WebProNews

Tag: reputation management

  • How to Manage Your Reputation With AI

    How to Manage Your Reputation With AI

    Buying online in recent times has become an easy and quick way to get nearly anything you want, but lots of products aren’t as good as advertised. So the vast majority of consumers typically read the reviews of a product when considering a purchase. This means that if your product isn’t well received and gets bad reviews, it can drag your whole business. Reputation of your business can affect more than the sales of your business, although with high ratings, brick-and-mortar stores can make as much as 4.5 times the amount of their online counterparts, good reputation can convert potential customers into sales, it can boost your online presence, and help you stand out from your competitors. Reputation is so important that it can even be worth as much as 25% of a company’s total market value. 

    Consumers trust the internet when it comes to online reviews and that can make or break a sale if the reviews are bad or they point out fatal flaws. 90% use the internet to comparison shop for every purchase, 78% trust online reviews as much as if someone they personally knew told them that the product was good, and 68% are more likely to visit a local business after reading positive reviews. So having many positive reviews can bring in more sales. As well as bringing in more sales, a good reputation can change your business’s rank in search results – up to 15% of Google’s ranking factors are based solely on reviews left by consumers, making your business easier to find to interested customers. Going from only an average of 3 stars up to 5 stars can yield up to an astonishing 25% more views from Google alone. In 2018, 86% of consumers read online reviews for local businesses – 40% of consumers say that any negative reviews turned them away from buying there. This all boils down to the fact that having a good reputation with your customers and even other business can be vital to the success of your business by getting more people to see your products or services and more people to buy your products or services. 

    With how important reputation seems, as it determines a lot of the sales and how many people see your business, it should be a top priority for anyone who can make any kind of difference in that regard. But a surprising number of business owners don’t devote nearly enough time to their reputation, but that’s not to say some don’t as around 70% brand representatives spend up to 20% of their time on online reputation management. This is mainly due to a lack of time so they can’t manage their reputation or that they are lacking the software that they would need to be able to effectively manage their reputation. A lot of managing your reputation is a lot of simple grunt work that AI can easily do, such as replying to customers’ questions and concerns, and many more. 

    Find out how AI will be able to make managing reputation online a huge amount easier here.

     

  • Google’s Twitter Deal May Impact Your Reputation

    Google’s Twitter Deal May Impact Your Reputation

    Last month, we learned that Google and Twitter have struck a new deal to put real-time tweets back into Google’s search index after going without them for a few years. Google isn’t expected to implement tweets into its results in the same fashion it did when the two companies had a deal in the past (as in a never-ending stream of real-time content appearing at the top of search results pages), so it’s hard to know exactly what to expect. Both companies are staying fairly tight-lipped about what the new deal will entail.

    Are you looking forward to the implementation of the deal? Do you want to see more real-time tweets in Google’s search results? Let us know in the comments.

    That said, it is clear that it’s going to mean more real-time tweets appearing in search results, and that can lead to a variety of new things to consider. Conversocial CEO Joshua March shared his thoughts on how the deal might impact customer service and reputation.

    “The biggest challenge and opportunity for businesses using Twitter for customer service is that every interaction is now amplified,” he tells WebProNews. “Whether that’s a complaint from a customer or the company’s response, the agreement between Google and Twitter places a greater spotlight on each interaction.”

    Does the deal mean reputation-damaging tweets will become a bigger problem for businesses?

    “Absolutely,” says March. “When a customer is searching on Google for a business, Tweets from customers about issues or bad service experiences could be on the front page. If businesses have a social first approach to customer service then they can tackle these quickly and head on, creating positive engagements that will show up instead. This deal has the potential to accelerate the kind of service-related Twitter crises many brands have already experienced.”

    “For companies with a social first approach who are committed to delivering excellent, fast and authentic social customer service, the agreement between Google and Twitter has the ability to spotlight them, and make it very obvious to customers that they care,” he says. “Companies that have successfully integrated various social media into their customer service DNA should be very excited by the agreement.”

    “In addition, previously addressed concerns are now searchable, allowing customers to potentially self-help,” he adds.

    That’s a great point, and if Google does a good job implementing this, these types of results could easily take the place of forum threads. In a recent research paper, by the way, Google pointed out that forum posts are often not very trustworthy.

    The question remains: will businesses have any significant control over how they’re reflected in tweets that actually appear in search results?

    “We don’t have insight into how Google will rank Tweets for search purposes,” says March. “We can surmise that only a few Tweets will show up on the first page, since Google has taken such a consistent, minimalist approach into the results they show. In this case, the best approach for companies will likely be to offer the best customer service they can via social media.”

    A recent Ad Age article suggested that businesses treat tweets like ads or landing pages to get users to take action when they come across them in search results.

    “Many brands have treated Twitter as a short term, throwaway medium – ignoring the longer term impact,” says March. “This deal makes it very clear that this isn’t the case; the conversations you have with your customers on Twitter are here to stay. It underlines the need to treat every Tweet seriously – whether a marketing message or a customer service response.”

    If nothing else, the deal would suggest that it’s more critical than ever for businesses to interact with people mentioning them on Twitter.

    “The social channel has grown up – for some major companies, it now makes up over 10% of all inbound customer contacts,” March says. “As communication continues it’s huge shift into mobile and social, this is only going to keep getting bigger; older digital service channels like email and chat are gradually become obsolete. Customers have always punished companies for ignoring them on social media; the impact of this is now much bigger.”

    Does this mean you should consider the search implications of every tweet from your brand’s account?

    “The agreement between Google and Twitter amplifies conversations that are already happening, going beyond Retweets and Favorites, and placing them in front of more people,” says March. “Companies that are effectively delighting their customers should appreciate the opportunity to have their efforts shown across the web. The key thing for brands to keep in mind with this is the same as always – any Tweet sent could be seen by millions of people. Tone of voice, careful wording, and offering real, authentic help and resolution remain key to success.”

    Eric Enge’s Stone Temple Consulting recently put out some research about how Google indexes tweets currently. They analyzed 133,000 tweets to see how Google indexed them, and found that about 7.4% of them were actually indexed, leaving 92.6% completely left out of the search engine. That tells you how this deal can potentially impact search results. There’s room for a hell of a lot more tweets.

    Enge’s team found that Twitter accounts with larger follower counts got more tweets indexed, with more value being placed on authoritative accounts. They also found that images and/or hashtags seem to increase a tweet’s chances of getting indexed, while mentions registered negatively. Links from third-party sites also appeared to have a significant impact.

    More on Stone Temple’s findings and a conversation about this subject with Enge here.

    Do you expect to be helped by Google’s deal with Twitter? Hurt by it? Share your thoughts.

  • Revleap: Yelp’s Allegations Completely False, Unsubstantiated

    Last week, Yelp said it was “taking a stand against misleading ‘reputation management’ companies,” as it filed a lawsuit against a company called Revleap, which it said is a scam, and puts small businesses at risk because of the Yelp Consumer Alert program in addition to federal and state regulations.

    Yelp said has Revleap had operated under various names like Yelpdirector and Revpley, and “has spammed businesses with unsolicited messages claiming that they can get good reviews to stick and remove bad reviews.”

    The actual suit alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, cybersquatting, breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and false advertising.

    We reached out to Revleap for comment, and the company said Yelp’s claims are “completely false and unsubstantiated.”

    Here’s the full statement we received:

    Since RevLeap’s inception as a platform for businesses to connect with their customers to gather feedback in a new way, we champion the freedom of speech and open internet. “The Open Internet” as described by the FCC calls for 1. Transparency, 2. No Blocking, and 3. No Unreasonable Discrimination.

    RevLeap services are legal in all aspects of the law, and we specialize in only legitimate reviews from real customers. Yelp has filed completely false and unsubstantiated claims against our company. We aim to decrease defamation and increase awareness of free speech for businesses. We level the playing field for everyone who uses the internet or reviews on any site.

    We believe the internet, business owners, and their customers benefit greatly from having an open internet. Any disruption of these principles like the Yelp “Filter” or described on Yelp’s website as “Recommendation Software” preys on businesses using the reviews as leverage as described in thousands of FTC complaints against Yelp from 2008-2014. Yelp’s Yelp Profile has over 10,000 1-Star Reviews from business owners, friends and family of business owners who have been hurt by Yelp and we hope through our services we can restore faith in the internet and reach a point of transparency with Yelp.

    Yelp has been talking about the “open Internet” itself. On Wednesday, the company released a blog post calling for people to express their support for Net Neutrality before the FCC votes on February 26, and saying that Yelp values users and works with other companies and organizations to “support adoption of the strongest Net Neutrality principles to protect the American Public.”

    Here’s an excerpt from that:

    Since Yelp’s inception as a platform to connect people with great local businesses around them, we have supported and relied on the principles of an open and free Internet in order to do business. These principles, which have become enshrined in the term “Net Neutrality,” provide that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all legal data and content equally, and not discriminate, throttle, or charge different rates depending on the nature of the site, platform or data being transmitted.

    Regarding Revleap, Yelp says business owners often fall for such “scams” and pay “dearly, both with their bank accounts and their online reputations.”

    You can see the full complaint here.

    Image via Yelp

  • Yelp ‘Takes A Stand To Protect Business Owners’

    Yelp filed a lawsuit against a company called Revleap, which it says is a scam, and puts small businesses at risk because of the Yelp Consumer Alert program as well as federal and state regulation. Revleap has fired back, saying it’s doing nothing wrong, and is looking for businesses wronged by Yelp to help crowfund its legal defense.

    Is Yelp right about this company or is Yelp the one damaging reputations as Revleap maintains? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Yelp says Revleap has operated under various names like Yelpdirector and Revpley, and “has spammed businesses with unsolicited messages claiming that they can get good reviews to stick and remove bad reviews.”

    The actual suit alleges trademark infringement, trademark dilution, unfair competition, cybersquatting, breach of contract, interference with contractual relations, and false advertising. You can take a look at the complaint here.

    “One thing Revleap actually does, it seems, is bombard their clients’ customers with surveys,” says Yelp VP of Communications Vince Sollitto. “Customers that respond favorably, and agree to post a review, are entered in a drawing for gift cards in an effort to deceptively boost their clients’ reputations.”

    “We sometimes hear reports about ‘reputation management’ or ‘small business marketing’ agencies that promise (for a fee, of course) to help businesses remove negative reviews and gain more positive reviews on Yelp,” Sollitto writes in a blog post. “Some of these agencies imply that they have a special relationship with Yelp or even lead business owners to believe that they are acting on behalf of Yelp.”

    He goes on to call such offers “scams,” and notes that some business owners fall for them and end up “paying dearly, both with their bank accounts and their online reputations.”

    Yelp is painting the lawsuit as “taking a stand to protect business owners”.

    Revleap said this in a blog post last month:

    Yelp is a swiftly growing reviews site with very real challenges,” Revleap said in a blog post last month. “Many business owners who are reviewed on Yelp have experienced real-world changes in their businesses due to the reviews posted by customers. The reviews site has definitely benefited businesses with plentiful 4 and 5 star reviews. But if one studies the conversation in social networks, blogs and the news feeds, Yelp is facing a real PR nightmare due to a poorly run internal sales department that pushes business owners to pay for expensive marketing add-ons.

    Terry Thomas recently published an article in the Seattle Times about his experience with Yelp. Apparently, a Yelp sales rep called Thomas after his business had risen due to excellent reviews. The sales rep proposed that Thomas pay Yelp $8400 per year for a mid-level marketing add-on program. When Thomas declined, he saw an almost instant drop in the positive reviews of his business due to a Yelp “filtering” program. Interestingly, Thomas noted that positive reviews were filtered out, while negative reviews remained. His rating went down as a result and his business was directly affected. (SOURCE: Seattle Times)

    ​There are numerous other examples of similar issues going on for business owners across the world (Yelp is an international reviews site). If you Google “yelp problems” or simply look at Yelp in the news for the last 7 days, you will see an overwhelming amount of bad press and negative feedback about the site.

    ​Revleap has come to the rescue of business owners by providing a simple program where existing customers of a business can be invited to contribute reviews to Yelp. The program utilizes a proprietary software package that business owners license from Revleap. With this package, a business owner can upload a list of customers and these same customers will be invited to contribute reviews to Yelp. The Revleap software filters out negative reviews submitted by the customers, while guiding positive reviewers to Yelp directly. Most medium-sized businesses using Revleap have noticed an average of 10-20 new positive reviews on Yelp per day as a result.

    Yelp said earlier this month that it will be beefing up its sales staff, especially here in the U.S. In January, the company issued its latest round of Consumer Alerts, slapping warnings on the pages of 85 businesses.

    We reached out to Revleap for comment. Here’s what they said:

    Since RevLeap’s inception as a platform for businesses to connect with their customers to gather feedback in a new way, we champion the freedom of speech and open internet. “The Open Internet” as described by the FCC calls for 1. Transparency, 2. No Blocking, and 3. No Unreasonable Discrimination.

    RevLeap services are legal in all aspects of the law, and we specialize in only legitimate reviews from real customers. Yelp has filed completely false and unsubstantiated claims against our company. We aim to decrease defamation and increase awareness of free speech for businesses. We level the playing field for everyone who uses the internet or reviews on any site.

    We believe the internet, business owners, and their customers benefit greatly from having an open internet. Any disruption of these principles like the Yelp “Filter” or described on Yelp’s website as “Recommendation Software” preys on businesses using the reviews as leverage as described in thousands of FTC complaints against Yelp from 2008-2014. Yelp’s Yelp Profile has over 10,000 1-Star Reviews from business owners, friends and family of business owners who have been hurt by Yelp and we hope through our services we can restore faith in the internet and reach a point of transparency with Yelp.

    Yelp has been talking about the “open Internet” itself. On Wednesday, the company released a blog post calling for people to express their support for Net Neutrality before the FCC votes on February 26, and saying that Yelp values users and works with other companies and organizations to “support adoption of the strongest Net Neutrality principles to protect the American Public.”

    Here’s an excerpt from that:

    Since Yelp’s inception as a platform to connect people with great local businesses around them, we have supported and relied on the principles of an open and free Internet in order to do business. These principles, which have become enshrined in the term “Net Neutrality,” provide that Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should treat all legal data and content equally, and not discriminate, throttle, or charge different rates depending on the nature of the site, platform or data being transmitted.

    Revleap has started a crowdfunding campaign to try and raise money for its legal defense in the Yelp suit. It’s hoping businesses that have been hurt by Yelp will step up and help.

    Which of these companies do you think is in the right here? Either? Share your thoughts in the comments.

    Image via Yelp

  • Brands Get Way To See When They Appear On Tumblr

    Ditto Labs announced on Tuesday that it has formed a firehose partnership with Tumblr, which will enable brands to find their logos and products within images shared on Tumblr. Considering that there are over 120 million posts to Tumblr on a daily basis, this could provide a good opportunity for companies to get a better feel for what their Tumblr presence is truly like.

    Tumblr is enabling its partners to utilize the capability.

    Tumblr Head of Business Development T.R. Newcomb says, “Tumblr is a highly visual platform that encourages graphical storytelling. Adding the unique layer of visual analytics from Ditto Labs allows our brand partners to discover much deeper insights and competitive intelligence into the narratives that play out around their brands each day on Tumblr.”

    Ditto Labs CEO David Rose said, “Photo-listening provides incredible insight into how people make brands a part of their everyday lives,. No other technology can read brand information inside of pictures at social-scale. It’s a must-have for companies looking to understand how to engage with fans and consumers in a photo-centric world.”

    According to Mashable, Newcomb says Tumblr isn’t planning to do anything ad-related with this yet, but brands might be able to gain some insights from about their brands and apply them to organic strategies.

    Read our interview with Curalate’s CEO for more on how brands can get better at visual social media like the kind of thing you’re likely to find on Tumblr.

    Ditto Labs is offering its customers photo analytics for Tumblr effective immediately. It also provides an API for social media “listening” platforms.

    According to data from comScore, Tumblr users spend an average of 16 minutes per session on the service.

    Image via Tumblr

  • What Does Jelly Mean For Businesses?

    What Does Jelly Mean For Businesses?

    As you may know, Twitter co-founder Biz Stone launched a new app called Jelly this week after about a year in stealth mode. It’s billed as “a new way to search,” but is essentially a Q&A service that lets you take pictures and tap into your Facebook and Twitter networks to seek answers.

    The Jelly reviews have been very mixed so far, and many are simply wondering what real-world use we could possibly get out of it. But that attitude is accompanied by the acknowledgement of the people behind it and the fact that there was a very similar attitude surrounding Twitter in its early days. Now it’s a major part of Internet life and a publicly trade company, so one has to wonder if there’s more to Jelly than meets the eye.

    Can Stone repeat the success of Twitter with Jelly? Do you think Jelly has potential to be a major app? Have you tried it yet? Do you intend to keep it on your phone? Let us know your first impressions in the comments.

    The main idea behind Jelly, as pitched in the company’s introductory video, is that you see something that you don’t know what it is, take a picture of it, and find out from the people you’re connected to (or the people that are connected to the people you’re connected to) on Twitter and/or Facebook. You’re supposed to be able to tap into the collective knowledge of these networks for real, legitimate, and personally relevant answers.

    Introducing Jelly from Jelly Industries, Inc. on Vimeo.

    “What it’s doing is it’s going out there and pulling knowledge – things that your friends and their friends – they know, and that’s a key difference, because knowledge is very different from information,” says Stone in the video. “People will be eager to help each other on Jelly because we are driven to help.”

    As I said, reviews are mixed.

    MarketWatch says it “does not seem to be that novel of an idea.”

    Sam Biddle at Gawker’s Valleywag calls Jelly “a revolution in engorged, cloying, dumbstruck rhetoric, a true disruption of horse shit,” and “an app for the sake of apps—a software Fabergé egg.”

    My own knee-jerk reaction after playing around with the app for a few hours consisted of a handful of gripes (and I’ll look past the part about it locking up my phone here):

    • The very concept: Why do I really need this? How often am I faced with circumstances that require me to take a picture of something to seek out information about it, let alone specifically from people who happen to be in my extended network? Not very often. I learned this after having the Google Goggles app downloaded for a long time without ever using it a single time beyond playing around with it to see what it could do. I’m sure there are circumstances where it could be helpful, but I just don’t see needing it enough to justify the app taking up storage on my phone.
    • The barrage of dumb and irrelevant questions. Download Jelly and play around with it, and you’re likely to see many of these. It’s already a pit of noise. This could be solved with some kind of organization, which could come later, but right now, it’s just a flow of random questions – most of which I have no interest in beyond testing out the app. It’s not something that’s going to make me want to come back repeatedly.
    • The notifications. Since downloading Jelly, my phone has been blowing up with notifications from the app. Some of these come from people answering my own questions, and that’s fine. That’s what it should do. More of them, however, are simply notifying me about more random questions from seemingly random people. I don’t need to know about these questions unless they pertain directly to me (which they don’t so far). If we could understand a bit more about what determines when Jelly targets specific people with specific questions perhaps we would find some more logic in this approach. For now, it’s just annoying.

    Jelly counts Jack Dorsey, Evan Williams, Bono, Reid Hoffman, Steven Johnson, Al Gore, Gret Yaitanes and Roya Mahboob as investors – an interesting ensemble to say the least. These aren’t dumb people. Clearly they see something big in this concept.

    “Jelly is one of the investments that I am most excited about,” Yaitanes told Fortune. “I invested in it because I loved the idea from its initial concept through its execution. I look at the people and I look at the team, sometimes more than I look at the product. I look at the passion. I have invested in good people before, and the startup went bust. But I would still go back to those entrepreneurs in a heartbeat when they have something else, because I know they have the makings of a good company when all the stars line up.”

    “When I look at Jelly, I see what I saw in Twitter so many years ago. It is astounding,” he said. “Now that it is out in the world, it will only further its potential. Jelly 1.0 is just the beginning.”

    Johnson also shared some thoughts about it in a blog post, basically positioning it as a place to get answers you can’t get from Google.

    “‘How much is the new Battlefield 4 game?’ is a great question for Google,” he writes. “‘Is the Battlefield 4 game appropriate for a ten-year-old?’ is a great question for Jelly. Not because it’s going to link you to some review page on Commonsense Media, but because it’s going to connect you to another parent with a ten-year-old who has played Battlefield 4 — someone you know, directly or indirectly.”

    “The thing that’s most surprising about Jelly is how fun it is to answer questions,” he says. “There’s something strangely satisfying in flipping through the cards, reading questions, scanning the pictures, and looking for a place to be helpful. It’s the same broad gesture of reading, say, a Twitter feed, and pleasantly addictive in the same way, but the intent is so different. Scanning a twitter feed while waiting for the train has the feel of ‘Here we are now, entertain us.’ Scanning Jelly is more like: ‘I’m here. How can I help?’”

    Not quite the experience I had, but okay.

    “Sure at first, people are going to say, ‘Hey, is this my foot?’” Stone told the LA Times. “But, hopefully, with time people will realize there are certain kinds of questions that are better suited to asking a person. Algorithms can retrieve all kinds of fancy information. But a person can also do something in two seconds that artificial intelligence would take the next 50 years to figure out. I am a big sci-fi fan but when people tout artificial intelligence, I joke, ‘How about just intelligence?’ There are 7 billion people on the planet. There is bound to be somebody who is going to help you out.”

    If you spend any amount of time using Jelly, you’ll notice that its not a very effective two-way communication platform. You ask a question and get answers. You can’t comment back on the answers other than to mark it with a “thank you”. Stone told the Times they intentionally designed it to “not be very conversational.”

    “Early prototypes sort of mimicked how a lot of stream-based or timeline-based social media applications work, and we found that we were encouraging a lot of similar behavior,” he said. “That isn’t bad. But if I posted a picture of my son wearing a hat to protect himself from the sun and asked if this was a good sun hat for my kid, a lot of people would respond saying, ‘He’s so cute,’ or ‘He looks like you,’ or ‘He looks like his mom,’ or ‘What a cutie.’ And I would say, ‘But what about the hat? Hello?’”

    So they designed it a different way, which he says “works more like a search engine.”

    It doesn’t have a search function, however, which in my opinion make it less helpful. It kind of seems like a waste of knowledge, because maybe someone has already asked your question. You have no way of knowing. This places limits on the likelihood that you’ll get a helpful answer – limited by your extended networks. Maybe the better answer came from outside of your extended networks. You just never got to see it.

    This also potentially raises a reputation management issue for businesses. You have no way of monitoring your brand on Jelly. You can’t search to see who’s talking about it, though the content is public (or at least semi-public). You have no idea who is seeing these mentions of your brand or what they’re saying unless Jelly happens to show it to you.

    While things may change in the future, there doesn’t appear to be much businesses can do with Jelly at all unless they happen to come across questions that are relevant to them. There’s not a clear revenue source with Jelly, though monetization efforts may not be a big priority. Stone said last year that they were in no rush to be a big company anytime soon. It does count Kevin Thau, once VP of Business Development at Twitter as its COO.

    While Jelly is only for mobile platforms like Android and iOS so far, it’s possible that we’ll see a web version one day, similar to what we have with Instagram and now Vine.

    Jelly exchanges do live on the web at their own URLs. Perhaps embeddable “jellies” will one day be in the cards.

    Jelly

    We can try, but the fact is we can’t really judge an app or a business this early in its existence. You have to wait and see how people use it. If there is a way for businesses to use it, you can bet they will. Even if first impressions of Jelly leave a little (or a lot) to be desired, just remember what everyone was saying about Twitter when it came out.

    What do you think about Jelly? Do you see a business use case? Do you think it will gain a significant user base? Share your thoughts in the comments.

  • Google’s ‘Mugshot’ Update Misses New York Times’ First Example

    Google pushed out a new algorithm update late last week (in addition to Penguin) aimed at penalizing sites that profit from public mugshots by making people who appear in them pay to have them removed. It’s been described as a racket, and has tarnished the online reputations of people, including those who were never actually convicted of any crimes.

    The story came to light over the weekend, with the New York Times publishing an in-depth piece about the sites that engage in this, the victims, and what Google is doing about it. Google confirmed to the newspaper that it launched the aforementioned update on Thursday.

    Danny Sullivan from Search Engine Land took to Twitter to imply that Google seemed to be acting in response to the New York Times article, despite the problem being pointed out earlier this year in an opinion piece by Jonathan Hochman and Jonah Stein on his own Search Engine Land site. Google’s Matt Cutts, however, said that Google has been working on this update for months, and that the SEL piece contributed to getting the team to work on it. The timing of the launch, as it corresponds to the NYT piece, however, is certainly interesting.

    Either way, the update is out there, but now there are reports that it isn’t doing what it’s supposed to in all cases – most notably, in a specific case outlined in the NYT piece itself. Maxwell Birnbaum, who was mentioned in the intro to the article still has a result from mugshots.com appear as the top result when you search for his name. The site highlights its “unpublish mugshot” service right at the top of the page.

    Unpublish Mugshot

    As Sullivan notes, the update does appear to have helped another victim from the NYT piece – Janese Trimaldi – but even in her results, you don’t have to go too far into Google’s results to find a DirtSearch.org link, pointing to an arrests lookup for for her name. At least her LinkedIn profile is at the top. And of course, the New York Times piece itself appears in the results.

    As Google often says, no algorithm is perfect, but you’d hope it would at least get the first example mentioned in the story that exposed this all to the general public.

    [via Julio Fernandez/Danny Sullivan]

  • Google Launches Update To Demote Shady Mugshot Sites

    As previously reported, Google announced the launch of Penguin 2.0 on Friday, but that’s not the only algorithmic change the search giant has reportedly pushed out. Sometime late last week, they also pushed an update to demote mugshot sites that charge people to have their images removed.

    This is a pretty interesting story. The New York Times published an in-depth look at such sites, speaking to a variety of parties, including a guy who runs one of them, some who have been negatively impacted by them, an SEO, and spokespeople from Google, MasterCard and PayPal. It’s definitely worth a read.

    The basic gist is that there are a bunch of sites out there that make money by gathering mugshots (which are in the public domain), and then getting ranked in the search results for name searches for the people who appear in the shots. Before this update, these sites were ranking very well in Google, and causing major reputation-damaging problems for the people. And we’re not talking just hardened criminals, murderers and sex offenders here. We’re talking about people who were arrested, but never convicted, people that made minor mistakes, and have repaid their “debt to society,” and others who simply don’t deserve to have a mugshot be the first thing that comes up in a Google search for their name when they’re trying to get a job.

    The sites charge money to have the damaging content removed – sometimes up to $400 – and even when one pays one site, the same content is likely on a bunch of other sites. This is possibly one reason why Google actually acted on this.

    When the Times first reached out to Google, a spokesperson told them that “with very narrow exceptions, we take down as little as possible from search.”

    This is more in line with what you’d expect from Google. The company is frequently asked to take down search results by people who feel their reputations are being damaged, but always resists, until they’re legally obligated to do so.

    After a couple of days, however, the Times got another statement from the same spokesperson who said he was unaware of certain efforts at the compny:

    “Our team has been working for the past few months on an improvement to our algorithms to address this overall issue in a consistent way. We hope to have it out in the coming weeks.”

    The Times says it learned that Google worked even faster than expected on this, and introduced the algorithm change on Thursday.

    “The effects were immediate: on Friday, two mug shots of Janese Trimaldi, which had appeared prominently in an image search, were no longer on the first page,” reports the Times’ David Segal.

    This is a pretty big moment for reputation management because (as mentioned), Google doesn’t typically respond. Clearly, the company felt that these sites were violating its guidelines, and acted accordingly.

    It will be interesting to see if any other types of sites were affected unintentionally. With the latest Penguin update launching so close to this, we may never know.

  • Google: We Don’t Have The Resources To Investigate Page Removal Requests

    Google’s Matt Cutts put out a new Webmaster Help video. It’s one of those where he answers his own question (as opposed to a user-submitted one), so you know it’s something Google deals with all the time. The question:

    There’s a page about me on the web that I don’t like. Will Google remove the page from its search results? Why or why not?

    In short, Google will not remove a page just because it says something about you that you don’t like. This isn’t really news. In fact, Cutts even references a blog post he wrote about it back in 2009. However, such requests are clearly still something Google has to deal with on a regular basis, hence this video.

    “In general, when you come to Google, and you say I don’t like this page, if it’s under your control, we’re happy to have you remove it,” says Cutts. “But if it’s under somebody else’s control, that can be a little bit more of a delicate situation. Because if there’s a he said, she said situation, and we don’t know who’s right, it can be a little bit risky for us to try to just pick sides arbitrarily. We don’t really have the resources to investigate all the different people who come to us and say I’m right. This person’s wrong, and this page should go away.”

    I’m not sure Google doesn’t have the resources. According to its most recent earnings report, the company employed 33,077 full-time employees as of March 31, 2012 (up from 32,467 at the end of last year). But clearly, Google would rather have these resources focused on other things. That said, I can’t say I disagree with their approach.

    “And if you think about it, in cyberspace, there’s many of the same laws that apply,” Cutts says. “So if somebody has libeled you, if they’re saying something that is factually, completely wrong, or if there’s some fraud going on, you can take that person to court. And there’s even ways that are shy of taking them to court, like sending a cease-and-desist letter. So there are other avenues available to you than coming to Google. And if you just come to Google, and you get something removed from Google, that doesn’t take it off of the web. It only removes it from our index. So people could still find it on Twitter. They could still find it on Facebook. They could navigate directly to it. They can find it in other search engines. So just removing a piece of content from Google’s index doesn’t remove it from the web. It doesn’t keep people from finding it. ”

    Yes, the web does still exist without Google, which is kind of Google’s point with all of the antitrust stuff. “Competition is always a click away,” as the company likes to say.

    “So think about some of the situations,” Cutts continues. “If there’s something that’s just egregiously wrong, hopefully the webmaster will listen to reason or listen to a threat of legal action and take it down. And then everybody’s happy. Now, if it’s something like a newspaper, where it’s factually accurate, and you don’t like it, there may not be that much that you can do about that. In that sense, Google is trying to reflect the web. We’re trying to show the web as it is, almost like a mirror. And so if something’s true, if you were convicted of a crime or something like that, and it ranks for your name naturally, that’s not the sort of thing that we would typically take action on.”

    Cutts goes onto talk about how you should be managing your online reputation.

    “If something happened 10 years ago, and you’ve got a lot of fresh new content, that can often outrank the stuff that’s a lot older,” he says.

    He’s certainly right about that. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve had trouble finding specific older content in Google, as it’s buried under more recent content, particularly since Google launched its freshness update last year. And freshness continues to be a theme in Google’s monthly lists of algorithm updates.

  • Bitly’s Take On Social Search

    Bitly’s Take On Social Search

    Social search is an interesting animal, mostly because there are so many different approaches. There’s realtime search, like we’ve seen from Google+ and Topsy in the last week. There’s Google’s social search, which simply sprinkles social results throughout its web search results. There’s the Wajam/Greplin approach, where you give the services access to your account so you can search through your social networks for relevant results.

    Popular URL shortening service bitly has announced its version of social search, and it’s more about searching through popular content.

    “bitly shortens 80 million URLs every day, give or take a few,” the company says. “Now, with our new search technology, we’re crawling and classifying every URL we shorten to create an index of the most ‘viral’ content on the web — content that’s broadly distributed, frequently-clicked, and trending at a high velocity.”

    Bitly shares an example of a search for “onstar” comparing it to a Google search.

    Onstar on bitly

    Bitly points out that there’s been some controversy surrounding OnStar tracking its customers, and that the top results here show news stories about the company and a blog post from a person talking about it, and that a Google search returns the company’s official site and its Wikipedia page – “results based on Google’s pagerank algorithm, which prioritizes the pages which are linked to by the most authoritative sites on the web.”

    To be fair, when I searched Google for “onstar” the first two results are as bitly says, but the next one was an Engadget article about tracking. There are also several other first page results on the tracking topic, and the company’s Facebook and Twitter accounts, which in all honesty may be among the results a person wants if they just search for the “onstar” query.

    “This is the challenge of the realtime search space — many of the pages are so new, so fresh, that they don’t have any pagerank,” says bitly. “A personal blog post isn’t authoritative in the way that the New York Times or Wired magazine is authoritative, but stories don’t find their way into Wired unless people like Jonathan Zdiarski [used in bitly’s example] speak out. Increasingly, they do, and often they reach a broad audience on social media before more conventionally-authoritative newsgatherers amplify their messages. ”

    There’s certainly a case for realtime search. No question. I thought Google did a fairly good job of it when they had it, but then they lost the Twitter firehose, and the feature went away. Sooner or later, Google is expected to bring it back, with data from Google+ and other sources. Google did launch realtime search in Google+ this week. Perhaps that is coming closer to fruition.

    Rather than using a pagerank-type signal, bitly displays stories that it predicts will get the most attention over the next 24 hours. Then it uses its own analytics to refine the predictions in realtime. “Our search technology is based on the the most valuable measure of engagement: the click,” bitly says.

    Bitly has even built a reputation monitoring service around this technology, with an alert system. It’s designed to warn you about “swings in volume and sentiment related to specific keywords” in realtime, as opposed to just showing you what’s already been said about you or your brand. There’s also a dashboard (pictured at the top of the article) where you can view keywords you’re tracking. This feature rolls out to beta testers and bitly Enterprise users over the next couple weeks.

  • Violated Online – Rebuilding Your Reputation

    While a trustworthy reputation could take years to build, it could be destroyed in a matter of minutes. At first, this seems ironic, but when you think about all the information online that is extremely accessible, it makes more sense.

    What would you do if false information about you began to spread online? Scary thought, huh? As unfortunate as it is, this happens all the time.

    Have untruths about you or your business ever been published and spread online? Please share your story.

    WebProNews recently spoke with Steven Wyer who saw his reputation and business destroyed as a result of online rumors. Although Wyer had a very successful background in the financial industry and was recognized as a powerful business leader for the 3 companies he had built, all this was quickly forgotten after false information started to float around online.

    It all began when he became involved in litigation. As he explained to us, several documents that were filed in court made their way to the Web. Although these documents were later proven false, Wyer’s reputation and business had already taken a big jump in the wrong direction.

    “The information was all over the Internet, and it had negatively impacted my business significantly,” he said.

    One of the biggest problems with online defamation is that most people assume that the information they find on the Internet and in search results is true. It goes without saying that the majority of people don’t fact-check, especially if they see the same story in more than one place.

    Since a lot of this information can be found directly in search results, are the search engines to blame? Should they validate their top results? This question only raises others since manipulation of search results is frowned upon and would also interfere with SEO.

    Vanessa Fox of Nine By Blue actually talked with us about this topic last year and said it was important that the accuracy of search results be considered in order to find effective solutions.

    Wyer does not think the problem lies with the search engines, but he would like to see consumers more concerned about finding the truth.

    “I don’t think the search engines are blame,” he said. “By definition, a search engine is nothing more than an algorithm evaluating variables.”

    “It’s an issue of the reader, the person doing the search, being prudent enough to read it and see if it rings true,” he added.

    Wyer also believes that this issue is very challenging since the laws related to online defamation are so narrow. Often times, the slandering is coming from North America, but the servers for the sites are located in Europe, which complicates matters. Most small businesses cannot afford the fight, and those that do frequently find that the damage is already done by the time a solution is reached.

    Since people did not try to find the truth about Wyer, he ended up shuttering his company. The story, however, doesn’t end there. He also had a background in technology and software, which helped him turn his reputation around.

    Through his experience, he realized that many other people were victims of online defamation as well. For this reason, he decided to make this sensitive area of his life into a new career.

    “I was right there with business people all over the United States and [was] challenged to figure out what to do about it,” he said.

    He went on to say that starting Reputation Advocate was a “logical step” in order to help others find solutions for similar problems. Wyer also recorded his experience, and those of others, in a book called Violated Online: How Online Slander Can Destroy Your Life & What You Must Do to Protect Yourself.

    Although a single solution doesn’t exist, he believes that individuals and businesses should take proactive steps to prevent a reputation management crisis. In other words, people should regularly monitor what’s being said about them online and address any legitimate concerns.

    Are you taking the proper steps to avoid being violated online?

  • Groupon Deals Could Hurt the Reputation of Your Business

    The type of headline we ran here probably isn’t exactly the kind of thing Groupon wants to see circulating throughout the Blogosphere these days, considering all the negative press the company has been getting lately, but it is a conclusion drawn from some new academic research.

    That research, from computer scientists John W. Byers and Georgios Zervas of Boston University and Michael Mitzenmacher of Harvard, finds that ratings scores on Yelp for businesses running daily deals are 10% lower on average.

    Is it worth it to your business to run a Groupon? Let us know.

    It’s certainly worth noting that the researchers studied both Groupon and Living Social, which are the two biggest players in the deals space, with Groupon still in the lead (though the gap seems to be narrowing).

    “A key selling point of a daily deals site is the promise of beneficial long-term effects for merchants participating in a deal offering,” the report says. “Since discounted deals typically result in a net short-term loss to the merchant as customers redeem the coupons, a merchant is pitched on the expectation that some new customers, initially attracted by the deal, will become repeat customers, providing a long-term gain. Participating merchants should determine that these gains outweigh the costs, which include providing discounts to their existing customer base.”

    “We find that the average percentage increase in reviews across all merchants who had received at least one review in the 3 months prior to the Groupon offer is 44%,” it says. “Meanwhile, the average month-over-month growth in number of reviews for deals prior to their Groupon offers is about 5%. Similarly, the average percentage increase in reviews the month after the Groupon offer is 84%. Roughly 20% of merchants in our dataset (461 out of 2,332) had received zero reviews in the 3 months prior to the Groupon offer. Of these, 270 received at least one review within two months after the Groupon offer.”

    Yelp Ratings
    The researchers also conclude that “Yelp star ratings decline after a Groupon deal.”

    “The average drop in ratings is 0.12. This could affect any sorted order produced according to Yelp rankings significantly,” the report says. “Also, Yelp scores are reported and displayed according to discretized half-star increments. Thus, an average drop of 0.12 suggests a significant number of merchants may lose a half-star due to rounding. This could have a potentially important effect on a business; a recent study reports that for independent restaurants a one-star increase in Yelp ratings leads to a 9% increase in revenue. However, the transitory nature of Groupon-driven reviews, in addition to complexities of modeling hidden factors like weighted moving averages, cloud our ability to pinpoint the repetitional ramifications precisely.”

    That study by Michael Luca says that its findings suggest that “online consumer reviews substitute for more traditional forms of reputation,” that “consumers do not use all available information and are more responsive to quality changes that are more visible and consumers respond more strongly when a rating contains more information.”

    The new study also looked at text, and found that reviews mentioning either “Groupon” or “Coupon” are associated with star ratings that are 10% lower on average than reviews that don’t use these words. The few reviews that used both words were actually 20% lower on average, according to the report.

    One of the other findings from the study was that Groupon and deals sites in general are greatly helped by word of mouth (like Facebook “likes”). Kind of a no-brainer, but they have data to back it up. There is much more data to back all of these findings up. Detailed methodology can be found throughout the report, which you can read in its entirety here.

    While the findings may turn some businesses off of the Groupon strategy, the news isn’t all bad for Groupon these days. Another report released by Yipit finds that Groupon’s revenue increased by 13% in August, while it gained 2% market share.

    Groupon Revenue on the rise

    Key findings from Yipit’s report include:

    • Groupon’s revenue increased 13% from July to $121 million, a $1.5 billion annual run rate.
    • LivingSocial’s revenue declined 3% to $45 million, a $540 million annual run rate. August was the second consecutive month that LivingSocial experienced declining revenue in North America.
    • The North American Daily Deal industry resumed growth in August. Industry revenue and number of deals offered increased 9% from July.
    • Groupon gained market share at the expense of LivingSocial for the second consecutive month. Prior to July, LivingSocial had been gaining market share on Groupon for several months.
    • In its first full month, Groupon Getaways outperformed LivingSocial Escapes in the travel deals segment. Groupon Getaways generated 42% more revenue than LivingSocial Escapes and averaged 78% higher revenue per deal.

    This comes after a recent report from Experian Hitwise indicating that Groupon’s traffic was down 50% over the summer while LivingSocial’s was up 27%.

    Groupon is now testing e-commerce deals in the UK. This could provide a whole new set of opportunities for business. For brick and mortars, it could lead to more online sales. For strictly online businesses, it could simply let them into the club. Getting repeat business from a consumer might be easier to achieve online. If you’re a click away, as opposed to a drive away, a customer might be more inclined to come back, given the right customer experience. ”

    It remains to be seen if the e-commerce deals will become a mainstream feature across Groupon’s markets, but it’s definitely something to watch for.

    Do you think the benefits outweigh the negatives for businesses offering deals through Groupon or similar services? Tell us what you think.

  • Ripoff Report Strikes Back: Removes Code on Site Left by Hacker

    The Ripoff Report has struck back against the so-called reputation management companies that claim to be able to remove posts about companies on the RipoffReport.com website. In a recent press release, Ripoff Report claims that they have removed code on their website that was left by a hacker hired by reputation management companies.


    A sample advertisement claiming Ripoff Report removal is shown above.

    Ripoff Report explained what happened.

    “Earlier this year, a hacker, promising his customers “reputation management” services, had embedded code into the website to prevent search engines from recognizing certain postings. In some cases, website visitors were misdirected to a false message stating that the posting had been redacted.”

    Although the press release itself offers no specific proof of the fact that malicious code had been embedded onto the RipoffReport.com website, I am personally not surprised that something like this was done by a hacker. There are a lot of companies out there that would like negative reviews of their products or services removed from the Ripoff Report website. From what I can tell, the website only really exists in order to report negatives about a business, company, or individual. So, naturally, a website like that would have enemies.


    Another sample advertisement claiming Ripoff Report removal is shown above.

    If you search at Google for “remove ripoff report”, or a similar phrase related to getting a Ripoff Report removed, there are a lot of reputation management companies that claim that they can get a listing removed from the RipoffReport.com website. And some will even charge thousands of dollars to get the report removed from the website.

    Currently, however, according to RipoffReport.com, there is no way to completely get a negative review or negative post removed from the website. There is a way to respond with a rebuttal. The company says that “Once a company has been named in a consumer’s report, the company may respond by posting a rebuttal. Both reports and rebuttals are posted free of charge, and once submitted they are not removed. Before a report may be submitted, users are required to create an account by providing a valid email address and warrant that any report submitted is truthful and accurate.”

    If a search for your company name or your personal name in Google reveals a RipoffReport.com listing, you have a few options:

    – Respond by posting a rebuttal.

    – Hire a company or individual who has online reputation management experience that can help bring more positive web pages about your company towards the top of the search results. By emphasizing the positive, the hope is that the negatives are pushed down.

    I recommend that you stay away form any companies that claim they can completely remove postings from RipoffReport.com, as that does not appear to be the case.

    In a related story, you might recall that recently Ripoff Report removed themselves from Google, which was apparently only a mistake by the company. In one of my recent blog posts, I examined how removing your website from Google can help–or hurt–your search engine rankings.

    Check out billhartzer.com for more articles by Bill Hartzer

  • Google Launches “Me on the Web”

    Google has released a new feature called “Me on the Web.” It’s a reputation management tool accessible from the Google Dashboard, underneath the Account details.

    Google says the tool makes it easier to set up Google Alerts, and suggests search terms you may wish to monitor, and provides links to resources that offer information on how to control what third-party info is posted about you on the web. Product Manager Andreas Turk writes on the Google Public Policy Blog:

    In recent years, it’s become easier and easier to publish information about yourself online, through powerful new platforms like social networking sites and photo sharing services. One way to manage your privacy on these sites is to decide who specifically can see this information, determining whether it is visible to just a few friends, family members or everyone on the web. But, another important decision is choosing how you are identified when you post that information. We have worked hard to build various identity options into Google products. For example, while you may want to identify yourself by name when you post an answer to a question in a forum so that readers know the response is reputable, if you upload videos about a controversial cause you may prefer to post under a pseudonym.

    However, your online identity is determined not only by what you post, but also by what others post about you — whether a mention in a blog post, a photo tag or a reply to a public status update. When someone searches for your name on a search engine like Google, the results that appear are a combination of information you’ve posted and information published by others.

    Me on the Web

    As far as I can tell, there’s not a whole lot new going on here. Me on the Web simply shows you what links you have attached to your Google Profile, which you could also see by actually going to your Google Profile (and which you presumably already know, since you set them up in the first place), a link to Google alerts, and a couple of Help Center articles about reputation management. This is all accessible from the Google Dashboard, which there is a good chance you hardly visit. At best, it looks like just another access point for this info. I guess the alerts suggestions could be mildly helpful.

    All of that said, Me on the Web certainly can’t hurt anything. If it makes a few more people, a bit more conscious of their online reputation, that’s not a bad thing by any means. It should also serve as another subtle reminder to Google users that they have Google profiles (which provide a landing page for those Google social products – Buzz and +1s).

  • How Burson Marsteller Can Emerge From Its Facebook PR Fiasco

    The “dirty tricks” kerfuffle surrounding Facebook and Burson Marsteller that erupted a few days ago surely couldn’t get worse for the beleaguered PR firm – but it did.

    Burson was caught out in a covert anti-Google smear campaign on behalf of Facebook when it reached out to a US blogger who promptly published the email conversation between him and the Burson executive. In its outreach, Burson had refused to name its client. The mainstream media has been all over this since then along with much commentary and opinion about the fiasco from people in the public relations industry.

    While such commentary and opinion will no doubt continue, Burson isn’t saying much following its formal statement on May 12 and the odd  tweet here and there, other than that it won’t fire the two executives concerned.

    Instead, says Burson, both will receive training in ethics.

    That’s a very interesting approach to an issue that is arguably an actual crisis where not only is Burson’s reputation under assault but also its credibility as knowledgeable and skilful practitioners in public relations is being questioned as a consequence.

    Now the firm’s coming across as a bit clueless in how it’s addressing collateral issues (I almost said ‘damage’), eg, deleting negative comments from its own Facebook page.

    In my view, it is admirable that the firm clearly supports the two men at the heart of this fiasco and is willing to publicly say so; and is equally willing to state that, in effect, they will get some help to regain that straight and narrow path of best practice as enshrined in ethics codes such as that of the PRSA, never mind the WPP Code of Business Conduct (Burson Marsteller is ultimately owned by  WPP) as explained on the firm’s website – check this statement in particular:

    The WPP Code of Business Conduct sets out the expectations we have of our people.

    […] We will not undertake work which is intended or designed to mislead, including in relation to social, environmental and human rights issues;

    We will consider the potential for clients or work to damage the Group’s reputation prior to taking them on.

    But is this enough from a reputation point of view, both for Burson Marsteller the firm and for the two individuals themselves? Is such unethical behaviour deeply ingrained in the firm? You have to wonder, especially when you see scathing commentary such as this excerpt from a lengthy post yesterday by  Terence Fane-Saunders, past Chairman and Chief Executive of Burson Marsteller in the UK, entitled “Furtive and Creepy“:

    […] It has been suggested that at least some of the information that B-M was hawking to its contacts was not merely secretly sourced, but also actually false and misleading.  I have no idea if this is true.  For all I know, that’s negative PR from the other side. Once the paranoia box is open, its difficult to close it again.  But that’s not really the point here.  In this  grubby little attempt to seed negative stories without disclosing their source,  they were denying the media (and that means the public, and that means you and me) the opportunity to assess the value of those stories.  If you don’t know the source, you can’t judge motive.  In this case, source and motive were absolutely central to the story;  so central, I would suggest, that the story itself becomes incomplete and  misleading if that information is withheld.

    Throughout its history, the PR profession has struggled with the damage caused by its grubbier practitioners – the PR hacks, the press agents, the fly-by-night corner shops who live by false promises,  operating in the shadows, spinning half truths or downright falsehoods. But that struggle , generally, has been a successful one.  And it is firms like Burson-Marsteller who deserve the credit for establishing the profession as an ethical, valuable and often admirable part of the management process.  They have led by example. But if senior B-M professionals are now seen to be operating like shadowy, backstreet spin merchants, you have to wonder about the continuing value of that example.

    I think candid comments such as this from credible opinion-formers are hugely damaging. While I believe Burson Marsteller can look forward to reputation recovery over time – clearly depending on what they do and how they do it now and in the coming weeks – one foundational thing their CEO Mark Penn can and ought to do forthwith is come out with a frank, clear and genuine apology for the actions of the two executives, not the sanitized corporate-speak of the formal statement the firm put out.

    And maybe ethics training for those two isn’t enough – the firm needs to be seen to be addressing this and any hidden thoughts by anyone (such as clients) along the lines of Terence Fane-Saunders’ worries he stated in his post.

    Burson Marsteller could take a leaf out of Edelman‘s book by examining how that PR firm addressed their own kerfuffle with their client Wal-Mart back in 2006 by:

    1. admitting to and apologizing for their unethical behaviour,
    2. mounting a training programme for employees at all their offices worldwide,
    3. publicly communicating their plans and their actions, and
    4. engaging in conversation with anyone who has an opinion about the issues and solutions.

    It’s very unfortunate for Burson Marsteller that all this has arisen just after they won the Holmes Report award for US Agency of the Year 2011.

    Originally published at NevilleHobson.com

  • GoDaddy Elephant Killing Leads to Competitor Raising $20K to Save Elephants

    GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons recently took a vacation in Africa, where he hunted an elephant, posted video of the killing and slaughter of the elephant, and and tweeted it out to the world.

    You’ve probably heard the story by now. Since then, there has been a massive backlash against GoDaddy, a public war of words with PETA, and numerous people pulling their sites from GoDaddy’s services.

    NameCheap, another Domain regsitrar and competitor of GoDaddy saw this as an opportunity to get a lot of new business, and try to save some elephants at the same time. The company offered a domain transfer special offering discounts to those switching their domains from GoDaddy, and donating 25% of the revenue for each domain transfer to the Save the Elephants charity.

    “We’ve decided to throw our support behind our Elephant friends by offering domain transfers at a price where we actually lose money,” the company said.

    Today, NameCheap said in a tweet that it has raised over $20,000.

    Thank you Namecheap customers, new and old! We have raised $20,433 to savetheelephants.org. We appreciate your support! 2 hours ago via HootSuite · powered by @socialditto

    The whole ordeal is likely to leave a big stain on GoDaddy’s reputation from here on out. Even once the initial discussion dies down, this thing has received tons of press coverage (mostly unfavorable for GoDaddy), and it will be out there all over the web, and in search results forever.

    Of course Parsons isn’t ashamed of it. He did post the video, tweet it, and has been on the defensive about it.

    Meanwhile, NameCheap has taken the bad PR GoDaddy has received and turned it into great PR for itself. So while they may get an initial flood of new business, they’re reputation should last a while too, barring any unforeseen incidents.

  • In PR, There’s No Such Thing As A One-Day Story

    In PR, There’s No Such Thing As A One-Day Story

    Yesterday, I wrote about how NBC has handled Keith Olbermann’s departure from his show on MSNBC. Writing that story put me in mind of one of the hoary chestnuts of public relations strategy, which is to let sleeping dogs lie for some situations. Veteran PR folks are fond of refering to a minor flap as a "one-day story," meaning that you read about it in the newspaper today, but it disappears tomorrow. Unfortunately, the Internet has forever ended the technique of letting the storm blow over.

    First, it was Google.

    Stories that broke years ago are still easily found by searchers, whether they are looking for them or not. I have clients (they’d love not to be named here) where you can search on their company name and find (as search result #4 or #5, perhaps) a negative story about them. In some cases the story isn’t even true—the classic situation where PR people counsel the on-day story approach.

    The reasoning always went that some stories are so unfair that it is best "not to dignify them with a comment," the idea being that responding to the spurious charges just "kept the story alive" in the press. If the charges hit on Monday, then your response becomes the story on Tuesday, with even more people hearing about those falsehoods. Not responding, the reasoning goes, ended the negative publicity on day one. People would have to stop by the local library to go back and read about that story after Monday.

    This clearly the thought process of a bygone era, now that we are in the age of Google, but I still sometimes hear well-meaning people provide this advice. I no longer hear this from too many PR professionals—most have figured out what we need to do differently—but I often hear business people parrot this advice because years ago they heard some smart person say it. We all need to accept that this world has changed.

    Google can turn up any story on you, even years later. As they used to tell you in school, "It’s part of your permanent record." Your only safe strategy is to respond so that when people find the story, they also find your response.

    But Google isn’t the only factor in this changed world. Social media has also made a huge difference, because blogs, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube keep stories alive day after day. (I did this yesterday with the Keith Olbermann story.) As each pundit chips in with their opinion, more and more people hear about the original story. And when they do, they Google it even more to learn more details. If all that is out there is the negative charge, then people will make up their minds without your side of the story.

    I know that responding is scary. It feels safer to let the story run its course without your comment. It feels like your comment can only "add fuel to the fire," and the truth is that you do run that risk. If you provide a ham-handed lame answer, expect to be pilloried. But the right answer can nip a crisis in the bud. The right answer can change people’s minds. The right answer can protect your brand image. The right answer can rally your supporters to your defense.

    No answer can’t do any of those things, and leaves your reputation in the hands of your critics. You wouldn’t do that with any other corporate asset, so it’s time to stop talking about the "one-day" story.

    Originally published at Biznology

  • Remember Who Can Read Your Tweets

    What kind of an image are you creating for prospective clients, who check out your social media updates?

    I received an interesting email from a reader last night, which I would like to share with you.  She asked if I would not use her name, so I am going to call her Barbara instead.  Her email was short but contained a very valuable message.  It’s something I have heard of many times and it’s becoming more and more common.

    Here is the section, which Barbara agreed I could share with you:

    I am writing this, hoping it will stop others from making the same idiotic error .  Ive just had what would have been my second largest ever project cancelled.  The client had verbally agreed to proceed and we had set a price.  Lovely.  I called today as agreed, to arrange the start date.  That’s when he told me he’d changed his mind. Over the holidays he checked my social media messgaes, and now had concerns that I wasn’t suitable.  He referenced that I sometimes sign-off from twitter after work saying something like “great, its wine o’clock.”

    He told me he didn’t want to hire someone, who was so happy to finish work that they celebrated or someone with a drink problem.  Here’s the kicker Jim, I don’t drink much at all.  It’s what i see a lot of others saying.  I explained this to him but understandably he didn’t believe me.  I feel foolish for not thinking that potential clients would look at my tweets and reading them back its easy to see why someone would get the wrong idea about my drinking habits.

    Our digital footprint

    For me the interesting thing here, and the reason I decided to share Barbara’s email with you, is not whether it’s a good idea to tell people you look forward to drinking after work or not.  Thankfully, we each have the freedom to say whatever we like, because it’s us who pay the price if we screw up or get the rewards if we don’t.  No.  What interested me about Barbara’s email, is this:  More and more people are using our social media streams, as a way to check us out, before becoming one of our clients or customers or even recommending us to their contacts.

    I used to follow someone, who was always tweeting about how stupid his clients were.  He never named them, but would tweet what he called the stupid questions they were asking him.  In other words, any of his clients reading his twitter stream, would know he was insulting them, from the questions he was making fun of with his friends.  Is he free to do that if he wants to?  Yes (thankfully).  Would I recommend him to one of my clients or contacts, World of Warcraft: Cataclysm, knowing he may insult them in that way?  Not a chance!

    The best advice on this subject that I know of, came from Brian Clark of copyblogger. Brian recently said that to be effective with social media, a businessperson needs to;

    be authentic to the element of themselves, that meshes with their audience.

    Seth Godin makes pretty much the same point in his book, All Marketers Are Liars.

    That approach is how I use social media and it works extremely well for me.  On my Twitter account and my Facebook account, you get a more professional version of me then you would experience, if you and I were at a football match and my team were losing.  However, it’s still me.  My core beliefs and values are the same at the game or in the office on Twitter / Facebook etc.

    Over to you

    Have you ever researched someone’s social media activity before hiring them (or recommending them)?  Do you think it’s a good idea for business owners to think about the impact of what they openly share on social networks?  Maybe you believe it’s a better idea to just say whatever you like, and keep it real?

    I’m keen to learn what you think about this.

    Originally published at Jim’s Marketing Blog

  • Social Signals You Should Be Monitoring

    Social Signals You Should Be Monitoring

    Listening is not hard these days.  There are now over 200 tools that can help you gather the conversations.

    The next step is not so simple.  Finding the right content and figuring out exactly what the people talking about you need and want is critical to PR success today. Content analysis is a traditional PR skill, but data mining is not.  Building social graphs has not been part of our PR practice.

    I don’t know about you, but I have not studied math since high school. Most PR people I know are much more right brain than left brain oriented. It’s the nature of our work.

    But as ReadWriteWeb (RWW) said:

    “People need to develop habits of thinking about this stuff. They need someone to explain it to them. They need to develop an easy-to-use vocabulary set for understanding data mining and social graphs and communicating about it. Right now ‘social network analysis’ just doesn’t trip off the average person’s tongue.”

    The online conversations are a constant stream of content – a fire hose of data. What you need are the actionable insights.

    • Who talks about you?
    • Who talks about your competitors?
    • What do they say?
    • Is it positive or negative?
    • Who are they connected to?
    • What communities do they belong to?
    • What does their social graph look like?
    • What kind of content do they share, and with whom?

    95% of new media (social media Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter) users expect companies or brands to have a presence on those sites. 89% expect those companies to interact with them in those social spaces. (Cone Research)

    Less than 30% are doing so. (SNCR, UMass 2010 Adoption Surveys)

    Engaging with people online requires that you know who they are, where they gather, who they talk to, how they feel about you and your products, and what kind of information or content they’re looking for and might be motivated to share with others in their social sphere.

    And once you know that you can respond appropriately.

    It might not be simple, but I agree with RWW – this is something we need to think about, talk about and start to include in our PR strategy.

    Originally published at The Proactive Report

  • Brand Monitoring: Look at Brands That Are Doing it Right

    Listening. It’s a mantra we’ve heard PR, marketing and social media consultants preach to brands for the last two years. But, how many brands are really listening to their customers online?

    I’m not talking about responding to comments on Facebook or Twitter. That’s fine, but at this point, it’s table stakes, don’t you think?

    I’m talking about “active listening” as my wife likes to say.  I’m talking about brands who have the right tools in place to do the actual listening–and are taking it to the next level by not just responding, but finding ways to rope those customers actively into the brand.

    Let me give you a few examples so you get the gist of what I’m talking about:

    * Ben & Jerry’s. OK, so everyone knows about Ben & Jerry’s right? They made a lot of noise earlier this year when they announced they were getting rid of their email program and moving to a social communication system with their customers. But, a recent example that demonstrated to me that Ben & Jerry’s is actively listening to their customer was this post from BL Ochman. Check out the timeline here and how B&J’s reacted. Not only online–but offline, too, with a very personal touch. It’s not rocket science–it’s customer service, to the nth degree.

    Ben & Jerry's on Twitter

     * Children’s Hospitals. A client of mine (Aveus) recently wrote a post about my experience at a Children’s facility earlier this year (my daughter had dental surgery). To summarize, the post talked about how Children’s had nailed it from a customer experience point of view (an area of expertise for Aveus, just to be clear). We’ve taken our kids to Children’s facilities across the metro numerous times and every time we’re impressed by the care–but more importantly, we’re blown away by the “experience” at their hospitals and clinics. A couple days after my client’s post, the Children’s folks sent me a note thanking me for the kind words and asking me if I’d like to come in for a tour of the new Children’s Hospital in St. Paul (the note also asked if I’d consider sharing my story on their Web site). After an enthusiastic “yes”, I took the tour last week and was amazed at some of the new ways Children’s is catering to sick kids and their parents (they now have a Geek Squad right in the Minneapolis Hospital targeted at helping improve the digital experience during your stay). We talked about health care (I come from a health care background, to an extent). We talked about marketing. It was fantastic. And, now I’m writing this post. And, I’m thinking about ways I can give back to Children’s. And, I’ll tell anyone who will listen how great their hospitals and clinics have been for our family. By finding ways to continuing to engage me, they’ve cultivated a brand ambassador for their brand. That’s how smart brands win.

    * Sonos. In case you haven’t heard of Sonos, they’re a brand that sells wireless speaker and music systems. It’s a brilliant concept and I plan to purchase a system very soon. I started asking about wireless music systems on Twitter a few months ago. Sonos rep, Thomas Meyer (TM in the note to the left), quickly jumped in and offered to help. While I haven’t actually bought a system yet, Thomas continues to send me emails and offering to help (and giving me exclusive access to new products as they emerge). Smart. He knows I’m in the market. He knows I like the product. He’s just helping facilitate that purchase (and not surprisingly, this isn’t the first time).

    Sonos on Twitter

    What about you? What brands do you see out their actively listening–and winning?

    Originally published at ArikHanson.com