Most PR pros are in agreement that the benefits of communicating about CSR efforts are tremendous, but few companies are using all tools available to do so. Traditionally, companies used the mainstream media to communicate their CSR success stories. Lately more and more companies are turning to their social media outlets like Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn, too.
One tool that often goes overlooked is the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. While it has been gaining attention recently because of its strict editing policies, there are things companies can do to tell their own story.
Research has found that a company can reap a wide range of benefits from its engagement in CSR. This is especially true with consumers (both current and potential).
By being a good corporate citizen, a company can foster consumer loyalty and turn consumers into company/brand ambassadors and champions who engage in advocacy behaviors (e.g. positive word of mouth, willingness to pay premium prices and resilience to negative company news).
In fact, individuals have been found to react to a company’s CSR efforts in multiple ways, such as buying more products, seeking employment with the company and investing in the company.
While all this is great, it’s contingent on stakeholders’ awareness of the CSR efforts. Studies show that awareness of a company’s CSR efforts among its stakeholders is usually low, resulting in a challenge for companies to reap the full strategic benefits.
Having CSR efforts documented in a corporate Wikipedia entry makes it easily available for stakeholders. According to Alexa.com, Wikipedia is ranked the sixth-most-popular Web site in the world and in the U.S. It currently contains close to 4 million entries in English and 19 million articles across all of its 270 language editions.
Wikipedia is on the first page of most search results and our research found that it is in the first five loadings for top Fortune companies. It has also been found that it is framed as credible and accurate in traditional news media coverage.
When we are talking about corporate entries, this lends Wikipedia high importance in public relations. This means it’s too prominent in the public’s view to let it go without our attention.
Furthermore, our research in 2010 found that the top Fortune corporate entries that we analyzed contained more negative content than positive (24.6% versus 11.5%) and content about scandals and legal concerns/scandals than CSR efforts (15.6% versus 5.0%). In fact, we found that the amount of content about CSR was slightly lower in 2010 than it was in 2006 (when it was 5.3%).
CSR AS A COUNTER-WEIGHT TO LEGAL ISSUES
At the same time, content about legal issues and scandals has steadily increased. Actually, in 2006 the entries contained about the same level of CSR as they did legal issues and scandals (5.3% versus 5.5%), but in 2008 the amount of content about legal issues and scandals jumped 8% (from 5.5% to 13.5%), and then it jumped another 2.1% in 2010.
We know that these numbers might seem slight, but let’s keep in mind that what we are talking about is the content about a company’s legal issues or controversies—topics you would probably rather not see in public communication.
It’s understandable that legal issues and controversies are recorded on Wikipedia, but hopefully you will have more coverage of the good things your company has done to balance it out.
However, this wasn’t what we found in our research. So, we believe that this is an opportunity that you should take advantage of. Unfortunately, this is easier said than done, and often the cause of great tension.
NO PAID ADVOCACY
Wikipedia operates by the five following pillars:
• Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia.
• Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view.
• Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify and distribute.
• Editors should interact with each other in a respectful and civil manner.
• Wikipedia does not have firm rules.
These pillars are fine, and really a benefit to companies. It’s laudable that Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view and, as our research found, the corporate entries were about 64% neutral. However, it’s the third bullet that is of huge importance to PR pros: “Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify and distribute.”
In fact, this pillar has a stipulation about paid advocacy, in that it is prohibited. Unfortunately, this means that PR professionals have to keep their hands off directly editing company entries. However, it does not mean that you should turn your back or throw up your arms in defeat.
It may not be quick but by following the guidelines in the sidebar you should be able to successfully edit the information in your Wikipedia entry. We strongly encourage you to take the time to add your CSR efforts to your entry—don’t sit and wait for the public to do so because CSR efforts often go overlooked, as our research found.
MEDIA COVERAGE
Any CSR effort that receives media coverage can be added to your entry. You need a reference for any content that you want to add and news media content is seen as credible on Wikipedia as our research has shown. While that may be a bit limiting, hopefully your CSR efforts have been recognized in various media outlets that now provide you with choices for references.
Just go with the most credible and reputable source as you suggest your CSR to Wikipedia. PRN
[This article was adapted from PR News’ Corporate Social Responsibility & Green PR Guidebook, Vol. 5. To order go PR News' Online Store.]
| Powered by: |
 |
✔ Measurement Tip of the Week
Understanding what didn’t work in your PR campaign is just as important—if not more important—as understanding what did work. Examine which goals were not met, which aspects of your campaign missed their targets and which efforts did not result in the type of coverage (either quantity or quality) that you hoped for, and explore what might have gone wrong and what can be learned from these failures.
CONTACT:
This article was written by Marcia W. DiStaso, PhD, assistant professor of public relations in the College of Communications at Pennsylvania State University ([email protected]), and Marcus Messner, PhD, assistant professor of mass communications at Virginia Commonwealth University ([email protected]).