The Internet isn't all happy communities and smooth communication. It can host unsavory characters whose bandito intentions turn Web sites into corporate whipping posts.
'Rogue Sites,' as they are known, are digital peanut galleries whose sole purpose is to bash a product, company, event or person. And while creators of such sites say the First Amendment gives them the right, their victims shout "libel" from the rooftops because damages can be anything but virtual.
Recently, presidential wanna-be George W. Bush fell prey to such a site when he publicly whined that www.gwbush.com was touting his name and slamming everything else about him. The 'net' effect of this action was that he called more attention to the site. The candidate then backpedaled, and in a moment of desperation, issued an intemperate quote about how there should be limits on freedom.
Emotional responses like these can dampen a presidential image about as quickly as courting twenty-something interns. But, more importantly, Bush's whimpering underscores how instrumental the Internet has become in helping to shape public persona. Anyone with sinister motives and Internet access has the potential to break that persona to bits.
Their 15 Minutes
"What the Internet has done is taken people from the audience and put them on stage," says Ed Niehous of Niehous Ryan Wong Public Relations. "They're not in the business and so they are not particularly accountable for what they write. They are not held to any sort of journalistic standard."
But aren't all these rogue operators crazy and, therefore, unable to be held to any sort of standard? Surely, their fellow Web denizens discount their off-color rantings as lacking in credibility. Perhaps that would be true in the sugarcoated world of make-believe. But in reality, demented news entertains, false or not. It keeps eyeballs committed and travels virally to friends, spreading rogue messages like wildfire.
"I take a First Amendment view that people who publish rogue sites should be entitled to," says Jerry Schwartz, president of the PR firm G.S. Schwartz. "But where do you draw the line between a parody, a spoof or criticism and libel?"
Leaving lawyers to decide that line and going head to head with rogue site creators in a legal battle may prove even more detrimental to the client's or company's image than what the site inflicted (PRN Sept. 20).
Bush tried this tactic, threatening lawsuits against the rogue creator. Instead of quashing the site, he garnered significant media attention for it and will undoubtedly have to defend his irrational remark about restricting the First Amendment in future press conferences.
Crossing the Line
Tempers usually go white-hot once a rogue site is discovered. But it's vital to keep emotion from clouding your judgment on how to proceed. "You really want to analyze the site as you would any other business decision," says David S. Margulies, president of The Margulies Communications Group. "Is it really hurting you or just annoying?"
Concrete evidence that a site is detrimental is if your biggest customers have heard about it or if your company's stock has taken a plunge. "In these cases you need to do something about it because it's damaging your business," warns Margulies. But, striking back at a rogue site is a process, not an event.
"There's an old line," says Schwartz. "You don't want to win battles and lose wars. Tilting at every little windmill is a lot of little battles." And the most common form of windmill- tilting to avoid is entering a rogue site under an alias.
"It is never a good idea to go on a site and pretend to be an everyday-Joe," says William Hom, Internet services coordinator for Earle Palmer Brown. "The users of these sites usually are regulars and they can tell if you are putting up a front."
If necessary, contacting a site must be done on the up-and-up. Schedule an expert in the field to appear on the site who can refute the page's claims by shedding light on them. But do it quickly.
Hom warns about the possibility of rumors and negative messages spreading instantly because of the Web's unprecedented speed.
Going the Customer Route
When bad news hits, connect with those vital to your bottom line. "If it is something that is very damaging you have the potential of losing the customers that have heard about it," says Margulies. "You need to communicate with them directly."
This does two things. It allows you to educate customers about the rogue site's shortcomings and build personal relationship with them. The problem many businesses face is that personal contact with vital customers is unrealistic -- there are too many of them.
When 20/20 aimed its investigative guns at Edelman client Ericsson for making cell phones that caused brain damage, the PR firm deployed a strategy that lends itself to combating rogue Web sites.
"Don't hide anything," says Lee Martin, manager of interactive solutions with the firm. "By hiding results, people will become skeptical and start to question why [the company] is not defending themselves."
Edelman addressed the 20/20 issue by building a Web page on Ericsson's site. Titled "Health & Safety," it answered all the points raised by the televised segment and offered customers the opportunity to see additional 20/20 footage that wasn't originally aired. Educating customers removes doubt and can take the steam out of a negative campaign.
"If they didn't put that information on the site," says Martin, "Ericsson would've had a bigger issue on their hands."
Considering the Source
Educating the rogue site's creators also reverses misguided motives. "Rumors will float around, get more steam and get attributed as fact when it gets on a rogue Web site," Niehous says. "You have to find out who's saying it and that's your influencer."
Niehous suggests making direct contact once you find the source. Not via the chat room or an entry on the site, but by phone, email, or face to face, to begin building a relationship with them.
"Tell them you recognize how important their influence is with the people who visit the site and that you'd like them to know what is going on with the company." By sending them press releases, research materials and other facts, you can build trust between the company and the rogue Webmaster.
"One of the things about this relationship is that you can now hold people accountable," says Niehous. "If you see them posting something that you know they know is not true, because you gave them the information, you can now call them up and ask why they did it."
Armed with the information that the rogue Webmaster knows better, they can now be held to a more journalistic standard. "And it's been my experience that they start acting that way," says Niehous.
(William Hom, [email protected], 203/705-9255; David Margulies,
[email protected], 972/994-1515; Lee Martin, [email protected]; Ed Niehous, [email protected], 650/827-7095; Jerry Schwartz, [email protected], 212/725-4500.)