How companies manage the internet

There's an interesting piece on the BBC looking at how companies manage the internet. It's inspired by Davos and a little bit broad-brush and Twitter-focussed - but it's still a good introduction.

The piece uses snippets of an interview with David Brain (a friend of my chairman Nigel Clarke. He's thoughtful and clever and has a strong grasp on this because not only is Edeleman one of the most internet-enabled PR agencies but it's got a great client roster too.

The secret tool to protect your reputation online

There are various ways and tools you can use to protect your personal reputation online. I'm going to tell you the most effective and cheapest tool to ensure that your personal reputation isn't compromised by your biggest fan.

Be careful what you write

It's that obvious. You need to be careful what you write, what photos you post, what videos you take part in. The whole shebang. From forums to comments on blogs to social networks. Even anonymously (particularly on forums) you can't be certain that the forum owner won't reveal your identity (or be forced to).

There's no such thing as off the record

When I was a junior press officer I was always told 'there's no such thing as off the record'. And still I made the mistake of giving an unauthorised quote to a journalist. Which got used. And my then boss was not happy. The same rule is true on the internet. There is no such thing as private.

The newspaper frontpage test

I used to work for someone who said "only write something down if you are comfortable with it appearing on the frontpage of the newspaper". This had its drawbacks (no one could give her honest advice) but did protect her and her own staff from wrecking her reputation.

Why am I telling you this - that you already know?

Even the professionals get it wrong

Take this story of a PR professional who Twittered about being in Memphis. He didn't like Memphis - the home of major client FedEx. FedEx didn't appreciate his views.

Here's the story in all its glory: http://shankman.com/be-careful-what-you-post/

And remember, you are never too smart, too experienced or too familiar to ask yourself: does this cast me in a favourable light to someone who I've never met?

Should you respond to online attacks?

There's no single answer to whether you should respond to an attack about you (your brand, product or reputation) online. It depends on the circumstances, the nature of the attack, what you have to say in return, how the story might develop - and more. It's a specialist job.

However, there are some basic rules that can get you through the day to day. Thanks to Mark Pack, I've found this decision making tree from the US Air Force on the Webinknow blog. If it's useful, we'll publish our own tree later this week. It's broadly similar but relies more on analysing the site that's attacking the reputation.

Incidentally (and let's see if this works) Webinknow's author David Meerman Scott has a wikipedia entry. It's a good entry although it carries the warning that much of the data is unverifiable. The entry's history shows that it's been modified bya number of different sources - but none have strengthened the entry by adding sources. A pity, therefore, that it apparently doesn't follow the excellent advice of the USAF!

Sharing knowledge for local government

We've recently been able to publish our introduction to using social media for local authorities. 

It's a summary of a bigger training session we completed for a client in the sector and we'd like to open it up to peer review. 

Please use the comments section to suggest, amend or criticise.

Managing your risk register

Lots of company's have risk registers. However, in a way that would make Nassim Nicholas Taleb, many of the omit high impact but unlikely events that actually do occur.

Take, for example, this story about JournalSpace. I expect they did have a risk register. And that it contained dealing with disgruntled employees. But it didn't include backing up their critical database - or the likelihood that a disgruntled employee would wipe all of their users data. The event has made the company apparently worthless.

But if you are going to manage risk, what are you doing about reputation risks online? Do you monitor your reputation? Manage the consequences? Take actions to mitigate the risks you face? Or just set aside some cash each year to manage the consequences of things going wrong (like Taleb)?

Paying to protect your online reputation

There's an interesting story on The Consumerist which struck a chord with me. Apparently, Ritz Camera offered a small financial incentive ($20) to an unhappy consumer if she withdrew her complaint against the store.

Harvey Jones were always diligent in ensuring that I removed traces of my story with them. (Incidentally, I'm sure they monitor their reputation so diligently that they've read this).

My challenge to organisations is this: no customer expects 100% satisfaction. Wouldn't it be better to show how you've converted a detractor into a promoter?

Things go wrong. The more successful the company, the more opportunities that something will go wrong. What we do expect is that when it does, we get treated well and our complaint is handled satisfactorily. And a customer who wasn't happy but now is, is a much more convincing story than a string of reviews which are only positive.

That's hard for old-style organisations to get their heads around. But that level of authenticity is what makes the great standout from the good online.

Protecting and promoting online reputations

Newscounter has just launched a Google group about to identify best practice and emerging themes for organisations and their staff charged with protecting and promoting online reputations.

Take a look and join in the debate.

Measuring Twitter impact

There's an interesting debate on measuring the impact of Twitter.

Our experience is that not many companies track their products on Twitter. There isn't currently the volume to justify it. However, there's a growing case for doing so because:
a) Twitter is an incredibly useful tool for SEO (see Newscounter's Twitter page.)
b) Opinion formers use Twitter
c) An increasing number of journalists use Twitter personally and for new content

See some of the discussion here.

Do you know anyone who uses Twitter to monitor their brand reputation?

Progressive London - web asessment

Ken Livingtone has launched Progressive London - a new coalition of interests to oppose Boris Johnson and build political support for Ken's agenda. Dave Hill has the full story.

As is fashionable these days, it's backed by a bespoke website. So what could they do differently to boost the credibility and influence of the site?

1. Have a clear understanding of your keywords
The homepage has a meta description with some (pointless) keyword tags. However, these relate only to the content that they have, rather than the issues they want to be known for. There's no Boris Johnson for a start.

2. Fix the URLs
The URLs are random strings of numbers rather than a description of the page content - bad for search engines.

3. Build the content
There should be a page for each policy that the group oppose which it should aim to be in the top 5 of Google.

4. Build the links
There are too few links to other websites and too little mutual back-scratching. Where's the link to Ken's article in The Guardian, or the links back to the websites of members of the coalition. If you're going to have a links page, at least make sure they're reciprocated.

6. Improve the user experience
This will come but it isn't great at the moment. Nowhere to interact, only a box which asks you to sign-up without any declaration of what you are signing up to, data protection pledge etc.

Any other thoughts / ideas?

Anfi Emerald fails to act

My previous post about Anfi Emerald has been met by silence. I'm a bit surprised because I asked for them to contact me on the feedback form, as well as pointing the company to my blog.

I notice that my post has now risen to 11th on a Google search for Anfi Emerald and the TripAdvisor listing (complete with my comment) appears in the all-important top 10.

I wonder if the company just doesn't monitor its online reputation or hopes that the good outweighs the bad. One thing that the company has done well is to use an online distribution company for its press releases. Whilst this makes little impact on press coverage, it often helps SEO.

Equalities and Human Rights Commission: invaluable lesson on search

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission has had an invaluable lesson on the importance of search.

It used to be easy for public relations consultants: get to know a few journalists (drink with them if necessary) write a good press release and give them a call. Job done.

Now there are far more things to consider, including what impact a news story will have on an organisation's internet reputation.

EHRC boss Trevor Phillips gave a wide-ranging interview at the weekend during which he said that Barack Obama could not have emerged in Britain's party political system because of "institutional racism" within the Labour party. He accussed (former?) comrades of willing the ends but not the means.

The remarks have provoked a strong reaction - most of which the EHRC may see as beneficial. However, does it want this to be the only issue associated with its chair?

Type "Trevor Phillips" into Google. These are the results. If you search "equality human rights commission" it may not be top 10 (yet) but with the Google News clipping and the Times article 16th it will still make an impact.

Assuming that a body responsible for seven equalities strands doesn't want to be known for this alone, how could this have been avoided? I won't give you all the tips of the trade but try putting "Tesco" into Google. Notice how the first newspaper site is ranked 17th. I know that Tesco are bigger and have been around longer. But Google - and its users - don't account for that and their perception of the organisation changes accordingly.

The standard reached by Tesco must be aspired to by any organisation seeking to influence public life.

Why go to Dolphin Bathrooms?

I've been trying to convince my wife to invest in improving our bathroom. After the problems we had with our kitchen, it's a hard sell. However, I've made progress of late after suggesting that people thought twice about visiting us because of its poor condition.

My wife, ever contentious, looked up three possible providers. Dolphin Bathrooms was the most attractive because it came with a recommendation from family, they have a 50% sale and they looked mid-range in terms of cost and quality.

After making an enquiry online, she had a phone call back on the same day to arrange an appointment. However, they called back the same day to rearrange the date, putting the visit back six days. Two days letter, we received a brochure in the post with a confirmation letter (albeit for the previous meeting date). So far, we were impressed.

However, 20 minutes before the visit, my wife had a call to say that the member of staff was off sick and asking to re-arrange. We did so, reluctantly.

This morning, one hour before the appointment, they called again, ostensibly to find out about parking. You can park opposite our house and pay at a meter (it's about £1 for an hour). At the end of the conversation, the Dolphin rep mentioned that the person coming to see us was "running a little late". When pressed as to how late, the rep said that they would be with us "around 1pm" - two hours late.

When my wife said that this was not acceptable, the person apologised, but did not offer any alternative. We cancelled the appointment.

As it currently stands, we won't be buying a bathroom from Dolphin. Not so much, why buy a bathroom from Dolphin as 'can anyone buy a bathroom from Dolphin'?

Three Crowns but no wise men

Our family went for lunch at the Three Crowns in Stoke Newington on Sunday. I don't recommend it.

The pub is quite new and has taken over from bars and restaurants that have been unattractive. The Three Crowns, however, is a real improvement.

We've had lots of good dinners there before, and once before on a Sunday lunch. On that occasion we went in on spec and were told we could only have one hour before a reservation. We asked for desert (with 15 minutes remaining) but were refused because they could not get it to us before the reservation.

This time we booked in advance and had a reservation for five at 2.30pm. We were seated at 2.55pm at a table in the corner. The arrangement of the tables had changed since we were last in. I was sat on the end of the table. Unfortunately, the seating positions were such that I had to get up and leave my seat for the family behind to be able to leave their table. Worse still, I had to leave my seat in order for the restaurant staff to serve the table of two by the window.

The food was fine. The 12.5% obligatory service charge (automatically added) was not. We won't go there again when it's budy. We didn't pre-book to wait an additional 25 minutes for a table which was that poorly positioned.