Online reputation management (ORM) is commonly thought of as the way to remove negative commentary. But it is far more than that. This list provides many examples of how and why online reputation management is utilized. It also includes examples of some of the crises we have responded to with ORM:
– To create a strong online presence that acts as a protective barrier against third-party content, including anonymous and defamatory content.
– To remove home addresses, ages and related personal information from online databases, which often continuously scour the Internet to populate themselves.
– To replace old, unflattering photographs or caricatures and doctored images with new photographs. When the old images are cached or can’t be removed for some other reason, we minimize their prominence in searches.
– To ensure that factual, credible reference material is readily available online, minimizing the chance that fraudulent information will impact a brand.
– To provide insurance that your story is told by you and not by former partners or other biased parties.
– To rebrand Millennials when they enter the professional arena and Boomers when they reinvent themselves.
– To establish a reputation within a particular area of expertise on multiple online platforms.
– To create an online legacy for a VIP who is preparing for retirement or to exit a company or organization.
– To pair content with the most up-to-date SEO strategies to maximize its impact—keeping in mind that the quality of the content is the most important factor Google and most other major search engines now consider.
– To monitor social media and online forums for red flags signaling potential on- and off-line threats against high-profile individuals.
– To ensure up-to-date and accurate information dominates search results for an organization or individual’s name.
These are examples of some of the crises Reputation Communications has successfully mitigated using online reputation management:
– Emails and internal company documents were leaked and published online by inside sources.
– Online defamation campaigns—against both an organization and its key executives—organized by anonymous operators.
– Impersonation of prominent executives on social media and other online platforms.
– Long-resolved controversies were still commanding prominent placement in searches of an organization’s name.
Mark Zuckerberg’s recent entry onto the national political stage, which culminated earlier this month with his first public speech on immigration reform, highlights how many of the key tools in online reputation management can be part of a strategic approach to political involvement and activism. (Strategic political involvement is also often an essential aspect of reputation management.)
Silicon Valley’s elite includes political donors from across the political spectrum. Top tech companies like Twitter are forming PACs and hiring lobbyists. But with his leading role in FWD.us, an immigration reform lobbying group that he launched earlier this year with longtime friend Joe Green, Zuckerberg has taken a step further into the political realm. He “is building a new social network, and this time it’s political,” Jennifer Martinez declared in a recent article for The Hill. Zuckerberg “is using his clout as a top business executive and American success story to advocate for comprehensive immigration reform.” With the right approach, Zuckerberg has the opportunity to repeat the success of Facebook with FWD.us, and build a network that will harness significant political influence. After all, the majority of the public now conducts their research online – and makes significant types of political donations online.
Difficult terrain
Unlike building a friend-based social network, however, that task requires navigating a perilous and intensely divided political landscape. FWD.us didn’t make it far before stumbling. Just a few weeks after its formation, the group faced backlash for ads supporting politicians such as Lindsay Graham and Mark Begich and lost a couple of high-profile members, including influential entrepreneur Elon Musk. In the future, FWD.us might be able to avoid such problems by hewing closer to Zuckerberg’s other political activities. By donating to both New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Newark Mayor and Senate candidate Cory Booker, he was recently able to prevent himself from being pigeonholed or harshly criticized for a more partisan stance.
In his New Yorker essay, Robert Packard skewers Silicon Valley for “solving all the problems of being twenty years old,” rather than looking at bigger-picture solutions. IN that vein, FWD.us has been criticized for wanting to do “little more than securing more coveted H1-B visas, essentially granting an influx of foreign, skilled technology workers to fill the Valley’s talent shortage.” Zuckerberg wisely addressed that point in his speech. “We talk about high-skilled H1-Bs and full comprehensive immigration reform as if they are two separate issues,” he said. “But anyone who knows immigration knows that they’re not.” He described the goals of FWD.us in more detail in a Washington Post piece back in April, and being more vocal about those issues in the future could help the group rise above the political fray. While Zuckerberg and FWD.us can undoubtedly cultivate a powerful political network in support of immigration reform, Elon Musk offered some valuable advice when he left the group: “I have spent a lot of time fighting far larger lobbying organizations in D.C. and believe that the right way to win on a cause is to argue the merits of that cause.”
In Reputation Communications’ work with hedge funds and other companies in the financial industry we’ve faced a number of common reputational issues. Let’s take a look at those issues, their impact and how we can address them.
The investor lawsuit, which we periodically cover on this blog, is one of the most common and potentially harmful challenges. Even when the litigation is isolated or insubstantial it can still easily shoot to the top of Google search results. And stay there.
Getting personal
Another important issue is the potential backlash stemming from an exceptional investment record that cools quickly, as happened with many prominent funds in the wake of the market crash in 2008 and 2009. Such fallout can inflict considerable damage, as one top hedge fund manager learned when he came under attack after his previously record-breaking portfolio underperformed in 2011. His fall from grace was widely reported, but he has since reestablished himself as a respected industry leader.
A growing number of hedge fund managers have seen their personal lives become the subject of high-profile media scrutiny. Whether this coverage is about marital difficulties, political views or real estate purchases it often has a resilient online life. When that coverage is only a couple clicks away from prospective investors, it can distract from a fund’s quality and performance.
Wikipedia important
Wikipedia is also crucial. Its unique system of authority and verification can overemphasize the types of legal records and media reports mentioned above, but hedge fund managers who are proactive in this area can increase the likelihood that Wikipedia provides a more fair and accurate account of their business.
Historically, most hedge funds have opted to maintain a low profile and cull clients by referral and from inner circles of experienced investors. Many will likely decline to take advantage of the SEC’s ruling on advertising. This choice may help managers and their funds avoid media attention, contain their public image and fly under the radar, but increased visibility for the hedge fund industry as a whole has made such a strategy much more difficult to pull off.
Moving forward
Funds that do choose to advertise and pursue a more public position will require an even more thoughtful strategy. Increased exposure is substantially raising the bar for branding. The future promises far more investor lawsuits and the potential proliferation of SEO-charged consumer review sites where investors can compare experiences and rate companies. Funds will need carefully maintained reputations, ample privacy protections (we recommend Tor) and advanced strategic customer service systems.
24/7 online monitoring crucial
When companies do not provide an effective online forum or platform where customers’ concerns can be acknowledged and quickly addressed, they are more likely to go to third-party review sites or forums. High-profile funds will also need to implement 24/7 monitoring of all mentions that they receive online, from social media and blog chatter to mainstream reports. This is especially important because of commentary on Twitter, Google+ and other platforms.
Some tweets and posts may appear to be a marketing message from a fund, when it is just commentary from a journalist or investor following that fund. We recently audited all the Internet content that has appeared online about a financial services firm. In addition to providing a barometer reading of the scope and sources of such information, the report provided insight into information that investors are increasingly following.
Online reputation management can’t hide the truth
Philanthropy, open dialogue and an appropriate stream of up-to-date information and new online content contributes to achieving balanced and representative search results and overall online presence. But it is important for fund managers to know that online reputation management can’t change the facts. When they are damaging and come from the types of authoritative sources prized by Wikipedia, attempts to hide them will fail. In such cases the best that can be done is to provide a counterbalance of new information, including clear signs a firm is moving forward…if it is.
Keeping a finger firmly on the pulse of online media is becoming much more effective than the reserve and silence that funds have favored in the past. Today’s hedge funds are facing new, complex and rapidly evolving challenges, but with the right strategy and set of tools – including a deeper understanding of social media culture and platforms — they’ll be better prepared to navigate them.
Parker’s history as a Silicon Valley pioneer makes his perspective on Internet privacy particularly notable. The Internet and social media have “helped foment revolutions, overturn governments, and give otherwise invisible people a voice,” he says, but they have also been “used to extend the impact of real-world bullying” and “form massive digital lynch mobs.” In such a climate, Parker asserts, “we are all at risk of becoming ‘public figures’ in a world where the media has expanded to include nearly everyone.”
New problems, new solutions
It’s clear that a truly sufficient solution will require our lawmakers to step up and take action. And Parker has some suggestions:
“In particular, we need to consider stronger privacy laws here in the U.S., a basic right to privacy along the lines of the laws enjoyed by the citizens of most Western European nations … In such a world, our defamation laws need to be updated to provide individuals with the protection from public persecution that they deserve. We also need to reinforce our personal privacy by beefing up the intellectual property laws that govern the personal content that we generate and share via services like Facebook.”
Legal frameworks for dealing with digital media are outdated
“It’s increasingly clear that our legal frameworks for dealing with these new mediums are outmoded at best,” Parker says. Recent revelations about the NSA’s surveillance and data collection programs have underscored the inadequacy of current laws. The gap continues to grow. “Every looming technological breakthrough, from Google Glass to driverless cars promises to make our every move and download a little easier to track,” New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote last month. This trend applies not only to government surveillance, but also the kind of every-citizen and “blogging for dollars” journalism that Parker is troubled by.
Significant legislative changes needed
While it may seem futile to try to keep our privacy from being swept away by such powerful currents, The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf argues that there is hope. “Americans facing even longer odds have succeeded before in bringing about social or legal change, and even in amending our founding document,” he writes. “At some point in time everyone, whether they engage actively with these new mediums or not, will experience a violation of their privacy, will find their reputation besmirched publicly, and may even find their sanity challenged,” Parker predicts in his TechCrunch post. He will likely be right—unless we find the will to enact significant legislative changes.
Reputation management has always been a concern for prominent brands and individuals, but interest in ORM is much broader. As just predicted in The New Digital Age, most everyone with a significant online presence will find themselves at some point using one of its professionals.
Industry insiders anticipate that one of the first ORM firms, will soon go public. Other ORM firms have attracted $15 million in venture capital: investors are pouring into the field. There are increasing articles about ORM.
Companies ranging from PR agencies, reputation management companies and social media consultancies to law firms are acquiring or partnering with startups in this fast-growing sector. Others are rushing their own ORM services to market. What does this mean for consumers?
A Profitable Industry, Attracting Explosive Growth
All this excitement has encouraged a distorted view of what ORM really is. It is not simply deleting negative information and flooding the Internet with positive information. Unlike reputation management, ORM is less about controlling image perception than about managing something that is far harder to control: all the publicly accessible online information about an organization or individual. That encompasses blogs and message boards as well as the most established media platforms. And unlike public relations it is not about controlling the flow of information—a goal the Internet has made unattainable. Good ORM is about authenticity and facts.
ORM and Efforts to Hide Negative Online Content
ORM began with attempts to hide, suppress, erase, and otherwise miraculously remove negative information from the Internet. Whether with letters to webmasters or through the creation of multitudes of dummy sites, great effort led to sometimes questionable, “black hat” results. With the refinement of search engine algorithms and the tremendous growth in Internet usage, those simple strategies have become even less effective. Online information can’t be controlled. It needs to be managed.
The open nature of the Internet makes that management more essential as well as more difficult. Companies need to watch for leaks from well-placed employees in addition to negative consumer comments. Since anonymous and unregulated they may as easily come from a competitor as a frustrated consumer. The way information endures on the Internet presents special problems for individuals—it has been argued that every time an old piece of information appears in search results it has been republished. So individuals need to be aware of job and company descriptions from early in their career and excerpts from speeches that could be taken out of context. Outdated information is actually a bigger problem for people that don’t maintain an online presence.
ORM Will Become Niche-Based
Some ORM firms still provide the older strategies. But most have developed an approach that integrates public relations, SEO, and multimedia publishing. Different customers have different needs. As the marketplace becomes more familiar with ORM we predict that we’ll see the industry online become niche-based, with providers specializing in specific areas of expertise corresponding to a type of customer. Separate suites of services are already being offered to companies and individuals. But the needs of a recent college grad entering the workforce (or even a teenager entering college), with his or her Facebook-and Twitter-saturated online profile, differ considerably from those of doctors and dentists, who may be most concerned with patient comments on consumer review sites such as Yelp. A dentist in private practice, for instance, might be best served by an ORM practitioner who is familiar with the medical industry and is able to engage reviewers in online dialogues.
CEO’s, VIPS Need Specialized Services
The same is true for managing the online identity of CEO’s, VIPS and well-established professionals and industry leaders, which is what we specialize in. Not only is there an enormous amount of information about them online, they already have the LinkedIn, Wikipedia and other profiles that are essential aspects of the ORM toolkit. Managing that type of online image requires a different approach. High net worth individuals require different skills: they too are usually the subject of considerable online content, which must be managed while maintaining the maximum amount of privacy for security reasons.
These are just some examples of the many different types of consumers who are already using professional online reputation management services. Clearly, the future for the ORM industry is bright. To ensure it remains that way, we must establish a benchmark of ethics, build trustworthy resources to educate and assist consumers and be proactive in shaping a best-practices culture to ensure they are well-served.
Your answers to the following questions will determine whether you need to update your online image. That is the first step forward in expanding, correcting, repairing it…or simply establishing a more comprehensive one.
How much of the content in the first three pages of a Google search of your name includes positive, neutral and negative information and visuals?
What is the context and source of that content?
How up to date, accurate and authentic is it?
How credible are the sources?
Is the prominence of this content the result of benign neglect? Or is the content the result of a well-managed and organized campaign?
How significant are the platforms the content is on: is it a top 10 platform such as YouTube or Wikipedia, or a personal blog with a small audience?
These are questions to use when evaluating you or your organization’s online presence and its impact on your reputation:
Do you have a strong presence online, one that presents a factual, accurate and current image of your strengths? Do you have a monthly or quarterly plan to update and expand it?
Does your current brand identity reflect the direction of your professional, personal and philanthropic trajectory?
Are your photograph, website, blog, biography and related materials still relevant? Do they deliver a consistent message? If not, is this an appropriate time to rebrand?
For businesses whose international presence has increased significantly in non-English speaking countries, is it now necessary to create translated versions of website(s) and marketing materials?
Are your head shots and other photographs online over two years old?
If you are listed or referenced in Wikipedia, is the entry or reference up to date and accurate?
Is your privacy compromised, meaning is your personal address, age and family members’ names published in several public databases?
A common case of mistaken identity is when someone else that shares your name has a strong online presence.
No matter who it is that shares your name, it can create problems when you are trying to build a strong online identity. It can be especially damaging if your namesake has a bad reputation. Even if one’s namesake hasn’t done anything particularly embarrassing or scandalous, mistaken identity can still be a significant issue.
Being Mistaken for Others Can Harm Your Online Reputation
As Kelli B. Grant recently wrote in her Wall Street Journal article “Meet Your Digital Doppelgänger,” such confusion “can inadvertently parachute people into their namesake’s lives, exposing them to everything from love notes to carpool reminders to sensitive business documents.” Being mistaken for or associated with high-profile figure can also have a drastic effect on your online image. Having a particularly unique name can often help one avoid such confusion, but that’s not always the case.
Google is the New Resume in Town
Mistaken identity can be especially costly for those seeking a new job. As Richard N. Bolles writes in his book What Color Is Your Parachute?, “There is a new resume in town, and it’s called Google.” In a survey conducted by ExecuNet, 90% of executive recruiters confirmed that “they type a candidate name into an online search engine to find more information beyond what is on the executive’s résumé.”
A recent Forbes article by Chris Forman offers some helpful tips. “Rather than taking the blame for others’ mistakes, look for ways to differentiate yourself,” writes Forman, whose specific recommendations include using a distinct professional title like “Chris Andrews, CPA” and “a unique URL with your name for your social media accounts.”
Even if you don’t share a name with someone else, distinguishing and fortifying your online reputation is a smart and valuable move.
In its early days—the mid-1990s—online reputation management (ORM) focused on repairing malicious content: anonymous, negative online commentary posted on Internet forums and in the comments sections accompanying blogs and media platforms.
Today it is easier to remove such information. But not always. When that is the case, it can be displaced from one page to the next, and many more, through a combination of strategies. As a result, ORM is often described as “pushing down” or “suppressing” negative content.)
Taking Ownership of Your Digital Profile is Essential Today
With the much larger role the Internet has assumed in our lives and industry, ORM now encompasses taking ownership of your digital footprint—all of the publicly available information about you and your organization online that you have control over, either directly or indirectly. That includes claiming your name on all key social media platforms, whether you use them or not. The goal is to own as much of that digital real estate as you can…especially on the first page of a Google search in your name.
Online reputation management lessens the prominence of and counterbalances negative and false content. It also ensures an accurate and powerful image of you is presented online (ideally, in the top results of a Google search of your name). Done effectively, online reputation management is a proactive tool that reinforces your credibility and influence in supporting the issues important to you. Bottom line: the more control you have over your name online, the less the world does.
If you want to take an active role in determining how others perceive you—rather than leaving it up to others— online reputation management is a must. Our article, The Essentials: Online Reputation Management FAQs, provides an in-depth overview of what you need to know.
