Individuals wishing to shape their public image have historically relied on a range of techniques developed within the public relations (PR) sphere. PR practitioners have a range of tried and tested techniques for interfacing with the and taming the media: Pre-arranged press releases are routinely used to supply journalists with "low hanging fruit" that can readily be translated into coverage favouring a given client; and bilateral relationships are cultivated between leading writers and figures of interest, ensuring the steady exchange of information in return for sentiment bias.
Lobbying by powerful individuals and PR groups has also resulted in legislation and codes of practice which make a range of topic areas off-limits to mainstream media. Intrusion into areas of the personal lives of individuals can only be permitted on grounds of "public interest", which can itself be made subservient to privacy concerns of others if the well-being of individuals related to the news item can be shown to be at risk if made public.
However, developments online are weakening the ability of individuals to manage their reputation. "Web 2.0" technologies such as Twitter, Blogger and a thousand other social websites, have allowed millions of ordinary members of the public to publish to the Internet - not only with ease, but often also with high levels of anonymity.
The plurality of publishers puts practical limits on the establishment of direct bilateral relationships to court favour. The capability offered to ever user to re-publish and re-disseminate content through "re-tweets" or "liking" content makes it more likely that contentious content will reach mass audiences. This rapid re-publishing and proliferation of content across social platforms can also make tracking the origin of egregious content difficult. Where slanderous, libellous or privacy-infringing content is published, legal re-course may be of limited use. Legal options become impractical where the number of "publishers" listed at fault may include hundreds of thousands or millions of individuals.
In the UK, the failings of traditional methods to constrain online communications were made starkly apparent through the Spring of 2011 as the prominent footballer, Ryan Giggs, attempted to curb coverage of his private life through a series of so-called "super injunctions" against the press. These court mandates required press outlets to refrain from covering a number of stories pertaining to Giggs' sex life and possible marital impropriety. Although these orders effectively gagged mainstream print and broadcast media from divulging details of matter, comment concerning Giggs abounded in the online arena. Tweets naming Giggs as an adulterer were circulated on Twitter.
Within days the Twitter account originating the news had thousands of followers, the information had been re-Tweeted (re-published) between hundreds of thousands of other Twitter users and independent user generated comment referring to the story was appearing on Facebook profiles and bulletin boards across the Internet. In desperation, or perhaps indignation, lawyers representing Giggs continued to file legal proceedings against Twitter and attempted to launch legal proceeding against the owner of the Twitter account perceived to be the origin of the breach.
Nonetheless, the weight of public disclosure had it's own effect. The ineffectiveness of legislation to curb online public discussion itself became a news-worthy story in its own right, magnifying attention on Giggs' case. With the story elevated to discussion in the House of Commons, the failure of the status quo was ultimately acknowledged. Giggs' lawyers withdrew their application for court mandated injunctions and Giggs' representatives came to address the allegations directly with the press.
The Giggs event starkly illustrated the limits of conventional reputation management techniques. Methods employed by Giggs which may have proved effective just years before (or indeed might still prove effective in other European countries, if the contemporaneous case of International Monetary Fund Director Dominique Strauss Kahn is to be considered), failed spectacularly in 2011 Britain. Not only was Giggs unable to suppress the news of his impropriety but his efforts to do so served only to augment the ultimate level of public attention garnered.
These developments call into question the ability of public relations practitioners to manipulate coverage to any degree comparable to that which they have historically enjoyed. The emerging conventional wisdom appears is that are no realistic option to control the spread of information online, leading some to proclaim that “reputation is dead” (Reputation Is Dead: It’s Time To Overlook Our Indiscretions).
However, the scenario may not be so bleak. There are still steps that can be taken to preserve online reputations, and for those with the funds, these methods may be more effective than many people might believe possible. For fees starting from a few hundred pounds per month to tens of thousands per month, it’s possible to bring a range of intense techniques to bear upon major search engines, website hosts and social networks to change what people see, and perhaps what people believe.
Engaging firms is not low risk. As the area of online reputation management booms, we are seeing a predictable surge of companies repositioning themselves as specialists. PR agencies, search engine optimisers and law firms are all jostling for space. Judging quality is difficult. There are also worrying networks emerging with dubious ethics – firms which seem to manufacture crises in people’s personal reputations and then use sisters companies to sell reputation management services to the victims.
Online reputation is not dead, it’s just far more convoluted than most people think.
More in a later post.
No comments:
Post a Comment