online reputation management

If you regularly read my blog and know our work on Socializing Your CEO, you know that I follow social CEOs or other executives. Well, this story was not what I was thinking about when we first starting calling for more CEOs to use online technology.

  "I am not proud of my actions and have made a visit to the Vancouver Police Department, over the weekend to turn myself in."

The Vancouver riots have highlighted how we are all discoverable and all our actions are forever on display online.  Many people who participated in the riots over the Stanley Cup loss to the Boston Bruins have begun to publicly apologize, particularly after being caught on tape or in photos and posted online. They are painfully trying to recover their reputations for participating in the disturbing looting and bad bahavior that grabbed headlines all over the world. Here is a newscast  from CBC that caught my eye because it was identified under the title Reputation Recovery, the theme of my second book. The quote at the start of this blog is from a young woman who apologizes for her actions. She continues, "The pants are being returned.  I have made mistakes and I have learned from them.  The aftermath has been a tough ordeal and I let my emotions get in the way of my original apology.  But I take full responsibility for my actions and understand that it is nobody else’s fault but mine.  I am truly sorry for my actions and am ready to accept the consequences, including the public backlash." We are all public. Not much more to say.  Hard way to learn one of life's latest lessons. Hopefully, the rioters will repair their reputations and care for them like never before.

  Lawyers and communications specialists seem at times to inhabit entirely different worlds.  This is something that I've often thought about but has received little attention in the public relations and legal counsels' worlds. So it's time to think about this new trend in reputation managment that can help companies managing crises and issues better. Consider this example I was told that has to do with the comments of one anxious general counsel reviewing his company's first few Tweets.  "Looks good but you have a typo at the end," the in-house counsel warned the communications officer.  The more socially-savvy communications person quickly replied that the so-called typo -- a colon and closed parenthesis -- was none other than that now nearly universal icon ... the smiley face :). Of course, not all general counsels are so unfamiliar with standard and new social media customs and practices.  However, companies can no longer afford a disconnect between legal and communications.  In times of crisis, particularly, the general counsel  (GC) and chief communications officer (CCO) represent two departments often at odds with one another.  Lawyers typically urge minimal or even no public comment out of fear that admissions might damage a company’s case in a court of law, while communications professionals typically demand prompt public comment, even a CEO apology, to avoid further damage to a company’s reputation in the court of public opinion. As the “information age” produces one corporate crisis after another and social media zingers multiply at alarming speed, everyone is responsible for keeping a watchful eye on defending company reputation as well as protecting against slander, libel and other legal  difficulties. Despite decidedly different approaches, GCs and CCOs are now both finding themselves participating in the same “reputation management” strategy meetings and conference calls.  They now have no choice but to trust and understand each other. Here are three ways that these corporate officers can get on the same page:

1. Socialize.   Instead of dealing with problems incident by incident, start strengthening the relationship between GC and CCO by getting them to the table to jointly craft the company’s social media policy and guidelines.  Only about one-third of companies have such policies which leaves plenty of seats left for the two departments to fill. Agreeing to and understanding the needs of the other and providing for thoughtful compromise ahead of time can only help protect against trade secret violations, adverse publicity, confidential leaks and inadvertent disclosures about employee departures and misbehavior. Companies with employees who know  what’s allowable and not allowable on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs because the GC and CCO have cooperated will save their companies sudden embarrassment and reinforce continued cooperation between the departments.
2. Scenario Plan.  The time to build mutual respect is before reputation risk knocks at the door. Best practice requires getting  GCs and CCOs together with CEOs, HR, IT officers and others to rehearse various best and worst case scenarios, online and offline.  After a few sessions of rapid response simulations (we have an online simulation crisis drill called Firebell to do exactly this),  GCs and CCOs will have the opportunity to work out obstacles and craft prepared statements to hypothetical crises that will give them a head start should real crises occur.
3. Value Set.  Anchor both communications and legal concerns to the company's core values. The values by which a company operates serves as the grease that reduces the natural friction between legal and communications best practices.  Both departments need to consistently call up company values – for example, integrity, good governance and customer always comes first – as the standard by which any legal or communications decision is judged.  Once the primacy of company values is accepted as the ground rule, cooperation between GCs and CCOs can be more easily facilitated.

  I have to take a break from work and post something. I think my mind is going to explode. So I thought I would post about something fun and different that has to do with improving your city reputation. And also about reputation retaliation.  Apologies for being a few weeks behind. Newsweek wrote a story profiling the top 10 dying American cities [I should add that Newsweek says it appeared pursuant to a content-sharing agreement with a site called Main Street, and that the magazine didn't produce it]. Grand Rapids, Michigan was included in the list of slow deaths which certainly does not do anything good for its reputation, attracting new residents or new businesses to the area.  Hasn't Michigan had enough grief? So instead of taking the criticism lying down, 1,000 residents of Grand Rapids raised about $40,000 and  fought back. And fought back they did.  Check out this video.  It is delicious to see how cities can redeem their reputation.  Nearly 4 million people have watched the music video, referred to as one big block party,  that lip dubs the classic song American Pie. It is a great diversion and a smart strategy. And falls into my advice about going rogue when it comes to reputation warfare. This made me think about the article I read awhile back about Detroit needing a statue to repair its reputation and efforts to raise funds for a Robocop statue. I loved the idea but I think it was squashed. (See picture at the start of this blog)

 

The incidents were the latest examples of what security experts call “reputational attacks” on media companies that publish material that the hackers disagree with. Such companies are particularly vulnerable to such attacks because many of them depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard — and because unlike other targets, like government entities and defense contractors, they are less likely to have state-of-the-art security to thwart attacks.

As I was reading this article this morning on how several media companies were dealing with recent hackings, I noticed a call out box saying "So-called reputational attacks follow controversial reports."  The hackings over the past few days of news programs on public television came about because of negative stories that were clearly disliked  by certain parties. I would underscore that most entities -- government, military, corporate or otherwise -- are having a very difficult time with hackers, privacy, leaked information, etc.  I was somewhat surprised when I saw "reputational attacks" in quotes as if this was a new label of sorts. Reputational attacks online have become commonplace and not just assaults on media companies. Either way, the most interesting element in the discussion on these "so-called reputational attacks" is the common refrain that they are usually the work of repressive governments. And these attacks are much more than reputation vandalism or Web site defacing. In fact, this is reputation warfare. No doubt about it. The reputational risks that companies and organizations are increasingly facing continues to amaze me.

 No doubt you have heard about icorrect.com -- the web site that sets the record straight about rumors and hearsay. The website says that it  is about protecting " one’s reputation in cyberspace forever." ICorrect was started by the founder of Shanghai Tang, the terrifically classy and expensive department store chain. Since I was recently in China, I certainly did not pass up the opportunity to drop into Shanghai Tang and admire all its beautiful apparel and items. It is known as a luxury lifestyle brand.  Sir David, the founder and businessman, began this web site to help people clear up misinformation that lives permanently on the Internet. Several well-known celebrities and luminaries have taken to clearing their records. Anyone can view the corrections although to post costs $1,000 annually. There are posts from Cherie Blair, Sienna Miller and Michael Cain. I do wonder if they are actually took the trouble to post these corrections but it seems to be the case.  Here is an example -- the accusation followed by the correction.

Accusation: Kate Moss to make her acting debut in Shakespeare's The Tempest

Kate Moss is taking the acting world by storm - making her stage debut in the Tempest. The supermodel, 36, has landed a minor role as a nymph in an upcoming version of Shakespeare's play. It follows a series of meetings and phone calls with Kevin Spacey who is overseeing the production as part of the Bridge project at London's Old Vic. Our spy tells us: "Kate has had several acting lessons and is keen to broaden her.......

 I could not start this blog post without mentioning my deep sorrow for those lives lost in Japan due to the earthquake and tsunami.  The news is devastating and I am very sad for this amazing country. However, if there is a country with the ability to come together to move forward, Japan is the one with the finest reputation for preparedness and commitment to the community. I wanted to share some research I read about in The Economist on the wisdom of debunking company myths and rumors online. If you are a regular reader of my work, you have heard me mention that I think it is a good idea to refute rumors about your company and its products if they become too prominent online and spiral out of control. However, researchers at Kellogg's School of Management and Stanford Business School  found that it actually hurts to repeat rumors on a company web site.  They found that by highlighting the myths on company web sites (in order to explain why they are wrong), the rumors are actually propagated, not diminished. I think that there is always a risk to communicating about the negative but that companies need to join the conversation about hearsay that harms their company or their brands' reputation. Being silent in some cases can cause even more damage because of the inaction and going on the record with the facts. Of course, the art to disclosure is knowing when to address myths and rumors and when enough is enough. That requires constant monitoring online to know when hearsay is spiraling out of control. I do agree with the researchers, however, that when companies repeat myths and rumors that are circulating online, it increases the likelihood that search engines will pick them up and give the rumors greater  prominence in the search rankings. But as the article itself notes, the antidote to hearsay is making sure that there are good things also being said about your company to counter the negative ones. As the researchers say, the positive facts "nudges people to doubt nasty things they may hear about the company in question." Therefore countering the rumors and complementing them with good information on what the company is doing or the brand is promising and delivering should work in your favor. Ultimately, it is maintaining the right amount of the good stuff to counter the bad stuff. And knowing when it is the right time and right place to speak up and stop rumors in their tracks.

I am always eager to learn how other countries are managing their company or brand online reputations. Here in the U.S., it is always a topic of conversation at work or at home. Therefore I was pleased when a colleague in our office in the Hague sent me some research they did among executives in Dutch organizations on the subject. I was particularly pleased that they cited our global research that we did on online reputation management in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit. Here are some of the facts that jumped out at me and here is the link if you are interested in learning more.

• Most Dutch companies actively monitor social media but do not react proactively when something appears online that impacts their reputation.
• Dutch companies are slow to react to detractors online or what we call badvocates (I would say that companies here in the U.S. do not necessarily react that quickly either). Dutch companies are quicker to respond to advocates or those who support them than their critics. I think that this reflects the difficulty in getting executives to agree on what to say to detractors. There are so many opinions and people to consult unless you are extremely well-rehearsed or  fairly advanced on the social media continuum.
• A large 62% said that they had encountered badvocates online and one-quarter felt that they had difficulty controling their impact.  I would have expected the latter number to be higher since it is hard to control one's badvocates. It is hard to know what to do unless you are in the social media conversation often and have built credibility.
• Suprising to me, these executives believe that positive comments online have a greater impact on reputation than negative comments. I would have thought the other way around since detractors' negativity travels so quickly here in the U.S.  But this does make sense.
• Nearly two-thirds (64%) say that Dutch companies do not have a plan for managing reputation online.  That seems to compare with the U.S. in terms of preparation. I think that most companies think about online reputation management but their planning is less than perfect.

 As my colleagues concluded, "organizations hear what they want to hear."  I have to totally agree with this conclusion. When I wrote my book on reputation recovery, one of the salient points I learned is how hard it is for companies to stop believing their own propaganda. It is more difficult than ever to think out of the silo or box.  Perhaps that is because every misstep today can be magnified and amplified. Someone once said to me that it is easy to listen but harder to hear. That is the truth. If you can read in Dutch, you might want to go here.

  A survey on irritating buzzwords was forwarded to me last week and I was delighted that "online reputation management" was not among them although it made me wonder. In my narrow world, online reputation management seems to be ubiquitous and I use it alot. The last thing I would want to be called is bothersome. However, the analysis by an independent research group for The Creative Group looked at the" most annoying" industry buzzwords according to marketing and advertising executives. As you can only imagine, "social media" and "social networking" are at the top. I have to admit that I have used some of these words myself so I am not a complete innocent. However, I am now forewarned. I noticed that 24/7 was mentioned (number 20) which made me recall the New York Times Public Editor's article from yesterday that cited the paper's dot com site's assistant managing editor Jim Roberts who calls it the 1440/7 news cycle because there are  1,440 minutes every day, seven days a week with "each one of those minutes demanding news for delivery to a networked world."  I think that Jim Roberts has it exactly right when it comes to filling the news demand. 25 Most Annoying Marketing Buzzwords

1. "Social media/social networking"
2. "Synergy"
3. "Free"
4. "Innovative/innovation"
5. "ROI/return on investment"
6. "Extra value/value added"
7. "Model(s)"
8. "Telemarketing"
9. "Social media expert"
10. "Resolve"
11. "Moving forward"
12. "Branding"
13. "Multitasking"
14. "Going green"
15. "Proactive"
16. "Think out of the box"
17. "Culture change"
18. "End of the day"
19. "Interactive"
20. "24/7"
21. "Integrated/integration"
22. "Viral"
23. "The big idea"
24. "Leverage"
25. "Unique"