online reputation

   Reputation dirt. An article in the Boston Globe describes what people can do to manage their personal and professional reputations.  The feature reviews various firms that help bury the negative and accentuate the positive. One of the experts quoted in the article, Harvard University Internet law professor Jonathan Zittrain, came up with an interesting idea. He suggested that people be allowed to declare “reputation bankruptcy.’’  His idea is that people get to have their online reputations erased every few years to reset them, a method similar to what happens in personal financial bankruptcy.  Surely, this would lead to an entirely new industry — reputation bankruptcy experts. 

The question is whether it makes sense for people who have truly done something wrong (i.e., criminal history) to be given the right to erase their past when it is important to others who might be hiring them or living next door to them to know their backgrounds.  Again, it keeps coming back to the fact  that people should think not once, not twice but possibly three or more times about doing something that is wrong. in the first place.

Stephen Colbert of  The Colbert Report had a funny riff on online reputation management.  I found it on Reputation Defender’s blog (a leading firm that helps bury the negative). Worth the look.

Intriguing. There is a company called Reputation Retriever who helps you out with any online defamation of your character or reputation. The tag line is one of a kind….Bury Libel like a Bone. You gotta love it. I first heard about the company in an article that also had advertising for golden retriever puppies so I was a bit confused but went to their site. On the site they say, they will tackle your problem “like a junk yard dog.” The site, however, must be unfinished because there is nothing up under About Us. And the photo on the home page seems to have an abundance of pretty women (14 women and 3 men). One of the women is holding a red folder which must mean she has urgent and dire information that must be dealt with immediately.  

Here is their sell in their own words: “It’s important that you realize that usually the sort of people who start and continue smear campaigns about you or your business are known as sociopaths or psychopaths and may be dangerous. Are they disgruntled ex-employees, ex-lovers, competitors, enemies of some sort? As currently only your slander and libel enemies/sociopaths online are using negative phrases in their smear campaign against you, or your brand.”

My sense is that they’ve been in the online defamation situation themselves which is what they say further down in the service explanation: “Reputation Retriever is so effective because some of its own staff have had to protect their own names from Internet slander defamation.”

A different take on reputation management.

As a follower of reputation and builder (I like to think) of the importance of reputation in the world of business, I come across new sites on the topic all the time. A site called Reputation Repair Services caught my eye.  If it were only this simple.  This company promises it can help with finding you an Internet lawyer, cease and desist notices, copyright and trademark infringement notices and domain dispute lawyers.  It can protect your reputation by improving search engine suggestions, create positive blogs, good reviews and more. [This company says that they have been around for many years and the alert below is from their site.]

 There are various packages ranging from $500 per month and upwards. For $500/month, you get site evaluation, keyword research, five promotional pages and content that are optimized by the online company, full site optimization, inclusion in reciprocal linking systems and search engine submissions. You can move up from this minimum service fee (with an 8 month committment) to $750 per month service. The additional fee provides you with a shared techie “live” and at your service who is devoted to your reputation until the negative information no longer appears on page one of Google. And onward and upward.

 I have no doubt that there are people who want negative information about themselves or their company deeply buried or removed from the Internet.  I am not sure however that this takes care of the hard work of reputation building which almost always involves creating high quality products and services, engaging in corporate citizenship, ethical behavior, financial soundness, innovation and leadership development.

Oops. If you are also worried about your CEO’s reputation, they can help you too.  Any CEO missteps can be wiped off the face of the earth. As Reputation Repair reminds us, “A CEO’s reputation is directly linked to the reputation of the company. The CEO is the face of the company and a leader who provides direction and inspiration.” These words sound familiar since I have written about this topic for years.

I often wonder if these online reputation repair and protection sites can help you build reputation faster by damaging your competitor’s reputation instead. If I wanted to do some harm, maybe I should just spread rumors about my toughest competitor and get that on page one of Google. Could I find someone to do that? I doubt that it is easy to find companies willing to compromise themselves but this has crossed my mind. Might be less expensive.

All this is to say that online reputation management is important but if this is all that is done to build enduring reputations, this is a short-lived proposition. True reputation management deserves more consideration, planning, depth and years of hard work.

   Attended an interesting roundtable yesterday hosted by Business Marketing Association and Forbes. The topic was managing reputation in the new world of the Internet. Some interesting points surfaced:

• It is easier now to track reputation and ROI with the Internet. However the field of social media is so new that it is very difficult to track back to a baseline.

• Marketers are now interested in reputation as they realize that the company behind the brand matters. CMOs are the new entry point into companies as they see the connection more vividly. Product marketing is not enough.

• Perception is nice to have but behavior is have to have. You need your customers to act – buy your products, give you the benefit of the doubt in time of crisis, recommend you to others, spread word-of-mouth.

• Social media is the new Petri dish.

• Reputation Institute’s Anthony Johndrow reported on a study among CMOs and CCOs. They found that 97% are interested in reputation, 89% are doing something in the space but only 33% are measuring its impact. Disturbing when companies spend so much on reputation in general.

• We should be referring to “social business” not “social media.”

• Integration between traditional and social is key.

• One of the reasons more companies become social is that competitors force their hands. When a competitor starts using Twitter, YouTube and Facebook, its rivals are propelled into this new world.

• Sometimes your critics can be your best advocates. An example was given of a relentless critic who also links to company articles mentioned on Twitter that promote the company’s point of view. So your online enemies can also get your word out if you just time it right.

Everyone agreed that reputation has become more complex, harder to manage and everyone’s job. In addition, the bar is now not as high or as low as it was just one year ago. Since so many companies are now using Twitter for engaging customers and neutralizing reputation damage, some of the early examples such as Dell and Comcast are just that – text book examples and expected today.

I attended a conference this week on Social Reputation (I mentioned in my last post). A social media expert from Pitney Bowes discussed how the company jumped into the social media fray. She made an interesting statement which was well-Tweeted. She said that being a B2B company made it particularly hard to get messages across and that companies needed to humanize themselves. She then said that one learning from the work they are doing is that no one wants to talk to a logo. She is sure right on that count. Companies need to be good storytellers if they want to improve their reputations, especially in the social media space. They should try not to Twitter in corporate messages but in conversational tones. In the same vein, a communications director from Microsoft said that the 4th estate is important but people also want to hear directly from companies. Possibly this is why Twitter has revolutionized corporate engagement.

On a similar topic, I ran across this article this morning in TechCrunch that says that a Yelp-like product is coming very soon that allows people to rate each other’s reputations anonymously. Just what we need. Anonymous raters telling the world about each other’s discretions and stupid moments. Will be curious to see what this is but I do not have high hopes when it comes to anonymous reputation drive-bys. I am hoping that people show some restraint.

Attended an interesting conference today on social reputation. Several excellent presentations and roundtables. Will add some observations in my next post but I thought I would share an interesting insight I had before the day ends. The conference was about “social reputation” which I expected would also include observations on “reputation” in general. Interestingly, there was very little conversation about what reputation is and how social reputation is a component of overall reputation. Instead, many of the presentations were about “online reputation” building mostly through two way conversations, social media and engagement. For a moment I was wondering reputation does not exist unless you are talking about social reputation. Social reputation is but one way that reputation is manifested but it is not the entirety of what reputation is all about.

I think that the fervor around social reputation may be causing people to turn a blind eye to the totality of reputation-building  — how you treat employees, act as a good corporate citizen and build high quality products and services. And of course, one has to be financially sound. You can be the best social media maven and engager but you still need these important building blocks to make sure that people want to hear from you.

I was pleased to think that a holistic approach to reputation might be the better way in the long-term. The pendulum will swing back to a more holistic approach but right now reputation managers must open their eyes wide.

[Interestingly too, two of our clients spoke and they had more holistic reputation presentations so I felt good about that.]

 Today at Weber Shandwick we just issued a new reputation offering that I particularly like. As safeguarding company and brand reputation continues to rise to the top of executive agendas, 99 Tips to Safekeeping Reputation provides a simple visual roadmap to navigating crises and restoring reputations. We think it will come in handy for anyone interested in reputation. Enjoy and let me know what you think or would like to see added in our next version. I am thinking of doing this annually.

 A woman living in the Chicago is being sued for allegedly Twittering that her management company is okay with moldy apartments where she lives. Horizon Group Management sued her this week for publishing “a false and defamatory tweet” on Twitter. According to the suit the woman Twittered “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it’s okay.” Horizon Group Management is suing because it says it has been greatly injured in its reputation as a landlord. How much? In excess of $50,000 in damages.

Reputation injury law suits a la Twitter are starting. Wonder what the law says about Twitter defamation.

Some random notes on reputation from the past few days….

1. “Green” is having a hard time when it comes to reputation. Greenwashing claims are piling up as more advertisers try to appeal to socially conscious consumers.  According to the U.S. Advertising Standards Authority’s public affairs department, “We received a record number of complaints about green claims last year, which had more than doubled from the year before, to over 300.”  Companies need hard and clear evidence to make statements about their products being carbon-neutral, sustainable, organic, non-toxic, ozone friendly, 100% recycled. The reputation of “green” is quickly losing its power over consumers if it continues to be used irresponsibly. The Financial Times article where I read about this evolution of green’s reputation said that there are certain terms that are more passable than others such as “kinder to the environment,” “ecologically improved,” and “more environmentally friendly than before.”  These might not satisfy consumers and marketers although they may be more credible. More stringent rules are on their way in the U.S .and U.K.  Greenwashing charges against “green” could dilute its reputation altogether if we are not careful.

2. As our research on managing reputations online revealed, executives are very worried about the leaking of confidential documents. Another article I read recently in the Financial Times states that networking security is at greater risk than ever before.  Executives seem aware but will be surprised at how easy it now is to break into company networks and steal information. The CEO of NCC Group, a network security firm, says that his team of “ethical hackers”  has a success rate of 97.8% in hacking into corporate networks.  Not only are wireless networks making it easier to break into corporate networks but so are stolen or lost laptops and devices. I thought it was very cool to read that one of the safety recommendations was for companies to use a “remote device wipe” so that all the data on a lost device could be obliterated on demand.  Sounds very 24 to me (the program with Jack Bauer). After reading this article, I vow to never leave my laptop out on the desk of a hotel room just waiting to be taken. The article says that we should never assume we are safely covered network-wise.  The executives in our study are right to be worried.

3. In today’s WSJ, an article on CEO turnover in the financial sector helps make a point that surfaced in our other recent survey on CEO reputations. We learned that nearly one-half of rising executives (49%) say that they would take a CEO position if offered. We stated that this was good news because positive CEO succession is critical to our nation’s economic recovery. The authors wrote, “ There  aren’t any highly attractive CEO prospects in the financial-services industry. The best players won’t risk their careers going to a troubled enterprise.” Therefore the job number one for companies right now is to increase their leadership development programs and groom rising executives for the long-term.  According to the Booz & Co. terrific survey on CEO turnover, 18% of financial services firms lost their CEO in 2008 and of these, more than half were pushed out. As the WSJ reports, several firms are now looking for CEO replacements – AIG, Hartford, Freddie Mac. The reputation of the financial services sector is in great need of repair and only when we have willing, seasoned and values-driven executives in the corner suite, will we be able to talk about a reputation recovery in the financial services sector.

  There is a new officer title emerging that includes reputation as one of its responsibilities. I learned about this in an article on CSOonline.  The new (and not so new) title is Chief Security Officer and although it is still about business continuity and enterprise risk, it is quickly evolving to include brand protection and reputation security. We just have to be reminded of the Dominos incident to realize how important brand protection and integrity is nowadays. In addition, just think about what happens to your reputation when email scams, copyright infringement, phishing, brand high jacking, etc., accelerating even more.  As the head of global security at Caterpillar rightfully said: “With the proliferation of social interaction tools any company’s brand could be put under attack for a multitude of reasons. We all have to be very, very astute about watching for those emerging risks and to be able to deal with them.” 

The need for CSOs is all the more urgent. Our research among executives around the world about online reputation management found that confidential document leaks and negative employee chatter are keeping leaders up at night. [I read today that the federal deficit is keeping Obama up at night these days. High on his risk agenda I presume.] Companies need to do much more to protect their reputational integrity as well as that of their employees, partners, and supply chains.

Aon annually reports on global risks facing industries and is cited in the CSO article. Reputation damage is among the top 10 greatest risks that executives are concerned about. The survey was taken last fall when the economic news was fairly catastrophic and the U.S. presidential election was close. Therefore not surprising how high the first three risks are below.

The Top Ten Risks Around the World
1. Economic slowdown
2. Regulatory/legislative changes
3. Business interruption
4. Increasing competition
5. Commodity price risk
6. Damage to reputation
7. Cash flow/liquidity risk
8. Distribution or supply chain failure
9. Third-party liability
10. Failure to attract or retain top talent

Maybe we just need more CROs…chief reputation officers to combat this increasingly menacing reputation infection.