Wikipedia began with the noble intention of providing all with free information on anything under the sun. So yes, the content should be impersonal or neutral and in an openly editable model. So unlike an encyclopedia, which is written by experts, the Wikipedia content is largely written by volunteers who do so without pay.
The big advantage: By virtue of being a favoured site by Google, the SEO or ORM implications of having a Wiki page for your small business are huge. Wikipedia pages usually rank on the first pages of Google and other search engines.
Should you have a Wikipedia page for your small business? Read the rest of this entry »
Your brand is the most essential part of your business. Have you ever thought of how people view or value your brand? You may be running a big company, or may have a team of professionals, and generate a lot of revenue, but everything falls short when you lack sound corporate reputation management.
You may find it odd, but its true that external factors affect your business, it can be either a negative effect or a positive one. Corporate reputation management helps you to have a control over your business.
Studies suggest that only 9% of companies in the Fortune 100 list have control over their respective business or brands. This was based on the top ten listing shown on the first page of search engines and on how many of those top searches were owned by the said company.
Corporate reputation management rolls out a strategic plan to establish a control over the search results shown on the first page and even makes sure that the contents shown are all positive. It is very important to have a control over your business to maintain that positive online reputation. But it was also noticed that many big companies including the Fortune 100′s have negative comments about their products in the top page of Google. Beware! This will dampen the value of your brand in the long run, if not dealt properly.
Many business houses remain ignorant about the importance of online reputation management and bad press. But there are firms that deal with the company’s reputation and provide concrete SEO based reputation management solutions to overcome their reputation crisis and restore the lost sheen.
Related Posts :
BP’s nightmare in the Gulf of Mexico gets worse, but this time it looks like an own goal. To date they have handled themselves with some aplomb despite the naked politicking by a White House desperate to shed any blame for the spill and ensure that absolutely none of it sticks to the administration. That has resulted in constant references to BP’s culpability, that BP will pay the costs and that effectively none of it has anything to do with the USA. In the face of such adversity, BP have handled themselves with some dignity. The decision to employ local fishermen should have been PR coup but the simultaneous decision to ask them to sign a waiver looks misconceived and big brotherish.
Lawyers for fisherman complained over four specific articles:
- BP, which is mandated to take 100 percent responsibility for the oil clean-up, is demanding that the volunteers INDEMNIFY IT for any accidents that might occur from the volunteers’ efforts (Art. 13(F));
- BP demands that the volunteers WAIVE their First Amendment constitutional free speech rights about the volunteer’s participation in the clean-up efforts of the disaster; for example, if a commercial fisherman signed this agreement he or she could not then speak to anyone about the disaster or clean-up efforts until BP first “approves” of what the volunteer wants to say (Art. 22);
- BP demands a FREE-RIDE on the volunteers’ insurance policies so that if there is damage to a volunteer’s vessel or other injuries, such as to a crew member, BP will be an “additional insured” and the financial responsibility for the damage will rest on the volunteer’s insurance carrier, NOT BP; quite obviously, the volunteers paid good money for this insurance and BP should not be allowed after-the-fact to worm their way into that contract so that it can attempt to avoid further legal responsibility for the very volunteers it is asking for aid and assistance; (Art. 13(A)); and
- BP demands 30 days of notice before any volunteer is allowed to pursue legal claims against BP, and there are no exceptions made for emergencies (Art. 13(I) [sic (G])
Now Federal Court has thrown out the articles and BP have backed down from making the fishermen sign the waiver. The impact of this has been to infuriate the a key constituency for BP.
After managing the fishing communities well, it now looks like BP is beginning to lose its touch as the corporation reverts to type: ie clam up. Watch how one company Rep handled this community on Fox. http://www.businessinsider.com/watch-gulf-coast-fisherman-flip-out-at-bp-town-hall-over-oil-spill-2010-5
It is often the small things that matter. It looks as though the BP waiver was relatively standard: in other words, it had not been designed for this situation, but it is how it looks that matters. The waiver gives the impression that BP was trying to silence fishermen and avoid paying compensation. The waiver does not do that, but already heated forums are accusing BP (now increasingly referred to as British Petroleum) of trying to destroy fishermen’s lives.
BP needs to tread carefully in the next few weeks as patience and frustration take their toll. Most especially they will need to consider how they interact with the local coastal communities who, to date, have been the most sympathetic of all stakeholders towards “big oil”.