I think it might be a mistake to ignore them, but responding to each and every online complaint (regardless of veracity) is also a mistake.
Currently I'm approaching them the same way I do editorials -- judging each independently. If, based on the content of the "editorial" and the issue it's about, it merits a response, then we do. If not... well, then we don't.
Paloma:
I think that's the best approach, albeit time-consuming. But every one and every situation is different, and it's impossible to have a blanket answer.
"It's critical that you don't ignore the issue, either."
Exactly. Basic PR 101.
That said, as you are aware, I've recently challenged Edelman on the whole Me2Revolution hype. To your point, read their response(s): http://www.strumpette.com/archiv...in-Big-
Lie.html
- Amanda
Amanda:
I agree with you about Edelman and I've said several times on this blog that some of the agencies that supposedly "get it" don't practice what they preach.
If they did, there would have been far more discussion and interactivity surrounding the Wal-Mart issue, for example. But of course, the client wouldn't have liked that, and to me that's a perfect example of how difficult a "conversation" strategy can be for any big organization.
There are political, practical and legal barriers to open dialog in any business, and especially so when the issues involve clients and vendors.
It's one thing for some five-person Web 2.0 company to engage customers over a blog ... quite a different story for a big global organization. You have to think that everyone at Edelman recognizes that fact.
Richard did respond to me once on this blog but it was more of a "bring it on" challenge rather than a dialog ... not exactly what you'd counsel a client who'd been criticized to do.
"Bring it on?" What did I miss?
A few years ago I had a client that was building a new public facility that was under intense community scrutiny. Editorial after editorial after editorial was being written about the project... that had not been finalized, hadn't been funded yet, and wasn't even approved. To have responded to all the comments made in the public forum would have just made things worse.
Instead, once there were details to discuss, a public forum was set and the community's questions were addressed. That was effective.
We have to remember that one size does not fit all. If it did, someone somewhere would just write a book or a how to list on what to do (that all businesses would follow). And we'd all be unemployed.
To have responded to all the comments made in the public forum would have just made things worse.
Paloma ... excellent example. Sometimes, it's simply not the right time or place to respond.
One of the things that frustrates me about the blogging/social media phenonenom is this insistence that every company jump right in and begin dialoging. Yet the very agencies who are so gung-ho about all this don't follow their own advice, and probably with good reason.
good points. In some cases, a company's reputation has actually been enhanced by a crisis. If the company's brand is strong and its reputation even stronger, it will weather bad publicity. While a company may begin repairing its reputation in a storm, the real work in building a reputation is during the calm.
Companies will inevitably screw up at some point – especially large organisations, such as Walmart because it would be impossible for it not to. Whilst I agree that we should do all we can to reply to every single criticism it is also imperative that we set boundaries beforehand so that we are not spending all our time replying to grumbles about how the tomato ketchup was not red enough. As with any PR situation, as much planning as possible will help deal with the situation much more effectively.
auto insurance comparison auto insurance comparison auto insurance comparison // jack black skincare jack black skincare jack black skincare
Commenting by HaloScan
