- This topic is empty.
August 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm #697basschickGuest
in theory. if the crazy, hostile members have issues with you or your site, they may continue to spread the word on blogs and review sites.August 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm #698GayDemonGuest
You just can’t ever please everyone. I think we’ve had some of those trolls on the review of your site. Sadly it doesn’t matter what you say to them they won’t ever change their mind or see it any other way than their own. I can’t see any reason why you would want to keep them on as members if they cause problems.August 7, 2016 at 1:00 pm #699OldSchoolGuest
Comments are still sent for approval and stated as such in our member areas. Sure, it’s more work for me, but it keeps the “ugly” comments at bay.August 7, 2016 at 1:01 pm #700conranGuest
Set up Google alerts for various versions of your brand/business/website and you’ll be notified when Google finds a comment on a forum or a blog etc. Then you just need to go and take a look at what they’re saying about you and respond appropriately.
Not many webmasters make use of this, but it’s a great tool to keep track of your brand and reputation.August 7, 2016 at 1:01 pm #701OldSchoolGuest
It’s a “catch 22” when it comes to people talking good, bad or indifferent about your site on other sites/blogs. Publicity is still good advertisement be it in any form. It brings recognition to your brand/website. We all know who uses that to their advantage!
When it comes to the drama, sites like BSB have profited from it, their blog/comments were one of the many reasons people hung around. It got pretty nasty at times. The scenes started to lack, but there was still the smack.
Titan has gained notoriety from their recent marketing ploy. It reminded some people they’re still around and going strong.
Let’s face it, it’s nice to stir up a stink from time to time just to get the blood circulating. Everyone does it. Not everyone likes it.
Not all readers may know about your company, brand or site. Granted they might be reading the slanderous hate comments, but they’re bound to come take a look at what all the fuss is about. They may or may not agree with the people posting the nasty comments. Each to their own.
Bottom line, it’s still free publicity. Good, bad or indifferent. It still brings about awareness.
It’s just how you want to take it in and process it.
When it comes to the member areas, that’s the one place it is a good idea to draw the line.August 7, 2016 at 1:02 pm #702conranGuest
“Bottom line, it’s still free publicity. Good, bad or indifferent. It still brings about awareness.
It’s just how you want to take it in and process it.”
Probably no surprise that I disagree.
Bad publicity is just that, bad publicity.
It’s a myth that any publicity is good publicity, it’s one of those things people repeat as though it’s a proven marketing tactic, but there has never been a good example of it actually working.
It’s especially risky in the righteous age of social media where one incident can be blown out of all proportion into a shit storm of campaigning and targeted attacks to take you down.
This is why so many large companies have teams to control their reputation and brand, and why they also end up spending millions on repairing their image when something goes wrong.
While it’s on a completely different scale, we don’t seriously think Chipotle has benefited from increased awareness of their brand over the food poisoning scandal, do we? They’re losing millions over something negative they had the power to prevent and chose not to.
And why would a company let it slide as free publicity when they could get the same level of publicity for positive reasons with a little more thought? I mean, if your going to risk profit (and your entire brand) for a little publicity, spend that money on creating something positive to get your brand out there.
The risk is not justified in my opinion.August 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm #703dzinerbearGuest
“While it’s on a completely different scale, we don’t seriously think Chipotle has benefited from increased awareness of their brand over the food poisoning scandal, do we?”
Funny you bring this up: yesterday, I walked passed a restaurant in downtown Toronto that has Chipotle in its name, but it isn’t an part of the Chipotle chain. And I immediately thought, “Ew dirty, eat there and get food poisoning.”August 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm #704OldSchoolGuest
I don’t want to turn this into a pissing contest guys. I didn’t even know about the Chipotle ordeal. But I also don’t own a TV or have time to surf social media or read newspapers.
I would think the Chipotle bit is a good example of how bad publicity will hurt a company. But I also think that is on a much grander scale than a few comments like what we’re referring to in this thread. I could be wrong, but again, I’m not one that follows the media.
This is my media playground. Got plenty of insight and enough drama for me.
I actually got to watch the SuperBowl online, so I was a happy camper
I’ll bow out now (as soon as I can find the exit door).August 7, 2016 at 1:03 pm #705NewBobGuest
With our current tech, we’ve decided to ban trolls from the members area because we can’t silence. Obviously we can’t control the blogs, but a few of our blogging friends have cross referenced the IP addresses and a lot of the extreme hateful comments keep coming from the same geographical area. We must have really rubbed someone the wrong way.