Tagged with 'Wikipedia'

The Internet always has been and is becoming even more of a scary place. With all those unwashed masses contributing content, heck, even CNN has implemented “iReport.com: Your stories, unfiltered” Almost every CNN article invites reader contribution which often exceeds the original story in depth and thoughtfulness. But it also affords the opportunity for shallow, callow observations and attempts to advance personal agendas. Scary. And disruptive.

Remember the good ol’ days when only those with money and access could spin their messages to their hearts’ contentment?  When you could purchase a listing in a business directory and the biggest challenge was which one’s? They’re fading fast. The rules we learned to follow just don’t work as well as they used to. Time to learn the new rules.

Recently I was following an online discussion regarding Wikipedia. The issue was whether businesses, in this case, law firms that often have a broad public presence and handle newsworthy cases, should seek to gain a listing. The challenge or perhaps more accurately, risk, is that once the listing is successfully obtained in Wikipedia anyone might comment, add to or modify the original carefully vetted explanatory copy.

I believe that what it comes down to is not trying to control the top-down message. Rather, the task is to monitor and participate in the egalitarian conversation. It’s all about reputation management, not control.

It’s been 15 years (!!!) since Peter Steiner published his cartoon in the New Yorker, “On the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog.”  It’s taken some time for all of us to figure out what his prescient remark was about. Welcome to the age of transparency. You’re on display and anybody can sharp shoot you.  And will.  Even if they’re a dog – or a disgruntled client, a competitor or the random crank.

So what does this mean for us little folks marketing our companies?  First, acknowledge that even the best companies with the finest reputations have their dark corners waiting to be revealed. Second, so what? The internet is ubiquitous, so it is time to come out of hiding; we see you anyway.

Wikipedia? Absolutely contribute your objective knowledge. But maybe your approach should be more about participating in existing subjects that are already published rather than treating the medium like it is another directory inviting your carefully-scripted-&-reviewed-3-levels-up position statement. It is no longer about you; it’s about us and what we want to know. Not what you want to tell us. And besides, if I don’t like what you say, I’m going to change it or respond. Like I said, scary.

It’s time we go back to our job descriptions and add “reputation management” to our public relations responsibilities. The great news is that there are lots of tools and tactics for managing reputation online. But it’s going to take some of our precious time to learn some new skills.