Quick Summary
All government planes used to refuel other planes in the air are extremely old and need to be replaced. The U.S. government opened up bidding to the public and two companies responded: Boeing and Northrop/Airbus. There was heated debate over the possibility of a European manufacturer landing this tremendous $35 billion contract. Never before has a non-American manufacturer won this kind of government contract.

The question now is how does Boeing recover? No other American company can compete for these deals, and how do we know that one loss doesn’t lead to two or three? What happens if European contractors take away hundreds of billions of dollars from the U.S. economy? And maybe more importantly, how did Boeing screw this up?

These are questions investors will have to ask. $35 billion is nothing to scoff at. According to MSNBC, Boeing has been responsible for supplying refueling tankers to the Air Force for the past 50 years. That’s a lot of tradition and revenue to lose.

At this point in time, Boeing appears to be responding with silence and general acceptance of defeat. That could come back to haunt them in the days to come. Anytime your company or brand makes the headlines alongside negative words like “mistake, loses, loss, error, bad news, or defeated”, public perception and confidence in your brand dips at least marginally (if not drastically).

The Boeing PR staff better get it in gear. There’s another $65 billion out there to be had over the next 30 years, and Boeing needs to position itself to be the frontrunner to get it. I’ll keep an eye on this and see how it unfolds.

According to the article, Facebook Beacon made the same mistake some time ago. It’s unusual to see giant web corporations lacking the foresight to handle this type of situation in advance. But when hundreds of complaints start coming in, it’s hard to turn a blind eye.

The Web is obviously the most advanced method of information storage and retrieval the public has ever experienced. eCommerce and social media are such staples in our society today that companies should automatically place user privacy and data sharing policies at the top of the list of importance.

When Google can make the mistake of releasing thousands of details about its users without realizing there’s a problem, allow yourself to become alarmed. As Google continues to grow and store a greater percentage of the world’s information, someone has to hold them accountable. I personally used Google Reader only once, at the behest of Graywolf. I found it to be boring and not nearly as interesting as reading my own feeds and twittering. It’s no big loss to me. My only concern is what this kind of mistake says about the future state of affairs.

Stay tuned.

More details as they come available.

As the quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, Michael Vick should have known and respected the prominent position he held. Whether directly involved in the multi-state dog fighting ring or not, Vick supplied the home and property to people who were directly responsible. This lack of judgment and foresight has cost Vick and the Atlanta Falcons some serious PR points.

Simply put, the quarterback is the face of the team - like the lead singer of a rock band. He is the one everyone looks to for leadership. He sets the tone and controls the game. He is the most important player on the team. The salary and the media spotlight reflect the importance of the quarterback position.

Today, it was announced that the commissioner of the NFL may allow Vick to play “for now.” A suspension hasn’t been ruled out, depending on the court’s findings. If Michael Vick is implicated directly, you can be sure that he will face at least a one year suspension, thus plummeting the Atlanta Falcons into the abyss of playoff uncertainty. The Falcons have no one who can fill the shoes of Michael Vick.

But luckily for Vick, a winning franchise is a very forgiving franchise. Should he be able to escape from these allegations with little more than a slap on the wrist, he has every opportunity to remind the coaches and the fans why he deserves to be the man behind the wheel.

Hmm… That’s one way to combat criticism. It’s also a good way to show how your government is corrupt and on the take. No way does this happen in the U.S. One blogger asks how this will affect everyone’s next blog post. Will it prevent you from stating your opinion because you can be taken to court and thrashed soundly?

Well, I see no reason in the United States for this to be a concern despite all the problems with our judicial system. God help Australia, though. I would hate to be in their shoes right now.

It is a shame that more CEOs and Directors of Public Relations won’t heed the wisdom embodied by Johnson & Johnson those years ago. True, it cost hundreds of millions in recalls and such. Undoubtedly, this is why most executives refuse this humble and expensive path. It is, however, the only way to avoid looking the fool and risking permanent failure.

Why is it that so few executives have the foresight to protect the public and the company? The PR disasters of the past twenty years simply prove that it takes less savvy and ingenuity to create a company than to sustain one.

The difference between advisable practices and inadvisable practices can easily be summed up in one word: intent. I had this exact same conversation with a client yesterday. When someone defames your reputation online, you face the choice between “attack and defend” in more ways than one. When dealing with online defamation of character, the rule of thumb is to respect freedom of speech. Companies like Reputation Defender make the mistake of contacting the blogs, websites, and forums responsible for allowing negative comments to be made and they politely request removal. If the party refuses, the language becomes decidedly less polite and friendly.

The problem is that a service is charging customers for something it cannot guarantee. Reputation Defender will try to persuade these webmasters and content managers to withdraw ugly content, but it is at the sole discretion of the owner. Sometimes the owner or person in charge will comply out of sympathy. Other times, the requests for content removal evoke other emotions, and the owner will post additional inflammatory remarks or actually post the requests for removal in an attempt to mock the parties involved.

Two lessons must be learned from this WSJ article:

1. Reputation Defender only serves individuals - NOT companies. They are not equipped for professional corporate reputation management and are therefore a bad example to look to as a corporate professional when determining the need or validity of the reputation management industry
2. Promoting positive content and addressing negative statements online is a more effective and worthwhile pursuit for a corporate reputation management company

Sure, you might somehow have an unwanted photo on someone else’s MySpace or Flickr account. Sure, something said or exposed may affect a child’s ability to get into private schools or colleges. But this is a far cry from the realm of corporate reptuation management. Even when dealing with the individual executives themselves, this simple manner of attempting to “destroy” negative content is unrealistic and carries the potential of making a bad situation worse.

Ineffective reputation management practices can harm the business image of a credit card. A good example to follow the suit is amex credit card that takes its public image as seriously as it does new product development. Certain business credit card offers come with enhanced features and premium service level for a charge in addition to the credit card fee. The same applies, at a relatively high cost, to the bad credit credit cards.

Organic search engine optimization is a power tool in the hands of someone who knows what they’re doing. I have seen SEO alone do wonders to the contribution of the search reptuation management. 90+% of all searchers never pass page one in their searches. Dominate that real estate, and 90% of your reputation problems are history. Then and only then should you consider the possibility of requesting content removal. Dominate search first. That way, even a negative response won’t crush your ORM efforts.

MSNBC has suspended his simulcast for two weeks. His primary network, CBS, has yet to take any action. The media commentators have crawled out of the woodwork to rail against the use of racial slurs and “hate”. The majority of media channels are now embroiled in the debate of censorship vs. free speech. The question on NPR is: “Should censorship be allowed and under what conditions?”

Visit YouTube and judge for yourself. I personally listened to 30 minutes of NPR commentary and debate over the issue before hearing firsthand what Imus had actually said. Ahh, the miracle of YouTube!

One of the columnists talking on NPR this morning about the issue made a comment that continues to resonate within me: slurs and negative comments are more apt to cause a backlash today than 15 years ago due to social media sites like YouTube. In the mid-90s, a shock jock or commentator could say something derogatory and despite the gossip, the majority of public opinion would be based on hearsay. Today, YouTube catches nearly everything controversial said on television and anyone can hear what was said word for word. The public’s reaction is therefore more reactionary much faster than in days gone by.

Don Imus has been apologizing profusely throughout the past week. He is what he is - a shock jock - which means he is not someone I will ever waste time listening to. He is contributing to the popularity of slurs and slander, but he is and should be protected by free speech. He doesn’t need to worry much about reputation management because his job is to be controversial. In the end, he will only make more money and gain more fame from this incident. His future as a shock jock is not in any jeopardy (he can always join Stern on satellite radio).

Imus represents a microscopically small percentage of the population who has very little need for online reputation management. For Imus, bad press = more $$$. It is the nature of the beast.

Jennifer Engle (a.k.a. “The Little Ball of Hate”) asked the people on Dallas’ local ESPN radio station whether Cuban’s involvement with this conspiratorial film will adversely affect the national public’s perception of the Dallas Mavericks. Callers of varying opinions spoke up, but none of them covered the issue sufficiently.

Cuban may or may not reap a whirlwind of negative press. Truthfully, with today’s popular opinion swaying the way it does, I doubt he will face much in the way of losses either financially or reputationally. It is possible, just not probable. What is more likely to happen is that Mister Cuban has just given the national press something to talk about instead of his Dallas Mavericks. Look for the national spotlight to consistently sweep in his direction and steal the Mavericks’ thunder.

That’s the real travesty here. The Dallas Mavericks have put together one of the most incredible seasons of basketball history, and as we approach the playoffs, their owner lacks the foresight to even wait to discuss this film until the season is over. If the Dallas Mavericks lose the spotlight to their owner, they have no one to blame but him.

On the political side, I disagree with the O’Reilly and his guests when they say it is unpatriotic to make a film like Loose Change. Regardless of its content, the people have the right to voice their opinions and beliefs. This film does not make them less patriotic. Of course, I have no idea what happened on 9/11 and at this point I choose to believe that there was no foul play on our government’s end.

Mark Cuban’s argument is that every American should watch the film and make their own decision. He says that ignorance and rumor are sometimes more dangerous than direct exposure. So he may be hoping to diffuse the subject, but he’s really opening a can of worms. What’s to stop every money hungry conspiracy theorist from making films in hopes of getting Cuban’s distribution power? This situation tells us that you might profit via Mark Cuban if your film is conspiratorial enough. His diffusing may very well encourage more people to take advantage of him. That is, of course, if he really is distributing this film for the reason he’s said.

Today’s Lesson: Be aware of the possible repercussions of your public statements and actions. Make wise decisions, because the best strategy for PR and ORM is to behave and conduct your business in such a way that you will always be proud.

The company faces a raft of issues, from an ongoing federal accounting investigation to customer service complaints and shareholder lawsuits, not to mention growing competition.

One of the tactics Dell will use to regain favor with the public is the return of Michael Dell as chairman and CEO. The founder of the company hopes to restore confidence in the brand he established. It’s a classic move. It was Michael Dell, after all, who took this company from nothing to the powerhouse that it was in 2000.

Let’s face it: No computer company is branding their product like Apple. With the Mac versus PC commercials, Apple is defining itself as the trendy and functionally superior alternative. The iPod sent Apple rocketing into the popularity stratosphere. Apple is successfully building on the popularity and trendy attitude of the iPod and carrying it out across the board.

Dell’s a different story. Dell computers were originally known for it’s reliability and affordable prices. That reputation has largely evaporated over the past few years. What’s left? The only good things I hear about Dell these days revolve around their servers and high dollar equipment - a complete turnaround from the company’s original claim to fame.

The New York Times quotes Michael Dell:

In the company’s statement, Mr. Dell called for investor patience. “We won’t achieve our goals overnight, but we will achieve our goals,” he said. “We will be known again for strong operating and financial performance and a great experience for our customers. But it will take time to realize the future benefits of the improvements we are making today.”

It remains to be seen whether the iconic do-it-yourself computer figure will be able to realign the company’s future.

Perhaps even more frightening than Dell’s poor management and business strategy are the rumors of a deal with Google to popularize the disposable computer. In this rumored scenario, Google provides the hard drive space via internet and Dell provides the affordable monitor and keyboard unit. The marketing spin is the safety of one’s hard drive from viruses and hackers. You would be expected to put all of your trust in Google and Dell would just pimp out its cheap hardware. Not especially comforting, if you ask me.

For now, Michael Dell is banking on his own reputation as the saving grace for Dell investors and speculators. Time will tell if the man can actually still compete in today’s market.