Archive for the 'Badvocacy' Category
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
I’ve been monitoring the coverage of our Good Book of Badvocacy since we released it last May. We didn’t do a press release for it – just put it on the Weber Shandwick Web site, shared it with clients and the Weber Shandwick network, and discussed it in events and social media forums (including, of course, this blog). Needless to say, we’re more than pleased that a book about the power of word-of-mouth has made its way around purely on the power of word-of-mouth. In fact, as Leslie Gaines-Ross blogged, the Book was presented in an IT meeting at a company that is not in anyway affiliated with Weber Shandwick. The review was glowing. One of the meeting attendees was my husband so you can imagine his surprise when the book appeared (in case you’re wondering, he had not discussed it at work nor does he carry it around with him but I think he should).
And who can forget when “badvocate” became Addictionary’s Word of the Day! Or when Forbes.com interviewed Jack Leslie, chairman of Weber Shandwick, about badvocacy. Certainly I don’t want to overlook the many bloggers and Tweeters who kept the discussion rolling along. Many thanks to these folks for being badvote advocates:
Wishing all our badvocate followers a new year filled with nothing but advocates on your side!
I returned to the Air Force Blogger Assessment tool today as I was writing something I hope to eventually publish. As I refreshed my memory about the blogging guidelines, I fell upon David Meerman Scott’s blog which had an interview with Captain David Faggard, Chief of Emerging Technology at the Air Force Public Affairs Agency at the Pentagon and developer of the blogger tool. The tool is also on his web site. I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that Faggard oversees 330,000 communicators! That is a big number! Scott spoke with Faggard (who I also emailed with months ago) and this is what Meerman wrote about their exchange.
“Their mission is to use current and developing Web 2.0 applications as a way to actively engage conversations between Airmen and the general public. Yes, that’s right, the goal of the program is that every single Airman is an on-line communicator.
In an environment where many corporations are scared witless about social media, here a huge global organization firmly committed to social media communications to spread messages, stories, knowledge and ideals. Capt. Faggard says that the focus is on: “Direct Action within Social Media (blogging, counter-blogging, posting products to YouTube, etc.); Monitoring and Analysis of the Social Media landscape (relating to Air Force and Airmen); and policy and education (educating all Public Affairs practitioners and the bigger Air Force on Social Media).”
While I was amazed that the Air Force is doing so much while many in the private sector are still doing so little, I asked about the unique challenges faced by the US armed forces when it comes to social media. In particular, I was intrigued by the term “counter-blogging” which Capt. Faggard says is when “Airmen counter the people out there in the blogosphere who have negative opinions about the US government and the air force.”
This interchange reminded me of Weber Shandwick’s discussions and research on badvocates. Counter-blogging is similar to countering and engaging badvocates before it is too late. Scott’s comment about the private sector’s reluctance to wholeheartedly use social media to manage critics struck home. In our research with global executives, Risky Business, nearly four in ten said that they worried alot about the damage that can be done to company reputation from dissatisfied customers and critics.
Thought that the parallels were worth mentioning here. Hope you do too.
Tags: Badvocates, US Air Force Blogger Assessment Tool, Weber Shandwick
Ad Age’s Jack Neff wrote that Forrester is coming out with a new report recommending that “brand managers” be newly named “brand advocates.” Forrester makes the claim that it is high time for marketers and agencies to capitalize on the Internet and focus on customer cohorts. The report being issued next week, Adaptive Brand Marketing: Rethinking Your Approach to Branding in the Digital Age, has many other recommendations about brand advocacy programs and what it means for marketers in 2010. Weber Shandwick agrees with this call to action for advocacy-focused marketing. In this complex and resource-restricted world, identifying your advocates and badvocates (what we call detractors) is the right solution. We are all advocates under the skin — maybe not all. Our research found that nearly one out of two (48%) of us are advocates, some more active than others. Non-advocates are also worth identifying and finding ways to communicate with and engage. Looking forward to the report.
Tags: Ad Age, brand advocates, Forrester, Jack Neff
Had a funny experience the other day when I was told that someone in IT showed up at a meeting with The Good Book of Badvocacy and was touting it as a must read! We at Weber Shandwick could not be more pleased and proud. Really love those Good Book advocates.
Wanted to direct you to a great article written by Weber Shandwick’s own Colin Byrne, CEO UK and Europe. It appeared last week and includes practical tips for minimizing reputation damage that comes from a company’s badvocates. Colin also cites real-world examples of the kinds of damage companies have experienced when they haven’t kept “the window to sabotage” shut tightly. Enjoy the article.
Badvocacy can turn into good business if enough attention and the right person locks in. A software program called Auto-Tune helps engineers correct the voice of a singer. Obviously, if you use the wrong settings, a holy mess can occur. Distortion galore. In protest, Jay-Z, the super popular American hip hop artist, just produced a single called D.O.A. (Death of Auto-Tone). Jay-Z was badvocating the new program, especially when he heard it was used in a commerical. Over 1,000 people watched the video. See the YouTube video. Turns out that his celebrity anger has turned into nice jingles at the cash register. Sales are up according to the Auto-Tune company. [Read about this on our Weber Shandwick Yammer web site which was linked to a New York Times article]
Tags: Badvocacy, Weber Shandwick, Yammer
I thought I should remind everyone who reads this blog to take a look at our mini-book, The Good Book of Badvocacy. Since I am forever ranking everything and anything, I noticed that the number of search mentions of “badvocacy” has steadily risen. Just a couple of months ago, the number of Google mentions was 17,500. Now we are at 25,500. And remember, we started from zero since the term did not exist before we launched our thought leadership focus on advocacy. So the term is gaining currency which is good . The mini-book is about how companies need to address their badvocates and can combat badvocacy before it is too late.
As I searched around this afternoon, there were several kind reviews of our inaugural book worth sharing. A big thanks to everyone for advocating on behalf of The Good Book. Thank you!
“Each step has tips on how to achieve it. With the nice graphics, easy readable style (you can read it in 5 minutes) and relevant insights, The Good Book of Badvocacy should be a must-read for every corporate executive.” Blog
“Global public relations and communications leader Weber Shandwick began a series of short publications on topics they believe industries of all kinds could benefit from reading. The first of the series is called “The Good Book of Badvocacy”. It deals with the still pretty new sensation of customers being capable of drastic sway, particularly negative, on how companies and products use the internet and other recent technologies. “ Blog
“For expansion on the topic and steps read the book. To read quickly it won’t even take 20 or 30 minutes, and it is very entertaining. The format is original and exciting.” Blog
“ I found these tips to be extremely straight-forward and impactful in a media world where badvocacy is imminent. To read more visit Weber Shandwick’s site and download this very handy mini-book, The Good Book of Badvocacy. “ Blog
“I just finished reading The Good Book of Badvocacy by Weber Shandwick. I felt that it was a very relevant and insightful book in this day and age of viral marketing. Anybody connected with PR, advertising, marketing, or really any kind of business should give this book a read.” Blog
Tags: Advocacy, Badvocacy, The Good Book of Badvocacy
Not bad at all. In fact, really good. Weber Shandwick’s advocacy initiative appears #8 on Google’s first page when I searched for “advocacy.” We appear after Small Business Advocacy and before Juvenile Diabetes Advocacy. In my book, mention on the first page of Google is ownership (or near ownership).
We thought deeply about this thought leadership initiative and how the world has radically changed when it comes to what people really care about and what motivates them to support brands, companies, people, ideas and governments. We identified the likes and dislikes of Advocates and Badvocates who are willing to stand up and be heard or counted on what they believe is ethical, just and the right thing to do. Read more about what Advocacy means for you and your company. Sounds like a commercial but it’s just me being excited.
Tags: Advocacy, advocates, Badvocates, Google, Weber Shandwick
Thought I’d share another finding about advocacy from our study with the Economist Intelligence Unit - Risky Business: Reputations Online. This research snippet is about where Badvocacy meets Web 2.0.
Although global executives identify major media as the most threatening to company reputation (84%), plenty of executives (42%) recognize the damage new media can impose. Blogs and discussion forums are the most feared with online videos, comments on social networking sites, Wikipedia entries, and online pictures compounding potential destruction. Considering that fast-rising Web 2.0 new media and social networking tools can literally rally advocates and badvocates overnight, more executives should be concerned about new media as a reputation killer. Here’s how each of these rank in terms of global executive fear:
While the blog is considered the king of Web 2.0 badvocacy risk now, it will be interesting to see how the other technologies evolve as badvocacy threats.
