Lifestyle Lift (to employee): "Put your wig and skirt on and tell them about the great experience you had." This is taken from an email discovered by the New York State Attorney General's office during an investigation into '
Astroturfing.' You can read more about it here:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/media_center/2009/july/july14b_09.htmlHow many times have you been paid to consult on Reputation Management? How many times have you heard some bad ideas coming from your client? Did you decide to do the right thing? Did you decide to advise them against acting poorly in response? When you have a gut instinct that what they're asking you to do is bad then always choose the right thing to do. It can come back on them. It may come back on you too.
For this one case, (there are many cases where companies have gotten away with Astroturfing), how many times have you heard your clients complain that their competitors are doing bad things in posting reviews? Have you heard clients say that they're considering doing bad things themselves as a response? Have you advised them against it? I hope so. They would be acting in a disingenuous way and you would be party to it.
What about those companies involved in competition who decide to post negative reviews about others? You wouldn't want misinformation written about you. Would you? It's happened to me. Misinformation is finally out there about me too, after more than a decade in business without it. It's hurt my search business. It's really not funny to have happen. It can mean the difference between staying in business or not.
The thing to remind people, is that while they can get away with it while they do it, there is a chance that down the road they could be looking at a hefty fine or something else. Who knows? It's just really never a good idea. I have not quit my own reputation business. Stay tuned on that. This is part of my message in response.
I found myself in a situation where I've had to defend myself for months. It hurts my ability to operate freely. It happens in my rankings where potential clients and partners look for me. A person with the means, decided to attack me in my rankings. He decided to attack me in response after I beat him in a relatively small, private legal matter regarding his use of images that belonged to me.
Can you imagine that I asked for a call to correct his mistakes? I demanded he take down images that belong to me. I have that right, don't I? He never called me. Instead, he posted additional misinformation that spun it to make himself look like the victim. As if! He promoted his posts with Twitter, Sphinn and Digg. At least it was deleted from Sphinn as (personal attacks) should be. It still ranks on search for my name. Damage done.
It's mean. It hurt. His audience could care less about what's real. They thought it was all pretty funny, funny that it was even happening at all. Never mind how I felt. Never mind the truth getting in the way of a funny, viral joke. Some of his friends thought it was fun to participate. It was actually very mean-spirited. One of the comments from the OP called me an 'it' (as if I didn't belong to the human family).
There was much worse from his audience. I had an actual privately delivered
threat which hinted at physical attack. All of this (except the threat) is still online, ranking. His headline makes sure it sticks by clicks. The trick post has staying power that way. It's SEO gone bad. It's when reputation management goes wrong. He lost a small legal matter. He chose to attack me publicly in response.
It's never a good idea. He spun it around and attacked me as if I had a problem. I have a problem with him having used my images, posting misinformation, then continuing to publish additional misinformation, promoting it to the point it resulted in physical threats against me. Imagine asking someone to stop using images of you that were used without permission, then ultimately being physically threatened for it.
Imagine being told to never show your face in public again. It was pretty frightening, actually. I was called by some really hateful names. All I could do was gather evidence of what occurred, keep myself from responding anywhere but with my own websites. That way I can rank alongside it all with my message, just as I would suggest to for my clients.
I don't need to promote this article in Twitter, Sphinn or Digg. It wouldn't really matter if it was promoted. It would result in more people searching my name and clicking whatever result, including the bad one just to read the tabloid. Patience and discretion are virtues I have from acting professionally for decades.
A few clicks and a little attention to this isn't going to hurt me any more than I've hurt already. It'll rank just fine. I really don't need to promote my personal brand. Read about who I really am here:
Disa Johnson. Time is on my side. As the Rolling Stones would say: "Yes, it is."
I recovered my composure. I quickly began ranking on words I originally had no use for, (including my own name). It's useful to me now. I'll make it so. One thing is true: I kept my cool as much as anyone could under the circumstances. I felt like I had ended up as my own client, (but without the pay).
I managed to effect some positive change so that the other postings at least stopped ranking well on my friend's name. It's still ranking on her name, but at least not on page one anymore. Once indexed, these things can last practically forever. That's why I have ample opportunity to pull anything up as examples, even if he chooses to delete all his stuff. He dabbled in hate, which is dangerous for him long-term.
It's still ranking in the middle of page one on my name. I am the one with the story to tell since the truth resides with me anyway. I did what I could to minimize it. I'll do what I can short of refraining from telling my story. I had always planned to write a book. I can afford to do way more than he can. It still hurts.
The thing that really had me decide to write about this again on a blog (at this point), was that Michael Arrington of TechCrunch decided to publish materials that were sent to him by a hacker who
stole email from the founders of Twitter. I really think that was crass of Arrington, (crass like what happened to me), but to a far greater extent more damaging to Twitter than what happened to me.
The communications Arrington published were meant to remain private, just like my legal notice was sent privately. Arrington and the nuisance blogger both share that they decided to publish stuff they shouldn't, just because they can. They both claimed that the 'newsworthiness' of publishing the materials gave them the right to do so. That's the same instinct that attracted my harassment in the echoes of later commentary.
From a criminal legal standpoint, it may be true that they're safe from prosecution for this behavior. At least their attorneys seem to be reassuring them they can do what they want without worrying about criminal liability. They may be confident too, that the likes of Twitter wouldn't file a civil suit, one which they wouldn't be perfectly happy to defend.
That's just rich. The attorney's are going to make a mint off the case if a Twitter civil suit ensues. The whole thing has lost its integrity a long time ago. There is very low journalism here except that which would interest a tabloid 'newspaper.' Arrington has profited greatly at the personal expense of Twitter and its employees.
It all came at a cost, in my opinion at least, that TechCrunch has become a 'popular' online tabloid to me. Perhaps that was the hacker's aim? Arrington even claimed,
wrongly, that he had been given a green light to publish it. This is much like what I experienced with false claims about what I had said and done in private.
People are gullible. There were no discussions with me whatsoever. I can only imagine what may have
not transpired with Twitter ...which Arrington claims as fact. Citizen journalism at its best? My personal experience drove me to such sarcasm about blogs and using my newest blog for it. Love the irony in that.
I am not happy about these transgressions happening to us and the Web. It's further evidence to me that people will do anything to promote their personal brand at the expense of others. I don't think the personal email correspondence from Twitter should be in the hands of a hacker, much less a bad actor like Michael Arrington.
Arrington's personal brand increases at the expense of Twitter and its employees. The Web's gawking users lose too. This brings me to my latest musings on the industry. I hope given Google's
good financial news that this moment ushers in more signs of economic recovery for us all. Maybe we'll all act better if there's ample business for everyone.
It's a wish. I think Internet marketing has its place. Even when I came into marketing during the mid-1990's without any sense for marketing, (but from technology), marketers were paying the bills. I had to overcome an automatic disdain for marketing. I learned it. Don't fall for the '
All Marketers are Liars' sense for marketing things. Don't trade integrity for cheap plastic thrills. I've done my best to avoid dressing anything up too much.
Take this stark contrast between
images of fast food in advertisements, versus images of the real food. Makes me feel queasy, looking at that. It just shouldn't feel right to market things with lies. Intentional misspellings hurt me a lot during the assault on my personal being. Leave lying to the unscrupulous. Listen to your instincts and act with the better nature of your personal being.
Let the lying marketers lie. They lose in the end. I might have made more money in my life. I chose to avoid marketing anything that doesn't seem right to me. Some would say, leaving money on the table is not smart. I would challenge them to a game of marketing chess. I can whip them on that point. The fact is, wealthy living with money has its own costs. A tabloid life of plastic thrills doesn't appeal to me.
A greater experience from doing things smartly, a person ends up enjoying a higher sense of being a
class act. That's my way of living richly with what I have, within adequate financial means (that affords me plenty of life's luxuries). I don't have actual needs that aren't satisfied. There's room for me to grow financially, too. It should be thought of as part of the whole that makes a life of intention.
I argue it's a far better pathway to improve one's personal abilities for life, than to work like the
Dickens to afford an excessively large house, (especially with today's economic environment). Most of these things people do, especially to obtain cheap plastic thrills including the all out assault on my online personality, seem to require them to increase their own personal brands. All too often, this comes at someone else's expense.
You'll see people with a gullible audience talking about how it's 'all about your personal brand.' These tend to be the sort that attack others. Don't listen to it. Make sure that your own personal brand has nice qualities. It's about authenticity. Not all marketers have to be liars. Not all personalities have to be offensive.
I would think you want your brand to promote an amalgamation of the better parts of society. Promote life online where life online meets the reality out on the street (or in the countryside). Discover where you truly fit in the scheme of this modern life. Live a life of good intentions. It's your ultimate marketing message where all others originate.
If you've followed my story at all, (chances are that you haven't), but you might see some strong
hints about how I really feel about what happened with my own little saga. So, let it play. If you have 30-minutes or so, I highly recommend taking a look at the following video: "
The Machine is (Changing) Us: YouTube Culture, Politics of Authenticity."
Stay tuned!
