In a recent article Computerworld magazine waded into the world of online reputation management to see what all the hubbub is about. ReputationDefender’s CEO Michael Fertik is sourced extensively throughout the article, and provides expert commentary on Online Reputation Management. Computerworld’s approach is good for their readers; it introduces ORM to a broader audience and looks at the realities of dealing with our digital dirt in a wired society. The magazine set up a simple test of three items to be removed and then graded their progress. From the article, the three items they threw into the Internet and then tried to haul back out were:
• A recent college graduate with a distinctive last name would like to get rid of an entry on someone else’s long-abandoned online journal.
• A freelance writer is mistakenly identified as a movie critic on Rotten Tomatoes, a popular site that aggregates movie reviews from print, TV and the Web.
• In an interview seven years ago, an IT professional gave a quote to Computerworld that included a salty phrase.
None of these items is particularly salacious, save potentially the first, and they are not uncommon problems for the average web user to encounter. What’s more interesting is the process that Computerworld has to go through for each individual item and the mixed bag of results they end up with.
The article is a good read for those new to Online Reputation Management, and for those curious about the steps necessary to even begin trying to restore, maintain or establish an online identity. ReputationDefender has a variety of services and products to help you maintain your good reputation online.
Wanted: Good men and women to serve as a part of a historic Presidential administrative team. Must be a team player and able to handle pressure. Familiarity with deadlines essential, complex screening process applies. Equal Opportunity Employer.
On the heels of the Obama campaign being swept into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue there have been a lot of job slots opening up. Some are newly created, others are being vacated as the Bush administration heads out and Obama moves in. In both cases bodies are needed to fill the seats. But not just any bodies. Barack Obama is very aware of the Internet and how it can help and hinder a cause. Given this, it should come as no surprise to anyone that he is being VERY thorough about who gets a spot on the “O” team.
The process begins with a seven-page questionnaire that has been sent by the office of the President-elect to those seeking cabinet and other high-ranking posts. The New York Times has commented that this process may be the most extensive (“some say invasive”) application ever.
And just what does those questions cover? 63 requests for personal and professional records, for starters, covering the applicants’ spouses and grown children as well. Good luck for speeders (sort of): traffic tickets with fines of less than $50 do not need not be reported, but anyone with a family member in the NRA take note, the application asks whether the applicant or anyone in their family owns a firearm.
While all of this is interesting from a political standpoint, what really caught our eye was the provision that all applicants must include any e-mail that might embarrass the president-elect, along with any blog posts and links to their Facebook pages. As we have noted before on this blog, Obama is the Internet President, and he is covering his digital bases. The application goes on further to ask for applicants to “list all aliases or ‘handles’ you have used to communicate on the Internet.”
Of course the competition for a job in the White House has always been high, even if you weren’t gunning for Commander-In-Chief. The vetting process has been modified and added on to with each incoming administration, but Mr. Obama has taken his background hunts to a new level, especially with regards to applicants’ family members. The Obama camp stands behind their process, though, stating “President-elect Obama made a commitment to change the way Washington does business, and the vetting process exemplifies that.”
With the economy large in many Americans’ minds, the Obama campaign has sought to minimize any potential red flags in their hiring by avoiding hot topics like Freddie Mac and Fannie May. Question 18 of the Obama application asks the applicant whether “you, your spouse or any member of your immediate family” has been affiliated with either of the two failed mortgage institutions, as well as American International Group, Washington Mutual or any other institution getting a piece of the government bailout.
Remembering the trouble that Bill Clinton got into back in the early 90s, immigration status is questioned in the “Domestic Help” section that covers housekeepers, nannies, chauffeurs and yard-workers. Beyond that, applicants are requested to supply not only a résumé, but every résumé and biographical statement they’ve used in the last decade.
Oh yeah, and while you’re at it, the application requires the names of anyone an applicant has lived with, a chronological list of activities for which they were paid, documentation of real estate and loans over $10,000, and net worth statements submitted for loans. Furthermore, applicants must report all businesses that they and/or their spouses have been affiliated with and all gifts over $50 that they and their spouses have received from anyone other than close friends or relatives.
The catch all, though is at the end: “Please provide any other information, including information about other members of your family, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the president-elect.”
The message is clear. While Barack Obama understood the power of the internet to raise money and spread his message of change, he is also aware of how the internet can adversely affect people in the digital age.
Two former officers of the police force in Durham, North Carolina are being investigated for alleged derogatory, and potentially racist, Web postings. While the details are not clear yet, the Chief of Police in Durham has stated that a “racial slur” is not the subject of the investigation, but this has done little to quell the outcry from civil rights groups.
The postings were allegedly on the officers’ MySpace or Facebook pages, according to the NAACP, which is calling on the local police to release copies. “We want to know if there will be transparency about those comments to the community and what disciplinary action if any will be taken against these officers,” Durham’s NAACP president Fred Foster Jr. told a local newspaper. “We believe that if these comments are against people of color, then it will be hard for those officers to serve and protect without prejudice and that they should not be allowed to wear the uniform representing public trust.”
By now stories of an Internet posting, meant to be private or not, coming back to haunt the poster are becoming quite commonplace. Seems that some people are just now learning of the reach of the Internet. Of course, any story like this, dealing with a betrayal of trust, abuse of power or display of bias receives even more attention when it is allegedly committed by a law enforcement officer (or any person in a real position of power, for that matter). Whether these charges prove to be true or not remains to be seen, but in the mean time remember that no one is immune from the Internet, and what you do there can (and most likely will) come back to you some day.
According to a recent CareerBuilder survey, 22% of employers already use social networking sites to evaluate potential candidates with an additional 9% planning to do so in the near future. Despite this fact, however, the percentage of employees who have modified their social networking profiles for potential employers is only 16%.This notable disparity shows that people’s awareness of their online identity is still lacking.
In analyzing this survey last week, ReputationDefender Blog offered its readers some advice on how to manage their reputations online and make a positive online impression. To continue along that same train of thought, here are a few more measures individuals can take to manage their online reputations.
From the CareerBuilder Article:
Do update your profile regularly
“Keep your profile updated, even when you’re not looking for a job,” recommends Patrice-Anne Rutledge, author of “The Truth About Profiting from Social Networking.” “Recruiters love to find top-notch passive job candidates and having a current profile can help you land your dream job when you least expect it.”
Don’t badmouth your current or previous employer
You know that griping about your current boss is a grave error during an interview, and it’s just as detrimental on your profile. Give hiring managers the idea that eventually you’ll be tarnishing their image if you part ways with the company and you’ll be crossed of their lists of candidates.
Also, if you’re currently employed, don’t forget any confidentiality and conduct agreements you’ve signed, Vergara reminds. You don’t want to violate your contract and end up jobless while you hunt for a new position.
Do join groups…selectively
One of the fun elements of networking sites is that you can connect with other people who share your same interests and have your quirky sense of humor. Thus you end up with virtual groups like “I Drink More Beer than Water.”
The silly group might seem harmless enough to you, but for a hiring manager trying to find a mature candidate for an open position, it doesn’t leave a great impression.
“No one is going to hire the consultant doing the keg stand or the lawyer that belongs to the anarchist forum,” says Patricia Sanchez-Abril, an expert on privacy and networking sites and professor of business law at the University of Miami. Instead opt for groups that show your professional aspirations or social involvement, such as an organization for advertising professionals or the charity you volunteer at.
Don’t mention your job search if you’re still employed
If your boss knows you’re on the lookout for a new job, then by all means let it be known. However, if you’re attempting to keep your search below the radar, Vergara recommends restraint. Even if your boss isn’t your online friend, somebody can get the information back to him or her.
Do go on the offensive
If you want to use your networking profile as a tool, review the pictures you’ve uploaded, the personal information you’ve disclosed and any personal blogs or sites you’ve linked to. Don’t wait until you’re interviewing to go back and clean up your profile because the hiring manager probably already had a look.
“Get rid of your digital dirt,” says Rutledge. “A large percentage of recruiters ‘Google’ potential candidates to see what they can find out about them — both the good and the bad. Be sure that you don’t have any information on social networks or other sites that could make a recruiter decide to pass on you as a job candidate.”
Don’t forget others can see your friends
Unless you’ve opted to keep your friends list private, your friends can see the contacts you’ve made. So in addition to keeping your friends’ risque pictures and comments off of your profile, be cautious about whom you friend and when.
“Connecting to five people at Company XYZ after a day of vacation is a sure sign you are interviewing,” Vergara cautions.
Ultimately you need to remember that social networking profiles can mean potential bosses are evaluating you before you even apply for the job. You’d make sure to wear your best clothes to an interview, so polish your profile with the same care.
ReputationDefender encourages everyone to stay informed about best social networking practices and take control of their online identity.
Regular readers of the ReputationDefender Blog will be familiar with the teacher who was fired for her MySpace photos. Now ReputationDefender has learned of another cautionary tale for professionals in the digital age. A Cheerleader for the New England Patriots was sacked from the cheer squad following inappropriate photos on her Facebook account. Quoting from the MyCrimeSpace write up:
It seems that the 18-year-old Davis attended a college Halloween party. When one of the attendees passed out he received the age old tradition of being drawn on with Sharpies. Some of those drawings included swastikas and crude depictions of male genitalia. Davis made the no so smart move of posing with the victim with a Sharpie in her hand and posted the pictures on her Facebook. The Patriots organization didn’t particularly care for her behavior and released her.
Ensuring that your digital self is an accurate reflection of your real world self is a primary goal of Online Reputation Management. ReputationDefender offers Life Assurance for the Web TM by providing peace of mind to its customers. Proactively taking control of your personal brand online and controling your internet reputation are necessary steps in a connected, digital world.
Barack Obama was elected as the 44th President of the United States this week, and a large part of his platform was centered on the notion of change. Wasting no time, and aiming to be the first true Internet President, Barack Obama launched the official website for his transition to the White House. On Thursday www.change.gov, went online with an invitation for users to offer their ideas for the future of the country. The website further entreats readers to “Share Your Vision” via email.
There’s a countdown to the inauguration on the site, noting the number of days until January 20, 2009 when Obama will be sworn in. In terms of media, there is a blog posting that displays a YouTube video of Obama’s Tuesday victory speech in Chicago.
A quote from Obama is featured on the page, reading: “Today we begin in earnest the work of making sure that the world we leave our children is just a little bit better than the one we inhabit today.” More to the point during this time of economic woe, users can apply for jobs via the website. The site is pretty straightforward, but the degree to which Obama has attempted, with success, to harness and embrace the Internet during his campaign, and now during his transition to the White House, is impressive.
Twenty-two percent of employers say they use social networking sites when evaluating job candidates, and an additional 9 percent intend to do the same soon.
[SNIP]
“We can also learn a little about the candidate’s culture fit and professionalism,” says Kelly Vergara, executive director of human resources at digital marketing agency Resource Interactive. “We screen for culture above all else, so this is important.”
Thirty-four percent of hiring managers chose not to hire a candidate based on what they found in profiles.
So what are professionals, job seekers and business owners to do? Apart from working with Reputation Specialists at ReputationDefender, individuals should take the time to control their personal brand online.
One the most effective ways to get noticed in a professional manner in the search engines is to create a web page with your name as the URL. People can do this themselves, but even in a technically savvy world, many employees may not have the time, skills or knowledge needed to register, write and code their professional home page on their own.
That’s where LookUpPage comes in. LookUpPage is a fast and easy way to create an information rich professional page that will rank well in the search engines, ensuring that others find quality and up to date information about your skill sets and accomplishments. LookUpPage is simple to use and effective for executives and professionals who want to be visible on the internet.
Never one to let Virgin Atlantic have all the fun, now British Airways is investigating employees after they posted criticisms of passengers on a now-depopulated Facebook group called “London Gatwick Ground Staff.”
The Telegraph reports that a big complaint was passengers who put boarding passes in their mouths before handing them over to gate personnel–definitely something worth griping about. Customers were also called “smelly and annoying.” (Fliers from the US got a special shout-out for their “stupid American accents.”)
BA promises it “will be talking to the individuals concerned,” but the airline hasn’t gone so far as to say it will fire staff who made the comments. Still, as an airline that created its own social media site and maintains a Twitter account, you’d think they’d already have a policy in place regarding employee behavior online. We’re thinking something like, “Do whatever you want when you’re off the clock–as long as it isn’t completely embarrassing.”
Even though these employees haven’t been terminated, the fact that their online comments are being investigated by their employer is still cause for concern. Regular readers of the ReputationDefender Blog will realize that the content that people post online can have real world consequences (see, for example, the Facebook Bandit, who was sentenced to two years in jail because of his Social Networking Profiles).
Having an online presence that is an accurate reflection of yourself is vital in the information age. With employers, peers and business contacts all forming opinions based on what they find online, effectively managing one’s internet identity is a must. Modern day professionals and students must be proactive and control their personal brand online. The benefits of a strong online presence are immense for individuals as well as businesses. An accurate, relevant internet reputation is akin to Life Assurance for the InternetTM.
Jaunted.com has news today that 13 Virgin Atlantic employees were let go after they disparaged their employer and passengers on Facebook. Quoting from the page:
Fancy a spot of freedom of speech with your tea and crumpets? Jolly good, just watch it when you talk about your employer. A group of 13 cabin crew staff got sacked (I love that word) by Virgin Atlantic after company officials discovered that they had posted nasty things about customers to a semi-private discussion group on Facebook. The fancy-pants airline founded by Sir Richard Branson began an investigation on October 23 after passengers and other staff members came across the postings, which hilariously referred to certain customers as “chavs” and claim that some of the company’s 747s were infested with cockroaches.
It’s a shame to get kicked to the curb just for bitching about your job to your co-workers, since everybody who has ever had a job has done exactly that, but this crew should have known better. Facebook might lull people into a false sense of privacy, since groups are only open to members, but those sophisticated enough to work for an airline should know by now that anything you put into pixels could easily make it into the public domain.
The last point is particularly prescient. Readers of the ReputationDefender Blog are by now familiar with the case of the teacher who was fired over MySpace photos. There are also examples of people being prosecuted in court and having their MySpace profiles used as character evidence against them. In each case, and with the Virgin Atlantic case above, people are experiencing real world consequences that originate with their online activities.
Professionals, Students, Parents, Doctors, Lawyers and job seekers should be aware that others are forming opinions and making important decisions based on what they find online. Monitoring and managing one’s Online Reputation is a must in the digital age. Online Reputation Management is an exciting industry designed to help people from all walks of life present an accurate and current representation of themselves online. The ReputationDefender product suite monitors and protects individuals online and functions as Life Insurance for the Web TM. ReputationDefender encourages everyone to take control of their online identity and be proactive in crafting their personal internet brand.
A new article on the style.com blog details a scary new threat to Internet privacy: Revenge Porn. The article discusses the new way that miffed lovers are turning to the Internet to extort and embarrass their exes, by using video uploading sites and social networks to post compromising photos and videos. Specifically, the stories of several relationships that went awry are highlighted, each showing a slight variation on a theme: couple gets together, tape/photos are made, relationship sours, tapes/photos resurface on the Internet somewhere.
J. W., 24, and T. K., 21, started dating in July 2007 while attending the University of Georgia. The relationship was a whirlwind: Soon after discovering each other on Facebook and hooking up, they moved in together and, according to W., bought a Great Dane and exchanged promise rings. But their union unraveled just as quickly as it had begun, and they broke up in January. Then things really went wrong.
Police say that after K. started dating another man in the spring, W. hacked into her MySpace account and, posing as her, sent bogus messages to her new boyfriend. W. also allegedly installed spyware on K.’s computer to monitor her Web use and eavesdrop on her online conversations, and stole the IDs and passwords she used to access certain websites. But the alleged act that precipitated the situation and may turn out to be W.’s undoing was his vengeful posting of nude photos of K. on his Facebook page.
W. was arrested in May, soon after the pictures appeared online, and charged with 32 misdemeanors, including 14 counts of computer theft, 14 counts of computer invasion of privacy, and an identity-fraud charge for his alleged impersonation of K. on MySpace. Currently free on $6,400 bond, W. is awaiting trial. “I don’t want to go to jail just because we had a bad breakup,” he told one reporter.
The interesting thing to note is how the pornographic material posting is only part of a larger group of crimes, something that we noted in all the profiles. It seems that once a vengeful person has their mind set to post some inflammatory images they are almost inevitably going to go a step further in breaching one’s Internet security. The other scary fact is located near the end of the article, namely that these types of crimes are difficult to prosecute:
Revenge porn is difficult to prosecute because there are no statutes specifically outlawing the practice. So what happens in a revenge-porn case, in effect, is that analog laws are applied to a digital offense. A prime example—in a case that has yet to be resolved—involves A. P., 17, of La Crosse, Wisconsin, and his 16-year-old ex. Police say P. posted two images of her on his MySpace page, one a full-frontal nude, the other a close-up of genitalia. P.’s ex-girlfriend, identified in police reports as HLK, had e-mailed him the photos when they were dating. But after she started seeing another guy, “TF,” P. turned to the Web. “Yo tell me this bitch deserves this!!!!!!!” he allegedly wrote in a caption accompanying the full-frontal photo. “TF gets my leftover’s to [sic] bad she’s fucked.”
P. was contacted by an officer from the Janesville Police Department, who warned the teenager to take down the photos. According to police reports, P. decided to leave them on his profile. “Fuck that,” he said, according to the same reports. “I am keeping them up.”
Alerted to the case, MySpace deleted P.’s entire page, and on May 28, P. pleaded not guilty in La Crosse County Circuit Court to charges of child pornography, sexual exploitation of a child, and defamation. A trial date has yet to be set.
From the gist of the article and just given the general tone of the Internet these days it seems inevitable that new laws will be passed to address this disturbing new phenomenon. Until legislation catches up with real life, these events serve as a kind of warning. Michael Fertik, ReputationDefender CEO, gives everyone some sound advice at the end of the article: “The best advice, of course, is to never, ever create sexual photos, videos, e-mails, text messages, or anything else that someone could keep and share in the future. You have to think of revenge porn almost like an STD: something that can only happen because of mixing sex with irresponsibility.”
It’s something that we’re constantly writing about on the ReputationDefender Blog, but it seems to keep coming up. More and more, it is a person’s online identity which determines whether or not a hiring manager will consider them for a job. Because of this trend, the number of professionals who are taking a proactive stance in maintaining their online identities is also greatly increasing.
In examining this trend, Sonia Carreno, of the Online Media Consulting Firm Passage Communications, took some time on her blog to share a discussion she had with Paul Pennelli, ReputationDefender’s Senior Director of Marketing. In the post, Sonia and Paul get into discussing the “Invisible Web”, the expansive growth of online communities and the diverse services offered by ReputationDefender.
Make sure to check it out if you want to learn all about the increasing market for Online Reputation Management Services and the ways that ReputationDefender is continually meeting the needs of its clients.
It’s an old cliche, the beer goggles. The theory being that, after a few drinks (too many), things get a little blurry, and what you think you see you do not in fact see. There have been all sorts of strange, beautiful, awful, sad and happy things done while under the influence of any number of intoxicants, but now you can rest assured that if you use Gmail (Google’s popular email service) email won’t be one of them.
A clever engineer down in Mountain View, Jon Perlow, created “Mail Goggles” as a sort of sobriety test to help prevent sending that email to your ex at 2AM on Sunday morning (you know, THAT one …). What happens is that when you type a message and hit the send button you are presented with a series of math problems to solve in under a minute. The problems aren’t that difficult, but they do require the user to stop and think a moment. From the horse’s mouth:
Sometimes I send messages I shouldn’t send. Like the time I told that girl I had a crush on her over text message. Or the time I sent that late night email to my ex-girlfriend that we should get back together. Gmail can’t always prevent you from sending messages you might later regret, but today we’re launching a new Labs feature I wrote called Mail Goggles which may help.
When you enable Mail Goggles, it will check that you’re really sure you want to send that late night Friday email. And what better way to check than by making you solve a few simple math problems after you click send to verify you’re in the right state of mind?
By default, Mail Goggles is only active late night on the weekend as that is the time you’re most likely to need it. Once enabled, you can adjust when it’s active in the General settings.
Hopefully Mail Goggles will prevent many of you out there from sending messages you wish you hadn’t. Like that late night memo — I mean mission statement — to the entire firm.
ReputationDefender Blog ran across an interesting story from MSNBC today. According to a study conducted by CareerBuilder.com, the number of Hiring Managers who use social media to screen job applicants has doubled in the past two years. Currently, one out of every five bosses utilize sites like Facebook and Myspace for hiring best practices. Additionally, one third of professionals disqualify job applicants based on what they find online, usually drunken photos or drug abuse. Quoting from the page:
The survey found that 34 percent of the managers who do screen candidates on the Internet found content that made them drop the candidate from any short list.
The top area for concern among the hiring managers with 41 percent citing this as a downfall were candidates posting information about drinking or using drugs.
The second area with 40 percent of concern were candidates posting provocative or inappropriate photographs or information.
Other areas of concern to arise from social network sites were poor communication skills, lying about qualifications, candidates using discriminatory remarks related to race, gender or religion, and an unprofessional screen name.
But the survey found hiring managers scouring social network pages was not all bad with 24 percent of these managers saying they found content to help them solidify their decision to hire that candidate.
Top factors that influenced their hiring decision included candidate’s backgrounds supporting their qualifications for the job, proving they had good communications skills, and having a site that conveyed a professional image with a wide range of interests.
ReputationDefender Blog has covered these types of stories before (see here, here and here) but this story is newsworthy because it shows that the number of HR people facile with web 2.0 is on the rise. It also points out that your online reputation can also help you land a job, not just be disqualified for one.
“Hiring managers are using the Internet to get a more well-rounded view of job candidates in terms of their skills, accomplishments and overall fit within the company,” said CareerBuilder.com spokeswoman Rosemary Haefner in a statement.
“As a result, more job seekers are taking action to make their social networking profiles employer-friendly. Sixteen percent of workers who have social networking pages said they modified the content on their profile to convey a more professional image to potential employers.”
This Yahoo News story caught our attention at ReputationDefender today. It details one aspect of John McCain’s quest to find a Vice President in the digital age. Quoting from the page:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain joked on Monday that Google, the popular Internet search engine, had made investigating his list of potential candidates a little bit easier.
“You know, basically it’s a Google,” he said to laughter at a fund-raising luncheon when asked how the selection process was going. “What you can find out now on the Internet — it’s remarkable.”
So it seems even aspiring politicians can benefit from controlling their Online Reputation and engaging in a little personal PR. The question then becomes, is it better to be web dead than well profiled; a clean slate or a well-managed professional? Either way, one’s Internet Reputation can have consequences in the real world.
Incidentally, we are a non-partisan blog, but this story reminded us of another prominent Republican who enjoyed using the Google.
We noticed this great article from Monster.com today. In it they detail some of the pitfalls that job hunters run into on the internet. Quoting from the page:
No one knows how many job candidates worry about how their online reputation can affect their job prospects, but anecdotal evidence suggests that more people are realizing that what they do online — and what others say about them online — can play a role in determining whether they get hired or fired. Post a video, and it may be online forever — no matter how stupid it makes you look. The same goes for blog posts, forum discussions, photo albums and even emails you send to friends. (You never know what will spread from the private sphere to the public realm.) The point is painfully obvious: You need to be thoughtful and deliberate when conducting your life online.
As the article points out, it is especially difficult to delete person information from the Internet. Essentially, when you want to defend your reputation online your two options are to obfuscate (i.e., bury the information amongst the myriad of other search results) or to request removal from the individual sites hosting the information you’d rather others didn’t see.
Both strategies require unique approaches and the outcome is never certain. Each individual should assess their situation as quickly and as thoroughly as possible, outlining a strategy based upon what they find. Sometimes a quick and easy play is acceptable, other times a more in-depth and drawn out campaign will be necessary.
It is clear that Online Identity Management is important for both established professionals looking to change jobs and recent graduates seeking entry into the job market. Professional Online Reputation Management is quickly becoming as important to job hunters as polishing thier resumes and acing the interview.
Two former officers of the police force in Durham, North Carolina are being investigated for alleged derogatory, and potentially racist, Web postings. While the details are not clear yet, the Chief of Police in Durham has stated that a “racial slur” is not the subject of the investigation, but this has done little to quell the outcry from civil rights groups.
