Whenever B12 discusses certain companies (Wal-Mart, for instance, or Blackwater, or even Whole Foods), within an hour or two a computer from the company's network (or their PR firm, such as Edelman) visits the page, presumedly to capture the mention, and add it to their database. Try it sometime, you'll presumedly get the same result.
Click http://digg.com/business_finance/WSJ_com_What_to_Do_About_Online_Attacks for access to full articleCompanies have always had to deal with complaints and criticisms -- both deserved and not. But the Internet has drastically increased the potential damage to a brand or a company's reputation. Frustrations with a company's practices, products and service that once were confined to relatively small circles now reach complete strangers around the world. With a very low cost of entry, disgruntled customers, workers and former workers are free to post messages, create Web sites and blog about grievances. Advocacy and special-interest groups use their Web sites to stage attacks on companies and rally support for their positions. And all of it is often archived, searchable and printable.
The potential harm from such attacks should not be underestimated. They can damage a company's reputation, hurt sales and scare off potential -- and current -- employees. Investors may flee, and partnerships may be put at risk.
We've analyzed the themes of many online attacks, and interviewed some of their authors to better understand their motivations. We also asked corporate executives how they deal with these kinds of Web-based attacks. The good news is strategies exist for fighting back and even inoculating companies against such attacks. Often, the first successful step is recognizing that the authors of the attacks are frustrated over what they perceive as unjust treatment.
What follows is our critique of the five basic strategies that companies use when confronted by negative consumer- and employee-generated content on the Web.
[From What to Do About Online Attacks - WSJ.com]
DHL, on the other hand, uses the first of the possible strategies: ignore the crazies.
The 5 strategies, per Chris Martin and Nathan Bennett are:1. The Do-Nothing Approach.
The majority of companies we contacted were either unaware their company was the subject of attacks or were taking a "wait-and-see" approach in deciding what to do about it. More than one company spokesperson justified inaction while citing Abraham Lincoln's famous quote, "You can't please all the people all the time." Others marginalized online critics as "one of a few crazies out there" or as "someone trying to get something for nothing." What's surprising is that while most of these companies said they conducted regular surveys of their customers and employees, they failed to recognize that online attacks could also help them identify concerns of dissatisfied employees and customers.2. Putting the Lawyers on It This strategy is much less effective these days - often it backfires, and makes an internet celebrity out of the website owner (like FireGeorgeKarl.com, or Wikileaks.org, or a thousand other examples.
3. Throw Money at the Problem
Unfortunately, nobody seems to try this approach with B12. Come on, Ms. Clinton, tear down that pay wall! If you can pay Mark Penn millions of dollars for his advice, send a few donuts my way! Ahem.
Actually, Amazon did respond pretty quickly when I publicly complained about DHL mis-deliveries. They sent me a duplicate order right away, and have not used DHL to deliver any more of my packages (80% UPS, 20% FedEx - 0% problems). However, Amazon just tried to respond to my complaint, they didn't suddenly click on Google ads, or write me a fat 'silence' check. Oh well.
4. Invite and Engage the Critics
A smaller number of businesses responded to online critics directly on the sites where the criticism was found, typically attempting to correct misinformation and offering to resolve complaints.
In an article critical of service at Home Depot Inc. last year on Microsoft Corp.'s MSN network, the author invited readers to add their own thoughts on the topic. More than 7,000 posts followed, many of them negative. Amid the flurry of messages, Home Depot CEO Frank Blake responded with a post of his own, saying he planned to dispatch "a dedicated taskforce -- working directly with me -- that is ready and willing to address each and every issue raised on this board."
Companies pursuing this kind of strategy listen to what is being said on the Web, and let others know they are listening. If someone posts something inaccurate on a blog, the company goes on the blog -- sometimes on the same day -- and corrects it. Similarly, if someone posts something positive, the company thanks them.
Again, not something I've ever experienced, but then I'm a D list blogger (currently averaging 700 visits a day, per sitemeter, plus a few dozen more RSS subscriptions), I assume if B12 had the site traffic (and subsequent headaches) of BoingBoing or John Gruber's site, this might happen here. I'm quite happy with being off the radar, thanks, being a full time web-zine editor seems like it would be a lot of work. A dilettantes status is jes peachy.
5. Stop It Before It Starts
Not sure how often this happens.
Typically, even companies that understand the power of online attacks go into action only after the attacks start. But some companies try to make sure that damage control is never needed.
Such an inoculation strategy is marked by practices that emphasize fair procedures and respectful treatment of both employees and customers. The ultimate goal: making sure that the kinds of frustration that our research repeatedly pinpointed as the source of online criticism don't arise in the first place.
Inoculation establishes clear communication channels -- on the Web, by phone, or by mail -- through which customers and employees can relay concerns to management, sometimes privately, before frustrations mount. A company without a publicized mechanism to address stakeholder concerns runs the highest risk for online attacks. In such cases, consumers often see public Internet postings as the only way to bring a problem to a company's attention, while employees see unsigned postings as the only way to raise concerns without provoking retaliation from their managers.
Some companies such as International Business Machines Corp. and McDonald's host secure, unedited sites where employees can openly and anonymously discuss corporate policies and strategies. These posts afford the opportunity for constructive responses from management -- though the results, of course, vary from case to case. As long as the company avoids heavy-handed moderation -- eliminating all but positive posts -- the practice should help demonstrate a culture of fairness and openness.
