February 2004

Do they mean us? The challenge of online issues management

Let's say you are responsible for corporate communications. How do you react when people start talking negatively about your company or your brand online? Get defensive? Try to win the dissenters over? Ignore it?

Back in 2000 I gave a presentation at an IPR conference entitled Net Profit. At that time, clearly the potential of the internet as corporate communications channel had yet to fully emerge.

The idea of monitoring or taking part in discussion forums, usenet groups or online 'communities of interest' was news. Standard PR activities did not include tapping into the natural goodwill of satisfied customers, fans or enthusiasts and nurturing them as positive ambassadors for the company. 'Sucksites' were seen as minor nuisances or the work of internet extremists.

More recently, techniques such as blogging and 'Google-bombing' have been much talked about. But these are still the activities of a minority. Their methods have yet to be harnessed efficiently by those whom they seek to undermine.

Time for some counter-conspiracy?
As Esther Dyson once said, the internet is feeble tool for propaganda, but perfect for conspiracy. If that's the case, then does that mean the task of influencing opinion online has to be covert in order to succeed? It's a tall order - there's nowhere to hide on the web, and a newly-empowered public gleefully researches everything from price comparisons to a company's CSR record.

In a medium where trust is the most valued currency, turning to conspiracy as a means to a (business) end is surely a high risk strategy.

Bringing negative talk into the open
You could argue that online issues management is less about quieting the detractors and more about tackling (and being seen to tackle) issues of corporate social responsibility. In which case, the internet is perfect: find out who's saying what about you, engage the enemy in a meaningful dialogue and demonstrate transparency.

It's not a new tactic, but tackling dissent head-on by opening discussion forums on the corporate website is one way of controlling negative opinion. By employing a light moderation strategy, dissenters will be encouraged to speak out - which of course demonstrates your enlightened attitude and willingness to face up to criticism. From the company's point of view, not only can the comments be easily monitored, but they are contained with the corporate website.

Creating a diversion
Elsewhere more evidence is emerging. Last month we heard that in anticipation of interest in the Hutton report the BBC had bought up a number of related paid search (PPC) terms. One might be forgiven for thinking that this was an attempt to intercept alternative viewpoints by making the 'official' ones the easiest to find in web searches The BBC's response, however, was that the Hutton search terms were just some of many chosen for a PPC trial, with the aim of increasing traffic to the BBC's website.

I don't know whether I'm being naïve or cynical, but I find it odd that an organisation the size and complexity of the Beeb, with the amount of resources it has invested in BBCi, has only just made its first foray into PPC. And with the non-specific, 1998-style objective of simply to increase traffic?

If the intention of the BBC had been to promote its side of the story, I for one wouldn't condemn it. But if that were the case, why the subsequent denial?

When business acts suspiciously, people assume the worst. Do we really want to push the tactics of online issues management yet further into the quagmire of 'dodgy practices'? This is an exciting and still emerging area. I suggest that, as marketers, we can't afford to ignore the ethical challenges it presents.

Useful resource:
Sign up to receive Google news alerts and monitor what's being said online - choose the keywords that are relevant to your area of business and choose the frequency with which you want to receive alerts.