Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Dealing with Reputation Risk

reputation risk and social media

Properly assessing risk is critical to any business. Successful businesspeople understand that every decision they make must be weighed against the potential risk to the company. This risk assessment must not be limited solely to situations directly related to the business itself, however.

buy sildalis online familyvoicesal.org/resources/images/jpg/sildalis.html no prescription pharmacy

They must also consider reputation risk, or the risk events will have a negative impact on one’s personal reputation and, by extension, the business.

Whether fair or not, the decisions made in someone’s personal life can have a substantial impact on the company they are connected to. This risk extends beyond just the owner or executives of a company; employees caught doing unscrupulous things can cause a public relations nightmare for the business, ultimately resulting in massive losses for the company itself.

Assessing Reputation Risk

Unlike business transactions, where there are countless models and historical examples of the likely risk and reward of most given situations, reputation risk is far harder to quantify and prepare for. It is nearly impossible to predict, for example, whether or not an executive will get belligerently intoxicated and assault a police officer. The executive can bring unwelcome attention to the company, which in turn can cause investors, advertisers, and partners to shy away in the short or even long-term.

Exacerbated in the Social Media Generation

Social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have dramatically intensified reputation risks. In the past, it was possible for a relatively minor incident to be swept under the rug or forgotten relatively quickly. If not, chances were good that a story would stay relatively local, perhaps reported in an area newspaper once or twice before fading from memory.

Today, however, even a single story in a local newspaper (or, worse, an online blog) can be shared and re-shared thousands of times in a matter of hours.

buy xtandi online familyvoicesal.org/resources/images/jpg/xtandi.html no prescription pharmacy

“Viral” stories can spread across an industry and the country within only a day or two. By the same token, an ill-advised Facebook or Twitter post on a controversial topic can be shared just as quickly.

Mitigating the Danger

Unfortunately, there is only so much one can do when trying to guard against reputational risk problems. It is impossible to control every human being’s actions, and even harder to control them every second of every day. The only viable solution is offering guidelines to employees and executives to try and minimize the problem as much as possible. It is also worth calculating risk factors among employees. For example, an employee with a history of public intoxication or domestic abuse issues may not be someone you want representing your company.

At the end of the day, there is only so much one can do to reduce reputation risk. It is important, however, to have a public relations strategy on hand for if and when a troublesome situation arises—and it almost certainly will at some point.

buy ventolin online familyvoicesal.org/resources/images/jpg/ventolin.html no prescription pharmacy

Why Mark Cuban Lost Interest in Facebook Brand Pages – And Why the Social Network Should Care

Mavericks owner Mark Cuban (third from right) with his players at ESPN’s ESPY Awards.

Each year, our December issue of Risk Management highlights the Year in Risk. Basically, we look back at the year that was through the lens of risk and offer a time line of its biggest events as they relate to the discipline. (Look for it in your mailbox or online in a few weeks.)

One of the trends I wrote about this year was how some of the internet/tech companies that the world has been buzzing about for years are starting to lose their shine. Facebook (with its disastrous IPO), Google (with its third-quarter earnings embarrassment) and Apple (with its iPhone map fiasco and fall stock drop) have all looked a little less rosy this year. After some high-profile gaffes, that are starting to seem more like any other major brands with major revenues and major detractors.

Now, it seems that Facebook also may have to begin dealing with an outspoken critic: Mark Cuban.

The boisterous billionaire owner of the NBA’s Dallas Mavericks and television network AXS TV wrote an op-ed chastising Facebook’s sposored post arrangement with companies and, really, its whole strategy. In his eyes, the company is getting away from what made it such a good network in the first place and is now force-feeding users content based upon its proprietary algorithm rather than what they want. Thus, given the diminishing returns he now sees on the time and money the Mavericks devote to Facebook, he is instead directing the team’s staff to prioritize other networks, like Twitter, Tumblr and Pinterest.

Cuban wrote the following on Business Insider today.

First, I’m not recommending to any of my companies that we leave Facebook. I am recommending that we de-emphasize pushing consumers or partners to like us on FB and focus on building up our followings across all existing social media platforms and to evaluate those that we feel can grow a material following. In the past we put FB first, twitter second. FB has been moved to the bottom of a longer list.

The crux of his dwindling interest in using Facebook to promote his brand is the company’s increasingly pervasive EdgeRank algorithm, which decides which items in a person’s time line are the most important and thus elevates them to the top. For a brand like the Mavs, which often posts the score of the team’s game as it is occurring, the result can be a non-chronological display of the breaking information they’re trying to provide those that “like” their page. Or worse, it means that fans might miss interesting nuggets of info altogether.

Essentially, in its attempts to become, as Cuban terms it, an “efficient information delivery source” via their algorithm, the company is making it harder for companies to get the benefits they signed up for — and often pay for with “sponsored posts” that purport to help reach a wider audience.

By trying to be an incredibly efficient information delivery source, they confine our ability to organically reach most of our followers to using Sponsored Posts. They also significantly increase our costs because if we create a post that doesn’t engage our followers to the level the algorithm expects it to, it can impact our ability to be seen in the future. Talk about pressure.  Put up a post, but be sure that EdgeRank doesn’t think it sucks.

Then of course there is the money. As many have written before me, sponsored posts can get expensive. If you post many times a day, that can get incredibly expensive.

So why would brands who can’t afford the algorithmic presentation risk, or the financial cost, want to continue to drive their user interaction by investing in FB if there are alternatives?

Of course, all this critiques are basically just mumbo jumbo to most of us non-techgeeks. These are details that few people actually care about. With his closing comments, however, Cuban gets to what sound like a potentially larger problem — and one that, if a host of other executives feel similarly about, could cost Facebook a lot of cache from the companies it has been enticing to join in recent years. In short, with its strategic shift, it may have invited strategic risk.

I also think that FB is making a big mistake by trying to play games with their original mission of connecting the world. FB is a fascinating destination that is an amazing alternative to boredom which excels in its SIMPLICITY. One of the threats in any business is that you outsmart yourself. FB has to be careful of just that.

And in case you were wondering: I first became aware of Cuban’s essay from @BusinessInsider on Twitter.

Facebook IPO: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

By this time, you’re probably aware of the debacle over Facebook’s initial public offering on the NASDAQ exchange last week. Let’s break it down.

The Good
There isn’t much that falls under this category, execpt for the fact that the NYSE is enjoying the controversy — it’s attempting to lure Facebook to the exchange.

The Bad
It was announced Tuesday that two U.S. financial regulators suggested reviews be launched into the social media site’s IPO, citing concerns over disclosure relating to underwriter Morgan Stanley. It was reported that Morgan Stanley analysts received information that caused them to cut revenue forecasts for Facebook. This information, however, was only shared with analysts from the 33 underwriting banks and was never made public. Simply put, “the disclosure of lower forecasts to certain big institutional investors left both Facebook and Morgan Stanley open to accusations of selective disclosure. Many smaller investors who bought Facebook shares in the IPO were left in the dark.”

This morning it was announced that Morgan Stanley and other underwriters associated with the IPO have profitted close to $100 million from stabilizing the share price, along with millions in profit more in IPO fees. Before the public offering, Morgan Stanley was given the opportunity to purchase a large chunk of shares at a discount in order to keep the share price stable through buying and selling once the shares were offered to the public. The bank not only sold every last one of the 421,233,615 shares it bought at discount, but it also shorted an additional 484,418,657, which only signals one thing — Morgan Stanley knew the share price would drop and it, in turn, would buy back the shorted shares at a profit.

The Ugly
Thus begins the wave of lawsuits. Tuesday, a Los Angeles-based law firm, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who suffered losses from Facebook’s IPO. And it was announced today that the law firm of Girard Gibbs LLP has filed a similar class action suit, stating that “the company, its officers and directors, and underwriters with violations of federal securities laws for false and misleading statements made in the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO.” In addition to these, several lawsuits have been brought against Mark Zuckerberg, Morgan Stanley and even Nasdaq.

In the end, the fact is that not all Facebook IPO investors received the same data. To most (i.e., small, individual investors), that’s unfair. But to many (institutional investors and underwriters), that’s just the name of the game. What’s your take?

Status Updates Help Burglars Pick Their Prey

Back in September, UK home security firm Friedland issued a report with startling statistics regarding social media and its relation to home burglaries. The company found that an overwhelming 78% of ex-burglars interviewed said that they strongly believed social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare are being used by thieves when targeting properties, with nearly 74% stating that, in their opinion, Google Street View was also playing a role in today’s home thefts.

And the holidays are a prime time for burglaries, with nearly 400,000 occurring in the months of November and December, with family homes targeted most frequently. According to information from Mercury Insurance:

“Social media is definitely a factor in many of today’s burglaries. Instead of watching for mail to accumulate outside your residence, burglars can case your home by simply scanning your Twitter feed and monitoring your Facebook status for any signs you’re away,” said Joanna Moore, Mercury Insurance chief claims officer. “And it’s only getting easier with new features like Facebook Places, which allows users to divulge their exact location by simply checking in.”

The company recommends using social media to your advantage by updating your sites to give the impression you are home, therefore deterring any potential outside interest in your property.

The video below shows what happened when supposed “friends” took advantage of one Facebook user’s status update.