PR Week reports that the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, has warned PR agencies against writing about companies they represent in the popular online encyclopaedia. Encyclopedia entries on individuals and organizations the site are not supposed to be written by those individuals or organizations.
There seems to be some sort of desperation going on where brands make a scramble to try to control everything that’s said about them online. Maybe this has been advised by the old-school PR agencies. It’s a growing concern though. In two trends videos made for PSFK in December 06, Richard Anson from Reevo talks about consumer mistrust of online comments found in retail sites like Amazon - and Paul Isakson calls for honesty.
It would be great to see brands just concentrating on building great stuff instead of controlling what people say when they say brands make bad stuff. Here’s an idea: why doesn’t your company declare that says it never manipulates consumer comments online, nor write statements and reviews as if it were a customer. Would be a first, maybe…
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
I think we all need to keep a level head on the issue of who posts what.
Banning any person who works in a communications role is a big call. As a practicing PR I am the first to admit that using the internet for neferious means is absolutely unethical and should never be allowed. Having said that, I know very few, if any, other PR’s who would subvert the internet in such a way, if only for the fact that it can be reputation, and thus career, destroying if found out. Rather, PR’s who post in blogs and on sites such as Wikipaedia should declare themselves and their positions. Very often, those with inside knowledge have a unique perspective.
There was also an interesting article in an Australian Sunday paper this previous weekend gloating over PR’s who have been found out posting bias blogs. This, in the largest instance, is the absolute minority of our profession and should not be taken as the rule. PR’s can be a valuable resource for journalists and the public alike and should be considered properly, rather than shunned. With sites such as Wiki, the public can, and does, act as editor-at-large and ensures that articles and blogs posted remain objective and devoid of too much bias.
-Cameron.
February 5th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
The number one priority should be, yes, selling quality products and services.
But, yeah, I think companies should DEFINITELY be participating online.
What if you were in a room and you heard someone making statements about you that were false? You would want to inform them — or the people that they were talking to — of the truth.
What if you were in a room and you heard someone say that you had disappointed them — and they had a valid point? You would want to do what you could to win back their trust and to learn how you could do better next time.
Yes, I work in a PR agency. No, I do not write Wikipedia entries for my clients. But I do encourage my clients to be aware of what their Wikipedia entry says about them, just as I think they should be aware of what bloggers say about them and consumer review sites and discussion boards and every other form of social media. And I encourage them to participate.
If you are going to believe in the great experiment that Wikipedia is meant to be — if Jimmy Wales is going to believe in the great experiment that Wikipedia is meant to be — you have to believe that the community that maintains the site will keep PR agencies and their clients honest and in check and the information reflective of the collective point of view.
February 5th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
i agree with both posters statements. so, i think what we have is a medium that can be used both producers and consumers for loosely based information. rep’s from the respective company should state that that is what they are. unfortunately this leaves the loophole of an honesty based system, which I think is alright considering there are other reliable site (consumer reports) for consumer feedback and product reviews. When a person reads reviews on a site such as amazon, (hopefully) they read them knowing that everyone doesn’t have the same views, opinions, outlook, interests, etc… as them. Perhaps wiki should be looked at the same way.
February 6th, 2007 at 9:34 am
I was wondering what some of the more mature members here do about dating. It seems much harder for older singles to find a mate, so I might be turning to online dating for older singles.
any suggestions? thanks.
November 1st, 2007 at 8:28 pm