Online Reputation Management
- Online Reputation Management -
ORM
Table of Contents
4 - Introduction
6 - Online Reputation Management
Definitions and Terms
9 - Basic Reputation
11 - Countermeasures to a reputation
collapse
13 - Corporate Reputation Defense
14 - Case Studies
18 - Online Reputation Management
Companies
20 - Conclusions
Online Reputation Management (ORM)
Abstract
As the Internet continues to
luxuriate, it is creating new types of business that without it would seem
unnecessary. Online reputation management
(ORM) is a new field with regards to reputation. In order to properly examine
its functions, abilities and effects, older, more basic research on the
fundamental idea of reputation must be investigated. Many of the ideas that go
along with classic reputation transfer directly to researching online
reputation management.
At the same time online image and
impression management is a vital asset for the success of individuals and
corporations. Knowing how to address online image concerns in the way of
responding to an assault on a reputation entities good name is a priceless
commodity in today’s business world. This study examines what ORM is, how it
functions, survey results for the impact of negative and positive online
reputations, case studies of successful companies who have dealt with
reputation collapses, interviews with personal in the field, as well as proactive
measures entities can utilize.
Understanding
how social media works and building an online presence before a reputation
collapse occurs, as well as training the necessary personal to effectively use
those tools, can determine survival. At the same time, on an individual level,
understanding how these companies saved face can be mirrored in your own
attempts to combat a negative online image and reputation. No one is bullet
proof when it comes to bad things happening, so it is important to take heed
and get to work now. The more preparation and planning that is placed into
protecting yourself can only help you down the road when you may need to
promote a more positive image of a reputation entity.
Online
reputation management is a vast, all-encompassing topic that stretches its
reach to different facets of reputation. Personal and corporate reputations are
the larger of these two branches, with countless subsets below each of them.
Understanding reputation, online image and reputation, and reputation offense
and defense are important concepts for anyone in today’s fast-paced, online society.
For
the purpose of this examination of content, the focus will remain on the
corporate aspect of online reputation management. After researching responses
by all reputation entities, it has
been made evident that corporations have a more diverse set of personnel and
tools for reacting to a reputation
collapse. These responses can cross over to individual reputation
management as well, and are good examples for all.
Questions
that justify and focus this topic that were used for the research of this paper
are as follows.
- RQ - When a
reputation entity posts a blog, picture, status, or tweet, do they
consider who could potentially see this content?
- RQ - How
necessary is online reputation management?
·
RQ - What methods other than the employing of
ORM companies can be used to combat a negative online reputation?
·
RQ - What are examples of companies responding
correctly to an attack of their online image?
·
RQ - What can be done to legitimize information
online?
In a survey of Web surfers, human
resource workers, and employment recruiters across the U.S., U.K., Germany and
France, researchers found that, although most people acknowledge that their personal
online behavior may have ramifications in their professional lives,
comparatively few actually consider that fact when publishing photos or posts
online. A full 70 percent of surveyed HR
workers in the U.S. admitted to rejecting a job applicant because of his or her
Internet behavior. Meanwhile, about 60 percent of surfers admitted to being
concerned that their online behavior may affect their professional or personal
lives. A mere 15 percent of them, though, actually take these potential
repercussions into consideration when posting content.
By the same token,
digital reputation can also have an equally positive effect on an
applicant's chances; 86 percent of U.S. HR workers said that a good online
reputation can have a positive impact on a job candidate's chances, and about
half said that a solid image can have a major impact. It's this positive
spin that we should take away from this study, focusing on the fact that online
reputation is not something to be scared of, but something to be proactively
managed.
As the Internet
continues to luxuriate, it is creating new types of business that without it
would seem unnecessary. Online reputation
management (ORM) is a new field with regards to reputation. In order to
properly examine its functions, abilities and effects, older, more basic
research on the fundamental idea of reputation must be investigated. Many of
the ideas that go along with classic reputation transfer directly to
researching online reputation management.
Even the concept
title, online reputation management, must be broken down word for word. We, as
educated human beings, understand it simply by reading it, as it quickly
pinpoints the topic:
Online - of or denoting a business that transmits electronic information over
telecommunications lines: an
on-line bookstore.[1]
Reputation - n.
what is generally said or believed about a person’s or thing’s character: has not justified his reputation; has a reputation
for integrity; place has a bad reputation[2]
Management - the person or persons controlling and directing the affairs of a
business, institution, etc.: The
store is under new management.[3]
While anything can
have a reputation, for the purposes of this study the focus will be contained
to personal and corporate reputations, specifically reputations held within the
confines of the World Wide Web, the Internet, otherwise known as online. The idea of a reputation is so
incredibly vast that specific information must be explained to embrace the
understanding of it before the focus can be tightened on a specific area,
namely personal and corporate online reputations and their maintenance.
- A Reputation
Entity applies to anything that can have or hold a reputation, this
list is infinite and encompasses all persons, goods, information, parts,
devices, and so on.
- A Reputation Collapse can happen to a
person or a corporation at any time. Much of the proper responses that exist work for both the individual
and the corporation.
-
A personal reputation collapse can come from any
number of incidents such as an accident, leak of personal information, arrest
or a lawsuit.
-
A corporate reputation collapse can come from
any number of incidents as well, such as executive misconduct, release of
damaging video, production recall, safety lapse.
It is important to
note that reputations vary by communities and for different purposes. Where the
reputation of a person is concerned, there are often several social groups;
these can be wide spread in many different forms. What is generally said or
believed about a reputation entity in one group may not, and often does not,
coincide with what is said or believed in another social group. In other words,
a reputation entity may have more than one reputation. It is important to
realize that membership within these social groups or reputation communities may overlap, and both influence and
information may transcend from one reputation community to another. It is also
possible for opinions and/or beliefs to circulate among members within a group
without members of another group being privy to them.
A characteristic
of reputation not distinguished by its definition is the idea of what is said versus what is believed. A reputation entity may be affected by
information concerning its reputation, even though said information is not
believed. For instance, within politics in America, quite often information is
portrayed to affect a reputation entity even though the person disseminating
the information holds no belief in it, or even knows it to be false. This is a
sought-after characteristic of the mass media, called non-biased or neutral
journalism. In reality it is a tactic used to discredit a reputation.
It is important at
this point to outline human nature concerning how information pertaining to
reputation operates. This is not only used within the confines of reputations,
but is highlighted herein as such for all information.
Image and
reputation are two distinct objects, for our purposes both are social in
nature. They are integral properties of a reputation entity and its standing
within a reputation community. We are assuming the reputations entity’s
presumed desire is of an attitude of socially desirable behavior. However,
these two notions operate at different levels. Image is belief, namely, an
evaluation. Reputation is a meta-belief, i.e., a belief about others
evaluations of the reputation entity. To better understand these differences
between image and reputation, the mental decisions based upon them must be
analyzed at three levels. These levels
are not to be confused with the process of steps, one leading to the next. Each
can stand alone, with another, or all together.
Epistemic – We must ascertain and
comprehend the processes in which knowledge is gained. What is the knowledge,
how was it acquired? To what extent is it possible for a given reputation
entity to be known? Do we accept the beliefs that form either a given image or
acknowledge a given reputation? In doing so, this implies a believed evaluation
and gives rise to one’s direct evaluation.
Epistemic knowledge concerning a reputation continues an existing belief
based solely on an existing reputation passed on from a source, questionable as
it may be. This is the most basic and unfounded of the three methods for
obtaining information surrounding a reputation entity and is the most popular
in today’s culture within American society.
Pragmatic- strategic – This is the use
of knowledge, deciding whether and how to interact with the reputation entity.
Once one has their own opinion about a reputation entity (perhaps resulting
from the acceptance of others’ evaluations), they will use it to make decisions
about their future actions concerning the dissemination of said knowledge. This therefore highlights the strategic
nature of the use of knowledge. How a subject gains the insight is less
relevant over how said subject acts because of this knowledge.
Memetic – A theory of mental content
based on an analogy with Darwinian evolution, originating from the
popularization of Richard Dawkins’ 1976 book The Selfish Gene. It purports to be an approach to evolutionary
models of cultural information transmitter. This is to transmit “my” (or
others) evaluative beliefs about a given reputation entity to others. Whether
or not one acts in conformity with a propagating evaluation, they may decide to
spread the information to others. That, however, is just the beginning of
memetics. A meme can be best understood much like a gene, conceived as a unit
of culture (an idea, belief, pattern of behavior, etc.) which is “hosted” in
one or more individual’s minds, and can reproduce itself, thereby jumping from
mind to mind. Thus what would otherwise be regarded as one of individual
influencing another to adopt a belief is seen – when adopting the intentional
stance – as an idea replicator reproducing itself in a new host. As with
genetics, a meme’s success may be due to its contribution to the effectiveness
of the host. In summary, memetics is notable for sidestepping the traditional
concern with the truth of ideas and beliefs. Instead, it is interested in only
their success.
Within the concept
of reputation, many agents are at play. Reputation,
image, and impression management[4]
immediately identify the who, the what, and the where of reputation. Reputation entity, and reputation community, both terms coined
within its pages, signify how reputation affects an infinite list, encompassing
all persons, goods, information, parts, devices, and so on while also showing
how different groups and reputation communities can have a different
understanding of an entity’s reputation. These lines of information can remain
stagnant, can overlap, or may be contradictorily between different communities.
These basic terms and their definitions, while not originally created with the
Internet in mind, provide great assistance for segmenting information to define
the concepts for understanding online reputation management.
Other terms that
are defined, but are specifically designed to communicate on topics relating to
ORM, help readers understand a wider array of topics. These topics are focused
on offense and defense of a person or corporation’s reputation, within the
publication entitled Reputation Warfare.[5]
The terms reputation collapse, reputation
simulations, and reputation sniper
all pertain to an attack on one’s reputation. These help to identify how
information on a person’s online reputation may be negatively affected, and
ways to prepare for and combat such an event. Pertaining to a collapse and
simulations, it delves into what possible negative events might occur, and how
to prepare for them. These events include but are not limited to, a class action lawsuit, a case of
executive misconduct, release of damaging video, a production recall, a safety
lapse and a leaked document. Cases will be shown of companies that met with
certain doom and saved face by being prepared in one or more pertinent ways.
The preparations included knowing proper ways of reacting, ways not to react,
and taking preventative measures before a reputation
collapse.
1.
Avoid
any show of force that could be perceived as grossly disproportionate.
2.
Respond
at high speed with instincts honed by advanced training.
3.
Empower
frontline teams to meet message with counter message.
4.
Go
rogue in your own tactics.
5.
Recruit
and deploy “force multipliers” who will echo your message.
6.
Go
into battle with credentials in place.
Each
of these coincides with a company or individual who was forced to deal with an
assault on their reputation by way of personal mistake or misfortune. It is a
testament to the importance of online reputation management, before, during and
after an event.
Understanding
what a reputation is at its fundamental level of basic information, how said
information about a reputation entity is spread about from one reputation
community to another, is the basis for understanding how to curb negative
portrayals of individuals and corporations. The same way the negative
information spreads should be the first and most obvious way to disseminate
new, more positive information about a reputation entity. There are many
categories that reputation entities must concern themselves with. These include,
but are not wholly limited to, personality, the self, self-disclosure, social
identity, group factors, social networks, impression management, ethical,
legal, and politics. Another fundamental principle of reputation is that it is
a simple matter of economics. The more the public (reputation community) is
occupied with one person (reputation entity), the less it is occupied with
another.
A
major platform for attacks and defense against and for reputations today is the
blog. The use of blogs in today’s
society is multi-faceted, and can be used in the realm of reputation defense
from all sides. An individual can use a blog to report on their own personal
life, their side of the story, and their interpretation of what is news. Quite
a few blogs that originated as personal websites early on were quickly picked
up and have become part of major news outlets. Bloggers are considered the eyes
and ears of the world today. They are encroaching on what was once the role of
journalists and watchdog organizations. They are citizen journalists, making
sure what is important and newsworthy isn’t being determined only by large
media organizations and corporations, but by people in their local communities
as well. As time passes, blogs and bloggers are becoming more powerful. Through
the practice of syndication, which is
hyperlinking webpages together, readers are able to quickly access multiple
different lines of information. This is both a positive and a negative. As
information, especially pertaining to people and companies reputations,
continues to be mass-produced, much of it is created with little to no fact-checking. The hyperlink gives an air of legitimacy to
otherwise discredited information. One must be vigilant to not become overly
engrossed with the Internet information,
going deep down the rabbit hole without finding some legitimate information to
back it up with.
A
reputation entity responding to an attack can be a difficult exercise with
disastrous results unless handled properly. It is often believed that there is
no restoration of a corporation’s good name once it has been soiled by an event
that is the company’s fault or not. It is important to realize that major corporations
have responded properly and come out on top when their moral judgment has been
put into question.
With
regards to corporate reputation entities, much is to be considered. To all
communicators it should be understood that during a crisis, the demand for
information will increase at the exact moment they are firefighting the problem
itself. If reputation entities are not actively working their reputation online
prior to a reputation collapse, they are playing catch-up right from the start
of the event. It is recommended by companies that specialize in ORM to engage
in lifelike reputation simulations, much
like any other emergency response team would. One simulation widely used is
referred to as a “Fireball”. Fireball replicates the experience of being
attacked by a reputation sniper who
is posting to Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in real time. A reputation sniper
is an individual who for any number of reasons is going after your good name;
in these cases the battlefield is the Internet, and the casualties are your
bottom line. A new media drill such as Fireball will put a reputation entity through
its paces in a variety of mock crises.
What
are some of the processes that have been taken to ensure that a reputation
collapse by a reputation entity does not end that corporation permenatly? The
following is a case-by-case analysis of success stories within corporate
reputation management:
One
of the most important aspects of responding to a negative reputation event is a
proper understanding of time within the incident. Responding at high-speed
properly can mean the difference between success and failure. If a company
takes too much time to properly craft a response by reaching a consensus
approved by all executives, it can cause that entity to miss the window of
opportunity for their response to have the ideal impact.
A
prime example of a corporation responding with high speed coupled with
successful use of social media and advanced planning and training, is a case
involving the US Census Bureau. The Bureau came under fire surrounding the use
of what was considered expensive advertisements aired during Super Bowl XLIV in
2010. At the time, a 30-second spot during the game cost $2.5 million dollars,
causing some to question the decision. Among the ranks of dissenters was
Senator John McCain, who tweeted to his 1.7 million followers, “While the
census is very important to [Arizona], we shouldn’t be wasting $2.5 million
taxpayer dollars to compete with ads for Doritos!”
Fortunately
for the Bureau, it had a media monitoring system, complete with the census
director’s blog, a Twitter account, and a Facebook page already in place. All
of these tools, originally designed to encourage people to return their census
forms, were quickly repurposed for reputation defense. The Bureau’s first
response came just one day after McCain’s tweet. On MyTwoCensus.com, Steven
Jost, the associate director of communications for the Census Bureau described
how the ad would actually save taxpayer money. It stated that for each 1 percent
increase in mailed-in returns, taxpayers would save a total of $80 to $90
million dollars. The following day, the director posted on his pre-existing
blog, under-scoring Jost’s point by explaining that the ad would raise
awareness and, in return, lessen the need to send census collectors to people’s
homes. This same point was re-tweeted just after the Super Bowl and posted on
Facebook, catching the desired media and public attention.
This
example of responding with high speed, coupled with the use of social media
that was pre-existing, along with personnel that were trained to properly use
it, is a success story of defending one’s online reputation. Companies need to
be trained in the new media tools that are available so that they can use them
quickly and effectively. It is even suggested that companies perform exercises
to practice the proper ways to respond to a reputation attack in order to
highlight areas that need improvement.
In
2009 a video debuted on YouTube, causing an instant catastrophe for Domino’s
Pizza. The video was recorded by an employee going only by the name ‘Kristie’
showed another employee performing unprofessional acts to food slated for
delivery. The employee being recorded was putting cheese up his nose then
blowing it onto a sandwich, as well as passing gas onto a piece of salami. He
then stated, “In about five minutes [this food] will be going out for delivery,
where someone will be eating [it], yes eating [it].” The video instantly went
viral, causing drastically negative effects for the company. It was even
measured to have actually cut into its nationwide profits.
The
event could have been much worse for Domino’s had it not been quick to respond
effectively. Instead of going the normal route of issuing press releases, the
chain restaurant used social media to turn the catastrophe on its heels.
Noticing that much of the attention surrounding the video was due to its
display on YouTube, Domino’s president Patrick Doyal chose to air his apology
through a video released on YouTube. It was quickly understood that it would
maximize viewership by the same people who had seen or would see the first
video.
At
the same time, responding through this unconventional method, Domino’s created
a whole new story for the press to use. The unorthodox use of YouTube by a
corporate executive became a story in its own right, and the incident’s focus
shifted from what the employees had done wrong to what the company had done
right.
There
is little available to anyone being attacked that is more effective in combating
negative reputations than a legion of supporters who will stand up and defend a
good name. In the military, any object that enhances a soldier’s ability to
fight and win is called a force multiplier. In business, companies should call
on these force multipliers in a time of need.
In
January 2010, a devastating earthquake ravaged the country of Haiti, killing
many citizens and dismantling the infrastructure. However, just a few days
after the quake, and just 60 miles from the worst of the disaster, Royal
Caribbean International, a cruise ship company based out of Florida, dropped
anchor. The vacationers had beach barbeques, rode jet skis, and lounged in the
sun on vacation that, according to some, was too close to a country in turmoil.
A London newspaper The Guardian
quickly picked up the story and lampooned the cruise liner company for its poor
choices and lack of sensitivity. The New
York Post newspaper even ran a feature story entitled “The Ship of Ghouls.”
It was as if everyone was blasting the company’s management and customers
alike.
The
untold portion of these stories was the long-standing investments that Royal
Caribbean had made in Haiti and its use of their cruise liners to deliver
nearly $1 million in humanitarian aid to the country, overseen by Adam
Goldstein, its CEO. For these reasons, among others, a number of independent
advocates came to the company’s defense. Goldstein had a blog that was created
months before the disaster, which was quickly picked up as a hub for defending
the company, not only by his own blogging, but by his force multipliers as
well. It quickly came to light that the continuing cruises had been requested
by Haitian officials as they were helping to boost the local economy, and hasten
the delivery of relief supplies. When the ships came to dock, each carried
pallets of water, food, and medical supplies.
The
blog was also used to publish letters written to the company in support of
their actions. Third-party support appeared in other forums as well. Senior
representatives of Sustainable Travel International, the United Nations World
Tourism Organization, and Duke University’s Kenan Institute for Ethics, to name
a few, were quoted in the media about ways in which tourism could accelerate
the reconstruction process. As a result of the company’s decision to continue
running cruises to the region along with the third party support, the outside
view of their actions became understood as less of a callous action, and more
of a brave, well-considered attempt to help.
When
all else fails call the professionals. Online Reputation Management, ORM, is a
booming online industry. These companies, for a fee, will restore your online
image by a number of methods, some questionable. Reputation.com, formally
ReputationDefender.com, was founded in 2006. The company was originally
designed to help people clean up social media sites so it would not negatively
effect their online image. The company quickly grew and found new demands from
clients that they had not originally envisioned. This company, like many others
providing ORM services, claim to preform the following:
“In a nutshell, online reputation management, or ORM as
it’s known, is the practice of making people and businesses look their best on
the Internet. To accomplish that, people need to control their online search
results because they frequently contain inaccurate, misleading or outdated
material which can adversely influence how web searchers view them.”
“But controlling search results isn’t the only goal of
online reputation management. Since where someone lives, their income and their
marital status all affect the perception of a person, it’s important to prevent
private information from being made public, as well.”
One
should be aware of what exactly these companies are doing to defend your
reputation, and what that means for information online in general. ORM
companies will spend countless hours creating new web content, including
websites, blogs and positive reviews, about their clients. Other tactics
include publishing press releases to authoritative online websites to promote
brand presence. Submitting legal take-down notices, getting third party mentions
of the company or individual on sites that rank highly on search engines; and
also creating fake blogs of someone with the same name, spam bots,
denial-of-service attacks, astro-turfing review based sites, and offering free
products to prominent reviewers.
The
practice of ORM raises several ethical questions and concerns. There are no
agreements between most of the Online Reputation Management companies as where
to draw the line. If a company can create positive content for one person or
company, what is to stop them from creating negative content about a competitor?
Actually nothing, while widely improvable, this practice is well understood and
utilized.
When
asked in an interview about the ethical issues surrounding ORM Farukh Raza, Advanced Client
Solutions Manager at Reputation.com had this to say.
“Reputation.com
is a founding member of ORMA, the Online Reputation Management Association. We
strictly adhere to the ORMA code of conduct. That means that we will not create
false or misleading content, nor will we serve individuals or organizations who
are trying to deceive or defraud the public.”
Noticing
a flourishing industry that was manipulating their creation, Google has stepped
up and made tools available to its users to help combat bad publicity or
improperly listed negative content. “Me on the Web” is a free application that
enables users to monitor and maintain a positive online profile. The user creates
their own profile which posts any other information in the search engines. One
cannot overlook the basic idea of addressing any negative content themselves,
such as contacting companies and asking for poor reviews to be removed, or
simply doing well enough in business that negative reviews do not exist or are
over-shadowed by positive ones.
A
reputation entity must always assume that a reputation
sniper will at some point bring about a reputation
collapse. Believing it will not happen and hoping for the best is ignorant
and can be fatal, in a sense, to any person or corporation. Knowing how and
when to respond is crucial to surviving through and after an event. Respond
with high speed; the more preparation you have, the better prepared you will be
to respond appropriately. In today’s high-speed, hyperlinked world that is all
connected online, no entity is above the effects of a damaged reputation. From
the office clerk to the CEO, all are vulnerable.
Theoretically,
if information can be altered to promote a positive reputation for a client of
an ORM company, how then can any information on the Internet be trusted? As it
seems, anything can have a reputation, as anything is a reputation entity. Therefore, anything could be a client of an ORM
company, so in conclusion, any information is privy to being altered.
Information from books works its way onto the Internet, and information on the
Internet finds its way into books. The grey area continues to increase. Steps
must be taken to legitimize information online. This is the intellectual future
of the human race, and without legislation and ethical barriers that retain
full-out fabrication of information; we are further extinguishing our own intelligence.
Whether
we like it or not, Online Reputation Companies are not going away anytime soon.
Reported to have generated over $1.6 billion annually last year alone, this
industry has a firm grasp on the Internet and subsequently, all of our lives.
However the larger considerations should be this ”if content can be generated,
optimized, suppressed or hidden completely, what is the truth about anything?
Continuing down this road has led to a grey area, not only for businesses, and
individuals, but also for governments and history itself.
Understanding
how social media works and building an online presence before a reputation
collapse occurs, as well as training the necessary personal to effectively use
those tools, can determine survival. At the same time, on an individual level,
understanding how these companies saved face can be mirrored in your own
attempts to combat a negative online image and reputation. No one is bullet
proof when it comes to bad things happening, so it is important to take heed
and get to work now. The more preparation and planning that is placed into
protecting yourself can only help you down the road when you may need to
promote a more positive image of a reputation entity.
Bibliography
1.
Burman, J. T. (2012). The misunderstanding of memes: Biography of an
unscientific object, 1976–1999. Perspectives on Science, 20(1)
2.
Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene. New York City:
Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-286092-5.
3.
D B B. Reputation, image, and impression management.
[serial online]. n.d.;Available from: OCLC: WorldCat.org, Ipswich, MA. Accessed
September 5, 2012.
4.
Fernando A. Big Blogger Is Watching You! Reputation
Management in an Opinionated, Hyperlinked World. Communication World [serial
online]. July 2004;21(4):10-11. Available from: Communication & Mass Media
Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 5, 2012.
5.
Gaines-Ross L. Reputation Warfare. Harvard Business
Review [serial online]. December 2010;88(12):70-76. Available from: Business
Source Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 5, 2012
6. H.W. Fowler, F.G.
Fowler and J.B. Sykes, The Concise Oxford
Dictionary of Current English, Sixth Edition 1976
7. Klewes J,
Wreschniok R. Reputation Capital [Electronic Resource] : Building And
Maintaining Trust In The 21St Century / Joachim Klewes, Robert Wreschniok,
Editors [e-book]. Heidelberg ; New York : Springer, c2009.; 2009.
8.
Young J. Reputation, Image, and Impression Management (Book).
Psychology & Marketing [serial online]. March 1995;12(2):161-163. Available
from: Communication & Mass Media Complete, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September
9, 2012.
9.
MANAGING YOUR REPUTATION ONLINE. Strategic Communication Management
[serial online]. April 2001;5(3):3. Available from: Communication & Mass
Media Complete, Ipswich, MA.
10. Aaron Smith, Census Bureau counts on Super Bowl Ad,
CNNmoney.com, 26 Jan 2010 http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/26/news/companies/super_bowl_census/index.htm
11. Ed O’Keefe, Census Super Bowl ad draws Red Flag from
McCain, Washington Post, date n.a. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/02/census_bureau_defends_super_bo.html
12. Stephanie Clifford,
Video Prank at Domino’s Taints Brand, New York Times, 15 April, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/16/business/media/16dominos.html
13. Sean Gregory, Domino’s
YouTube Crisis; 5 Ways to Fight Back, Time, 18 April, 2009 http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892389,00.html
14. Steve Inskeep, Royal
Caribbean Provides Tourists, Relief to Haiti, NPR, 19 Jan 2010 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122716579
15. Robert Booth, Cruise
Ships still find a Haitian Berth, The Guardian, 17 Jan 2010 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/cruise-ships-haiti-earthquake
16. Chuck Bennett, Ship of
Ghouls, NY Post, 20 Jan 2010 http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/ship_of_ghouls_tKJpR6oDf07YZvP7LR2FNP
[1]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/online?s=t
[2] H.W. Fowler, F.G. Fowler and J.B. Sykes, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of
Current English, Sixth Edition 1976
[3]
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/management?s=t
[4] D B B. Reputation, image, and
impression management. [serial online]. n.d.;Available from: OCLC:
WorldCat.org, Ipswich, MA. Accessed September 5, 2012. 1 Definition and usage.
[5] Gaines-Ross L. Reputation Warfare.
Harvard Business Review [serial online]. December 2010;88(12):70-76. Available
from: Business Source Complete, Ipswich, MA.