company to feel confident enough in that process to release control," she said.