Tag Archives: reputation

Anderson Cooper’s Deft Reputation Management

Earlier this month CNN’s Anderson Cooper revealed that he is gay in a letter to The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan.

According to the Huffington Post, Cooper’s decision to officially come out followed “a long discussion with his team making sure he wasn’t committing career suicide.” With rumors that Cooper may soon marry, that letter could be part of a larger plan to open up about his personal life while closely managing the tone and context of that revelation.

A Good Choice

The decision to make the announcement was a good choice. “I’ve always believed that who a reporter votes for, what religion they are, who they love, should not be something they have to discuss publicly,” Cooper states in his letter to Sullivan. But he also acknowledges that keeping his sexual orientation private had the potential to harm his reputation for honest and accurate journalism. “It’s become clear to me that by remaining silent on certain aspects of my personal life for so long, I have given some the mistaken impression that I am trying to hide something –something that makes me uncomfortable, ashamed or even afraid. This is distressing because it is simply not true.”

Taking Control of His Message

By choosing to share the news in a thoughtful and eloquent letter to Sullivan, a friend and himself an openly gay journalist, Cooper took control of his message and preempted any threat to his reputation that his previous secrecy had posed. By doing so he was also able to frame the announcement in a way that underscores his values and reputation, both personally and professionally. “I have always been very open and honest about this part of my life with my friends, my family, and my colleagues,” Cooper wrote, adding that he has always tried to keep his private affairs and identity out of his journalism. “I’ve never wanted to be any kind of reporter other than a good one, and I do not desire to promote any cause other than the truth.”

Cooper also minimized the story’s ability to expand by making the announcement while he was in Botswana, out of the reach of the media.

The way Anderson Cooper has handled this is a model of how to get in front of potentially controversial personal issues.  On a broader level, Cooper has set an important example by treating sexual orientation as a subject that is not relevant to public or professional reputation.

 
 
CNN

With its April ratings reaching their lowest point in a decade and primetime ratings the lowest in two decades, CNN’s reputation as the best source for hard news seems to no longer be enough. But rather than adopting a reputation for partisanship like those that have helped MSNBC and Fox News attract larger audiences, the Time Warner-owned network is attempting to expand its range beyond the realm of breaking news.

CNN continues to be the first place audiences go for serious news coverage. It beat its rivals’ ratings the night of the last presidential election and saw better numbers during this year’s primaries and debates and last year’s Egypt coverage. But its ratings rise and fall with the news cycle. “It does have a great reputation and a great global brand name for the casual news viewer,” former CNN researcher Brad Adgate told TVNewser. “The news is still the star at CNN and it isn’t necessarily the star at other cable news networks.”

Expanding Into Areas Beyond Its Core Strength

The network’s recent acquisition of globetrotting chef Anthony Bourdain from the Travel Network and anchor John Berman from ABC News, as well as its decision to turn to more outside producers for its documentary programs, suggests that CNN is aiming to smooth out its ratings roller coaster by expanding into areas beyond its core strength. It clear CNN does not want to give up its reputation for hard news. In the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner executives stressed “that ratings aren’t the only measure of the channel’s value, pointing to its reach online and overseas and its status as the outlet that viewers turn to when there is big news.” Its revocation of a job offer to the Fox News producer responsible for a controversial anti-Obama video indicates that CNN won’t trade in that status for the more politically charged reputations that have worked for its competitors.

But with these moves, are they leveraging their brand, or diluting it? CNN Worldwide VP Mark Whitaker described Bourdain as “a great addition to CNN’s team as we continue to broaden our coverage of news that impacts our audience’s lifestyles,” and Politico speculates that Berman’s addition to CNN’s “Early Start” morning program “may also signal an effort to move the tone of the program away from the news desk and toward the informal, kitchen-table model that has been so successful for MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.’”

The Experts Weigh In

The New York Times’ Brian Stelter highlights the fact that CNN is still performing well financially, but he’s not alone in acknowledging that it ranking against other networks “drives public perception — and employee pride — and declines there may gradually damage CNN’s networks as a whole.” Talking to TVNewser, CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld offers a similar perspective: “CNN is the flagship of the entire CNN brand, and if it sinks it may destroy the entire organization.” Last month Poynter.com summarized a few other takes, including that of NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who wrote last year that “defining itself as ‘not MSNBC’ and ‘not Fox’ begs the question of what CNN actually is.”

We don’t know how successful CNN will be in expanding its programming, but building upon its existing strengths and preserving its core values clearly seems like the correct move, especially when MSNBC and Fox News are already known for slanting to the left and right. Bourdain may burnish the network’s image as a cultured, global source, and Berman will contribute to its reputation for news coverage, even if his approach is softer. Turner Broadcasting CEO Phil Kent hinted that more changes could be on the horizon, so it will be interesting to see how CNN’s reputation evolves as more faces (and programs) come and go.

 
 
LinkedIn and reputation management

Social media has played a central role in several of the most successful reputation management campaigns of the last few years.

In a recent Forbes.com article Scott Davis described how Toyota repaired its reputation following the bout of recalls that sent it plummeting in 2009 and 2010. The automaker employed a series of innovative social media strategies to engage with its customers on a personal level.

One of Toyota’s strategies was a series of Digg Dialogg Q&A sessions, which allowed the company to respond directly and candidly to customers and critics. Mashable’s Todd Wasserman said those sessions, “gave Toyota the appearance of achieving social media branding nirvana: Transparency.”

Transparency Paid Off

That approach clearly paid off, as Harris Interactive’s latest Reputational Quotient survey, published in February, ranks Toyota as the company with the most-improved reputation.

Harris Interactive’s survey reveals that few companies have seen their reputations improve lately. Joining Toyota in that small group is BP, which embraced social media in the wake of the Deepwater Horizon disaster.

Strategy Matters

Simply building a presence in social media isn’t enough. AT&T, for example, implemented an extensive social media customer service strategy aimed at rehabilitating its tarnished reputation.

The factors that separate an effective strategy from a failed one can be difficult to generalize. The best strategies seem to be tailor-made for a company, its customers, and the problems it is facing. Davis summed it up nicely: “Reputation is something that is both fragile yet resilient. The ability to spring back when it’s damaged takes a keen understanding of the factors and attitudes that shape a reputation to begin with.”

 
 
How Lady GaGa Built Her Brand

Dyan Machan has an insightful piece in Smart Money about how Lady Gaga used her personal story, empathy and social media to become the most Googled person of all time (and earn $100 million this year). Her article is based on the business school case study, “Lady Gaga, Born This Way?,”  coauthored by Martin Kupp, program director of the European School of Management and Technology in Berlin.

From the “If the Rules Don’t Work, ReWrite Them” section:

“Germanotta knew talent wasn’t enough to draw attention in a crowded music landscape…. perhaps most important, she worked at first without help from a very skeptical recording-industry establishment. One label turned her down; another dropped her, reportedly after one of its executives made a cutting-his-throat gesture while listening to one of her tracks. So Gaga fed her music and promotional info directly to her fans, via social media. An early-adopting Twitter user, she communicated with her followers an average of five times a day and used the service to announce the release dates of her new albums. Kupp says it’s all an example of how upstarts need to ignore the standards set by large, risk-averse corporations: “If you don’t break the rules, you won’t make it,” he declares.”

Another example of how social media has eliminated the need for many of the middle-men once necessary to launch and build a career, business and brand.

 
 

Creating an entry for yourself or your business on Wikipedia can be a valuable reputation management tool. However, doing so requires navigating a strict set of rules and principles. Here is what you need to know.

Wikipedia requires that entries be about notable subjects and defines notability as:

“…the property of being worthy of notice, having fame, or being considered to be of a high degree of interest, significance, or distinction. It also refers to the capacity to be such.”

To prove notability, entries must cite authoritative sources.

Examples of authoritative sources include books, academic papers, reports published by credible organizations and articles from news organizations. Self-published books and promotional materials are not considered credible.

If the notability of the subject you are considering for Wikipedia cannot be supported by citations, Wikipedia editors will remove the new entry, often within minutes of its posting.

Anyone can edit, write or remove information on Wikipedia.

Many people are intimidated by the thought of having a Wikipedia entry about them because they fear damaging commentary will be added. But Wikipedia has a rule against featuring contentious material about living people – and this rule is actively supported. Wikipedia’s editors will quickly remove negative commentary unless it is accompanied by solid factual support.

Your entry must adhere to Wikipedia’s core principals.

Wikipedia requires editors maintain a neutral point of view, in addition to providing sources for all statements. Wikipedia will reject material that is written in a promotional style.

 
 
Internet law

Recently, a group of online reputation management experts were comparing solutions for moving negative blog posts off the first page of search results.

Asking bloggers to remove the post is one option that has worked in some cases. (The requests were courteous and/or referenced factual errors in the posts.) In other situations a cease and desist letter from an attorney worked. In those cases the posts were not consumer complaints or negative reviews, but posts considered libel or slanderous.

Cease and desist letters are not an approach for everyone, but they are appropriate for some situations. An attorney should be consulted if it is an option you are considering.

Keep in mind that increasing numbers of sites are also posting more stringent user rules. In cases where commenters are breaking them, they can be barred from using the site and their content is removed by site administrators. Resolving some issues may be as simple as an email to the site administrator.