Posts Tagged ‘reputation’

Brands In Public: A New Reputation Management Tool

If your company matters to people, they are talking about you.

There’s nothing particularly new about this; this has been the pattern for hundreds of years. However, one difference with the advent of social media tools is that people are now able to talk to dozens, hundreds or thousands of other people instead of the few they used to.

There are plenty of tools to help companies listen to what people are saying. While I often talk about Radian6, there are plenty of other tools out there, both free and professional.

Today Seth Godin’s Squidoo launched a new service named Brands In Public.

As Seth says:

You can’t control what people are saying about you. What you can do is organize that speech. You can organize it by highlighting the good stuff and rationally responding to the not-so-good stuff. You can organize it by embracing the people who love your brand and challenging them to speak up and share the good word. And you can respond to it in a thoughtful way, leaving a trail that stands up over time.”

Brands In Public provides an online dashboard that pulls together the latest news and conversation about a brand from sources such as Google Blogsearch, Google News, Yahoo! News, Twitter, BackType, Google Search Trends and Quantcast.

Where Brands In Public gets more interesting is that if a company decides it wants to sponsor its company page (for $400 a month) it gets control of about 2/3 of the screen real-estate on the page. It can highlight blog posts, run contests, post videos or whatever it likes. In case of an issue, the company can quickly respond without needing any technical skills, the ongoing maintenance requirements of a blog, or IT’s go-ahead to create a new page on your website.

All the time, the regular searches continue in the right-hand column, uncensored and unfiltered.

So, while the Molson page features a Twitter search, the Molson blog and a quick poll on how people feel about the brand, the Allstate page includes YouTube videos from various channels along with content from multiple blogs (disclosure: Molson Coors Canada is a recent client; Allstate Canada is a current client).

There’s nothing complicated about Brands In Public; in fact Seth takes pain in his post announcing the service to note that it’s deliberately simple. “It’s simply a place for your brand to see and be seen, to organize and to respond.”

A few thoughts from me:

  • The interface is clean, friendly and easy to use.
  • Right now there’s no search function – the pages seem to be limited to a scrolling list. Presumably this will change as the service is built out and the volume of pages increases.
  • The FAQs indicate that the service will remove a company’s page if they request it. However, as they note, “Your fans might be disappointed though.” What’s more, the lack of a comprehensive list of companies may inhibit the growth of the service.
  • If brands haven’t yet invested in a social media presence, they’re unlikely to make this their first step due to the lack of control of the searches. To those who have already invested, they don’t need this presence as they’re already out there.
  • Brands In Public provides an easy way for companies to be part of the conversation – an entry level solution – but at a premium price. As TechCrunch noted, $400 per month is a pretty hefty price point for a series of automated searches and a few dashboard modules.

What do you think? Is this a useful tool for brands?

What If People Say Bad Things About You?

Steve Rubel did a great Q&A session at last night’s Third Tuesday Toronto meetup. I often find myself disagreeing with Rubel, but I thought most of his answers were right on the money yesterday.

I could write a week’s worth of blog posts on the various issues raised by the session, but I’ll quickly focus on one instead.

My colleague Michael O’Connor Clarke raised an interesting and important question towards the end of the session (which was moderated by Jeremy Wright of B5 Media), and I think Steve missed an opportunity when answering it.

Michael asked:

What’s your response to the people who say, “you’re telling us we should get involved in social media, but what if people start to say bad things about us?”

My response to this (any real-time screw-ups aside):

They already are; you just can’t hear them.

To paraphrase one of Steve’s earlier answers in last night’s session, social media is unlikely to create new issues for your brand (setting screw-ups and over-reactions aside); however it can speed-up existing issues.

If there’s a problem with your brand, people are already saying bad things about you. If you’re not online, they’re just not saying them to you…  because you aren’t listening.

Is the “head in the sand” approach really better?

Four Questions To Ask Before Suing Bloggers

TechCrunch‘s Michael Arrington wrote recently about a company that has sued TechCrunch "out of spite," laying into the people filing the suit using words like "absurd" and "frivolous" while threatening a countersuit.

Unlike Arrington I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not going to talk about the merits of individual cases. In fact, I’m going to set this particular case aside entirely. Instead, while remembering that every situation is unique, here are some things to think about from a communications perspective before you rush to take legal action against a blogger.

Are you prepared for negative coverage?

The odds are high that are the blogger has done already said something to upset you if you’re considering taking legal action. Be prepared, though, for even more negative coverage if you go ahead and take legal action. If the blogger does go public about the suit, the odds are high that it will get more attention than what they originally said about you. You also run the risk of being seen as the big company bullying "the little guy."

Arrington’s post, for example, has 131 comments and eight trackbacks (meaning eight other people have written about it) just a few hours after posting. Very few bloggers have the readership and reach of TechCrunch, but it serves as a useful reminder.

What’s more, remember that once legal action begins your communications options will likely become more limited, too, as it can be tough to get any communications past the lawyers and out to customers on the topic. Governments suffer greatly from this — once legal action begins, their lawyers effectively shut down any avenues of public communication on that topic. As a result, while governments often win lawsuits, they usually lose in terms of public opinion.

Is it really a problem?

Yes, you should feel that you can defend your intellectual property rights, your brand, your reputation and so on. Before rushing to a knee-jerk response, consider whether this is really a problem.

Does it matter that someone has posted your copyrighted ad on YouTube, or does it mean that a few more people will see your advertising? How many people are really going to see that scathing review of your company or will it be buried on page 100 of Google’s results?

This is where the experience and knowledge of a communications professional can come in. Anyone can run a Google search to see what people are saying about you (ok, our social media monitoring is a touch more complex than that, but moving on…) but you can benefit from a professional with the experience to tell you whether you should ignore issues, respond to them, address them on your own turf, or consider legal action or other approaches.

Will legal action solve the problem?

Will legal action solve your problem?

By this I mean, is this problem deeper than one case? If someone has a genuine issue with your company, might fixing the problem (especially if other people might experience it too) be better than confronting the person complaining or attacking you for it?

Can you work with them rather than against them?

This line of thinking is similar in a way to the previous question: can you reach out to your detractors and work with them to improve your business?

Dell (who I find myself continually citing when it comes to social media) does this well – not only does it respond to both positive and negative online comments, but its IdeaStorm website lets people put forward their own ideas for the community to vote on. The result: negative sentiment online reduced by more than half.

Conclusion

Of course, there’s another side to this coin — I’m not a lawyer, so get advice from them too. Just bear these questions in mind alongside that advice. Remember, while lawyers may think about the particular issue in question, they may not consider the long-term implications for your company’s fragile brand reputation, which you’ve spent years building-up.

What other questions would you consider in situations like this?

Metallica Update: Post ‘Em All

A quick update on the Metallica situation – as I wondered in my earlier post about the Metallica/blogger review situation, it looks like this was a giant mis-communication that blew up in the band’s face. Metallica released a statement on their website:

“…once we re-surfaced on Tuesday after a few weeks on tour in Europe, we were informed that someone at Q Prime (our managers) had made the error of asking a few publications to take down reviews of the rough mixes from the new record that were posted on their sites. Our response was “WHY?!!! Why take down mostly positive reviews of the new material and prevent people from getting psyched about the next record. . . that makes no sense to us!””

The band has apparently taken matters into their own hands, and posted links to the reviews themselves. Good call, guys.

The only thing missing from their statement is an apology for the screw-up. Who knows, perhaps that happened privately. It might have been better for them to come out and say it publicly though.

Regardless, I did chuckle at the thought of “…a few rounds of managerial ear spank and sentencing everyone at [management company] Q Prime to 20 push-ups each…”

</blogostorm>

Metallica: …And Censorship For All

Metallica has done it again. Forget going after people pirating their music; this time they’ve gone after people writing about it… after inviting them to hear it.

The Story So Far

MetallicaHere’s how the story goes: Metallica representatives recently played tracks from their upcoming album to a bunch of critics/bloggers/journalists (depending on whose take on this you read). They then (surprise surprise) blogged about what they heard.

As Wired’s Listening Post blog reports:

“At no point was the writer ask[ed] to sign a non-disclosure agreement. The Quietus and other websites ran pieces on the album, but were quickly contacted by Metallica’s management via a third party and told to remove the articles.”

Blogostorm

Surprise surprise – a storm has erupted in the blogosphere:

You don’t need to be a brain surgeon to tell how Metallica is coming across in these posts but in case it wasn’t clear, here’s a quote from the CNet piece:

In the wide world of music, our level of distrust first begins with the RIAA, but Metallica is running a close second.

PR Disaster

It’s hard to imagine a worse PR disaster for a band that, until this point Metallica had seemed to be warming to the Internet recently.

They’ve allowed their tunes to be sold through iTunes, they have a cool new website, Mission: Metallica and Ethan Kaplan, head of technology at Warner Bros records (who was behind the new site) gushed about some of their latest efforts at mesh 2008 recently. It seems, though, that they still have a lot to learn.

However, Metallica lost much of their credibility with fans after going after Napster a few years ago – a move that still looms large in peoples’ minds (and was the first thing out of the mouths of my colleagues when I discussed this with them today).

On top of that, consider that this revolves around an event where writers were invited to listen to the new songs, without a non-disclosure agreement… and that their reviews were largely positive by all accounts.

Recovery?

How can the band dig its way out of this situation?

Before thinking about that, you need to ask yourself a couple of important questions:

Should they just move on?

Is this situation salvageable? Given the apparent contradiction in their approach to this situation so far, perhaps it’s best for the band to ride this one out and learn from their mistakes.

Do they need to respond?

Metallica has a die-hard fan base. They’ve been around for 27 years now, and many of their fans are long-time listeners that, quite frankly, won’t be put off by a few bad articles in the press. Let’s face it, they’ve been getting those since they put out the ‘Load’ album back in the ’90s.

Still, some of the comments I’ve read recently seem to indicate that they’ve even managed to annoy some hard-core fans. Perhaps some damage-control is in order.

What To Do?

Knowing that they’re unlikely to go the Nine Inch Nails route, what could they do?

Go One Better?

Why not let those the writers listen to the full album once it’s done (along with an assurance they can write about it)? No bribing, just an honest attempt to make things better.

Personally I think this might be problematic. There’s not a lot of trust in Metallica right now, as I discussed earlier. What’s more, I’m not sure these publications would give them a second chance. The horse may have already bolted on this one (insert Ride the Lightning pun here).

Apologize

Someone, somewhere has screwed up. Maybe the band didn’t know about the advance listening and freaked out. Maybe two people in the record company got their wires crossed. Maybe someone forgot to arrange for a non-disclosure agreement. Who knows.

If the band wants to say anything about this situation, they need to apologize first. Whatever went wrong, they need to figure it out and apologize to the people involved. Don’t point fingers at the writers or make excuses. Just say sorry.

That’s my take on this one. I’m not sure I can see a way for Metallica to come out of this looking good. Their options seem to be to either ride this one out or to risk re-stirring the pot and apologizing.

I think the damage may be done. Perhaps the ‘duck and cover’ approach might be better here. What do you think?

Can you think of a way Metallica could salvage this situation?