Michelle Obama has proven that speaking from the heart is what matters. Some might argue that Donald Trump does the same, but being a demagogue is not the same as speaking from the heart. He appeals to the heart (perhaps) but mainly to people’s visceral beliefs and hangups. The First Lady has managed to speak both passionately and with an authentic sense of indignation. It is those two characteristics that make her so popular. It does not matter whether she is necessarily right or wrong so much as the fact she believes what she says and it is not hostile to other groups. Executives might learn from her!
Researches prove that the right response to positive comments or negative complaints from customers can bring one’s lost good reputation back, online.
This new finding communicates a message to all those who strive hard to maintain a good reputation online. Brands/companies/celebrities, while having a good exposure to major social media channels always need to make use of this utility to communicate with their potential customers/clients/fans, which in reality they fail. It is surprising to find that most of the customers/fans/clients want the brands/companies/celebrities to have their attention. Customers/fans/clients make a positive feedback or pass a negative comment through major social media channels like twitter or Facebook, they expect a reply. Feedback is rated as something they would love you to do. Continue reading “Reputation Management Online Through Right Response!”
Social Media has been an excellent vehicle for businesses to promote their brands and products for years, and with a theoretical audience of over one billion users it’s a trend that’s set to continue for the foreseeable future. From that, it’s of little wonder that slowly people are starting to realise the potential for charities to make their mark on this global audience for the betterment of their respective causes. But what happens though when lines get crossed and businesses and charities start working together, and it becomes difficult to see exactly who’s getting the better deal? Continue reading “The Ethics of Self Promotion Through Charitable Causes (A Case Study)”
‘Yet another talent lost early’ as tributes to Amy Winehouse pour in, there are quite a few shameless self-promotions going on out to market her sudden death. This post is not to serve as an eulogy to Amy but to point out to companies how not to market on their official twitter accounts during the death of a celebrity.
‘Should Traffic Ever Trump Taste?‘ gives two examples of such behaviour and we pick the Microsoft UK PR twitter handle post – and yes they were crass enough to post this…
Clearly their later apology and tribute did nothing to cover up the real intention of the tweet.
This is a great example of how not to be a PR handle on Twitter and clearly puts Microsoft UK in a bad light, despite the opportunity of increased sales of Amy’s music. Definitely a big ‘thumbs down’ from us here at Reputation Management For.com.
Do you have an active social media life? If the answer is a ‘Yes’ you need to be reading this post.
Post the ‘Weinergate’ incident, when an accidental tweet with an obscene photo that should have been made via direct message to an on-line girlfriend went public on Rep. Weiner’s timeline forcing his resignation, it is time to list out ways to avoid such social media disasters.
Armed with Android smartphones and numerous social media accounts on Facebook and Twitter is by itself a challenging situation. So you have your personal Twitter and Facebook account, and your companies’/clients’ both on a computer and sometimes even on your smartphone. Juggling these daily is daunting to say the least.
The other aspect is your own social life and how you conduct yourself in social circles, what pictures you post on Twitter and Facebook and so on. Ask around and you’re sure to know quite a number of people who have suffered the ‘Freudian slip’ or in this case the ‘Freudian click’ sending the wrong message to an ex-flame/spouse. You end up dealing with not just the horror of such a predicament but also the sinking feeling that it could have been easily avoided.
Here’s how you can avoid accidental social media disasters: Continue reading “How to avoid accidental social media disasters”
The Twitter outing of celebrity names who have taken out superinjunctions in the UK courts to prevent the reporting of adultery and other private misdemeanors has been a watershed moment in privacy laws in the UK. The Ryan Giggs superinjunction and his law firm Schillings’ decision to pursue Twitter Inc. aggressively seems to have backfired for both client and the law firm. Continue reading “Ryan Giggs Scandal – Superinjunction Law Firm Reputation loss”
It is too early to tell whether this has been a bad week for social networks or for super injunctions in the British courts. Super injuctions are a legal rulingtht forbids media reporting of court case. It can even cover the very existence of the court case. They were usually used to protect vulnerable individuals whose life could be placed in jeopardy if they were named. More recently they have been exploited to protect celebrities from media coverage on the basis they would invade their privacy.
Here is the problem: celebrities have a lot to protect in terms of endorsements which have substantial financial value. Should courts protect them from the fallout from their peccadilloes? Is a man who is cheating on his wife also a “family man” in the case of the widely reported footballer? Was the banker who had an affair with a colleague and had a super injunction so powerful that it could noteven be reported so deserving of court protection that even the regulators of his bank (the largest bankruptcy in UK history) were not aware of his behaviour.
The review of the system looks like it will remedy some of the issues by ensuring that all injunctions are fully explained and that they are for defined periods. This will almost certainly resolve the Twitter issues. The anonymous twitter user, like many others, was frustrated by the exploitation of the law by celebrities.
There is a wider question of whether celebrities should have a “private life” in the sense that you and I understand it. They are highly paid as celebrities and it is unconscionable that the court should protect their livelihood at the expense of freedom of speech.
Television, radio, newspapers and the internet. Which is the odd one out? The internet, for as Monday proved – it’s the one thing that can’t be controlled by a court-issued super-injunction. One can’t help but feel bad for Jemima Khan, who this week held an awful lot of limelight and felt the full force of social media scrutiny. And now, thanks to the mockery Twitter made of the British judicial system, privacy laws are facing review according to UK ministers.
Twitter has outed the celebrities who have taken out super injunctions in the british courts to stop the press mentioning their names and to protect their reputations. Twitter users know who they are now after a weekend of febrile speculation and outing. What does it mean? Continue reading “#Injunctionsuper goes global”
Twitter and other social networking sites have the potential to be a great source of information and entertainment, if you have the patience to filter through all the “I am eating toast”-like posts. Of course, they also have the potential to cause a whole world of grief if handled incorrectly. For celebrities, a bit of misdirected anger will usually result in some negative media coverage. For former trainee accountant Paul Chambers, his mis-Tweet resulted in legal action and the loss of his job. As a result, a whole host of famous faces have been up in arms, including (and especially) Stephen Fry.