E-Reputation: you are Big Brother!
These days we are all Big Brother. To a certain extent, we have gone beyond making the most daring of predictions, and this is due to the fact for example that I may very well know the brands of cosmetics that your wife uses by reading her blog better than you, the person who lives with her! It was only a matter of time before the question of digital reputation was raised. A few years ago we wanted to put forward a number of solutions for managing digital identity but the private market was not ready: people were still not aware of their digital ‘me’. However, times have changed. While you are reading this, we will be receiving emails from people in a panic asking us to remove certain messages from a forum or a particular photo from a server, etc; you can see how these poor people have been on the receiving end of malicious gossip or shown on a video in a bad light and are being torn apart as a result in the blogosphere. While for some people this is a difficult reality to accept, for others, the digital world is a new way to live, to have a different personality, or, more precisely extend their personality; it is a phenomenon that is already significantly impacting on our perceptions and judgements. So how many people are out to usurp your reputation? How many people no longer take responsibility for their actions, responsibilities that have become increasingly blurred through the filter of the computer screen? And how many others have suffered as a result of over-exposure? Whatever the situation, having a digital identity is now an established phenomenon and the rights that surround that identity are developing with time. Let us try to draw something positive and useful from this situation as quickly as possible, since the high level of moral rectitude and the arrival of censors on the Internet have made it IMPERATIVE to ascertain what is right or wrong in processing of information relating to the person; we need to act urgently and without going into detail before others pose the question on our behalf. I should like to remind everyone, including myself first and foremost, that behind a digital identity there is (still) a real person: you, me. This is why we have created this service of e-reputation management (Web Reputation TM) to promote what the individual does and his/her reputation.
Smear campaigns: traditional models are now outmoded
Groups experience difficulties in combating new forms of smear campaign because they are, by nature, unable to take swift multi-channel action across the broad expanse of the digital landscape. It is naïve to think that a community that is close to a brand can be ‘harnessed’. On the other hand, to rely on a certain degree of critical spirit with regard to opinion forums can be just as dangerous. The level to which comments stoop is shocking and yet it can be effective. The degree of fluctuation in the speed and volume of information to be processed in the event of an attack on a brand or an individual requires the simultaneous deployment of a number of structures and individuals with expertise to act in particular domains against initiators of campaigns who use smear tactics or disinformation to destabilise their victims, engender loss of turnover, etc. PR agencies, law firms, economic intelligence firms (in the real sense of ‘economic information gathering’ and not simply software monitoring) are no longer able, alone, to carry out acts of manipulation and cyber manipulation. These agents must be brought together with IT experts and researchers as a priority and an appropriate model implemented: just as the initiators of an attack are highly organised, any counter attack must be underpinned by cells of interfaced expertise and skill to allow action to be taken swiftly and effectively at a local level against the initiators of smear and disinformation campaigns. The use of entities that are legally distinct and separate to protect customers mitigates risk and reduces the potential for complicating work relating to the premeditation of an attack. This model must be underpinned by a ‘dynamic’ process of mapping potentially harmful sources of information. The decision of whether or not to take action against a particular campaign is, beyond the imperative to act, based on analysis of models of potential scenarios on the one hand and observation (in real time) of the system behind the smear campaign on the other.
Brand image of ‘weakened’ companies
This is something that we come across regularly in the course of our work. In addition to the usual type of damage caused to the quality of the brand image, companies that are described as ‘weakened structures’ (i.e. companies under administration, in the process of being taken over, or that have been weakened by the leaking of damaging comments, etc) are often victims of smear campaigns. These companies often seem highly disorganised: substantial loss of market share, high staff turnover, customers turning to the competition, etc. and experience serious difficulties in protecting themselves against attacks by the competition (a natural predator). In most cases, this results in a media crisis which undermines their reputation and their cyber reputation. The sensitive period surrounding the publication of company accounts is often chosen by detractors to compound what is already a difficult situation. The exception to this is to be found in highly corporatist professional sectors or in areas where particular historical agreements exist (charters). The value of preserving the reputation of the sector of activity therefore overrides the simple principle of doing away with a competitor.
Avoid a scandal by causing a scandal?
Cause a scandal to avoid a scandal? This approach is well known by the political classes and the business world; creating a scandal can often be useful and entering into conflict with a leading or well known brand can significantly increase a brand’s audience. It is easy to understand the usefulness of this action in attracting wide media attention. But why is creating scandal a good idea? It is obvious. A scandal is useful because it appeals to our interest in the transgression of social and moral values. Through this process, an audience experiences a scandalous situation vicariously. To understand this principle and accept it is to know how to fight effectively against the initiators; one scandal can hide another. And since a scandal appeals to our irrational side, our attention is drawn to the elements therein, and sometimes it takes us away from the truth to ultimately hide another potentially scandalous piece of information. A scandal spreads quickly and only needs minimum preparation (it is so easy to be shocking), or justification. It hardly costs a thing. It may even be free (in all senses of the term). It is easier to create a scandal than to develop a campaign in which one is never sure of reaching the desired audience. This goes without saying. It is possible to negotiate through a scandal. At the end of the day, no one is immune; it is all a question of morality and power, which are two extremely variable perceptions for anyone who knows how to be patient. The active minorities have understood this. Therefore, to locate a sizeable media power and use it aggressively is to become extremely perceptive. Even if it is extremely negative for the minority, it exists. The publication of scandalous information that has been structured to destabilise a third party during a smear campaign generally occurs at a time of the year when few major media engagements take place or otherwise during the publication of another piece of major news (argument/counter-argument). The mode of publication pays no heed to established codes of ethics and common subjects in which detractors are of course expected to appear, thereby rendering ineffective traditional online and human methods of surveillance. Event parasitism can also be a strategy that can harm e-reputation (web-reputation TM).
Web-reputation: other approaches
In most cases, deploying a small army of lawyers is vital in order to significantly limit the impact of a smear campaign launched against you. However, deploying a legal team alone may serve to fuel matters while a court decision is pending and, in any case, will not stem the development of a potential media crisis. If a legal ruling, given the problems of e-reputation (web-reputation TM, cyber-reputation) no longer suffices, other solutions need to be adopted to push your vile detractors out of the limelight. This is the sort of service that Hington Klarsey, a specialist in countering smear campaigns, can provide in order to dilute bad publicity or resolve the conflict you are embroiled in by directly negotiating an agreement with your detractors. This will involve exerting significant legal pressure while negotiations concerning the discreet withdrawal of the information take place. This solution is moreover preferred for example for editors of content on a problem website, since an editorial suffers less from the fine-tuning of content than major changes to the content of articles posted on the site.