I was wondering what was taking so long. This week a group of brokers and traders started their own advocacy group to stick up for Wall Street. The nonpartisan group can be found at restorewallstreet.com. The CEO of John Thomas Financial, a fairly new investment house, is the head advocate of this rallying cry. At this week’s first meeting, CEO Thomas Belesis said that he formed the group to counter “the repeating, relentless attacks on Wall Street.” The tag line under Restore Wall Street on the web site is “putting the pride back into Wall Street.” This is a group to watch, just as the Tea-Baggers were months ago. I think that Wall Streeters have had enough of the name-calling and are smartly adopting similar counter-insurgency tactics as their critics. Stay tuned.
Tags: John Thomas Financial, restorewallstreet.com, Wall Street
As this blog has addressed many times before, there are many ways people demonstrate their advocacy for a company or brand. They talk or act on its behalf and actively spread word of mouth. They may wear their causes on their clothes and discuss them in social networks. They might carry branded products. They will pay a premium price for brands they support. In doing so, these advocates can have a significant impact on a business’ success (or failure if the business does something to damage its advocates’ trust).
Consumers aren’t the only ones with the ability to influence company success. Employees have increasing influence (see my first post on The Employee Advocate) and more opportunities to advocate for their employers. They often set up fan or group pages on Facebook for example. Of growing importance is their ability to “vote” their companies onto acclaimed “best employers” lists. These lists, awards and rankings not only help to recruit more great talent but signify to the world that the company values employees and in turn the valued and proud employees work harder for their customers. A client once told us that her company’s salesforce uses these honors as a sales tool because their customers want to do business with a company that treats its employees well. Happy employees, happy customers.
As close observers of these rankings (Weber Shandwick’s SCOREBOXX™ database includes approximately 900 awards of all kinds, roughly 100 of which recognize companies for its employee satisfaction and/or training and development), we’re seeing the popularity of these rankings growing. Most glaring has been an increase, particularly in the past year, in the number of our clients who want to understand how their strengths can be recognized by their industry, talent prospects and other stakeholders through unbiased third party recognition. Aside from that anecdote, here are just a few facts…
- A Google search of “best companies to work for” generates 661,000 results for the 2009 time period, compared with 190,000 in 2007 and 309,000 in 2008. That’s a stunning 248% increase of the topic’s online visibility.
- 50% of chief communications officers at North American Fortune 500 companies told us in our annual The Rising CCO study that awards and recognition are an important way their company leadership measures communications effectiveness.
- CNBC dedicated a five-minute segment to this week’s release of the the Fortune Best Companies to Work For list. Perhaps one of the most well known of the best employer rankings, this list uses a rigorous method to identify the best place to work in the U.S. with employee ratings accounting for most of the score.
- Glassdoor.com’s annual Employees’ Choice Awards of the 50 Best Places to Work included reviews of 11,000 companies among nearly 75,000 employees in 2008 and 37,000 companies among nearly 100,000 employees in 2009.
Based on facts like those above, and by the growing demand from clients to better understand and leverage these lists, we think that ‘best employer’ awards will take on more significance for promoting and rewarding good corporate cultures. Companies with less than stellar environments may be pressured to listen much more closely to employee opinions.
Tags: Weber Shandwick
The outpouring of help for Haiti is a prime example of Advocacy in action. All eyes are on the devastation and the many forms of relief being sent to the victims reminds us of what people (Advocates) can do when the chips are very down. Of course, it has to get into the hands of the Haitians quickly. As a resident of Brooklyn where 61,000 Haitians live, nearly everyone feels like they know someone whose family has been hit by this tragedy.
The amount of money raised through texting is encouraging and makes Americans proud of their generosity–over $10 million has been raised in the U.S. alone. Here are the many ways to help via texting (from the Washington Post) :
*Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross
* Text HAITI to 25383 to donate $5 to International Rescue Committee
* Text HAITI to 45678 to donate $5 to the Salvation Army in Canada
* Text YELE to 501501 to donation $5 to Yele
* Text HAITI to 864833 to donate $5 to The United Way
* Text DISASTER to 90999 to donate $10 to Compassion International
* Text HAITI to 90999 to donate $10 to the American Red Cross
* Text RELIEF to 30644 to get automatically connected to Catholic Relief Services and donate money with your credit card
* Text HAITI to 25383 to donate $5 to International Rescue Committee
*Text HAITI to 45678 to donate $5 to the Salvation Army in Canada
* Text CERF to 90999 to donate $5 to The United Nations Foundation
*Text YELE to 501501 to donation $5 to YeleText RELIEF to 30644 to get automatically connected to Catholic Relief Services and donate money with your credit card
*Text HAITI to 864833 to donate $5 to The United WayText CERF to 90999 to donate $5 to The United Nations Foundation
*Text DISASTER to 90999 to donate $10 to Compassion International
Tags: Haiti
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, and Andrea Weckerle, founder and president of CiviliNation, wrote this oped for the WSJ at the very end of December. I took some time off from blogging over the holidays (sanity check!) but saved this for my next blog post. It is the perfect coda to 2009 where incivility online and “badvocacy” seemed to explode exponentially, particulary as politics heated up. CiviliNation is a global non-profit education and research organization based on advancing how individuals communicate and engage online in a responsible and accountable way. This is an important advocacy group that deserves all of our attention and support. The oped is a call to action for many of us who advocate for fairness in conversations online and preserving reputations. Wanted to share with our followers.
Keep a Civil Cybertongue
Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence.
by Jimmy Wales and Andrea Weckerle
In less than 20 years, the World Wide Web has irrevocably expanded the number of ways we connect and communicate with others. This radical transformation has been almost universally praised.
What hasn’t kept pace with the technical innovation is the recognition that people need to engage in civil dialogue. What we see regularly on social networking sites, blogs and other online forums is behavior that ranges from the carelessly rude to the intentionally abusive.
Flare-ups occur on social networking sites because of the ease by which thoughts can be shared through the simple press of a button. Ordinary people, celebrities, members of the media and even legal professionals have shown insufficient restraint before clicking send. There is no shortage of examples—from the recent Twitter heckling at a Web 2.0 Expo in New York, to a Facebook poll asking whether President Obama should be killed.
The comments sections of online gossip sites, as well as some national media outlets, often reflect semi-literate, vitriolic remarks that appear to serve no purpose besides disparaging their intended target. Some sites exist solely as a place for mean-spirited individuals to congregate and spew their venomous verbiage.
Online hostility targeting adults is vastly underreported. The reasons victims fail to come forward include the belief that online hostility is an unavoidable and even acceptable mode of behavior; the pervasive notion that hostile online speech is a tolerable form of free expression; the perceived social stigma of speaking out against attacks; and the absence of readily available support infrastructure to assist victims.
The problem of online hostility, in short, shows no sign of abating on its own. Establishing cybercivility will take a concerted effort. We can start by taking the following steps:
First, and most importantly, we need to create an online culture in which every person can participate in an open and rational exchange of ideas and information without fear of being the target of unwarranted abuse, harassment or lies. Everyone who is online should have a sense of accountability and responsibility.
Too frequently, we hear the argument that being online includes the right to be nasty—and that those who chose to participate on the Web should develop thicker skin. This gives transgressors an out for immoral behavior.
Just as we’ve learned what is deemed appropriate face-to-face communication, we need to learn what is appropriate behavior in an environment that frequently deals with purely written modes of communication and an inherent absence of nonverbal cues.
Second, individuals appalled at the degeneration of online civility need to speak out, to show that this type of behavior will no longer be tolerated. Targets of online hostility should also consider coming forward to show that attacks can have serious consequences. There are already several documented cases of teens taking their own lives because of cyberbullying.
A third step has to do with media literacy. People need to know how to differentiate between information that is published on legitimate sites that follow defined standards and also possibly a professional code of ethics, and information published in places like gossip sites whose only goal is to post the most outrageous headlines and stories in order to increase traffic. People can and will learn to shun and avoid such sites over time, particularly with education about why they are unethical.
Fourth, adult targets of online hostility deserve a national support network. This should be a safe place where they can congregate online to receive emotional support, practical advice on how to deal with transgressors, and information on whom to contact for legal advice when appropriate.
Finally, it’s time to re-examine the current legal system. Online hostility is cross-jurisdictional. We might need laws that directly address this challenge. There is currently no uniformity of definition among states in the definition of cyberbullying and cyberharassment. Perhaps federal input is needed.
The Internet is bringing about a revolution in human knowledge and communication, and we have an unprecedented opportunity to make the global conversation more reasonable and productive. But we can only do so if we prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us with hostility and incivility.
Tags: Advocacy, Badvocates, online civility
