This post highlights the nuances associated with crisis communications and not the merit of either case.

In the era of socialized media, brands and businesses are now vulnerable to a new era of influencers – their customers.

But what happens when the community that championed consumer experiences is accused of exploiting them to extort advertising dollars from the businesses affected by the reviews?

User generated reviews aren’t necessarily a brand new concept, epinions, Amazon, among any others have provided dedicated outlets for customers to share their experiences over the years so that other consumers could heed the words of their peers before making a purchase. The ability to integrate reviews at the point of purchase empowered consumers to contribute content as well as help them make more informed decisions – before the purchase.

Enter Yelp.com.

Yelp is an Amazon reviews fused with the Yellow Pages of local services and businesses. It empowered patrons and consumers alike to share experiences and sentiment associated with businesses, by locale, with other yelpers. Yahoo, City Guide, Trip Advisor, and other online properties have offered similar capabilities for a while, but Yelp connected people and experiences and built a dedicated community around them – whereas the other services organized experiences tied to somewhat isolated and explicit search results. Yelp connected people based on interests while giving them a voice that collectively could, in theory, influence a business to grow, adapt, participate, and learn.

Initially, businesses gasped at the popularity of Yelp. Most weren’t quite sure how to react – and still don’t to this day. Was it a threat? Was it wrong to empower customers to share negative and positive reviews together? Many businesses under estimated the socialization and amplification of experiences, and attempted to suppress them rather than address them. Others assumed the role of patrons and raved about their own services hoping to balance negative experiences or influence future contributions instead of simply embracing and responding to individuals, and/or evolving because of the interaction.

The same platform that can provide small businesses with visibility, a collaborative community, and new revenue opportunities can also affect their bottom line through negative commentary.

Now approaching 23 million unique visitors every month, it continues to change everything.

This week, the tables were turned, when Yelp found itself the victim of a bad review. The East Bay Express published what actually could be considered an exposé of the company, practically accusing certain salespersons of practicing what the piece dramatically referred to as “Extortion 2.0.” Essentially, the author, Kathleen Richards, interviewed several local businesses that claimed Yelp applied strong-arm sales tactics to exchange the promotion of good reviews and the elimination of negative commentary for advertising dollars to the tune of $300 per month.

As a practitioner of total transparency and just good business, Jeremy Stoppelman, CEO of Yelp, responded with an impressive blog post.

If the story ended there, we’d have a textbook case of what to do when confronted with bad PR.

However, The East Bay Express’ detailed six page article didn’t just accuse a highly popular company of unethical behavior, it humanized the alleged victims through their fearful narration of Yelp’s purported blackmail attempts over time. It engendered empathy.

And, Jeremy didn’t just write a blog post in defense of his company, he also fired back with a defense worthy of a legal drama, at one point, insinuating that Kathleen’s use of anonymous sources was beneath the standards of journalism and therefore less credible.

So let’s back up a bit and analyze this scenario from a communications and crisis response viewpoint.

Whether or not you agree with the practice of referencing anonymous sources is moot. The East Bay Express still published a piece that references several businesses who came forward, but chose to remain anonymous as they were literally afraid of any potential acts of retribution from Yelp.com. For the record, citing anonymous sources is a long-standing and respected practice in journalism and is protected by law in order to uncover the truth behind many stories

The article states, “During interviews with dozens of business owners over a span of several months, six people told this newspaper that Yelp sales representatives promised to move or remove negative reviews if their business would advertise. In another six instances, positive reviews disappeared — or negative ones appeared — after owners declined to advertise.”

The case was reinforced with a condemning statement, “Several business owners likened Yelp to the Mafia, and one said she feared its retaliation. “

The themes are reiterated throughout the verbose feature and actually serve as the foundation for Yelp to develop a strategic and meaningful response.

- Many business owners believe Yelp employees use such reviews as sales leads.

- Several suspect Yelp employees of writing them.

- Yelp does pay some employees to write reviews of businesses that are solicited for advertising. In fact, the publication uncovered one documented instance where a business owner who refused to advertise received a negative review from a Yelp employee.

Whether these accusations are right or wrong, they’re incredibly defamatory. And, if the reporter indeed interviewed dozens of fearful companies who shared this sentiment, perhaps there’s credence in the experiences. Either way, there’s a perception that certain Yelp salespersons are crossing the line. And, in the world of online social influence, perception can be reality.

It’s what you say about you, what they hear, how they share that story, and how you weave that insight into future conversations that underscore meaningful community-driven efforts. And, everything starts with listening and observing in order to maintain relevance to the very communities we wish to reach, learn from, and inspire.

In Yelp’s response, Jeremy cited an everyday local business to deconstruct Kathleen’s case, “As you can see while the first review is positive (and very clearly marked up) the reviews below are neutral and yes even negative. This is quite normal and if you look around the site and click on some ads you’ll find plenty of advertisers with reviews that look like… well, everybody else. We showed this evidence to Kathleen, but it didn’t find prominent placement in her story.”

He continued by sharing three additional supporting points that he hoped would discount the article.

1 – Kathleen relied on five anonymous sources and only three non-anonymous sources. Use of anonymous sources is fraught with hazards and is strongly discouraged by most editors, as explained by the American Journalism Review.

2 – Sadly at least one of the named sources is affiliated with a business that has spent a considerable amount of time and energy trying to mislead customers like you with fake reviews. Below is a sample of some of the many reviews we’ve removed from Sofa Outlet’s page…

3 – The accusatory thrust of article is essentially overturned at the very end.

But, what if those dozens of companies, irrespective of anonymity, actually experienced a fraction of their claims? After all, the COO of Yelp conceded in the article that there may be a miscommunication depending on the conversational skills of the individual sales rep. The pitch can be open to interpretation, “Do I think that sales reps call are saying, ‘We’ll move your bad reviews?’ No. But I think it could be true — when you get to pick your favorite review and put it to the top, if I said it a little different way, it might sound a little nefarious.”

This is the social web and not only is perception reality; it’s highly influential when not proactively engaged and steered.

Remember, the Motrin Mom controversy? Whether or not the Motrin Mom’s were justified in their reaction, it still reached a boiling point fueled by the absence of a corporate response or acknowledgment.

In every negative discussion there exists an opportunity to change perception and also learn and improve the communications and service infrastructure – winning customer support along the way.

I weighed in:

The Twitter community responded:

effbentley: their blog post was a pretty weak response imho

RunningRebel: it’s not just the sales tactics that bothered me. Crazier is that they pay people to seed reviews! Is anything legit there?

erikbratt: Think the Yelp response is effective, changing initial opinion. Interesting how cos. can now respond directly to neg. news

leslysimmons: re: yelp… sounds like they have some credibility work to do, and this is coming from an Elite Yelper!

kfleisher: I think that Yelp’s blog post was a great way to address the issue. transparent and informative.

Mjausson: Seems that EBE’s coverage of Yelp has had the desired effect. Time will tell if they return to their old ways.

Serena: I’m surprised. Is it true? Is it not? Do I still use yelp? I’m actually torn

slazarus: I like the fact a senior person responded directly to the article. Most companies ignore bad PR hoping is would go away

journalistics: they get points in my book for addressing the issue head on – “we don’t do this” and trying to provide proof via pictures

KPfefferle: Strange response, not sure Yelp really addressed the issue. The counterattacks alone make me think they’re hiding something.

However, this exchange published in the Wall Street Journal between Susan Mernit, Jeremy Stoppelman, and Schlomo Rabinowitz paints a very different picture…

Susan Mernit: Do Yelp sales reps sell bad review removal to local biz? East Bay Express says mebbe, yes

Stoppelman: @susanmernit We don’t: http://tinyurl.com/bbuvfa

Schlomo Rabinowitz: @susanmernit Yes, Yelp has offered me monthly plans where I can bury negative reviews for @houseofshields They are scummy; CitySearch2.0

Stoppelman: @Schlomo We have no such program, never have, never will.

The best defense is not being “defensive,” nor is it simply powered by going on the offensive. Bottom line, there’s always room for improvement. Communicate that message and watch the tone and flow of the conversations shift to your favor.

It’s the process of not only using the same tools that your community is using to share their opinions and emotions across the social web, it’s the ability to breathe it in and demonstrate acknowledgment – regardless of frequency.

Yes, the blog post was an excellent start. Yes stating, “You don’t do that” was reaffirming. But obviously, there are those that attest to the likelihood of miscommunication. Perhaps an opportunity exists in extending the COO’s acceptance that, “Yelp could do a better job of training our sales team to be crystal clear about what you get and don’t get.”

- Simply say that you’re looking into it or ensuring that training eliminates any likelihood of miscommunication

- Promote an official support network within Yelp

- Solicit anonymous feedback, but ask for specifics under a proactive immunity program

- Communicate information and status regularly

- Recruit and deploy a special service-focused community team (perhaps the Yelp Elite) and document the tonality and frequency of related conversations and impressions in a Conversation Index before direct engagement

- Then, participate in those conversations through genuine, helpful, and non-confrontational dialog. Document the results and effects of the team’s outreach as compared to the original index

- Monitor blog posts and blog comments, spark new dialog to demonstrate that you’re listening and learning

Participation is a powerful catalyst for positive reform and also garnering additional insight and support. Maybe it’s simply relegated to one salesperson or team. Maybe it’s a miscommunication from sales training to direct sales calls. Either way, the brand reputation was called into question and in all reality; it won’t be the last time. It’s the actions of the individuals representing the brand that define brand character measured ultimately by the trust and relationships that forge, break, or strain customer and influencer relationships.

In the court of public opinion, you’re guilty until proven innocent.

What would you do differently?

UPDATE: Stowe Boyd discusses the extortion claims and the potential fallout that possibly looms ahead of the popular reviews site. Yelp attempts to dispel the myths and also claims that the EBE story is unraveling. Yelp, this is bigger than your current defensive strategy. A simple, “We’re looking into this as your trust is paramount to our success. This is not anything we endorse or support. If someone is indeed communicating or reinforcing this inaccurate perception, we find it and stop it immediately.”

As Stowe says, “Even more important, reality can be reality. If Yelp is in fact — directly or indirectly — using strongarm tactics they should deal with the consequences, which may include legal action. I hope there is a DA out there somewhere willing to look into these allegations. And we, the social media technorati, should treat this on a much more serious level than the PR fallout. If a company like Yelp acts in the way that has been alleged, we should call for a boycott of the company, and an investigation to get to the bottom of this.”

@queenofspain chimes in at /Message, “Regardless of what comes to pass, it’s an issue and it should be blogged and looked into. Is this a matter of a digerati turning their heads to the sweatheart start up? I’m curious.”

Related articles on PR 2.0:

- Reinventing Crisis Communications for the Social Web
- Comcast Cares and Why Your Business Should Too – The Socialization of Service
- Crisis Communications: Facebook and the Reality of Your Online Content
- Crisis Communications: Ariel Waldman vs. Twitter, When TOS Doesn’t Apply to You
- Crisis Communications: Mark Zuckerberg Listens and Responds to Beacon Crisis
- The Art of Conversation - It’s About Listening Not Marketing
- Free ebook: The Essential Guide to Social Media
- Free ebook: Customer Service, The Art of Listening and Engagement Through Social Media

In early December, we released a public alpha of PeopleBrowsr, an attention-centered dashboard for managing your online relationships, brand management, and communication in Twitter and across multiple social networks – all from one place.

The public alpha is running incredibly well and thanks to everyone who contributed feedback, ideas, and recommendations, the public beta will be even more incredible.

If you’re a brand manager, communications or customer service professional, community manager, or on the product support or development team, PeopleBrowsr may very well be the most comprehensive, real time monitoring and engagement solution available today. My good friend Sukhjit, created a phenomenal video demonstrating how she tracked conversations, images, and videos related to the inauguration of President Obama on Twitter and across the Social Web – as it happened.

Hopefully this helps you…

Businesses, individuals, and organizations will, from time to time, make honest mistakes or in some unfortunate cases, intentionally support unethical decisions to dissuade or conceal something significant from its public.

Whether it’s an oversight or a matter of deception, savvy companies usually employ and deploy a crises response team to prepare for, manage and attempt to positively spin the potential backlash from customers, partners, and employees related to almost anything.

Crisis communications is a branch of PR that is designed to protect and defend an individual, company, or organization, usually from a reactive response, facing a swelling public challenge to its reputation, brand, and community.

Throughout the course of history, we’ve learned that all that’s required to ignite a negative firestorm is a spark from a single voice or an organized congregation.

If a conversation takes place on the Web and you’re not there to hear or see it, did it really happen?

More often than not, we miss the very things that provide insight into a future response simply because we’re not conditioned or trained to proactively discover and diffuse threats or negative experiences.

Our weakness, however, is also our opportunity to manage and also respond to any potentially damaging or menacing public groundswell.

Conversations related to your brand, company, executives, products, and competitors take place each and every day, without our knowledge and perhaps worse, without our participation.

In the era of the Social Web, a story, and the ensuing public recruitment, rallying, and support, can rapidly spread unlike any crisis wildfire witnessed or experienced in previous generations.

Social Media is pervasive. At the very least, it is transforming how we communicate with each other and also how we discover and share information. As the adoption of Social Tools and applications progresses from the left to the right of the bell curve, Social Media will simply coalesce back to “the Web.” But, its migration, exploration, experimentation, and education will only contribute to its significance and resilience and ultimately change behavior and expand the infrastructure for corporate communications in the process. Regardless of genre, the sum of all social channels today equate to a powerful, influential, and revolutionary archetype for exposing and diffusing public opinion.

Perception is formed through the unique, individually-filtered experiences we each bring to the table. In that regard, our brand, and more specifically, our actions are open to public interpretation, support, and dissection. It’s what you say about you, what they hear, how they share that story, and how you weave that insight into future product and service iterations, communications, corporate infrastructure, and public conversations.

The tools and platforms available today are sophisticated, evolved, and designed for social distribution and redistribution. The Social Web forces a new level of understanding and participation in order for all communications professionals, in addition to crises response and reputation management teams, to understand its dynamics and the prevalence of information, positive, neutral, and especially negative.

To date, crisis communications and reputation management were relegated as a reactive response, while the groundwork for a potential predicament and the development of strategic communique is among the best practices for proactive crisis planning.

The traditional crisis communications planning and response workflow:

- Crisis Planning
- Negative Groundswell
- Crisis Response
- Public Relations
- Assessment/Monitoring

In the Social Web, I propose that many, if not a majority of potential crises are now avoidable through proactive listening, engagement, response, conversation, humbleness, and transparency (repeat).

I’d like to introduce you to an old, but new again, dynamic process to integrate into the existing corporate communications and marketing workflow. Today’s social tools and communities that can work against us, can also work with us, when proactively managed and embraced with an open mind, sincere intent, and genuine participation.

- Active
- Listening
- Observation
- Conversation
- Learning
- Planning
- Continued Adaptation and Engagement

The art and science of proactive listening, observation, and participation will not only inspire the creation of in touch, relevant, and poignant PR and marketing strategies, but will also dramatically reduce the potential for reactive response and crisis communications programs. Crisis communications teams can also partner with those responsible for monitoring online brand reputations (ORM – online reputation management) or vice versa, to jointly listen, respond, and incite change from within. This creates a more effective “public relations” organization.

The point is that this is about proactively diffusing visible, but not yet large-scale predicaments before they’re full-blown public crises. And, also through direct listening, engagement, and actively addressing concerns both inside and out of the organization, we’re diverting the momentum from tropical storms before they have an opportunity to form unforeseen and unanticipated hurricanes. It’s the ability to avoid a storm without knowing a storm was brewing by identifying weaknesses and opportunities as they emerge.

This is community-driven communications in its purest form which begets a community-focused and customer-centric organization.

Everything starts with openness and the ability to learn and adapt. It’s the acceptance that it doesn’t matter if the customer is always right. After all, a happy customer will share their good fortune with a group of friends and peers, but an unhappy customer will tell everybody.

Perception is everything.

For communicators, it’s our role to actively listen and translate conversations into actionable next steps. It’s not an automated process. It requires dedication and empowerment. Much of this responsibility is falling upon community managers and the new role of research librarians who are quickly acclimating to online conversations and how and where they apply to the internal decision makers, traffic coordinators, and metrics analysts. By partnering with these new, socially adept resources, Public Relations can can more accurately and genuinely participate with influencers, whether they’re media, analysts, bloggers, or tastemakers. When we step back and assess our markets, we just may find that they’re collectively one in the same.

What if you don’t yet have these roles or resources to help you listen and follow meaningful conversations? It’s not impossible for you to proactively monitor conversations and the cultures and behavior associated within each digital society in order to identify and prioritize opportunities for engagement, reform, and evolution.

Start with using free search blog search tools such as:

- blogsearch.google.com (set up Google Alerts via RSS or email)
- Technorati
- Blogpulse

As we all know, or should know, the social web extends far beyond blogs, relevant online conversations are pervasive and rampant in social networks and microforums as well. In that regard, be sure that your initial waves of search include:

- search.twitter.com
- Ning
- Facebook
- Google and Yahoo Groups
- Uservoice
- Getsatisfaction

For those with a moderate budget to evaluate dedicated SRM (social media relationship management) or ORM tools, consider:

- Trackur
- BuzzGain
- Radian6
- BuzzLogic
- BrandsEye

Search for keywords related to your business, such as the company and product name, key executives, as well as scouting discussions for the “suck” or “die” factor. This includes adding a combination of the following criteria in your search process:

- “product+sucks”
- “company+sucks”
- “die+company”
- “i+hate+company”

As the Web itself grew in pervasiveness, it also paved the way for customers to easily launch sites to vent publicly. Examples already number in the thousands, with some capturing significant public attention including starbucked.com, ihatestarbucks.com, boycottwalmart.org and againstthewal.com.

Fairwinds recently released a study that documents the power of Internet gripe sites. The Wall Street Journal explored the topic with an in-depth article, “How to Handle ‘IHateYourCompany.com,’” which explored what some companies are doing, or not doing, to protect their brands online.

In its study, FairWinds researched the Web to identify gripe sites specifically containing “sucks.com.” The study uncovered over 20,000 domains with only 2,000 ending in the phrase “stinks.com.” Of the major consumer-facing companies surveyed, only 35% own the domain name for their brand followed by the word “sucks.”

But domain names are only one of the many opportunities for customers to share their discontent, and in the new era of the two-way web, communications, customer service, and brand and reputation management teams must all work together together to actively survey the landscape to detect and diagnose negative experiences.

The Social Media and conversation landscape is a diverse universe. In order to identify a potentially dangerous asteroid on a glancing or full-blown collision course with your brand, you’ll also need a powerful telescope, or, a “Conversation Prism.”

The Conversation Prism was designed to provide a snapshot view of dialogue within mainstream and vertical social networks and communities that may be consequential to your brand. Every network provides a search box to unearth threads of discussions tied to connected keywords and inherent developments, negative or positive, that may affect the company brand and reputation.

Conversations and developing crises are probable across a multitude of online channels, including:

- Blogs and Comments
- Microcommunities aka Microforums
- Social Networks
- Lifestreams
- Customer Networks
- Groups

The ensuing conversations tied to your brand can quickly and easily amass, across multiple networks simultaneously. Don’t let those conversations fall upon deaf ears.

For the first time, we have the ability to identify and address potential crises as they surface. And not only do we have the ability to engage with people to address their grievances or discontent, we can also learn from each engagement and feed the corresponding lessons, experiences, and criticisms back into the sales, service, and product development departments to change everything for the better.

It’s the difference between simply placating customers and improving our business and products to satisfy many others who would have been potentially exposed to a potential deficiency.

Customers are among the new influencers and have the tools and platforms readily available to them in order to share their experiences and potentially incite the masses.

It’s not just about the gripes we’ve identified, it’s about the dialogue and actively and publicly addressing each issue to minimize the unforeseen eruptions from those who have yet to publish or rally others against us.

While our control has been crowd-sourced, perception management and crisis communications are ours to lead. Perception is reality and it’s our responsibility to invest in the relationships and the correlated activities that will help us cultivate and manage an industry leading, market relevant, and in-tune brand.

Listen, learn, and adapt. In the Social Web, and in the real world of business, companies will earn the relationships, and the crowd-sourced brand, they deserve.
—

UPDATE:

Now available as a downloadable and printable Word or PDF file at Docstoc and Scribd.
—
Recommended Reading on PR 2.0:
- The State of Social Media 2008
- In the Social Web, We Are All Brand Managers
- New Communication Theory & the New Roles for a New World of Marketing
- Comcast Cares and Why Your Business Should Too
- Will The Real Social Media Expert Please Stand Up?
- The Social Revolution is Our Industrial Revolution
- The Essential Guide to Social Media
- The Social Media Manifesto
- Free ebook: Customer Service, The Art of Listening and Engagement Through Social Media
- PR 2.0: Putting the Public Back in Public Relations
—
Crisis Communications 2.0 Series:
Where the Streets Have Names: Learning from Bono’s Facebook Dilemma
Nike, Just Do It: When a Local Story Runs Away on the Web
Apple and the iPhone Price Bomb
The Skype is Falling
Microsoft PR Sparks a Blogstorm

What happens in the real world can usually end up on the Web for all to discover, share, and assess with or without your knowledge.

According to The Mail, even Sir Bono, lead singer of U2, couldn’t escape the global distribution and network effect of Facebook.

The rock star, humanitarian, and family man inadvertently shared a portion of his St. Tropez holiday, courtesy of a 19-year old and her Facebook profile.

Andrea Feick, an America fashion student who’s currently studying in Paris, vacationed in St. Tropez with her friend Hannah Emerson.

Harmless.

But, when she shared updates and pictures on Facebook, the world noticed.

The first update set the stage, “So Bono and Simon called me yesterday and they arrived in Cannes today, so looks like we’ll have a plan! ”

Feick also uploaded a few pictures to Facebook, which depending on how you interpret them, either lay to rest any inappropriate thoughts and unsubstantiated speculation or they sent your imagination running rampant.

Bono, Andrea Feick, Hanna Emerson, Simon Carmody

Hanna Emerson, Bono, Andrea Feick

Aboard the yacht owned by bandmate The Edge, Andrea wears Bono’s trademark cap

In all fairness, Feick contacted The Mail to clarify the circumstances of their brief adventure. According to her statement, she has known Bono for a few years (going back to when she was 15 or 16?) but stressed that their friendship is purely innocent.

But that’s the point of all of this. Everything is open to interpretation. And when you publicly share information, you unwittingly invite everyone to dissect your actions, content, thoughts, and words.

What you share online lends to the perception of you, your intentions, and your persona. Nowadays, your reputation indeed precedes you.

Bono, who is usually meticulous in how he manages his personal brand, strategically shrouding it with selflessness, passion, vision, mystery, and a bigger-than-life conviction for positive global change, potentially underestimated or simply didn’t understand how Social Media has re-architected the rapid distribution of information and content.

Perhaps in Andrea’s case, this public story and the residual online beacons that fueled it, will only boost her social capital – however, they will remain on the Web for years to come.

In Bono’s case, I have to believe that this doesn’t lend well to his philanthropic efforts. In the Rock and Roll world, however, this may have a very different effect.

But, Bono shouldn’t be surprised at the swift distribution, reach and resonating volume of the Social Web. While at one of his homes, he was playing (or blasting) four tracks from U2′s forthcoming album, “No Line on the Horizon.” Supposedly the tunes were played a bit too loudly, as a passerby was able to record the four songs, albeit in low quality, and release what was believed to be “Sexy Boots,” “Moment Of Surrender,” and “For Your Love” on YouTube.

While the tracks were removed, it demonstrates the need to rethink our actions in the real world as they can have unpredictable, or highly calculated, online implications.

Social Media will only continue to fuse and interlace our online and real world presences. The effect is profound.

According to Kevin Donline of The Star Tribune Minneapolis, “Seventy-seven percent of recruiters report using search engines to find background data on candidates. Of that number, 35 percent eliminated a candidate because of what they found online.”

To further demonstrate how your online presence contributes to how people perceive you, education company Kaplan, a unit of Washington Post Co.,surveyed 500 top colleges. The study found that 10% of admissions officers acknowledged researching social network profiles to evaluate applicants. 38% of the colleges that factor information gathered from the social web revealed that their findings “negatively affected” their views of the applicant, with several admissions officers rejecting students because of the publicly shared content.

Your personal brand is yours to define, cultivate, nurture, and craft. Ignorance is not bliss. Everything you post and share on the web collectively contributes to an online persona that is readily discoverable through search engines and in turn, open to interpretation.

It’s the curation of all of our disparate pieces (social objects) online that collectively paint a picture of who we are, what we represent, as well as our strengths and weaknesses.

Perception is reality.

For a deeper look at the Social Web and its impact on your online persona, please read:

The Socialization of Your Personal Brand- Part I
The Socialization of Your Personal Brand- Part II
The Socialization of Your Personal Brand- Part III
—
Crisis Communications 2.0 Series:
- Nike, Just Do It: When a Local Story Runs Away on the Web
- Apple and the iPhone Price Bomb
- The Skype is Falling
- Microsoft PR Sparks a Blogstorm
—

Connect with me on:
Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Pownce, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, BackType, Jaiku or Facebook

Nike, this may be one of those times when you follow your own slogan.

Every year, I attend the Nike Women’s Marathon in San Francisco to support my wife and my mother who run this incredible event with conviction, passion, and diligence. It’s a privilege, they believe, to participate in a special and dedicated event such as this that celebrates each other as well as the athletic achievement and capabilities of women, past and present.

It’s quite the spectacle and accomplishment to say the very least. Roughly 40,000 people storm Union Square at the crack of dawn to run for everything that inspires them.

This is their time to, “Run Like a Girl,” and in the process, accomplish something that only 1% of the world’s population have ever attempted, the completion of a marathon.

In addition to sharing their personal achievement with friends and family, many participants, and now the greater public, are also sharing and fueling the dispersion of a potentially disruptive story that pits a humble woman against a global brand.

After posting my pictures from the Nike Women’s SF Marathon on flickr, I was pointed to a story that would rouse and move me to respond.

Arien O’Connel, a fifth grade school teacher from New York, ran the fastest time at this year’s Nike Women’s Marathon, 11 minutes faster than any other runner – including the elite – yet, Nike has publicly opted not to recognize her achievement.

Why?

Because she was too humble to think about registering as a Nike elite runner – if that was even an option for her.

Instead of embracing this gift of a PR opportunity, Nike’s public response from Media Relations Manager, Tanya Lopez, sparked a negative public uproar against the race and the corporate brand, forcing the company into a reactionary position of crisis response.

According to Tanya Lopez, “At this point, we’ve declared our winner.”

The public outcry has been incredible and representative of a team simply looking out for one of its own.

Popular running blog Half-Fast ran a very detailed response to Nike’s decision, “Oh, I see. You’ve DECLARED your winner. Well that settles it then. And here I was naïve enough to think that winners were decided based on who had the fastest time, I didn’t realize that the winner could just be declared, as though they were a piece of fruit crossing the border.”

The San Francisco Chronicle also wrote an extensive piece of the would-be Cinderella story and the missed PR opportunity by Nike, “While O’Connell had the greatest run of her life and covered the course faster than any woman, she was told she couldn’t be declared the winner because she didn’t run with the ‘elite’ group who were given a 20-minute head start.”

There’s also a petition circulating the Web to get Nike’s attention.

Before we go any further, let’s get a couple of things out of the way.

I’m not a judge nor an expert on the rules of this marathon.

The debate as to whether she should have declared herself as an elite runner in order to allow other elites to effectively compete against her is moot and inconsequential.

Her time of 2:55:11 is official and is irrefutable – it’s 11 minutes faster than the “official” winner.

This isn’t about the semantics of the classification, re-classification, and division of runners and the methods used for tracking winners.

This is about PR and the public response to a woman who flew across the country to run and support a race that stands for women and their achievements in everything, everywhere. This is about PR, brand cultivation, and community relations.

It’s about perception, because perception, especially in this case, is quickly becoming reality.

It’s about hope.

It’s about recognition.

It’s about doing what many believe is the right thing.

As communicators, there’s much for us to learn here. PR is not simply relegated to press or media relations – especially when the event promotes the inclusion of the greater public. PR is “public” relations, and in that regard, Nike failed to not only promote one of its own, it is potentially crushing the spirit of amateur runners everywhere. Nike is a brand, like all brands, that’s supported, defined, and nurtured by not only strategic marketing, but the customers who choose to embrace it as a participant, ambassador and representative.

It’s opened the door for the public to steer the message and the response. And, with the volume, frequency, and reach of Social Media tools and channels, Nike will be forced into a deep response mode. Unfortunately, this is also an opportunity for competitors such as Adidas, Puma, Reebok, or Converse, to participate, contribute, fuel, and navigate this story into less favorable territories for Nike – assuming that this hasn’t happened already.

I had no choice but to take the conversation to Twitter.

The response was astounding.

Rules are rules, she should have been with the elite group

That’s just WRONG and damned straight Nike should do something about it! I’ll not buy a NIKE PRODUCT unless/until they do!

Woah. After (hopefully) seeing that, the elite winners should give her the gold, and swap their medals accordingly. WTF Nike?

Wow – that wasn’t right what Nike did at all. That’s very disappointing to read.

WTF? It seems pretty clear to me that the woman deserves to be recognized for her accomplishment. I hate loop holes!

Nike should stick with their marathon results but make huge deal out of Arien having the fastest time, put her in a commercial

The responses continue page after page, with only one speaking out in support of Nike (the first example above).

Shot shortly before Arien O’Connell crossed the finish line

To help Nike, I’ve outlined a few simple steps to shift public perception and recognize Arien, without taking away from the accomplishments and recognition of the elites, in the process:

At this point, Nike must use the very channels that are working against it. The Social Web can help turn the tide for the company to embrace and engender support and empathy for Arien O’Connell and the Nike brand.

How?

Start by publicly acknowledging her achievement and create something that officially awards her as a “non-elite” or simply as a regular person who set out to embody the Nike slogan, “Just Do It.”

Encompassing change can be good.

Announce this recognition and “award” using traditional tools such as email, a press release, a statement on the Nike Women’s Marathon site, and also through prepared customer service responses (I’m sure the inbound responses have become increasingly louder, probably deafening.)

Fly her to Nike HQ or send a crew to New York. Shoot a video ceremony. Release it on the Web. Send it to everyone who has publicly called on Nike to do the right thing. Transform the media organization into a public outreach team to ensure that the groundswell shifts to support Ariel and Nike together. Invite her to become an elite runner and feature her on stage before next year’s event.

Create a commercial around her and the thousands of others who participate in Nike Marathons that highlight the reality that we can, as regular people, become elites. It is a true Cinderella story, one that only inspires a community to participate instead of dividing it.

Make her the champion for the rest of us! Just Do It, just like Arien did!

By all accounts, this story demonstrates why PR must always be on guard and ready for an opportunity to shine – to shape perception and channel emotions in a positive and productive way. This is about celebration and rallying support within a community – the difference between PR and true public relations and the difference between proactive community engagement and empowerment and crises response, damage control and communications.

We all have the ability to become “Arien’s” in our own right. All we need is support, inspiration, and the ability to shine!

UPDATE: Nike is announcing that it recognizes Arien O’Connell as the winner with the fastest chip time.

In an email response to someone who was unhappy with Nike, one of many I imagine, the company responded officially with:

Hello,

Nike is announcing today that it recognizes Arien O’Connell as a winner in last weekend’s Nike Women’s Marathon with the fastest chip time, completing the full race in 2:55:11. She shattered her previous time and achieved an amazing accomplishment.

Arien will receive the same recognition and prize, including a Tiffany bowl, the full marathon elite group winner received. Arien was unfortunately not immediately recognized as a race winner because she did not start the race with the elite running group, which is required by USATF standards.

Because of their earlier start time, the runners in the elite group had no knowledge of the outstanding race Arien was running and could not adjust their strategies accordingly.

Learning from the unique experience in this year’s race, Nike has decided today to eliminate the elite running group from future Nike Women’s Marathons. Next year, all runners will run in the same group and all will be eligible to win.

Nike has a proven track record of supporting athletes and we’re proud to be able to honor Arien and other athletes who surpass their goals and achieve great accomplishments.

Crisis Communications 2.0 Series:
Apple and the iPhone Price Bomb
The Skype is Falling
Microsoft PR Sparks a Blogstorm with Acer Ferrari’s and Vista

This is part of my ongoing series on Crisis Communications 2.0, which helps companies and marketing professionals learn from each other to more effectively communicate with customers, stakeholders, media, and peers.

I purposely waited to write this post until this discussion cleared techmeme so that I could reach a fresh set of people who could see things clearly, while also calling attention to something we overlook everyday.

When’s the last time you actually read the terms of service (ToS) for any social network you joined?

I think for most of us, we assume that they’ll protect us as well as themselves, blah blah blah, and we’ll all get along happily ever after.

What happens when the ToS of your favorite service work against you? And even worse, what happens when the ToS you abide by, instead protect someone who’s actually using the service to continually attack you personally?

Such is the case currently with Ariel Waldman versus Twitter. Disclaimer: Ariel is the community manager for Pownce, an indirect competitor to Twitter. The following activities transpired before she joined the Pownce team.

For those of us who remember, Kathy Sierra showed us the ugly side of people and their disgusting behavior in online communities. And while Kathy’s experience represented the extreme dark side of cyber stalking and online threats, Ariel’s experience is not any less important.

For almost a year, across multiple social networks, Ariel Waldman has been the victim of relentless and unnerving personal attacks.

The very things that empower individuals to engage in conversations and cultivate communities in social media also amplify the regrettable behavior we hoped to leave behind in the real world.

In Ariel’s case, her cyber-stalker has publicly and directly harassed her on Flickr, Digg, and Twitter. When Ariel alerted Flickr that someone was violating the ToS by verbally attacking her on the network, Flickr responded immediately and removed the offending posts, each and every time, and ultimately blocked the user.

Twitter, a service that is near and dear to all of our cyber hearts, surprisingly, erred on the side of the user allegedly violating the ToS. I find this fascinating, as Twitter’s terms of service were inspired by the community-focused spirit that powers flickr (as noted).

Twitter clearly states, “You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users.”

They also protect themselves with the addition of, “We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party’s intellectual property or these Terms of Use.”

After speaking with Ariel, I realized that her motives were undoubtedly clear and unemotional. This was about holding a company to enforce the Terms of Services that they defined and we agreed to follow – nothing less, nothing more.

“It’s just not OK to allow this behavior in a public network when it is a clear violation of their ToS,” exclaimed Waldman.

She’s right. Note, I’m not including the extreme language used against Ariel in this post. Her case is strong enough without it. If you would like to read about the jaw-dropping insults and attacks, read her posts here and here.

Twitter initially showed support for Ariel. In June of 2007, she received the following response from Twitter to her reports of abuse:

“[We] have decided, as a preemptive measure, to remove [the user’s] updates from the public timeline. … If you have anymore problems with [this user], please let us know right away, we’re here to help ”

Unfortunately, the harassment continued throughout 2007 and as such, Waldman would periodically report each case. After escalating to a dangerous level in 2008, Waldman needed resolution. The abuse was now appearing in traditional search engines, completely affecting her personal brand and potentially, her livelihood.

Ariel was deeply concerned. Flickr was responsive. Twitter’s next steps ultimately would become the focus of debate, scrutiny, and the landmark case for ToS and customer service across the Social Web.

At the apex of abuse, Ariel contacted Twitter once again, “Since this is an ongoing case and due to the nature of the content, I think this person is clearly violating Twitter’s TOS and I find it necessary for Twitter to uphold to this: “4. You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users.” Honestly, I believe this harassment has gotten way out of hand for too long. I am writing to you and to Twitter to remove this user for consistent long-term harassment.”

Twitter suddenly changed its tune (after three days), “Unfortunately, although [this user’s] behavior is admittedly mean, [s/he] isn’t necessarily doing anything against our terms of service. I’ve been following [their] profile since your first complaint to monitor [them], as well. We can’t remove [this user’s] profile or ban [this user’s] IP address; [they’re] not doing anything illegal.”

Ariel was mortified and as she had told me earlier, she was less concerned about the legality of the issue and completely focused on the abuser’s violation of the terms of service – You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users.

This time, she cc’d Jack, Twitter’s CEO, on her response, “I don’t believe this is a case of illegal activity – this is a clear case of harassment which is outlined in your TOS. To be blunt, I find that someone using your service to call me a “cunt” in a public forum is defined as harassment. Again, your TOS states: You must not abuse, harass, threaten, impersonate or intimidate other Twitter users. It’s Twitter’s responsibility to uphold the TOS, otherwise the TOS has no meaning.”

Jack requested a call on March 19th. Ariel took notes. Here are the highlights:

“I told Jack that it the harassment has escalated and that it was a very clear violation of their TOS and that I had had similar cases of harassment on Flickr in which Flickr took down all 3 of the harassing accounts…”

“…Jack explained that they’re scared to ban someone because they’re scared if it turned into a lawsuit that they are too small of a company to handle it…”

“…Jack additionally explained that their TOS was up for interpretation, to which I responded that it isn’t. I explained that it clearly states “You must not harass other Twitter users” and that harassment is defined as continuous small attacks, which this is…”

“…Jack then asked me about what other social networks had done. I said that Flickr deleted all the profiles and that services like Digg and Pownce don’t think twice about banning abusive or harassing users because it’s part of the TOS…”

“…Jack asked me what good it would do to ban my stalker since it seemed obvious that the stalker would continue to stalk me elsewhere. I told him that it was not his nor Twitter’s responsibility nor business to stop my stalker, but that it was very much their responsibility to identify users violating their TOS on their own service and take action accordingly…”

“…At the end of the conversation, Jack asked me “well, what would be a happy resolution for you?”. I responded saying that seeing the user who is consistently harassing me banned…”

It took three weeks and eight new instances of abuse (that had escalated to include full name and email address) in order to get Twitter to respond again to Ariel. It was this email that sparked Ariel’s public response.

Jack replied, “Apologies for the delay here. We’ve reviewed the matter and decided it’s not in our best interest to get involved. We’ve tasked our lawyers with a full review and update of our TOS. Thank you for your patience and understanding and good luck with resolving the problem.”

This response is simply unbelievable on many levels, 1) They’re more fearful of receiving a lawsuit from those harassing other Twitter users over those getting harassed; 2) Instead of warning the harasser, or even better, removing the offending posts and the account, they opted instead to review the ToS; 3) The very service that is inspiring companies to improve customer service by listening to the conversations on Twitter is instead, not learning how to use it to their own advantage.

Are the terms of service for any company open for review anytime someone asks them to be enforced?

I don’t think so…

It doesn’t stop here however.

Ariel insisted on keeping this at the customer service level instead of leaning on the emotional pleas for companies to help her stop her stalker. She took the discussion to GetSatisfaction, a new and popular social community for connecting companies, users, and stakeholders around topics that affect customer service.

Ariel opens the forum discussion with a powerful statement, “I think it’s extremely important for Twitter to develop policies around their Terms of Service to stick by. In short, it’s completely unacceptable for Twitter’s users to be harassed to this level and have Twitter refuse to ban anyone for fear of being sued. Yahoo, Flickr, Pownce, and Digg do *not* take these kinds of TOS violations lightly and will ban users/content if there is even a question of harassment.
In fact, I would like to call out that Twitter can’t be sued for banning users under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.”

This time, Jason Goldman and company co-founder, Biz Stone addressed Ariel’s concerns publicly.

According to Jason, “The existing terms are, as noted, inspired by those used by other services. And through them we reserve the right to take action against many different types of content issues… But in practice, we only act in specific circumstances. (Some of this has been posted before). For this reason, we’re in the process of reworking the existing terms to reflect what we enforce.”

This stance was supported on the Twitter blog, “This speaks to our larger stance that Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content. For those who are interested in this debate, please note that we are engaged in editing our ToS so it more clearly states the scenarios in which we will take action.”

Perhaps the most troubling part for me, other than the fact that Twitter believes that amending the ToS to better cover their asses was the belief that, “Twitter is a recipient-driven utility; you choose what content appears in your timeline. We offer tools like block so that users can distance themselves from others with whom they have disputes or disagreements.”

I think for most of us, we view Twitter as a full-fledged community for social networking and not merely a series of pipes for communicating with each other. Blocking people who post derogatory, embarrasing, and damaging remarks and information is not the solution. Just because you no longer see it in your public timeline, doesn’t mean that this disparaging content isn’t indexable and discoverable on the Web. There’s a huge liability issue associated with allowing that content to remain online.

Biz responded with additional information that helped shed light on their decision making process, “This account is no longer available for review because the person who created it willingly removed it back in March. We reviewed this account at the time of the complaint and did not find it in violation of our Terms.”

Yes, the person did remove the account, only to continue the harassment through others, includng @confessions, on Twitter.

Biz continued, “The fact that so many of us can have differing opinions without having even reviewed the content we’re discussing highlights the difficulty of this issue. In fact, Twitter recognizes that it is not skilled at judging content disputes between individuals. Determining the line between update and insult is not something that Twitter nor a crowd would do well. Essentially, Twitter is a communication utility, not a mediator of content.”

Indeed, many challenges are highly subjective and not as clear cut as Ariel’s case. Where does it stop? Who’s to say what crosses the line? How would these decisions affect the satisfaction of other users?

Well, to be honest, a dedicated community services manager could only help determine those answers. Yes, Twitter is a small company, but it’s a big service with massive implications on how people communicate with each other. It’s changing everything. They need to set the standard.

And as I said earlier, companies are actively using tools such as Summize, Tweetscan, and GetSatisfaction to listen to conversations taking place on Twitter in order to engage with customers directly.

I disagree with Twitter in that its users definitely view the company as a community and not a communications utility. My phone is a communications utility. IM is a communications utility. Email is a communications utility. Twitter is a social network that connects me to my contacts and in turn connects them back to me in a way where we can learn and share in the greater context of public conversations.

And, of all of the social networks out there, Twitter is by far the most personal, and therefore, the most critical for defining and maintaining terms of service that protect everyone who contribute to making it a valuable and rewarding experience. Anything less relegates the service to the lows of Google and Yahoo boards and unmoderated forums across the Web – services that almost every Twitter user has abandoned because of poor experiences. Twitter is better, and more important, than that.

I asked Ariel that if she could wish for one thing to come out of all of this, what would it be. She responded without hesitation, “I wish that Twitter got the fact that people view them as a community and that they would show a little more understanding of that aspect.”

She added, “A little more understanding would only help. I can only hope that people see this as a more serious issue.”

Overall, this discussion reminds us of many things. First, and most importantly, beware the things you share in social media. Second, read the terms of services carefully. They should define how you participate within each community. Third, don’t be afraid to share your story. While this isn’t mob rule, the empathy of your peers can be a strong catalyst for positive change.

As a note to companies, including Twitter, the terms of services must be more than words – especially if they’re inspired by other companies who are setting the bar. They serve as the foundation that defines the experience for the very people we hope to retain as users and hopefully, inspire as evangelists as well..

Social Media and Micromedia represent incredibly new opportunities to engage customers with indifferent, negative, and positive views, to help shape perception. People have a powerful voice nowadays and it changes how we listen and respond to them. Recognizing not only the platforms available to customers as well as companies, influences how we should respond, before we respond. These discussions can spread and it’s only in our best interest to think through responses that affect the end game, not simply limited to inquiry by inquiry.

The road is long and customers are the fuel that drive us.

For more on this discussion, please read:

Carolyn McCarthy
Violet Blue

Crises Communications 2.0:

Facebook is a Beacon for Bad PR
Apple and the iPhone Price Bomb
The Skype is Falling
Microsoft PR Sparks a Blogstorm of Support and Outrage

Connect with me on Twitter, Jaiku, LinkedIn, Pownce, Plaxo, FriendFeed, Tumblr, or Facebook.

micromedia