A Broader View of Online Reputation Management

charliepownall
Charlie Pownall Owner/Partner, CPC & Associates

Posted on October 30th 2012

A Broader View of Online Reputation Management

Online reputation management (ORM) is in vogue. LinkedIn records a 38 percent growth in people recording the term named as a skill or expertise. And a veritable cottage industry of agencies and individuals has sprouted to service the swelling ranks of organizations that keep them from going hungry.

But help for what? What is ORM?

LinkedIn describes it as: “the practice of monitoring the Internet reputation of a person, brand or business, with the goal of suppressing negative mentions entirely, or pushing them lower on search engine results pages to decrease their visibility,” a definition supported by a search on Google or a conversation with digital or other agencies offering ORM services.

Standard Online Reputation Management framework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In this scenario, ORM can too easily appear to be a dark art practiced by shady search/SEO specialists and underhand PR types for organizations with dodgy practices experiencing crises or social media campaigns running amok.

As it is seen and practiced today, ORM appears to be based on two key assumptions:

  • That online reputations are made or lost on the first two pages of Google, Baidu, or Naver.
  • That online reputations are somehow distinct from your broader reputation, and that ORM can succeed in isolation from other communications activities.

Both assumptions are mistaken, for two key reasons:

  1. Important as search engines are to the consumer purchase path and in breaking news situations, other channels such as social networks and micro-blogs are increasingly critical access points to the Internet as a whole. And while customers may use search engines frequently to conduct research and purchase, stakeholders such as journalists, business partners, and government officials may be using other channels. An ORM strategy has to incorporate all key access points relevant to the audiences in question.
  2. “Originating” sources of information are more trusted than the access points themselves, requiring an integrated approach to broader reputation management and ORM. The top originating sources, according to Nielsen, are word of mouth, online consumer reviews and opinions, editorial content, and branded websites. Word of mouth, so critical in emerging markets and Asia, is typically highly diffuse, ranging across social networks, micro-blogs, and a host of other channels. Online customer reviews play an increasingly important role in framing product and brand perceptions and when negative can travel far and wide, including to the mainstream media. Newspapers and broadcasters continue to play an important role in decision-making and reputation, not least during or after a crisis, when they continue to be seen as the most credible and authoritative voice. It also takes some serious gaming of Google to push a cover story from the top business media down the search rankings.

In addition to core search engine optimization (as well as de-optimization, as PR people are apt to describe the burying of bad news), a broader-ranging and sustainable approach to ORM is required that is consistent with an organization’s broader corporate and/or brand reputation strategy – as opposed to a much-need fix of online visibility (and budget) when the shit hits the proverbial fan.

Some key questions should be asked to inform a firm’s broader ORM (and overall reputation) strategy. These might usefully include:

  • Who is the target audience(s)?
  • Who/what are their preferred information sources?
  • Who are the key players, i.e., influencers in these activities/conversations, and what are their needs, requirements, and preferences?
  • What are the objectives – to build, manage, or recover reputation?
  • What does success look like and how can it be measured?
  • How is your online reputation currently being tracked, if at all? Is it aligned with your broader corporate and/or brand reputation tracking and performance? What are the benefits and limitations of your current system(s)?

Successful ORM also requires the assigned team or teams – be it the PR agency, digital agency, media agency, or in-house – to work more closely with other relevant teams and to have a common goal.

First published by ClickZ Asia.


charliepownall

Charlie Pownall

Owner/Partner, CPC & Associates

Charlie Pownall is an independent communications consultant, trainer, speaker and writer who helps companies, public sector bodies and individuals improve their communications and manage their reputations. Focused on corporate communication, social media and online reputation management, he has worked in speechwriting, journalism, marketing, communications and social media, and has advised some of the world's largest companies and brands. Charlie is based in Hong Kong and works primarily across Asia.

See Full Profile >

Comments

It’s very interesting to me that Online Reputation Management is now seen as the practice of getting results lowered in the Search Engines. I have been working for a company who has been helping Fortune500 clients with their Online Reputation Management for the past 10 years and that doesn’t entail lowering anything in the search engines. We help our clients monitor the web, social media and emails for brand and reputational issues. We do then help them get those things removed from the web, but not because they are bad reviews or something they want to hide or suppress. We help them deal with trademark abuse, copyright infringements, social media imposter accounts, identity theft attacks etc. Things that are black and white and are intending to hurt thier brand or ROI. I guess ORM now has a different meaning to some.