RSS feedOnline Identity Reputation Management (OIM)
Protection from Internet Slander and Defamation.
By Reputation Management
Brighten your reputation management image: Online reputation management is the buzz and can be successfully done with the help of SERM. By providing better ranking of pro-brand sites and lowering the ranks of negative sites you achieve better identity management through SERM.
Using proprietary systems, we repair, revise, enhance and manipulate search engine results for our confidential clients.
For Reputation Management Services Click Here
Protection from Internet Slander and Defamation
Online Internet Defamation and Slander
By Reputation Management
Another potential source of liability is the person who actually posted the defamatory materials. As with more general defamatory statements or materials, a poster can be held personally liable for anything posted which reflects falsely and negatively on a living person’s reputation. Posting false and explicit claims regarding a person will generally be held as defamatory for purposes of liability. However, other issues arise concerning the anonymity of the person posting the information, and if known, the jurisdiction in which they are subject.
Jurisdictional issues may arise in situations where the poster had no reason to expect that the effect of the posting would be felt in a certain jurisdiction. However, in defamation cases jurisdictional disputes are liberally ruled upon in favor of the victim. In Griffis v. Luban, the Minnesota court of appeals ruled that Alabama had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who posted defamatory messages on the Internet. The defendant repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking the plaintiff’s professional credentials. The plaintiff initially obtained a $25,000.00 default judgment in Alabama, which she was seeking to enforce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court ruled that the Alabama court had properly exercised jurisdiction because the effects of the messages were felt in Alabama and that the defendant should have expected that she would be sued there. An important factor in the ruling was that she had actual knowledge of the effect of the defamatory statements on the Defendant. Therefore, the Minnesota court enforced the $25,000.00 default judgment. Griffis v. Luban, 633 N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001).
However, there are cases where courts have refused to allow the exercise of personal jurisdiction based on defamatory statements. In a Pennsylvania case, the court refused to exercise jurisdiction over a New York defendant who had posted defamatory comments about a defendant on an offshore betting website. The court held that since the comments were not specifically directed at Pennsylvania, the court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant. English Sports Betting, Inc. v. Tostigan, C.A. No. 01-2202 (E.D. Pa. 2002).
The problems with bringing defamatory actions based on internet postings largely lie in proving that the defendant actually made the posting. If that connection can be made, a much stronger case can be presented and jurisdictional issues can be tackled. An attorney who is experienced in cyberlaw and internet cases can improve your chances in prevailing in any such case. Without the help of an attorney who can find and connect the evidence, most internet defamation cases will fail for lack of evidentiary sources and experience.
Brand Reputation Management, Defamation, Internet Defamation, Internet Libel, Internet Reputation Management, Internet Slander, Libel, Online Defamation, Online Identity Management (OIM), Online Libel, Online Reputation Management, Online Slander, Removal of Online, Reputation Monitoring, Search Engine Reputation Management, Slander.
Internet Reputation Management
By Reputation Management
Author: SEOJoe
Online reputation management is a developing field that encompasses public relations and search engine optimization.
Consumers go online to make buying decisions. When they research brands using search engines, the results that they observe often influence how they behave. Consumer generated media sites offer the general public the opportunity to express their views of brands. This information can be found in search engine results. Members of the public such as competitors, and ex-employees can take part in the online conversation which can adversely affect the brand reputation.
Online reputation management is a field that involves the monitoring of online conversation, and the action undertaken, to improved brand reputation within search engine results.
These components are extremely crucial in order to successfully marketing your website online. We the right Online Marketing firm, you company can see exponential growth with a highly satisfactory ROI. The most rewarding side effect of online marketing is the brand recognition that comes with your campaign. The actually campaign effectiveness can be tracked in terms of dollars through ROI calculations. However, this is a short term. The long term benefit of a well executed online marketing campaign will positively affect your brand. This is priceless!
Brand Reputation Management, Defamation, Internet Defamation, Internet Libel, Internet Reputation Management, Internet Slander, Libel, Online Defamation, Online Identity Management (OIM), Online Libel, Online Reputation Management, Online Slander, Removal of Online, Reputation Monitoring, Search Engine Reputation Management, Slander.
How Do Internet Reputation Management and Legitimacy Affect Organizational Performance?
By Reputation Management
International Journal of Management, by Thomas, Douglas E
This paper explores the overlap between two similar constructs, reputation and legitimacy, and their effect on organizational performance. Firms face pressures to both develop reputations based on differentiation and to achieve isomorphism by attaining legitimacy. In this paper, we discuss how an organization’s ability to balance these two pressures is related to its performance. Further, we discuss how these constructs are created at multiple levels (e.g., individual).
Introduction
The construct of reputation is central to many branches of the social sciences including economics (Shapiro, 1983), sociology (Podolny, 1993), and the organizational sciences (Weigelt & Camerer, 1988). In the field of management, various theories include reputation to explain organizational outcomes including the resource-based view (Barney, 1991), transaction cost economics (Hill, 1990), and game theory (Weigelt & Camerer, 1988). Reputations have also been studied at the individual level to explain intra-organizational outcomes (Kilduff & Krackhardt, 1994).
Despite the fact that organizational reputation is central to the study of organizations, reputation is often interchanged for related constructs. For example, related constructs such as image, identity, status and legitimacy are used throughout the literature; however, they mean different things depending on the author (Dutton & Dukerich, 1991; Gatewood, Gowan, & Lautenschlager, 1993). The two constructs of legitimacy and reputation have been confused and used interchangeably (Rao, 1994). This leads to confusion for readers and impedes progress in the accumulation of knowledge on this important subject.
For the purposes of this paper, a corporate or organizational reputation is a “set of attributes ascribed [socially constructed] to a firm, inferred from the firm’s past actions” (Weigelt & Camerer, 1988:443). Legitimacy is defined in this paper as 1. “the normative justification of organizations” and 2. “the cognitive validation of an entity as desirable, proper and appropriate in a widely shared system of beliefs and norms” (Rao, 1994:441). Reputation and legitimacy overlap but result from different pressures that organizations face: pressures to be different and pressures to be the same.
Research on organizational legitimacy indicates that it is ascribed based on factors at different levels including the organization itself and its institutional environment (Kostova & Zaheer, 1999). Research on organizational reputation has not yet focused on the multi-level sources of organizational reputation. We attempt to clarify this issue by explaining how organizational reputation is constructed by external actors based on factors at several different levels: individuals, products and capabilities within the organization, the organization itself, and its institutional environment.
Thus, this paper contributes to the literature on organizations and organizational reputation in several different ways. First, it provides a clarifying review of reputation and similar and related constructs, including legitimacy. second, it explains how reputation and legitimacy result from different pressures. Finally, this paper explains how external actors construct organizational reputations based on factors at different levels both internal and external to the organization.
Organizations: Homogeneity or Heterogeneity?
One of the most salient organizational outcomes to researchers is organizational performance. However, performance is understood in different ways in different theories. For example, the resource-based view is generally concerned with understanding differences in performance across organizations while institutional theory is concerned with organizational survival. The theories also differ as to what factors give rise to organizational performance. For example, several relevant theories argue that relative homogeneity across organizations is important for organizational performance; others argue that differentiation across organizations will be positively associated with success. In the following section, these theoretical explanations will be explained.
Organizational Homogeneity
Classical micro-economic theory argues that under perfect competition firms will be indistinguishable from each other, none will have a competitive advantage, none will have above-normal profits, and consumer welfare will be maximized. For example, Connor (1991: 123) points out that in neoclassical perfect competition theory, “firms are identical because perfect information together with a specifiable production function assures that each firm has equal access to product technology.” Industrial Organization economics recognizes market imperfections and thus allows for some firm heterogeneity – within industries (Porter, 1980). Competitive advantage and above-normal profits are possible in industries where there is imperfect competition due to market failure. From the I/O perspective, there is intra-industry homogeneity and inter-industry heterogeneity of firms.
RSS