Let’s review what we know and discuss possible resolutions.

NFL running back Ryan Moats and his family were rushing through the Dallas streets at night, en route to the hospital where his wife’s dying mother only had moments left to live. Moats ran a red light in his haste and was pulled over by Officer Powell, just outside the hospital. His wife and other family members left the car and proceeded to the hospital.

Ryan Moats endured a lot of insulting talk from Officer Powell. He was told repeatedly to shut his mouth, while Office Powell recounted all the different ways he could ruin Moats’ evening.

Here’s the video taken from the police officer’s squad car:

This serves as another example of what happens when authority is abused… when a person in a position of authority enjoys his/her authority too much and flaunts over another individual. It’s a dangerous game he played.

On top of that reputation nightmare, wife of former Dallas Cowboy Zach Thomas has recognized the officer involved and made public her undesirable incident involving Officer Powell. This is a PR nightmare for the DPD. If these allegations are true, we may be dealing with an officer who has a history of abusing power, which would take this to a whole other level of seriousness. But that angle isn’t getting as much play, for some reason. Perhaps Mrs. Thomas provoked the officer after her illegal U-turn. She claims she was handcuffed and taken to the police station after receiving five tickets.

At present, Officer Powell is on paid leave, which has only enflamed certain parties even more. One Dallas City Council member is calling for Powell to be fired. The police chief, David Kunkle, has a real crisis on his hands. Technically, his officer did not violate the law or put a citizen in danger. He did, however, fail to exercise good judgment and made a public spectacle of his mistake.

Let’s take a look at some of the issues at play here:

1. Within 24 hours of the incident, Officer Powell should have issued an apology. Instead of acting quickly, Powell’s issued a public apology AFTER it stirred up the nation and everyone was turned against him.

2. Powell’s apology sounded scripted and coached. You can tell when a person sticks to one statement over and over again, despite the question, that he has been coached to stick to what is safe when he doesn’t know what the appropriate response should be. His training in returning to the same statement over and over again proves he was coached and he is just following instructions.

3. Powell plays the publicity victim card. Office Powell had no reason to share how he’s concerned about death threats received and the safety of his children. If people are making threats against his family, they are in the wrong and should be held accountable. But a man’s responsibility to publicly own up for his mistake should not be watered down by diverting the public’s attention to negative repercussions suffered for his own actions.

4. Powell’s public mistake has stripped him of authority. This point was made on the air this morning on 105.3FM The Fan. If Powell IS reinstated as a police officer, what’s to stop anyone he pulls over from playing the guilt card or feigning a medical emergency? And what is he to do in that instance? Any one of his routine traffic stops could be a real medical emergency. But now everyone knows he’s suffered for his error in judgment, and could use that against him. And even if they don’t, who isn’t going to be nervous when they see the vilified Officer Powell walking toward their car? You can’t expect people to trust him for a long time.

5. Americans are a forgiving people, if contrition is shown and then some time passes. We want to be a forgiving people, because we innately recognize that we’re each flawed human beings, and we want to know that there is forgiveness and restoration available for the moments when we have made mistakes. Everyone wants to be redeemed. No one (or almost no one) wants to believe that their mistakes exempt them from living a respected normal life.

6. Many people use the same excuse that Ryan Moats was telling him. If you imagine 150-300 traffic stops over the period of any given month, you start to comprehend how an officer could be calloused and not necessarily believe every excuse he is told. Just watch the nightly news or C.O.P.S. and you’ll see plenty of examples of human stupidity that police officers have to routinely deal with.

7. Officer Powell had several opportunities to let Ryan Moats go to see his mother-in-law. It is sad to hear the nurse confirming to Powell that his relative is indeed about to die any moment, and the officer’s response as he’s writing a ticket is, “I’m almost done.” That is inexcusable. Ultimately, you might be able to excuse several behavioral question marks over the span of the video, but disregarding a verified emergency is without just cause.

8. Officer Powell could live a very respectable life as a police officer going forward if given the chance. Not passing judgment one way or the other here. I’m just presenting what I see to be the facts. Powell could be a very good police officer, especially now that he’s hopefully learned a very valuable lesson about authority. He could not function as a regular patrolling officer immediately, but given time he could definitely earn back the trust and respect that has been lost.

9. The DPD chief has to make a very important and difficult decision. This won’t be easy. You can fire the man, because he made poor decisions that cost another man an irreplaceable moment in his life. You can fire him because the overwhelming majority of the public demand it. Or you can devise some sort of punishment/correction that enables the officer an opportunity to win back the public trust and respect.

That wraps up my thoughts for the moment. Now let’s hear from you:

Baron is an innovator in the area of business and its social, political and legal environment. He created the field of non-market strategy, an approach that integrates traditional strategy with political economy, reputation management, ethics and corporate social responsibility. The David S. and Ann M. Barlow Professor of Political Economy and Strategy, Emeritus at Stanford, his most recent research includes path-breaking work on social entrepreneurship and moral motivations for firms and managers.

Congratulations, David!

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.