Companies need to learn that reputation management goes far beyond the traditional stuff. Negative comments can last a long, long time.

I can’t say that I disagree with you, especially given your example, but I’m skeptical (not of your argument) of companies of that seemingly seem overjoyed to place people in some sort of advisory capacity as a means to shoo them away. I’ve been involved in politics and I see many overcontrol-the-message mentality to the point that it’s disappointing.

That being said, disparaging comments should come with some sort of explanation. “Your product sucks” doesn’t work.

As reputation becomes more important, Google and the other search engines are going to have to separate credibility and popularity. I shouldn’t have to police Google’s links, they should!

Based on my own experience, I’ve begun to work with people on the topic of managing their own “online reputations” or online “personal brands,” which is a part of this whole phenomenon. Reputation management is nothing new, but we are in an age of so much less control and the search engines mean that content – whether true or untrue – can literally last forever. Google’s algorithm, in particular, tends to reward popularity, not credibility which can obviously pose a problem for anyone who is public enough to draw attention and commentary.

My message is always the same: control your own destiny on the web. Create your own digital personality, your own content. And – in the case of your post allowing people to NOT post comments that are clearly not meant honestly or authentically – I’d say that our messages fit together perfectly.

Thanks for the post.

I stopped reading their blog(s). It was clear that they didn’t want to be open and honest with me, they wanted to try to hide the issue. The optimal time for them to post would have been during the outage to let people know they were on top of it. Instead, they’ve lost all credibility with me.

A comment such as, “I love your application but did you know that you can bypass your password process by doing x, y and z?”. It’s a constructive comment, and helpful, but hardly one you would want to post for the masses because it puts your business at risk.

A customer advisory board is typically a group of ‘trusted’ customers who you call on regularly to evaluate your products and service to give advice. If you have someone who is critical of your company and leaves you constructive messages on your site, you should probably recruit them in this capacity.

Whether or not you post the comment is up to you – I agree with you that, more often than not, publishing negative criticism CAN pay off in the long run if your business has faith in itself to resolve the issue.

Thanks for adding to this conversation!

I think there are two kinds of “transparency” that happen because of active corporate blogging:
1. Genuine conversations with your customers.
2. Personalized PR when you make a mistake.

The first one is a real benefit of the rise of blogging. It’s easier to get feedback directly from your users, perhaps because people feel more comfortable writing something on their blog that they might not feel comfortable telling you on the phone or in your own feedback mechanisms. And if you can respond directly in comments or on your own blog, everybody wins.

The second is the one that seems to be mistaken for actual transparency. If you admit “hey, we did make a mistake in that last release of our product” after everyone has already accused you of screwing something up, how is that really transparent? The main advantage seems to be that people take it easier on you because it’s an actual person writing the blog, not a faceless PR department. “We made a mistake. We’re only humans. We’re not evil. We tried. We’ll do better next time.”

I’m not sure blocking out the#2 type, the critical comment is a good idea. Especially by saying that you don’t want to “share it out to the site – I hope you understand.”

Frankly, no I don’t understand.

And the invitation of join a Customer Advisory Board — what is that? A makeshift term that means nothing? What could be at most a monthly email asking one question? Or is it an actual Board that someone qualifies being on as a result of one negative comment? I would suspect that many would end up believing that such a ’selection’ is just a way to delete a comment and be done with it.

If an organization is going to delete an honest, well-written critical comment that is not “mean”, they should let that comment stand. Otherwise it is defacto censorship in this era of transparency.

In fact, addressing critical comments can be far more powerful than only showing off glowing remarks. It’s more realistic and it demonstrates strength and caring.