Twitter Makes Motrin Feel the Pain – #motrinmoms

Happened to stumble across this today on Laura Fitton’s Pistachio Consulting Blog, but I have found another

reason to toss on the heaping pile of why companies should have robust reputation management programs that include Twitter feeds.  An ad on the Motrin site has a running monologue of a mother essentially complaining of back pain from carrying her baby.

I did not find the ad particularly offensive, but there are a whole lot of people who did.  When you read this, go to Twitter search and look for #motrinmoms.  These guys are getting barbecued like a rack of ribs on the 4th of July.  And guess what?

  • The ad is still up.
  • Now there is an “anti” video that sprung up in Internet time (below).  The ad shows negative Tweets AND HAPPY MOMS CARRYING THEIR BABIES. Oh – and it was not lost on me that the soundtrack of the “anti” clip was “Danny Boy.” Heh.

If this does not make the case for robust online issues management, I don’t know what does.  Remains to be seen what impact this can have on sales, but geez, a multimillion dollar company in a highly competitive space does not need to have this stuff hanging out there, even as a write this on a Sunday night.


When Something Goes ‘Bump’ on the ‘Net

Just finished (what I think) will be my last piece in a series about managing online reputation. It’s in Media Bullseye, but I am still in shock over yesterday’s news about the Associated Press vs. bloggers battle.

The two issues intersect.

AP could use a lesson in online reputation management, which is the last point that I make in the article.

  1. They get a societal license to operate from the people who read their content.
  2. The lawyers that organizations have on retainer should all be behind a big piece of glass that should be broken “only in case of emergency.” AP was stupid, and now they have bloggers mad at them. That’s not what a wire service providing content to a dying print industry should do.

‘Nuff said.


P.S. – if anyone reading this can identify the lawyer in the picture, leave a comment below. You will get invisible extra credit in my next class.

Online Reputation Management Part III – BARF!

I’ve been having more fun writing about the basic precepts of what I think are a sound online reputation management program. Latest article for Media Bullseye is here, but I can’t tell you how many times it is the rule and NOT the exception that public relations agencies gather clips, paste them into a Word document and call it “media monitoring.”


The above is an accurate description of what they are doing; regurgitating clips with zero analysis. For example, rather than having an intern just cutting and pasting clips in a Word document, organizations that take their online reputations seriously should be thinking things like:

  • What is the reach and impact of the items I have found (including print, blogs, tweets, attack sites, TV, radio and more)?;
  • Can I collect as many items as possible in one place so I have a 40,000 view of my organization, its executives or our issues? What system can give this to me? Hint: Factiva plus Google alerts ain’t it.
  • What opportunities or threats are presented from the coverage found?
  • Has there been significant change in stakeholders, article tone or volume of coverage?
  • If it is bad, what can I do about it? If it is good, how can I capitalize on it?

There’s a lot more to say, but I continue to be astounded at the immaturity of this field. Political campaigns do it well, but hardly anyone else.


Determining the Voices that Matter Online – Part II

Today is a good day.

Got Part Deux published in Media Bullseye on my series about online reputation management. The cool part about having an interactive platform is that others can see and comment on it. More often than not, people make you smarter.

Kami Watson of Communications Overtones saw Part I of the series and noted that, when it comes to online reputation management, the best defense is a good offense, meaning that a strong Google page rank and presence will help provide a better base from which to communicate if and when the attacks come. Jason Falls also had some good thinking that I drew from for the article.

So thanks for your input, Kami. “Determining the Voices That Matter,” the article in today’s edition of Media Bullseye is Part II of my thinking on best practices for setting up an online reputation management program.

And since I don’t have my other blog any more, I HAVE to give a shout-out to Jon Lester of the Boston Red Sox for pitching a no-hitter last night.


More Voices on Online Reputation Management

I cruised over the Kami Watson’s Communications Overtones and was immediately enthused while kicking myself for missing a PRSA “Reputation Management in a Google World” teleseminar. The good news, however, is that Kami has shared the PowerPoint slides from the presentation that she and Lee Odden of Top Rank marketing.

What I think is fascinating about this presentation is how, even without the accompanying dialogue, lays out some excellent fundamentals and new perspective on SEO. Again, I was not on the call, but quite often, as I posted earlier this week, business reputational issues usually manifest themselves first in the online environment. With Google winning the search engine war, determining what people are saying about you, how prominent the voices are and how they impact stakeholder perceptions of your brand are the building blocks of an online reputation management program.

I am working on the the second in a series of articles for Media Bullseye on my take on online reputation management; stay tuned.