Persistence of Vision

This summer, I’m enrolled in one classroom course for my Master’s Program. The course is a survey type course (broad-spectrum, not a questionnaire) covering research methods. We’ve been encouraged to select a topic area for the majority of our individual assignments, and I continue to doggedly pursue corporate reputation.

Why do I think corporate reputation is so important to my studies? Because of the long memory of the web – a years old problem can still influence consumer opinion because of the depth of information available and the fact that past mistakes are no longer gone nor forgotten. The internet has changed all that.

I believe social media has the potential to most firmly impact a company’s reputation management, from the ability to monitor consumer sentiment to the opportunity to present candid information and response. Used correctly, social media can help a company with internal awareness of their reputation, but it can even give the people within the company an opportunity to build a stronger reputation.

Personal reputation online?

There’s a really great discussion starter over on the Three Minds blog which I just found thanks to my Twitter network. Marshall writes about how the value of Google’s PageRank system is slipping because of the increasing value to a content-driven, rather than publisher-driven, model.

Basically, he argues that reputation should be given to individual articles or pieces of content based on the reputation of the writer, rather

Don't build a wall to the shy contributors.

than basing value on the publisher/forum. I see the argument, but I also counter (as you may see in comments on the blog post) that the already growing popularity of ghost-writers among the heaviest individual publishers (like Guy Kawasaki or various celebrities using tools like Twitter) makes such a thing dangerous.

First, personal page rank would make it possible for the most recognizable names (within any respective topic area) to dominate conversation to an even greater extent.  It would also create an incentive to build a network of ghostwriters under a single name (though it may not be popular in the community I see few ways that an unscrupulous person with frequent publishing that’s even somewhat better than mediocre wouldn’t gain enough reputation to dominate the market), as opposed to having loose associations of people who may hold varying opinions voicing them publicly under their own byline.

Finally, I believe that personal page rank would make many of the infrequent (and sometimes refreshing) contributors intimidated to continue their only occasional responses.  I believe the true power in social media comes from collaboration of those who contribute frequently with those who may not feel moved to share their opinions as frequently or publicly and who, in their infrequency, offer the occasional fantastic zinger or new point of view.  I think encouraging MORE contributions from these less chatty peers is an important pursuit as social media ages.

I hope that’s been a good thought-starter.  I’d love to hear feedback and counterpoint!