The four-page document is the IOC’s attempt to recapture the ground it never had when Twitter became the must-have channel for those competing at the winter Vancouver 2010 games.
In the guidelines the IOC ‘actively encourages and supports athletes and other accredited persons at the Olympic Games to … post, blog and tweet their experiences.’ it directs those competing to avoid using social networking sites ‘for commercial and/or advertising purposes.’ If athletes and other accredited persons do break these guidelines then they risk accreditation being withdrawn. More worrying for athletes is the threat of possible expulsion from the games.
So how will these guidelines affect the work of public relations agencies working with athletes and their sponsors? Will non-accredited sponsors see these guidelines as a red rag to a bull? How strong will ambush marketing play during the 2012 Olympics? Remember how Dutch beer company Bavaria got, as The Daily Telegraph describes, ‘36 women wearing skimpy orange dresses attend the Holland versus Denmark game‘ to promote Dutch Bavaria beer in breach of Fifa guidelines. Organisers of the stunt were then arrested.
What are your thoughts? How important will social networking play for brands that are sitting outside the tent and that will never be able to be a participant in the Olympic experience?
Reputation management as we know is not a new discipline within public relations. The skills needed have been around for many, many years. That said, since today we are influenced by what we read online and what our friends and peers share with us the need and demand for online reputation management (ORM) has dramatically increased.
Reputation is at the core of any business. It shapes our trust with brands and individuals. If that trust is challenged we take our business elsewhere, which is why in today’s real-time and connected world it is essential to keep track of how communities can build or break reputations.
Kenber gave the example of Woburn Safari Park who allegedly paid an agency to bury news stories about a critical report from the Department for Environment , Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) on the conditions of the animals in its care. Weeks after stories were published The Times reported that the park hired the services of an online reputation management agency. If this is all it did then rightly so one can be critical of how it acted given DEFRA’s findings. Certainly not a way of repairing a reputation.
Online reputation management agencies are not public relations agencies. There is a need for their services, but these should be used as part of a much more strategic campaign. Burying bad news and the associated debate that takes place online is not going job is not going to serve a company good in the long-term. In fact it is likely to do further damage.
There is a need for the skills that Kenber highlights. We have seen plenty of examples of how small businesses have suffered because of critical online reviews that have either been wide of the mark or libellous. We should remember that people have different standards and can quickly mount negative online assaults, often without realising how they are opening themselves up to a legal dispute.
PR agencies do use whatever is needed help organisations protect their reputation. But, it is these PR agencies that use these tools in proportion to what is needed to achieve. If a client or employer has messed up the damage has been done. Doing what Kenber talks about only makes matters worse. A professional communications agency would have advised to stay clear of burying bad online news. Agencies that would do this kind of work, do it without understanding the bigger picture.
Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.
Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business. Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.
The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.
Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place. It is part and parcel of what the business world. Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.
That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor? Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged. Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses. Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.
All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.
The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:
Mercurio’s experience appears to lie within the political sector, certainly this was his sole beat between when he graduated from Boston University with a degree in Journalism and until he left The National Journal as Executive Editor.
Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project. Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:
In Mercurio’s opening email on May 3rd, John addresses Chris Soghoian as ‘Mr. Soghoian’. Would a person who had a close working relationship with this blogger address him as ‘Mr’? Isn’t this quite a detached introduction from somebody who does not have a strong working relationship with said blogger?
Mercurio is a Burson’s Director of Media with a background in politics, why is he involved in blogger relations? Surely this would have been the responsibility of a tech team or at least of somebody who would not approach Soghoian with a ‘Mr. Soghoian’.
While Mercurio offered the opportunity of an op-ed piece, why is it he and not somebody with a better working relationship offering Soghoian this opportunity?
Why is Burson using email to connect with bloggers, knowing full well that email correspondence can be leaked?
Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on. Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.
Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics. Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.
From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric. There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.
Comments by Sky Sports presenter Richard Keys and pundit Andy Gray about assistant referee Sian Massey and West Ham Deputy Chairwoman Karen Brady this weekend highlight the problem that football in the UK has. Their off-air sexist remarks highlight outdated and out of touch views in the The Premier League, Championship and lower divisions. Dealing with them, will help give UK football a much needed rebrand.
Keys and Gray have been the leading commentators on Sky Sports since the channel’s inception in 1992. The game though has moved on since then. It’s become far most athletic and its audience has been more diverse, with many more women watching the game, if not on TV then at their chosen grounds. Yet for too long we have heard the views of these two out of touch pundits on how a physical presence is needed in games where fast flowing and thinking football is played.
Sadly though Sky Sports hasn’t kept apace with the changes in the game and in their audience and that has damaged how game it funds is perceived not just overseas, but by sponsors and advertisers that swell the channel’s own coffers. Would advertisers pay for slots on Sky Sports when the way they present the game is outdated?
Keys and Gray have permeated views and made acceptable views that have not helped the English game develop. They are out of touch and certainly off-side.
Of course questions have to be asked as to how these recordings came to light, but it certainly looks like they were leaked. And this can only be a good thing.
Gordon Brown learned the hard way about how you are ‘always on air when mic’d up.’ And of course Richard Keys has previous for foot-in-mouth. Being in the media and being ‘outted’ to the pack must hurt, but it’s about time that Sky Sports does its job in presenting the game as one for all and not just for men.
Keys and Gray are not just one of the problems in how the game of football is perceived. New pundits that know about the modern game will help Sky resolve this PR nightmare that it finds itself in. Who knows, maybe washing your dirty laundry in public can be a good thing for Sky Sports and for the game.
***BREAKING NEWS***
This story is developing. Within hours of posting Sky Sports sack their Chief Pundit Andy Gray for comments he is alleged to have made in December while recording a Christmas special, which a dutiful PR has just leaked onto Youtube. Goodbye. See below:
Social media and networking channels have during the past year established themselves as the preferred method of communication amongst the varied publics that we interact with. Facebook, Twitter and Youtube have become part of the mainstream.
Those who at the beginning of 2010 doubted the power of these channels are now active users, even evangelists. Last year social media was about discovery. It was about people building up their communities online. It was about real-time engagement.
This year in 2011 we‘ll see less experimenting and an increase in engagement. The knowledge that we have as individuals will be pooled and shared within our communities and this in it self will create challenges and opportunities for companies and individuals that we in public relations will be working with.
Communities: engaged and empowered
2010 was about Wikileaks. Partnering with news outlets around the world including The Guardian, The New York Times and Der Spiegel Wikileaks and it’s community focused on releasing classified material to the media and public. While the aim of the site when it was set-up in 2006 was to expose ‘oppressive regimes … (and) be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behaviour in their governments and corporations’ Assange and his associates focused on uncovering political machinations around the world.
What Wikileaks did in 2010 was to light a fuse that will see in the coming year more people consider and question the ethics and values of their employer. We’ve already had the case of former Julius Bär employee Rudolf Elmer who worked for the bank for over 20 years until his dismissal in 2002. In a very public press conference at London’s Frontline club Elmer handed over to Wikileaks Julian Assange secret documents detailing the activities of his former employer in the Cayman Island and alleged tax evasion.
Sites such as Wikileaks, Openleaks andTradeleaks will prosper and be a contact point for investigative journalists and campaigning organisations wishing to question the transparency of members of the business community.
We can’t dismiss Wikileaks or what it stands for. In fact, the publicity generated and the way in which it’s core values have been promoted will have made people, employees in sensitive positions in the corporate and private sector, more willing to leak confidential information. For many, and not just the hacktivists, Wikileaks is the raison-d’etre it needed.
Last year News International started putting its main titles behind a pay-wall, something that other news outlets are watching with hope. Murdoch is one of the only publishers that can invest in this experiment. If it works though, and many editors are hoping that it does, then the pay-walls will be going around other titles.
Quality journalism costs money. It shouldn’t be free. But getting readers to spend money during a recession will be difficult and it’s because of this that in 2011 we shall see more news outlets releasing apps for mobile devices. Those that are free will switch to a paid for subscription service. Paying for content through apps will be a precursor to getting people to pay for quality content online. The content that is currently free.
Mobile
Mobile is everywhere. It is the channel that personalises everything we do. It allows us to update our status, our community, our location, our likes and dislikes. All this data allows brands to tailor their offerings for more personal approaches.
Why is mobile so important? Well, over a third of Facebook’s users now access the site through a mobile device. Twitter meanwhile has also seen a rise of people accessing it through a mobile, with also more than a third of users accessing Twitter via their mobile phone. Expect this to rise.
Mobile is not just about phones, but also about tablet PCs and the ubiquitous iPad. Consumers today want content, updated, on demand wherever they are. Keeping your audiences up to date and up to speed will be central to the work of public relations professionals. And with the news-cycle crunching down even further reaction times will shorten even further.
Crises only became so when people accessed their desktops at work or home, but with the increase use of mobiles, people will be able to react to issues quicker than ever before. Listening and engaging will be central to the job of those working in communications.
Of course as the use of smartphones continues to grow and establish itself so will geo-location services like Facebook Places and Foursquare start to take-off. And with the recession, business will look to use every opportunity available to them to help people part with their hard earned cash.
Content accessible through mobiles will become a must for established organisations and brands.
This year of 2011 will be a key a seminal year in the integration of social media into communications. It will be a year of communities and engagement.
Hello. I'm Julio Romo. I'm a London-based independent PR, communications consultant and digital strategist. I am also a freelance journalist and trainer, providing insight and consultancy on how to secure better engagement through the changing media and digital landscape.
Twitter
@simonmacmichael I know Thierry is 34, but sure that he doesn't have white hair just yet! ;) Great picture!! 3 hours ago
How many groats for a herd? @ College Road Toll Gate http://t.co/5sWgwjki10 hours ago
Burson’s Social Reputation Damaged By Facebook Work
Sunday, May 15th, 2011Global public relations and communications agency Burson-Marsteller was outted last week by a blogger for planting anti-Google stories for Facebook that would smear the reputation of the search giant.
Blogger Chris Soghoian was approached by Director of Burson-Marsteller’s Washington DC Media Practice John Mercurio to see if he would write an op-ed for a top-tier media outlet that from a PR perspective would further raise awareness of privacy issues surrounding Google’s business. Soghoian rebuffed Mercurio and published their email correspondence, which was subsequently picked up by The Daily Beast who confirmed that Burson’s client was the social networking mammoth Facebook.
The assignment raises questions not just about the ethics of PR in promoting one set of views over another, but also our industry’s understanding of the media landscape in which it operates.
Let’s not be naïve, assignments such as the one that Burson accepted does take place. It is part and parcel of what the business world. Briefings, allegations, misinformation are tactics that while they are crude, are part of certain people’s skill-set.
That said, one of the first questions that needs to be asked is that of why did Facebook deide to or even agreed to a campaign to highlight the failings of a competitor? Such campaigns, as we have seen, carry a lot or risk and can leave ones reputation severely damaged. Why didn’t Facebook embark on a communication initiative that would highlight it’s strengths, while ignoring competitors weaknesses. Strategically the answer lies within Facebook and the counsel it received from Burson-Marsteller.
All this said and knowing about the factitious relationship that exists between these two giants, questions have to be asked about the quality of Burson’s work, an agency that I must declare I did work for in 2008.
The content, structure and tone in the brief email correspondence between the two parties that Soghoian released raise a number of key points and questions:
Bearing these points in mind and from reading his email exchange with Soghoian one questions why Burson would have Mercurio work on such a project. Let me highlight the reasons I ask this:
Such work is only successful if there is an element of trust that you can work on. Approaching bloggers in such a cold manner leaves not just an agency such a Burson-Marsteller open to attack, but also the client who rightly so would expect anonymity.
Mercurio is trained as a journalist, with a background in politics. Surely he has experience on how to received leaks and how to protect sources.
From a communications perspective the whole operation leaves one questioning not just the suitability of Burson for such an assignment, but the internal understanding of how views and opinions are shaped in a world that is less media-centric. There will be plenty of internal questions within this prestigious agency given that it isn’t just Facebook’s reputation that’s been damaged.
Tags: agency, blogging, burson marsteller, communications, facebook, google, journalism, leaks, news, pr, privacy, public relations, reputation, security
Posted in comment, journalism, news, pr, reputation, social media | 2 Comments »