The more credible commenting becomes, the more valuable of a tool it becomes for clients and firms.
This morning, as with many mornings, I woke up to read The Philadelphia Inquirer sports section and keep abreast of DooDooFresh. DooDoo is a daily reader-commenter who is obsessed with former Eagle's quarterback Donovan McNabb and his habit of playing the air guitar while in uniform.
DooDoo's irreverence brings an air of lightness to the daily drama of Philadelphia sports. But would DooDoo do the voodoo that he do do if the Inquirer required him post under his real name? It's a question that underscores the ongoing debate within the media as to whether readers' comments should stop being anonymous and rather should be accompanied by the name of the writer.
The issue of anonymity has plagued the public relations industry ever since the advent of digital media. On one hand, anonymity allows for greater voice and opinion. As this theory goes, commentators, such as an employee at a company that is engaged in illegal activity, would not post to a media site if not for the protection of anonymity.
The same goes for consumers, who under anonymity feel more comfortable reviewing, chastising, and criticizing a company or product. Then, there's the counter argument, that anonymity coarsens public discourse, and provides a water cooler for ugly, offensive remarks.
It also erodes the value of comments themselves. Without transparency, anyone can say anything at any time without impunity. The media knows that continued lack of accountability will kill what has become a golden goose of online reporting -- comments, which can often attract more readership than the article itself and provide a scorecard for editors to determine what is most interesting to any given audience.
Some media are already moving to add a new level of transparency, and along with it, authenticity, to their reader comments. The Sun Chronicle in Attleboro, Mass., recently introduced a new system that requires commenters to register their names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers.
The Sun Chronicle charges a one-time fee of 99 cents to activate the account. Commenters' names then appear online along with their posts. The Wall Street Journal has required names to appear with reader comments since 2008.
From a public relations point of view, there is real value in transparency. Anonymity makes it nearly impossible to assess the validity of an allegation or defamatory remark made against a client online.
At the same time, as an industry, we are bound ethically to disclose our representation when commenting online in response to the media or on review sites. In that respect, transparency would level the playing field, requiring both sides to come clean as to who is behind a comment online.
Yet, complete transparency is unlikely to happen. Right now, the media place great value in online reader comments as an eyeball aggregator and a way to score reporters and stories. Required transparency would put a brake on the number and frequency of comments.
What's the answer? How about a hybrid system whereby commenters could chose to be anonymous or not? Those commenters who opt to give their names -- and validate them with e-mail and credit card verification -- would have their comments posted higher than those who remain anonymous.
Those who don't take off the mask would be relegated to the end of the list of comments, defusing their impact. To further encourage transparency, reporters would be encouraged to engage with those commenters who disclose their identity through a special two-way feature of the blog or site. Such attention would trigger even more comments.
No doubt, those of us who read the media would be more likely to give greater credibility to named commenters. After all, these commenters are assuming the real risk that flows from public comments, even if it's just a negative response from the crowd. And at the same time, this hybrid system of opt-in transparency would still allow the rabble to rouse and the media to score themselves against the visceral response of the masses.
So DooDoo would still be allowed to do the voodoo that he do do. But we would all have a better understanding of who is saying what, for what purposes, and for which intended results. At the same time, the public relations industry would gain an additional, more credible tool for correcting the record, responding to misstatement of fact, resetting agendas, and gaining legitimate visibility.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
I don’t see that lack of transparency is the serious problem that you believe it to be. Let me play devil’s advocate.
“How about a hybrid system whereby commenters could chose to be anonymous or not?” Well, this already exists: Nothing prevents any commenter from choosing to reveal her identity. But I predict that very few people will actually pay—even 99 cents—for the privilege of seeing their names in print (as it were) at a Web site. And I doubt that many users will gift their precious credit-card numbers to corporate Web sites with loophole-ridden privacy policies.
Your entire thesis about the need for transparency, however, breaks down when we consider that nothing can prevent commenters who choose to attach a name to their posts from identifying themselves with a fake name.
And unless the sites collecting e-mail addresses actually send confirmation e-mails with a site password, anyone required to supply an e-mail address can go ahead and pick a fictitious one. Even if registration isn’t complete without an e-mailed password, anyone can use a one-time, disposable e-mail address from services such as GuerrillaMail, SpamBox or MailExpire to prevent sites from ever learning the registrant’s actual e-mail address.
If you believe that “anonymity coarsens public discourse, and provides a water cooler for ugly, offensive remarks,” then the simple solution is to use a moderator to screen every comment before it’s allowed to be posted. Filtering software can be used to automatically sequester for review any posts containing selected trigger words, phrases or names.
You argue that “[w]ithout transparency, anyone can say anything at any time without impunity.” But that’s already the case, and has been since the origin of online message boards. Individuals unafraid of outraged public reaction, castigation, vituperation, etc., have never held back from sharing their provocative comments.
But if moving to transparency means rejecting anonymous comments, serious brand-management problems will result:
Like it or not, the default assumption these days is that a reputable brand includes & permits negative comments. Brands that do not do so stand out—for all the wrong reasons. Any corporate blog that doesn't have at least a few negative comments will inevitably be perceived as biased and company-driven, especially if negative comments are removed. Customers will easily recognize that your supposedly open blog or Web-site forum doesn't have any negative comments, and you'll lose their trust and respect.
Conversely, posting negative comments makes any site appear credible and receptive. By the same token, if this is worthwhile to do in corporate fora, it's even more important to monitor a brand's reputation in external arenas, such as other blogs, social-media sites, Twitter, Sidewiki, etc.
As a former journalist, I doubt the lack of transparency in online comments will lead the news media to use comments less.
Online audiences have been used to anonymous comments since the dawn of the Internet, and I don’t think they necessarily will refrain from adding to the comments dialog simply because an otherwise reply-worthy comment comes from an anonymous individual. We all know that once interest is engaged, or passions inflamed, online comment boards can erupt as new visitors join the discussion (or fray).
I think the *content* of a given comment is much more critical to the vibrancy of any board than whether it comes from an identifiable source. If I’m correct, then the lack of transparency you’re so concerned about will not inhibit readership growth or the ability for editors to score what most interests any given audience(s).
(Part 2 of lengthy comment. Apologies if a graf or two here might have been included in first part's cutoff.)
As a former journalist, I doubt the lack of transparency in online comments will lead the news media to use comments less.
Online audiences have been used to anonymous comments since the dawn of the Internet, and I don’t think they necessarily will refrain from adding to the comments dialog simply because an otherwise reply-worthy comment comes from an anonymous individual. We all know that once interest is engaged, or passions inflamed, online comment boards can erupt as new visitors join the discussion (or fray).
I think the *content* of a given comment is much more critical to the vibrancy of any board than whether it comes from an identifiable source. If I’m correct, then the lack of transparency you’re so concerned about will not inhibit readership growth or the ability for editors to score what most interests any given audience(s).
I suspect that the news media quote online comments precisely for their provocative nature, rather than any lazy shortcut to sourcing interview subjects. But any journalist worth her salt is going to confirm the identity of her online quoter before using the comment, which means she’ll at least be conducting the bare minimum of traditional journalism sourcing. Using an unconfirmed online quote/comment, while journalistically sloppy, does occur, of course, but since you typically see them aggregated without further identification or context, the media outlets plainly are not thereby suggesting the unsubstantiated comments contain any automatic or inherent legitimacy, or conferring it.
Transparency can, indeed, be very useful for public-relations purposes, but even anonymous comments can be extremely valuable. You argue that “[a]nonymity makes it nearly impossible to assess the validity of an allegation or defamatory remark made against a client online.” That may be true, but you’re missing the point.
I always counsel clients that customer complaints are golden opportunities to shine. Every business needs to recognize that the people they should most want to hear from, and listen to, are unhappy customers. Satisfied customers rarely bother to contact you because they're happy to just keep buying or using your product/service. But unsatisfied customers who take the time to complain are valuable sources of information about how certain demographics within your target audiences view your product/service and/or organization.
Complaints—and anonymous comments—are effective early-warning systems that can reveal previously unknown problems, suggest new product features, and inspire new PR opportunities for reaching target audiences. Complaints about PR issues, as opposed to merely customer service, can identify new questions to be addressed in the Q & A your company uses for media-interview training, or suggest new scenarios to include in your crisis-management plan.
Complaining or critical customers are people who care about your company and your product. If you treat them with respect and resolve their issues, you will have created new evangelists and brand ambassadors. The ripple effect can be especially noticeable if the new ambassador is an influencer, such as a columnist, blogger or frequent online contributor.
Requiring commenters to identify themselves *may* give practitioners “a better understanding of who is saying what, for what purposes, and for which intended results.” But simply knowing someone’s name—which may not even be real—on a comment board is not necessarily going to reveal the purposes or intended results of her comment.
I agree with you that transparency would be extremely useful in “correcting the record, responding to misstatement of fact [and] resetting agendas.” But PR practitioners already can do all of that whether a commenter’s identity is known or not. We just have to determine whether or not to take anonymous comments seriously, and decide whether they require a response.
Steven:
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond to my post. I really appreciate your passion and welcome your input. A couple of quick points.
The purpose of the post was not to suggest some serious problem with the lack of transparency or to do away with anonymous comments. To the contrary, the hybrid system I suggest allows for both anonymity and opt-in transparency.
I just believe that the PR community could benefit from more transparency with the end effect being more engaged constituencies. And I think a hybrid system could provide such a vehicle.
As you so well note, commenters can choose to be transparent by simply including their names. But why? Currently there is very little payoff for doing so.
I think many people would choose to interface with the media transparently (my post was about the media and not corporate sites) if they received more visibility and could engage in deeper discourse in exchange for providing their names.
Letters to the editor have worked on that calculus for generations. I also realize that commenters can choose to post under fake names, but validation is a relatively simple matter.
I also see another side to the coin with regard to building PR responses to anonymous posts. Who are we responding to? For what reason? All too often, it might be to a disgruntled employee or a competitor with axes to grind. Not every comment deserves a response.
Transparency would provide a hierarchy for us, as PR professionals, to construct more legitimate responses that apply to those with real issues and concerns, and are willing to express them in the media. (Again, the post was not about corporate blogs.)
I think the point of my blog post is more nuanced than you might think. Right now, comments on many media sites are often simple rants, and consequently, risk eroding their impact and the value of commenting as a communications practice. After a while, there is only so much ranting any reader can take -- and believe me, I have a high tolerance for rants!
On the other hand, the media monitor the volume of comments very closely in order to determine future editorial content. It’s not so much that they value the content of the comments. Rather it’s that editors use volume to rightly or wrongly score topics and reporters. A hybrid system could strengthen both those needs, while providing readers better information to condition their perceptions.
The media have a unique ability to reach out and encourage transparency in order to add even more value to the stories they tell. At the same time, under a hybrid system, those who want to remain anonymous still can. Surely, there is no harm in that. And surely a more transparent view of the world holds value for readers, reporters, and PR professionals.
Thanks again. I love the fact that you took time out of your day to comment.
Greg
Post a Comment
To prevent spam, all comments are moderated. Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be reviewed and approved. Thank you.