Reputation of Reputation Management

There's a good article on the Computerworld website, Online Reputation Management is Hot... But is it Ethical?"

It explains in detail the growing number of options for tracking online buzz related to companies, people, products and brands.

According to the article:

Online reputation management "is a space that's hot and is heating up further," says Jeff Zabin, an analyst at Aberdeen Group Inc. who recently co-authored a report on social media monitoring and analysis. Executives are waking up to how the Internet can be used as an early warning system to alert them if their company's brand names and reputations are at risk as a result of a product defect, a disgruntled customer's blog rant or some other looming crisis, says Zabin.

The article covers vendors ranging from those that use natural language processing and other techniques to find, report on and classify related online conversations (Buzzmetrics, Umbria and Cymfony), to those using SEO techniques to elevate (or, in the case of bad buzz) diminish search engine rankings of offending content (ReputationHawk, Elixir Systems and Buildtelligence). Others, like Buzzlogic, provide subscription-based dashboards for monitoring the blogosphere and aggregating info.

It should be required reading for anyone in PR - paper clip harvesting services are oh so yesterday, and the range of systems that we as a profession have relied on to track online and offline media can be helpful but do not provide the same functionality or set of services (in fairness, there is a pretty big price discrepancy).

The article cites a number of cases studies and discusses functionality. This is Computerworld, and it takes somewhat of  a techie viewpoint, which I actually found helpful  in understanding features and functionality of the alternatives.

On the other hand, you can forgive CW for not taking a more nuanced PR view as that is generally not their bailiwick.

The issue is framed as an ethical one, and the article reduces reputation management to just another technology category.  It almost makes it sound like reputation management can be boiled down to an algorithm.

I think most will agree that reputation is something to be earned and built over time, not simply managed like so many records in database system. (In an earlier post I discussed the evolving nature of reputation building).

 

When it comes to SEO, there are so called white hat and black hat techniques, although I am not sure there is any single, accepted ethical code that defines the line that separates these.  Just like there are varying degrees in ethics in any field, I am sure you will find PR folks who say all is fair in Love and Web. 

 

I feel that tactics that are  more geared towards helping accurately classify content are white hat, even if you are edging out competitors in the process of elevating rankings.  SEO techniques and reputation management tactics that exist only to deceive - to game rankings and bury content are black hat and ill-advised.

 

What do you think?

Comments

[Gerry McCusker]

Hi Bob; interesting post 'n' link - I think as well as white cowboy hats and black ones, grey hues will be favoured by PR types who gen find it easier to manage comms than client/paymaster behaviours. And re reputation being 'earned and built', I think you can have an instant bad rep that serves your immediate goals well, too - esp in case of media coverage-hungry celebs!

[Bob Geller]

Hi, Gerry, Thanks for reading and commenting . Your post reminded me about the old Beatles song Instant Karma, I guess in this day and age reputations can sometimes turn on a dime.