filter by tag: credibility

The Penn State child sex abuse scandal has dominated everything from mainstream news headlines, to sports talk shows, to even everyday conversation. The focus of this dialogue has largely been on how much the university has and may continue to suffer as a result of the scandal. But is it possible this crisis could be a potential opportunity for the Penn State brand to emerge better and stronger because of it?

To answer that question, check out "The Business of College Sports" blog for my thoughts on three reputation-management strategies for Penn State to successfully emerge from this crisis.

The Penn State Scandal: Crisis as Opportunity

--Jamie Singer, Senior Account Executive

By now, you've no doubt heard about the questionable practices PR firm Burson-Marsteller engaged in on behalf of Facebook to "raise awareness of" and "focus attention" on Google's Social Search functionality. Certainly, the actions of B-M do not conform to any reasonable definition of public relations ethics and only serve to perpetuate negative perceptions of our industry as a whole.

The real losers in the battle: everyone.

For those not aware of the background, Google now shows searchers information on how people within their online social graph have interacted with pages that are returned as a part of search results, including tweets, Facebook interactions and various other socially enabled actions. All of this information is being pulled from publicly available data that Google crawls by following links in a user's Google Profile. This is all perfectly legal and in the name of providing a better and more relevant web experience.

If that all sounds pretty familiar, it should. Through Facebook's Open Graph, you are probably used to seeing how your friends are interacting with the websites they visit – including stories they "liked" or "recommended" and commented on. You may even know they like a brand in general, despite never even having visited that brand's website. This is Facebook's way of showing you – wait for it – a better and more relevant web experience.

Both companies have taken some lumps for the liberal use of consumer information without proactively informing users that they are doing so. This is despite the fact that most would argue, in the end, both techniques actually do provide a better web experience, facilitating better information exchange and deepening both interpersonal connections and brand-to-consumer connections.

What's sad about this entire kerfuffle is that it's not really about shoddy data privacy or better web experiences. In the end, it's all about advertising revenue and gaining a competitive edge to attract more eyeballs and ad dollars. Both products are great and have improved the world we live in considerably. But, by slinging mud and focusing on the supposed weaknesses of their competitors instead of their own strengths, they have effectively weakened consumer confidence in the industry and given consumers another reason to doubt that online communications even serve their interests.

For those keeping score: doubt - 1; progress - 0.

--Mike Hollywood, Director of New Media, @mikehollywood

By day, I’m a reputation management practitioner at Cone, and on college game day Saturdays, I’m a Wolverine. But after witnessing the events surrounding last week’s dismissal of the University of Michigan’s former head football coach Rich Rodriguez, I found myself caught in the middle of these colliding worlds.

In a world where perception matters more than reality, the growing perception has been that the Michigan “brand” is in a state of crisis – a crisis marked by three seasons of on- and off-the-field struggles for the winningest program in college football history, the football program’s first NCAA violations in its history and this most recent, tumultuous coaching transition. Since the university’s public break-up with Rodriguez, Michigan seemed a sad and lonely teenager without a date to the prom. After the university encountered what appeared to be a series of rejections from potential new head coaching candidates – including fan favorite Jim Harbaugh, Big Ten conference peer Pat Fitzgerald and “Michigan man” Les Miles – it ultimately closed one chapter of this transition with this week’s hiring of Brady Hoke.

But Michigan now must turn its attention to repairing the reputational damage created by the mismanagement of the Michigan brand from the outset of this transition process. The athletic department can begin to do this by applying a few best practices in brand management.

Control the story: Michigan must come off the sidelines to serve as the primary storyteller. Last week, Fox TV in Detroit prematurely – and, thus, inaccurately – reported Rodriguez’s termination, a story subsequently picked up by local media, blogs and even ESPN. Michigan’s voice was notably absent in the initial hours following this report, leaving a communications void to be filled with speculation, misinformation and panicked chatter from media, blogs and social network users. It wasn’t until several hours later that the university finally broke its silence to label the report as “media speculation.” That is, until the following morning, when Athletic Director David Brandon made official Rodriguez’s firing. But by not controlling the story from the outset, the Michigan brand became consumed by a toxic media environment marked by critical headlines like “Dave Brandon Fumbles Rich Rod Firing.” Looking ahead to the period following the Hoke announcement, Michigan must more effectively lead the conversation with a clear, consistent and forward-looking message.

Speed is critical: The athletic department must better meet the demands of the digital playing field. In this age of social media, we evaluate organizations on their abilities to address issues publicly in the “critical first minutes,” as opposed to the “critical first hours” suitable in years past. Michigan’s several-hours-delayed response to the report of Rodriguez’s dismissal suggests a lack of appreciation for the speed required to keep up in a world dominated by real-time tweets and status updates. Moving forward, Michigan must do a better job responding in real time to incorrect and rampant rumors and using its own social networking tools (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) to actively engage with stakeholders on their social media “home turf.”

Brand management is a full-time job: And Michigan’s newest brand “ambassador” must embrace this role. In a recent press conference, Brandon acknowledged, “I believe that Michigan Athletics is the front door to the University of Michigan in terms of the shaping of the brand and the image of the brand.” So, Hoke now faces the daunting task of not only serving as the new face of an embattled football program but also of a beleaguered brand. All eyes will be on Hoke to influence and, ultimately, change the current perceptions that this is a program out of control. Hoke’s introductory press conference was certainly a promising first step in embracing his new role as brand champion and beginning to rebuild the brand trust that this coaching transition eroded. Hoke’s fanaticism for Michigan was obvious during his remarks, and he made it clear that this new job is not about him, it’s about the team. But Hoke must extend this formula one step further – above all, it’s about the brand. Like Hoke so aptly put it, “This is Michigan for god’s sake.”

--Jamie Josephson, Senior Account Executive

Let’s talk ethics. Why? Because in today’s world, we need to keep this conversation alive as much as possible. And because considering ethics is like exercising a muscle – if you don’t do it every so often, your ability atrophies.

The recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) investigation of “fake” news has certainly pushed the discussion of ethics, or lack thereof in some cases, back into the headlines. Questions from the U.S. Government in 2005 about the authenticity of video news releases spurred new allegations and legislation for the PR industry. For quite some time, federal guidelines have required sponsored segments or “pay-to-play” stories be disclosed by broadcasters; however, the Policy Council for the Free Press says they are not being enforced.

Even the Better Business Bureau, which aims to build trust, maintain a positive track record and advertise honestly, is under investigation for allegedly awarding "A+" ratings to businesses that paid an accreditation fee and "F" grades to those opting not to join the organization. These ratings, often promoted by organizations and their PR teams to build credibility and trust among consumers, can be a key decision-making resource for consumers looking for the right business to patronize.

Adding another layer of complexity to the discussion is the explosive growth of social media. This consumer-generated “24/7 media” did not start with rules – people made them up as they blogged, posted and tagged online. And, the FCC is still trying to keep up and enforce disclosure rules to prevent such tactics as astroturfing.

These recent developments are prompting more colleges and organizations to offer classes in PR and business ethics, host ethics hotlines and hold transparent discussions to explore the decision-making process. Indiana State University hosted a discussion for students with a fictitious scenario regarding investor relations. And at Cone, we host our own seminars and orientation sessions in communications ethics to help employees explore a variety of situations and the guidelines that can assist in making the appropriate ethical decisions.

Disclosure vs. Style
No one wants to be the one who is made an “example” by the FTC - bloggers, brands and agencies included. However, the gray areas left by the FTC disclosure guidelines have many nervous. The truth of the matter is that if you are a blogger, brand or agency, and you already maintain a high standard of transparency, you are most likely covered. That means that giant red disclosure image you have on your blog, or are requiring bloggers to use, is the worst kind of unnecessary.

Image credit: LouisGray.com

Each blogger, influencer or online media maker has his or her own style, and it would be a real travesty if he or she ever had to alter that style to adhere to a set of government guidelines. Disclosing the blogger-brand relationships within the prose of a blog post or the dialog of a podcast effectively safeguards all parties involved in the eyes of the FTC. It also allows online media makers to keep their style as well as maintain an honest and enjoyable relationship with their readers.

The Elephant in the Room

So what if you are limited to, let’s say, 140 characters when telling your readers about a post in which you review or discuss a product that was provided to you by a brand?

This very tough question really has no good answer yet. The best Twitter solution presented so far has been to add a hashtag to a status update. WOMMA has a suggested list of different tags to explain different relationships. They include:

• #spon (sponsored)
• #paid (paid)
• #samp (sample)

An alternative would be to use the tag (client). This tag is used to disclose a relationship between a brand/company and the person tweeting.

Where do you stand when it comes to style vs. disclosure? As a blogger, do you feel you have had to change your style in regard to the FTC guidelines? Is there a good solution when it comes to using Twitter? We’d like to hear from you.

--Marcus Andrews, @Marcus_Andrews

Day 2 of South by Southwest brought (among other sessions) a discussion on "Measuring Blogger Credibility: FTC Regulation v. Crowdsourced Solutions." I attended this session because I knew it would be a great opportunity to hear unbiased opinions from bloggers about the new FTC guidelines. The session certainly did not disappoint on that front, but sadly (thought not unexpectedly) I don't think it helped lots of folks to better understand the guidelines.

It was, however, a diverse group that represented many different viewpoints; present were many bloggers, Brian Hall from Transverse Legal, a lawyer specializing in FTC guidelines, John Moore from WOMMA, one of the founders of cmp.ly, agency representatives and even an FTC lawyer that was participating via the twitter stream. Here's the quick rundown of what came from the discussion:

• No one felt the new FTC guidelines added additional credibility to a blogger who reviews products as part of his or her regular activities.
• The FTC guidelines have succeeded in "putting the fear of God" in bloggers, despite the fact that the supposed $11,000 penalties are actually a myth being spread by the media
• Most bloggers understand they need to disclose, and for their own sake, they want to in order to maintain credibility with their audience.
• However, there is no standard for bloggers to follow, and there are many questions around how to disclose across multiple technology platforms - particularly when dealing with micro-media such as Twitter and syndication of content through RSS to multiple platforms.

An interesting parallel was drawn between the frustrations of bloggers and marketers with regard to this issue and the frustrations felt when COPPA was first released. It took time, one participant noted, for the marketing community to figure out what the regulations meant. In time, marketers and agencies did what they felt was right, and set the standard for others to follow.

We at Cone have established our own interpretation of the FTC guidelines, and will be putting our recommendations into action across our client programs as they roll out in 2010. Over time, all of us in the communications world will certainly learn and evolve accordingly, as the question of disclosure works itself out.