The Internet is especially hospitable to those who wish to advance aggressive forms of criticism against corporations and other institutions and who do so in loose collaboration with others, often whom they do not know.
This behavior falls along a continuum of online behavior of three types: (1) collaborative; (2) socially constructive criticism intended as public policy reform; and (3) aggressive, destructive behavior. Each of these types of aggressive behaviors is intended to achieve distinct objectives; is driven by different motivations; and involves the use of different media in the effort to achieve these ends.
1. Collaborative behavior
Often started by product users, brand advocates, beta product testers, etc., this type of behavior is distinguished by its goal of seeking a truly positive outcome for the company and product.
- Objective: to improve a product or service through relevant, honest, timely feedback.
- Motivation: to have an impact by making oneself heard and to improve product quality.
- Media Applications: any convenient online vehicle provided by the corporation perceived to be likely to have someone reading it; blogs and product-specific message boards.
2. Socially constructive behavior
Usually started by activists, non-profit organizations, or disgruntled consumers, this type of behavior is often rooted in social, political, or economic issues that the organizer(s) deeply care about. Companies that listen, evaluate, and respond appropriately to the criticisms and suggestions can prevent these situations from escalating and may even turn them to a benefit.
- Objective: to prompt change on the part of a corporation(s) for perceived public benefit.
- Motivation: to improve society, regardless of negative impact on individual corporations.
- Media Applications: applications with viral potential, including blogs, podcasts, videos, and other media that can be shared and syndicated easily; and sites with message boards.
3. Aggressive, destructive behavior
This is the most negative, insidious type of behavior, often employing the most extreme and disruptive tactics. Companies must respond carefully to such attacks to avoid further inflam-ing the situation.While legal action is a last resort, there may be some instances where it may be one possible course of action in dealing with this type of behavior.
- Objective: to harm a corporation's brand, to promote oneself, and/or to prompt change.
- Motivation: to work out frustration, to cause harm, to achieve personal fame, and/or to put oneself in a position to make money at the expense of a corporation.
- Media Applications: applications with viral potential, including blogs, podcasts, videos, and other media that can be shared and syndicated easily; and sites with message boards.
How a company responds has a great deal to do with the impact of the aggressive behavior. An incorrect response can inflame the aggressive behavior while a correct response may divert the negative behavior.
In responding to aggressive behavior, corporations should consider the following strategies:
Strategy 1: Prevention
Developing systems for monitoring of the relevant user-generated content; ensuring that the right people within the corporation have access to this information; and providing outlets for the frustrations of employees and customers in spaces where the discussion can be constructively handled.
Strategy 2: Early engagement with critics
Identifying the critic's motive and appropriate media application through which to respond. Engagement might involve corporate blogging, despite the challenges, and active engagement in other user-generated content environments. Engagement with online critics is almost always the most effective response.
Strategy 3: Law only as a last resort
Legal action should be a last (not first) resort, and only where there is clear violation of the law involved - not legitimate speech protected by the First Amendment.
1 Introduction
In 1999, two former employees - together with a third accomplice - began a smear campaign on Internet bulletin boards against a biotech company.Today, the bulletin board includes thousands of postings containing false information and allegations against the company and its officers. In November 2005, Fortune, a national business magazine in the United States, ran a cover story: "Attack of the Blogs." In 2006, a Turkish hacker defaced over 38,000 websites in a single day.
