In another example of how an ill-conceived Internet post can have grave repercussions for business, GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons has thrust his company into the angry crosshairs of the Web after posting a video showing him shooting an elephant during an African hunt. The domain registration company is known for pushing the limits with its salacious and sometimes controversial Super Bowl commercials, but this controversy may actually cause harm to the GoDaddy brand.
According to Mashable, the video shows Parsons shooting the elephant during a trip to Zimbabwe. Parsons claims that he did nothing wrong in killing the elephant, because it was destroying a local farmer’s crops and he was given permission to hunt it. Most Internet commenters aren’t happy with the explanation, however, and it already seems to be hurting GoDaddy’s business.
After animal rights group PETA found the footage on Parsons’ blog, the organization immediately began leading the charge to have customers dump the company for a different registrar. Picking up on the groundswell of anger against GoDaddy, rival domain registrar NameCheap.com has begun a special offer allowing GoDaddy customers to switch their domains to NameCheap for $4.99, with proceeds going to an elephant preservation charity.
There’s no word yet on how many people have taken PETA’s lead and switched registrars, but “GoDaddy CEO” has been a top trending topic on Twitter for hours now and searches for GoDaddy briefly caused the story to appear on Google’s “Hot Topics” list.
While Parsons is unlikely to apologize for shooting the elephant, this story demonstrates how a business leader’s personal postings can have a significant impact on a company’s online reputation. The Internet reacts extremely quickly to these stories. In some cases, the outrage reaches a crescendo and quickly dies with no major damage. In other cases, however, Internet anger is enough to cause a company considerable financial risk and long-term reputation damage.
Only time will tell which of these two outcomes faces GoDaddy.com.
With every passing day, people are becoming more aware of the importance of online reputation management and of how the content they share online can affect their lives in dramatic ways.
In an amusing segment in last night’s episode of Comedy Central’s The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Daily Show correspondent John Hodgman offered some tongue-in-cheek advice to individuals struggling with an online reputation management problem. While intended as satire, the segment offered some valuable information about how simple mistakes online can become major issues thanks to the viral nature of the Internet.
In today’s Quick Hits, another school teacher is in trouble for Facebook, we discuss on whether viral videos of babies and kids are dangerous, and a mom blogger shares her thoughts on…oversharing.
Yesterday, Google unveiled something called the +1 Button, which allows Google users to give search results a public recommendation. This report from the Wall Street Journal describes the +1 Button in detail and explores how +1 may be Google’s best attempt at combatting Facebook’s omnipresent “like” button. For more information on the +1 Button, including how it works and some questions about the feature, check out this Reputation.com blog post.
A recent survey from the daily deal website Eversafe revealed some of the top reasons why people get annoyed with each other on Facebook. One of the reasons cited in the survey was moms who overshare information or boast about their kids online. 57 percent of those surveyed complained about a “proud mom” in their Facebook feed. In a response to the survey, Jeanne Sager at The Stir blog defends herself and other parents like her who think that posting updates about their family is their right and that if their friends don’t like it, then they’re not very good friends.
According to the Chicago Tribune, a Chicago Public Schools teacher may face disciplinary action after posting a picture of a student to her Facebook page, which was then mocked by her friends. According to the Tribune report, “the 7-year-old, a student at Overton Elementary School, turned up for photo day last week with Jolly Rancher candies tied at the end of her braids. Her computer teacher allegedly took photos of the child and posted them on her site where people mocked the hairstyle.”
Thanks to super powerful search engines like Google and massively popular social networking websites like Facebook, it’s easier than ever to find information about individuals online. But what if you don’t want to be found on the Web? If you’re concerned about your online reputation or privacy, this PCWorld article offers five steps to “disappear” from the Web. The PCWorld article offers steps on how to quit most of the major social networking websites, block advertising trackers, and improve your online reputation.
Not a day goes by without a new viral video popping up online showing some cute little baby or toddler doing something funny. But is there an ethical concern with posting these videos online when it could affect the child’s online reputation later in their life? This article from The Globe and Mail discusses the possible unintended consequences of a viral video featuring young children.
Several pieces of legislation are making their way through Congress on the issue of Internet privacy. Similarly, across the sea in the European Union, legislators are also looking at ways to deal with the problem of data privacy and security. But how are the U.S. and EU working together on the issue? This article from Michael Cooney at Network World discusses some of the actions that the U.S. and EU are working on together to solve the privacy problem.
Today, Google introduced a new social feature called the ‘+1 button.’ Similar in function to the Facebook “like” button, the +1 button will appear next to Google search results and search ads, and allow Google users to show their approval or support for a particular link. Each time a user gives a link a +1, the recommendation will be tied to the user’s Google profile and shared publicly.
The +1 button is the next step in Google’s plan, which began with Social Search, to make its search results more relevant and personalized for every user. In a post on the Official Google Blog, product manager Rob Spiro offers a hypothetical example of how +1 might work:
“Say, for example, you’re planning a winter trip to Tahoe, Calif. When you do a search, you may now see a +1 from your slalom-skiing aunt next to the result for a lodge in the area. Or if you’re looking for a new pasta recipe, we’ll show you +1’s from your culinary genius college roommate. And even if none of your friends are baristas or caffeine addicts, we may still show you how many people across the web have +1’d your local coffee shop.”
Google also released a short video with further explanation of how +1 works.
It’s still too early to know exactly what +1 will mean for everyday Google users, but there are some things about which we can speculate. For instance,
- Will it be possible for people to game the +1 button so as to make certain websites appear more popular than others? In other words, would a sustained cyber defamation attack become easier thanks to the +1 button.
- Conversely, will it be possible for individuals to use +1 buttons to promote positive content about themselves online? How will Google police +1 use if it becomes popular among spammers?
- Does +1 offer compelling competition to the Facebook Like button? Facebook’s dominance as an Internet hub for millions of users makes it difficult to displace.
For some truly excellent analysis of the +1 button, I recommend heading over to Danny Sullivan’s full report at Search Engine Land. In the meantime, please feel free to chime in with a comment on your thoughts about +1. Is this something you think you will find value in using?
The New York Times recently profiled an interesting new company called ICorrect. The company’s tag line is “Setting the record straight,” and, for a $1,000 annual fee, that’s exactly what the company does — offering its clients the chance to address rumors directly and make public corrections for the whole world to see. Oh, and one more thing, almost all of ICorrect’s clients are celebrities.
In the Times article, the founder of the company, Sir David Tang, is described as a “businessman, socialite and celebrity friend extraordinaire.” You can definitely say that again. Just some of the many famous Brits appearing on Sir Tang’s website include Academy Award winning actor Sir Michael Caine, supermodel Kate Moss, and Cherie Blair (the wife of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair).
ICorrect offers people the ability to see the original statement and the user’s correction side-by-side. So, as Tang explained to the Times, “even lazy Internet users will be exposed to both sides of any given story.” Presumably, if the service grows, many celebrities (and possibly businesses) could use ICorrect as a crisis communications tool to mitigate negative publicity before it grows out of control.
The potential success of ICorrect, however, hinges on one important question: Will regular people use it to double check information? In the Google age, the first page of search results for your name is critical in shaping opinions about you. If you don’t control your Google results, you will have a hard time fighting off rumors purely because nobody will look beyond the first page for your correction.
That’s why we developed ReputationDefender, our unique proactive online reputation management solution. With ReputationDefender, you can control how you look online with powerful tools and support from Reputation.com’s expert reputation advisers. To learn more about how ReputationDefender can help you, contact us today online or by phone at 877-492-0373.
We believe in our products so strongly we offer a Money Back Guarantee.
Award-winning service & technology
Headquartered in Silicon Valley, we employ an unrivaled customer service team, world-class scientists, and powerful ORM tools created from years of cutting-edge research and development. This year alone, we won awards for both customer service and technological innovation.
