tedster - 3:51 am on Jul 4, 2007 (gmt 0)

Some providers get into the kind of "search sabotage" that Forbes discussed this week [webmasterworld.com]. Again, this is not what I would recommend. I see Reputation Management as a long term effort, and it better darn well be solid and as real as it can get to be effective in the long run. I've seen companies doing various kinds of search sabotage and getting caught and exposed. That just adds fuel to the already burning fire!

So what can be done? Each case is quite different. If a company already has a blog on a separate domain or subdomain, that can be used. If there is a negative forum or blog somewhere that allows responsive comments, entering into that conversation and turning it around can be very helpful. If the critical issue is a really "big deal" it may even warrant a dedicated website.

If there are negative comments on a Wikipedia page, getting involved in that editorial process for real is important, Wikipedia has journalistic standards, and you can require them to be enforced but it takes active involvement.

If you've got a viral video, you can get it noticed on YouTube for your company name. On and on it goes. The variations are endless, but each one involves active participation on a number of different domains. In addition, it's a good idea to mine the market's various conversations so that you can respond to minor compaints before they become PR disasters.

This is where the Cluetrain Manifesto really kicks in. This kind of reputation is not really about "control", in the old sense at least. It's about proactive involvement in the many channels that may be discussing your brand, creating channels that can serve the ongoing discussion in your marketplace, and working that process so that Google has a lot of positive choices to offer when your brand name (or your CEO's name) is searched on.

[edited by: tedster at 4:01 am (utc) on July 4, 2007]