RepuMetrix™ Blog

RepuMetrix™ Blog

  Subscribe to this Blog

Our firm likes to work closely with our clients, and help them makes sense of what goes on deep in the world of cyberspace. Specifically when this relates to preempting attacks on their corporate identity and reputation.

The RepuMetrix™ blog is an online project which allows us to directly interface with consumers, clients, and people with questions about our technology, our products and/or services.

We also look at this blog as an online resource allowing us to share our insights with the business owner, the consumer, and blog audience, and work towards forming a discourse around the complexities of Reputation Measurement™ technologies, brand and reputation monitoring, and protecting businesses most valued asset -- their reputation.

| Next >

• Recently
• Last comments

Search

Categories

RepuMetrix™ Blog

About RepuMetrix Inc.

• Announcements [A] (1)
• Background (0)
• News (0)
• Opinion (26)

RepuTrace™

• Announcements [B] (1)
• b2evolution Tips (0)
• Fun (0)
  • In real life (0)
    • Movies (0)
    • Music (0)
    • Sports (0)
  • On the web (0)
• Opinion (28)

Press

• b2evolution (0)
• contributors (0)
• Press (1)

RepuTrack™

• Announcements [C] (5)
• Opinion (29)

Archives

• June 2011 (2)
• May 2011 (2)
• October 2010 (1)
• July 2010 (1)
• June 2010 (1)
• April 2010 (1)
• March 2010 (1)
• January 2010 (1)
• December 2009 (2)
• November 2009 (3)
• October 2009 (1)
• September 2009 (1)
• More...

Choose skin

• basic
• custom
• originalb2
• skinners_guide
• wpc_default
• nifty_corners
• natural_pink

Linkblog

Announcements [A]

• CoreX is now RepuMetrix

  

  Over the past two years, CoreX has developed a reputation as being a leading provider of solutions designed to assist businesses in the areas of brand and reputation monitoring, investigations, competitive intelligence, market research, counterfeit brand protection and helping businesses preempt online threats.

  Commencing August 1st 2007, and as part of an overall re-branding strategy, CoreX will officially become RepuMetrix.

  With this announcement, we are committed in continuing to provide all our clients with the same level of service they have come to expect. That means providing them with leading-edge Internet monitoring solutions, and assisting them by keeping up on developments that affect their company – and their industries – with timely retrieval of intelligence from Web sites, blogs, chat rooms, social networks, video and media worldwide.

  We are very excited about this re-branding strategy, and we believe it to be an integral part of staying ahead of the complicated, exciting and ever-changing Web, while continuing to build on our position of technological strength and our product and service offerings.

  Building new relationships has always been an important part of our business philosophy and we encourage all questions and comments – leave us a comment or send us an email. We want to hear from you!

  

Announcements [B]

• Employees Agree Their Online Behaviour Can Damage A Company's Reputation

  New research from eMarketer shows that 74% of employees are well aware that there are consequences associated to having bad social media habits at the office.

  Most employees appear to understand the potential for reputation damage that stems from bad-mouthing the boss or the company. A major stumbling point to social media use in the office continues to hinge on the fact that companies still don't have an official policy or clear direction on what social media sites are or aren't allowed to be accessed or used during work hours.

  If your workplace would like to introduce social media in the office, but doesn't know how, here is a suggestion. Attach the tips below along with the eMarketer article and take it to your employer or boss. Explain how you understand your responsibilities to the company and how you are willing to initiate discussion on enacting an official workplace policy:

  Tip to Business: Make it a matter of official policy and provide your workers with a clear direction on the uses of social media in the workplace, especially if social media plays an important role in your overall business strategy. Social media sites and fee web tools that make it easy for key company opinion, ideas or data to be posted online and shared freely may expose your company to unnecessary risks. Those risks may be associated to such things as propietary disclosure and/or breaches of confidentiality. Such activities should be closely monitored, and in addition to enacting workplace blogging and social media policies, those policies should be expanded to include guidelines which will work to prevent breaches from occurring and raising risk awareness within your workplace culture.

  Tip to Employees: Ask your employer and become well-informed about any company policies as they relate to posting ideas or opinions on blogs, social media sites, or using any free online utilities which help you manage email, company documents, spreadsheets or other forms of company data, and which may expose your employer to unnecessary risk.

  Click here to read about other interesting findings from the eMarketer article.

  Post on Twitter

  
  

  

Opinion

• AdCenter crawling over broken glass

  Despite the fact that a cloud of suspicion looms over corporate SEM initiatives, Microsoft appears both poised and intent about entering into a space during a turbulent and uncertain period of time. An amenable time in so far as Microsoft standing to benefit greatly from Google's blunders. More specifically, Microsoft's AdCentre can incorporate into its vision a degree of lattitude that will allow them to determine which hill they want to die on.

  ]more
  
• Ask.com's new "eco-friendly" data center

  Another fine example of an earlier post on footprints and reputations comes from an interesting announcement made from Ask.com's "eco-friendly" data center. The "eco-friendly" data center will be located in Moses Lake, Washington and will be a "zero carbon emissions" plant that uses “renewable hydropower."

  Very impressive stuff -- and, as I've discussed here before, with this announcement we might well be seeing the wave of the future as far as reputation management strategies are concerned - more specifically, how companies approach reducing their environmental footprint will be an important factor in showing Web audiences companies are acting responsibly and are committed to the "Green" cause.

  
• Blog Bites Man

  A great article by Globe and Mail columnist Mathew Ingram outlining the importance of dealing with any nasty conversation that targets your business in a timely manner:

  Article: Blog Bites Man
  Source: globeandmail.com
  Link: Blog Bites Man

  
• CoreX part of the Guide to Social Media Analysis

  Social Target's main man Nathan Gilliatt just released his Guide to Social Media Analysis and we are just as thrilled as anyone about being a part of it. This comprehensive guide includes information on over 30 companies in the social media space, and after months of interviews, research and compiling information from different vendors from around the globe, it is available for purchase.

  While doing our interview and demo, I immediately got the sense that Nathan was the right man for the assignment - he just has a way of articulating the things we do in the social media space that I believe will make it simple and meaningful for anyone thinking of jumping in on paid services and springing on formal measurement.

  We were also pretty excited about being a part of the Forrester's Brand Monitoring VPC. These sources are extremely valuable in the decision making process.

  
• Corporate success in the conversational era

  Originally appearing in The SHIELD™ - Volume 04 - Fall 2006

  Part 1 of a 3-part series - Corporate tips to build brand and avoid disaster in the conversational era.

  Corporate success in the conversational era

  Blogging is here to stay.

  For those of us who’ve barely mastered emails and surfing the Net,
  it’s a rude awakening. Blogging is the practice of running a “web log”
  where people from all over the world can chat with each other about
  anything.

  Web experts call this the conversational era, and like any other new
  era, it comes with its own set of rules and expectations. Companies who
  hope to remain competitive and aware need to find ways to incorporate
  blogging into their corporate strategies. Why? Because people are talking
  about them – and where people talk, anything can happen.

  Some companies have tried the ostrich approach. Stick one’s head
  in the sand, and one doesn’t have to see the corporate damage being
  done on blogs and message boards. The results have almost always been
  disastrous.

  Reacting without careful thought or strategy can be equally devastat-
  ing. Corporations, like people, need to detach themselves emotionally
  before rushing in to defend their company’s reputation.This can be hard
  when all the rule books are outdated and no longer apply.

  People these days recognize sincerity. As customers, their choices are
  endless. They will gravitate toward companies who show they are pas-
  sionate about their work and respectful of the people who make their
  success possible.

  A positive blog presence, as this series of articles will show, can trans-
  late into effective brand strategies, which include rebuilding old brands
  and introducing new ones. But when it comes to blogging, flash and
  dazzle won’t work. Honest conversation will.

  The following tips will help you engage effectively with online con-
  versations. Some of these suggestions, because corporations have been
  conditioned otherwise, may feel counter-productive. But the web-based
  evidence is overwhelming. These approaches work.

  1. Listen. Most companies make the mistake of avoiding or mini-
  mizing issues brought up by dissatisfied customers. The blogging com-
  munity will see right through this and won’t put up with it. They will
  eventually drive a stake through even the finest company’s heart.

  2. Respond in a timely, concise and focused manner. Bring-
  ing on an arsenal of PR and legal advisors isn’t always necessary or ad-
  visable. Talk in a way that people will understand. Keep the language
  and concepts simple.

  3. Admit when you are wrong. This is often what the audience
  wants. What makes blogs unique is their ability to self-regulate.
  You won’t be able to win over everyone, but some will feel your pas-
  sion and hear what you’re saying. These people will become your allies,
  and they will turn the tide in your favour.

  4. Accept the repercussions of your actions. Companies who
  admit wrongdoing are often rewarded because they were truthful and
  willing to accept the consequences of their actions. Their rewards are au-
  dience trust and greater customer loyalty. The trick is, stay with the top-
  ics at hand. When you’ve successfully won over your audience, DON’T
  make the mistake that our final tip warns you about.

  5. Talk, don’t sell. Blogs were founded on an anti-pitch sentiment.
  Defy this truth, and expect to be burned. Businesses often try with well-
  intended eagerness to promote their product on blogs, citing low costs
  and other accessibility features. Bloggers’ first loyalty, however, is to the blogging community. Companies who’ve never been the target of nega-
  tive conversation suddenly find themselves attacked for lack of obedi-
  ence to the anti-pitch rule (also known as “splogging”). Winning over an
  angry audience for “selling out of place” can take years.

  
• Demystifying the "Blog-bashing fashion."

  So your firm has spent countless amounts of money to manage the reputation of your company, your brands, its products, services and people.

  And then the unimaginable happens.

  You'll be sitting in your office, minding your own business — whatever that business may be — and someone will relive the Hobbian nightmare by taking your lifes work into his primordial vain by saying something brutish and nasty about your company on some blog site.

  Within a matter of hours, its all over the web.

  Here are a few questions that might run through your mind when this happens.

  What do you do?

  The knee-jerk reaction to this of course is, well, to be angry - after all, why would anyone do this type of thing, and who is this person doing it?

  Is this happening because its become fashionable to bash business on blog sites?

  One approach to overcome this gut-wrenching matter - concentrate instead with the matter at hand!

  Detaching oneself from the emotional roller-coaster of being the target of some blog author or mystery cybersmearer is not an easy thing.

  But controlling ones emotions so as to not minimize issues, or worse, overreact, is extremely important.

  The recent leaking of Target's AP Directives, if anything, proves that the bloggers first loyalty is to the blogging community.

  Overreacting without carefully deciding on how best to deal with a nuisance blogger can often produce disasterous outcomes.

  In the case of Target, bloggers discontent rose with news of Targets legalbot approach, and suddenly the containment strategy of tracking a single mystery blogger and shutting down their practice of disseminating confidential company information resulted in a rapid blogrolling of the AP Directives document on dozens of message boards, blog sites and consumer advocacy/gripe sites.

  One thing that you can never underestimate about Web 2.0 is the aspect of blogging allegiance.

  Unravelling the complexities and mystery of why people say the things they do are sometimes not nearly as important as dealing with the matter that is at hand, specifically from the standpoint of minimizing the damage to ones reputation.

  Whether the unkind words or allegations are being spread by a disatisfied consumer, a disgruntled employee, or a scheming competitor, focus first on what it is that is being discussed.

  Listen. Don't make the mistake of minimizing the matter, or altogether sticking your head in the sand. The web-based evidence that the ostrich approach will produce disasterous outcomes is overwhelming.

  Admit when you are wrong. This is what the audience wants most. The thing that makes the Web 2.0 the darling in the communication medium is its self-regulating aspects. Meaning that you won't be able to win everyone over with your words, but if your passionate and genuine with your approach to dealing with the matter, some will listen. A few will even become allies, and this could help turn the tide in your favour.

  Respond in a timely, concise and focused manner. The subject of one of the earliest posts on this blog site - "tell it early, tell it all, (and try to) tell it yourself." Bringing an arsenal of PR and Legal advisors on-board isn't always necessary or advisable. Talk in a way that people will understand.

  Keep the language and concepts simple.

  Be sincere.

  The blogging community is especially good at seeing through any campaign of disinformation or deception, and will eventually drive a stake through even the finest company's heart.

  
• Demystifying the "Blog-bashing fashion."

  So your firm has spent countless amounts of money to manage the reputation of your company, your brands, its products, services and people.

  And then the unimaginable happens.

  You'll be sitting in your office, minding your own business — whatever that business may be — and someone will relive the Hobbian nightmare by taking your lifes work into his primordial vain by saying something brutish and nasty about your company on some blog site.

  Within a matter of hours, its all over the web.

  Here are a few questions that might run through your mind when this happens.

  What do you do?

  The knee-jerk reaction to this of course is, well, to be angry - after all, why would anyone do this type of thing, and who is this person doing it?

  Is this happening because its become fashionable to bash business on blog sites?

  One approach to overcome this gut-wrenching matter - concentrate instead with the matter at hand!

  Detaching oneself from the emotional roller-coaster of being the target of some blog author or mystery cybersmearer is not an easy thing.

  But controlling ones emotions so as to not minimize issues, or worse, overreact, is extremely important.

  The recent leaking of Target's AP Directives, if anything, proves that the bloggers first loyalty is to the blogging community.

  Overreacting without carefully deciding on how best to deal with a nuisance blogger can often produce disasterous outcomes.

  In the case of Target, bloggers discontent rose with news of Targets legalbot approach, and suddenly the containment strategy of tracking a single mystery blogger and shutting down their practice of disseminating confidential company information resulted in a rapid blogrolling of the AP Directives document on dozens of message boards, blog sites and consumer advocacy/gripe sites.

  One thing that you can never underestimate about Web 2.0 is the aspect of blogging allegiance.

  Unravelling the complexities and mystery of why people say the things they do are sometimes not nearly as important as dealing with the matter that is at hand, specifically from the standpoint of minimizing the damage to ones reputation.

  Whether the unkind words or allegations are being spread by a disatisfied consumer, a disgruntled employee, or a scheming competitor, focus first on what it is that is being discussed.

  Listen. Don't make the mistake of minimizing the matter, or altogether sticking your head in the sand. The web-based evidence that the ostrich approach will produce disasterous outcomes is overwhelming.

  Admit when you are wrong. This is what the audience wants most. The thing that makes the Web 2.0 the darling in the communication medium is its self-regulating aspects. Meaning that you won't be able to win everyone over with your words, but if your passionate and genuine with your approach to dealing with the matter, some will listen. A few will even become allies, and this could help turn the tide in your favour.

  Respond in a timely, concise and focused manner. The subject of one of the earliest posts on this blog site - "tell it early, tell it all, (and try to) tell it yourself." Bringing an arsenal of PR and Legal advisors on-board isn't always necessary or advisable. Talk in a way that people will understand.

  Keep the language and concepts simple.

  Be sincere.

  The blogging community is especially good at seeing through any campaign of disinformation or deception, and will eventually drive a stake through even the finest company's heart.

  
• Establishing trust in Net security

  I received an email notification this morning from PayPal. I've been a PayPal customer for some years now, and have received spoofing emails in the past. They have however become more and more convincing. I've also received Bank of America emails as well as from other financial institutions, but those don't stand a chance in convincing anyone who isn't even a customer.

  With PayPal emails, its a little different because I have had legitimate notifications from them in the past concerning chargebacks on my account. This happens in cases where people use fraudulent credit cards to send you payment. Below is the most recent email I received:

  

  I've magnified the link that appears in the email when you hover over the link they ask you to visit. It is clearly going to an unauthorized location. The other clincher that this was a scam email was that the email arrived at an email address not tied to my PayPal account.

  I'm sure I'm not alone in receiving these kinds of emails, but the incident prompted me to write about my views as they pertain to Net security. More specifically, this notion that establishing trust continues to be one of the Internet's greatest challenges. Ironically, one of the underlying themes in the most recent battle between eBay and Google was eBay's claim that Google checkout is unproven. The question that remains is how does one establish "proven" systems of trust when a site like PayPal continues to have problems associated to preventing identity theft and fraud? Does one take away from this that this just one example which represents the negative perpetuality of Net security?

  There is absolutely no doubt that the way the Internet works now is wonderful because it is able to grow without limit, and capable of handling any application. But the idea that someone may stand in the middle of an established system of trust raises some concern over scalability issues as it relates to Net security. Do we retreat from this problem, and accept this as a cost of taking our business online?

  Amazingly, as I interpret the location of the link from the bogus PayPal email pointing to a non-trusted site, and its attempt to take me to a site in the Eastern block if it isn't a spoofed address, its lesson also allows me to recognize how successful IP addresses and domain ties have been all along in providing us with the rudimentary capability to combat online fraud.

  And as we strive towards establishing smarter networks and suspicion detection systems meant to stay on par with the kind of growth the Internet is experiencing, establishing trust in Net security still needs to allow the Internet to be this fantastic place with huge growth potential, open to innovation at will.

  Fixes that make the experience more obtrusive through processes and functionality designed to put in place stricter safeguards will come with considerable cost and penalties. Keeping networks open also doesn't mean pushing everything to the edge allowing it to evolve on its own because so far we have not had any success being able to apply this principle very well to Net security.

  
• Google's stand on social responsibility -- defiance or indifference?

  A heated debate surrounds search engine innovators such as Google to hand over its data to the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The debate pits Google against the DOJ as an innovator that ought to be more cooperative and socially responsible with regard to handing over trade secrets to authorities in hopes of assisting them in the areas of monitoring the activities of child pornography offenders, as well as monitoring any/all activities related to homeland security and terrorism.

  I think what this recent so-called "defiance" of social responsibility is bringing into the search technology discourse is this fundamental division of interests, and this notion of intrusion which appears to be looming like a dark cloud over innovators of search technology.

  What's interesting about the debate surrounding search technology in current times is the duality of interests, as the technology is looked at both with enthusiasm and condemnation.

  Enthusiasm on the level of possibilities it can provide in areas such as homeland security and monitoring/tracking the activities of sexual predators, just to name a few. Until now, enforcement authorities have had to use hit-and-miss methods such as cyberbaiting to track these forms of criminal activity. The problem is that cyberbaiting on the web is a lot like trolling the vast open sea with a 10-foot fishing boat.

  It is no coincidence that when the US Department of Justice asked Google to hand over "trade secrets" on its search engine technology, that behind its "good-will" nature of seeking "cooperation" was this imperative seeking their aid on security matters. This idea of using search technology to combat such things as child pornography as well as the possibility of intercepting communications between terrorist groups were initiatives that could assist governments in areas it was ill-equipped in handling using their current methods.

  But its the same courts, lawmakers and enforcers of law that are also pointing their fingers at companies like Google, condemning such search engine innovators of digging-up information that is infringing on copyright, peoples privacy and a wide number of other levels of personal, corporate and government intrusion. A number of these cases are in the courts, and will be for some time, and it is doing nothing more than creating an obstacle for innovators to take search technology to the next level.

  Here's how I see it. The days of innovators such as Tessla are long gone. His was a form of pure innovation, driven by passion, and less to do with the commercial viability of their contributions. And in a way, its a good thing that innovators are taking what they can get nowadays. The legacy of squatting on innovations for the almighty dollar are happening less and less because innovators are not so quick to give away their work.

  Cases such as Tessla's inform us of the shrewd and sometimes dehumanizing approaches of governments and corporations to snatch away innovation for their own greed and self-interested purposes, with little or no acknowledgement at all to the people who first put things down on paper and made them reality.

  So while the military were the first to bring the web to life, I'm certain that they are biting their tongues over the fact that they weren't able to be the principle innovators of search technology. I also think that because search technology is primarily in private ownership, its created a sense of insecurity and and an air of mistrust that I believe might not have existed at all if search technology ownership was in government hands.

  And as governments and their officials push search engine innovators to a point where they are demanding search engine companies to "cooperate", their demands are being made at the expense of intruding on the intellectual property of the search engine technology owners. A demand that stands to do nothing more than disturb the waters of future innovation in combating such things as child pornography and homeland security.

  The main problem with the bullying approach being used by governments is that there isn't a large supply of developers in the area of search engine technology. You upset the few that are in the know, and you throw away the opportunity of ever getting them to assist in combating criminal activity that occurs online.

  I think the real question to be posed: who is actually doing the intruding, the innovator or the followers of the innovation?

  
• Idiots guide to starting a blog site

  I recieved an email pointing me to a blog site called Crickets Chirping

  It immediately reminded me of an article I once read on how NOT to start a blog site. Specifcally, the part that outlined how there is little or no value in spreading lies, innuendos or false claims. But spreading rumors, lies and baseless allegations is brand and reputation monitorings raison d'être.

  Yet still, I guess it never ceases to amaze me how far some people will go to make an attempt at manipulating an audience with as little fact as possible.

  This link sent to me, a case in point. These are bloggers who claim to "get it" or at least understand blogging enough that they self-appoint themselves as experts in all facets of commerce, technology, education, public policy and sometimes even law.

  If blog sites like this show up in your feed, or you get an email from these people, ignore it or delete it altogether. Don't even bother responding. Don't link to their websites either.

  As in the aforementioned case, if someone claims to be some sort of know-it-all or expert on your business that you don't recognize or know from past dealings, I might suggest inviting them into a discovery session to better inform them about your business, its people, products or services.

  But in almost every single case, these are people who aren't the slightest interested in knowing anything about you because fact-finding slowly eats away at the lies they are spreading and quickly proves them wrong.

  Your best bet is to just ignore them.

  Don't give them a voice. Let them link to each other in their own sesspool of spreading lies and self-indulging narcissism. They're not adding anything of value to your business, they're just trying to figure out how to game your business and/or bait it into a futile discussion.

  Don't let them.

  If your business has been made a target, contact CoreX to consult with an advisor on how best to combat cybersmearing.

  
• Is that online profile really yours?

  Out-Law.com asks whether "Your boss could own your Facebook profile" - and according to IP law expert Catrin Turner of Pinsent Masons, the short answer is yes.

  The article references the PennWell ruling where precedence was seemingly set for an employer to claim ‘ownership’ over contact lists produced by a former employee during working hours.

  From the article, Catrin Turner had the following to say on the case:

  "The basic law is that if you create copyright material, something you write or type into a computer, you take photographs, you do cartoons, you potentially create film, if that is created in the course of your employment then the assumption is that that belongs to your employer, so that doesn't have to be written down by your employer."

  What are the implications of this ruling when we look at the relationships and reputations we've built in different online environments? Is it possible that relationships and contact lists which are formed on Facebook or MySpace, and the profile itself can become an employers property? On this issue, Catrin Turner goes on to say:

  ...social networking sites and the material a person creates for them do not exist in a vacuum, that they do interact with working life, but that most users do not realise this.

  "They may think that social networking is something which doesn't affect their work relationship, but it certainly does."

  In a past post, I've discussed the more complex issues facing corporations as they relate to breaches of confidentiality which can occur when key company data walks out the door. In the Pennwell case and as Catrin Turner points out in the Out-Law.com article, this data can include contact lists and any relationships we form during our term of employment.

  We may now have even greater reason for business to develop specific policies and private social networking infrastructure to keep business and personal activities separate. Not only when it relates to the standpoint of productivity, but in light of the Pennwell precedence, an even more convincing argument can now be made for employees to engage in any Facebook related activity only on free time.

  
• Its not a conversation if...

  Just as I was stringing together some thoughts in a previous post about my own purposes for blogging, and elaborating on the "honesty" of conversation, "conversational marketing" makes the headlines once again.

  The current issue involves Microsoft's ad campaign which involves FM Publishing. Specifically, as the Valleywag headline reads, "Federated Media: Microsoft pays star writers to recite slogan," suggesting John Battelle's Federated Media "paid" A-List bloggers to participate in a slick Microsoft ad campaign.

  Most of the blog storm centers around the "ethics" and responsibilities" of blog authors. FM VP Neil Chase chimes in on the Valleywag post, and describes this as the new age of conversational marketing - and that there is no harm of foul in a three-way conversation between the reader, blog author and the business which is engaging the readers. He goes on to describe how the authors weren't paid to engage in the conversation, and the only monetizing aspect comes from the ad impressions delivered by way of Microsoft ad campaigns.

  If the next step in the evolution of online discussion is to involve marketers into the discussion, and history can teach us anything, then maybe its the conversational marketing methods themselves that might require more careful consideration. Its not a conversation when conversational marketing campaigns turn social marketing into a shill machine before the conversation ever has a chance to flourish. Under such pretenses, conversational marketing can potentially hurt the editorial integrity of the authors and the reputations of people and businesses connected to the marketing campaign.

  When they launched their Vista operating system, Microsoft became all too familiar with the kind of online attention and controversy that can stir when the social engagement doesn't require that every participant have their hands in front of them. In fairness, Microsoft isn't alone as its happened to many great companies including Wal-Mart, Sony and Dell.

  Egregious or minor faux pas? The one thing we do know is that bloggers are taking notice. Its interesting how history and research continues to reinforce how the online community has already become this finely tuned, self-regulating mechanism that ultimately proves to be accurate in its views. Like it or not, the online crowds in their wisdom will make the final determination whether blogger reaction is justified or not.

  
• links for 2007-07-17

  Online Reputation Management: What You Need to Know
  "Online reputation management can ensure the ongoing success of your brand and your organization."

  The Need for Reputation Management Increases Across the Web
  "If you and your business have already suffered loss from bad online reputation, there is no time to wait. Contact a reputation management professional immediately."

  
• Making Sense of the Senseless

  There's been a lot of coverage on the "Legal Notice Regarding Google AdWords" story, and I can't say I've read it all, or agreed with everything that's been said "for" or "against" Google on the matter.

  But from what I've been able to observe from the way AdWords/AdSense works, and the kind of traffic AdWords has been bringing to our sites, here is my take on the matter.

  I think what is fundamentally wrong about what Google's done here is that on the one hand, they wanted to give their AdWords the greatest reach on the web by allowing site owners to pop-in their AdSense code.

  But by doing this, Google also stands to lose control over what each site owner is doing on their sites with that code.

  The way their AdSense program works is that the site owner gets a cut of the action on the pay-per-click fees that go to Google, so what's to stop that site owner from clicking that ad themselves, or worse, setting-up advanced scripts to randomly click ads so as to not appear like fraud is being committed?

  Looking at the kind of traffic I've been getting on sites where I'm running Google's AdWords program has made me wonder too about the useless traffic and hits.

  Interestingly enough, it's a collectibles company that is bringing forward this class-action suit.

  If you use Google AdWords, I'd like to hear your comments or opinions on the matter.

  
• Melcrum's social media report

  Indeed, Social media requires clear strategy - and Melcrum has released a report that attempts to deliver the most practical explanations of social media, with examples and advice on how to develop a social media strategy.

  “How to use social media to engage employees” is a global survey of attitudes toward social media technology and could be useful if your in the area of corporate communications. Its also the kind of report which makes it perfectly clear that you may not be alone in terms of deciding on the right social media strategy for your corporation, but with some 60% of organizations committing to having some form of social media strategy in place by 2007, you soon may be.

  
• More Truths to using Google News for Reputation Monitoring
  
  The Truths and Myths of using Google News for Online Reputation Monitoring and Management (ORM) as noted in a blog post on Marketing Pilgrim, explores the practical uses for folks who use Google to monitor and repair reputations. The realization of any/all limitations of available ORM tools starts with posts like these. I wanted to use these posts as a footnote to inform further discussion here on our blog.

  Fundamental to the success of your ORM strategy means staying on top of the "buzz creep" - this means tracking every incident of online mention of your company name, your staff, brands, products/services, etc. - before if finds you. Using news alerts to monitor your reputation can work if you use it strictly as a monitoring barometer to help understand i) the timeline and delivery of incident details to the inboxes of Web audiences, and; ii) tracking how quickly the news can impact any rise or drop on first page Web search results.

  The main drawback to solely using news alerts as an ORM strategy (a point that seems obvious to many of us, but one that can never be overstated) is that they don't cover the entire online terrain. Our experiences suggest that Web audience approval or disenchantment occurs most in places where debate on an issue or topic has the most potential to flourish and involve input, and although mainstream media has taken significant steps in recent years to allow input on news articles and stories, the content controls are a major reason why discussion and debate continues to happen elsewhere.

  Another important consideration is that mainstream media, intentionally or not, has historically excluded some of the groups and associations most actively involved in using online environments to carry their message. For example, environmental groups may choose online communications because it allows them a control over the theme and message of their initiative - a control mechanism that is far less achievable in mainstream media coverage that would sooner point out the consequences of the groups actions (past or present) than focus on the message and relevance of their cause.

  Taking this example one step further, like it or not, the debate to determine whether a newly launched campaign is 'eco-chic' or an eco-sham will be settled by the Web audiences, and the choice of where to debate the issue could find fertile ground on a MySpace blog maintained by a member of the activist group, and may eventually even make its rounds to a MySpace group or forum discussion. Whether or not those discussions transpire into any planned action outside your commercial establishment, our experiences inform us that using news alerts for ORM will mean you will only be apprised of the situation after it has happened.

  As well, when we are speaking of online attention that can make or break a brand, keeping an eye on discussions that may lead to a planned protest are more likely to happen on a blog, a message board/forum, or social network site. The most striking evidence of this phenomenon is the little mainstream coverage received by the recent Energy Action Coalition's Fossil Fools Day initiative. For this reason and many others, ORM strategies must go beyond vanity searches, news alerts or a collection of feeds.

  
• Net neutrality or hate?

  Richard Warman is a lawyer who has been made a target on a white supremacists website. The offending blog author is calling for the murder of Mr. Warman, a human rights lawyer in Ottawa who put Tomasz Winnicki in jail for ignoring a court order to stop posting hate on the Internet.

  According to the Canadian Press, Mark Goldberg has teamed up with lawyers from Papazian Heisey Myers and Bernie Farber, CEO of Canadian Jewish Congress, to file an application with the CRTC which describes Bill White of Roanoke, Virginia, as a neo-Nazi who has encouraged people to "take violent action" against Warman and even posted his home address on the sites. The application requests that the CRTC issue an order enabling carrier ISPs to block the site and any others that have perpetuated the violent action against Mr. Warman.

  So is this an issue of net neutrality, or hate?

  Vint Cerf, Google Chief Internet Evangelist and Co-Developer of the Internet Protocol, has this view on net-neutrality:

  Allowing broadband carriers to control what people see and do online would fundamentally undermine the principles that have made the Internet such a success...A number of justifications have been created to support carrier control over consumer choices online; none stand up to scrutiny."

  Tim Lee, regarded as the Inventor of the World Wide Web, offers up his own view:

  The neutral communications medium is essential to our society. It is the basis of a fair competitive market economy. It is the basis of democracy, by which a community should decide what to do. It is the basis of science, by which humankind should decide what is true. Let us protect the neutrality of the net."

  This idea of network or net-neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet.

  Where net-neutrality falls short is when people have to fear for their lives, or go into hiding because hate and violent views are taken to a provocating and criminal level.

  Mr. Warman doesn't think too highly of the idea of freedon of speech, specifically when the internet is used as a vehicle to perpetuate hate.

  As put off as some may be about his fanatical opposition against freedom of speech, and his accession of legal remedies to remove hate from the web, it doesn't justify the fact that he now needs to go into hiding, as hiding can and will severely interfere with one's list of places to go and people to see. His indvidual freedoms have in one fell-swoop been altered when his life was threatened by a menacing blogger.

  Hatred against any race, ethnicity, indvidual or entity ought not be tolerated in Canada. It is illegal, and punishable under the Canadian criminal code.

  Whether its child porn, or views espoused by the Keegstra's and Zuendels of the world, legal remedies are a necessary way to deal with the most active purveyors of violence and hate.

  Countering it with a link appearing before you conduct a Yahoo or Google search, asking if you'd like a "censored" or "uncensored" view of your results might not be the best way to deal with the problem.

  With regard to the matter at hand, there is no doubt that threatening a persons life is a vile and reprehensible act, but is the CRTC the right place to look for a remedy to a matter as complex as this one? The violator lives in the US, and his blog was published on a server located in the US.

  If the CRTC does issue such an order to ISP's to block such content, how many similar requests will follow, and how will a decision like this impact companies like ours that monitor menacing activities towards people and/or companies? Can the sites be blocked without also blocking dozens or hundreds of additional sites hosted at the same IP address?

  Jim Bensons views are in alignment with my own on the matter:

  Censorship is a value judgement. Making ISPs responsible for censorship is asking them to make a value judgement for society. ISPs mission statements generally say nothing about value judgements. Value propositions, yes, judgements no.

  It appears that this incident has all the earmarks for a watershed moment in Canadian history with respect to hate laws, and the CRTC taking an active role in regulating Internet sites spreading hatred.

  I'm certain that there will be more follow-up on the application, and the case at Mark Goldberg's blog.

  
• Notes on Reputation Monitoring & Management

  The "Free" vs. "Paid" Tools Debate

  In recent months, reputation monitoring has definitely become a hot blogging topic. Some have been announcements welcoming new monitoring tools to the category. Others have been serving as advisories or tips to help business small or large get on board with managing their online identities.

  Although most are in favour and understand the need for reputation monitoring, it seems that the "free tools" vs. "paid tools" debate has made its rounds (either introduced by the blog author or in the follow-up comments), and its a debate which I've been watching with some interest for at least as long as we've been offering our RepuTrace™ service.

  My bias is quite clear and I've made it apparent in numerous blog posts as well as any opportunity I've had with mainstream media coverage. As I see it, it can be summed up into an advantage where automated software, human insight, core competence and best practices save business the precious time to compile, store and report on any and all online views that can make or break a brand. Timely reporting and precision monitoring that in my opinion greatly enhances the reputation management strategies of any business, small or large.

  As far as reputation management strategies are concerned, because there is no comprehensive and all encompassing “how-to” guide to manage your reputation and brand online, my advice would always be to call in firms like ours to continue on a company's brand success, especially if you are realizing that free tools aren’t enough.

  

Misc

• CUSTOM LOGIN TEXT

XML Feeds

• RSS 0.92: Posts, Comments
• RSS 1.0: Posts, Comments
• RSS 2.0: Posts, Comments
• Atom: Posts, Comments

Who's Online?

• Guest Users: 2