Ecademy’s Lyndon Wood: sailing into a perfect reputation storm?

If you’re interested in online reputation management, you might want to watch that space

Once apon a time I was a member of Ecademy, an online business networking platform. At the time I joined (somewhere around 2006) it had an interesting mix of online and offline interactions. Like many people trying to start up their own businesses and make them work I spent too much time networking online (in various places) while convincing myself I was building some kind of foundation for my business. In my case, this turned out not to be true – however, it’s not the case for all businesses. Many people get just the start they need from that kind of activity and many use online networking in a way they can demonstrate adds value to their businesses.

Eventually I decided to let my Ecademy membership lapse. There were a number of reasons for this. Firstly (as I mentioned above) I realised that my activity there wasn’t what my business really needed at the time. Secondly, I didn’t like the cliquey-ness of Ecademy with it’s ‘BlackStar’ elite and their incessant marketing. Thirdly, I didn’t really like the management style. There was a very small power-circle (pun intended) made up of the Powers and the Watkins. If you didn’t toady to this inner circle, you were out in the wilderness. As for me, I neither agreed nor disagreed with them on anything, I just didn’t really want to be in a place that smelled so strongly of ‘Arslikhan’ (as Private Eye would have it).

I found the process of closing my account infuriating – so much so that I blogged here about it on this site. As someone who has been around social media since way before the start, I was interested to watch the fortunes of Ecademy over the time I had been a member and beyond. There’s nothing like being a social media / online networking user to know what makes an online environment work and what doesn’t. The first thing for any entrepreneur to know is that the experience is product that we may or may not buy – not the platform that the owner or the developer get so excited about. That’s just the environment stuff happens in.

The second thing to know is that ‘free’ doesn’t mean you can forget about delivering value.  No matter how ‘free’ a service is, no matter how generous its owners think they are by giving it away, it still has to deliver benefits that are tangible to the user and which he/she thinks are a fair exchange for filling that world with their data and content. On top of this, too many online entrepreneurs end up believing their own list of the ‘benefits of the free membership level’ even when they are given evidence to the contrary. Facebook understand the folly of doing this and so, surprisingly, does LinkedIn. Both of these have steered a careful course and listened (if grudgingly) to their users, notably the non-paying ones.

Over the years, I’ve occasionally looked in at Ecademy to see how it was doing and it clearly wasn’t good. At one point Ecademy suddenly went from being the familiar dark-blue, visually-reassuring, orderly business site to looking like a bad undergraduate design project. I have no idea when this transition happened or why, but it was as if the maturity and seriousness had dropped out of the project overnight. The site design and new logo looked shoddy and chaotic. I have seen this happen once before to an online business networking site where two of directors fell out with a third – their IT director – with the result that he went home in disgust and took his toys and the entire site with him.  All that was left was some data and a skeleton for the remaining directors to frantically try to rebuild. Perhaps something similar happened with Ecademy? I don’t know.

Something prompted me to look at Ecademy again today and I saw straight away a new ‘splash’ on the home page announcing that ‘Ecademy is changing’ to become something called ‘Sunzu – the art of business’. I learned quickly that the Powers had left the building and the site now had a new owner – a Mr. Lyndon Wood (Founder and Director of the Moorhouse Group).

I took a look around to see what was changing. I didn’t find much tangible evidence of change, but I did read quite a few posts outlining Mr. Wood’s vision and promises for the future of Ecademy. I also read a fair few comments from the last-guard of the Ecademy community, many of them ‘Blackstars’ (those people who paid Thomas and Penny Power a lot of money for ‘lifetime’ membership benefits that they now say never really materialised). These members were in dialogue with Lyndon Wood and some were challenging him on his vision and views.

Which brings me to this post.

It’s clear that Lyndon Wood has chosen to position himself visibly at the helm of what he describes as a ‘gamble’ with Ecademy and to engage the members in a publicly-visible dialogue. From a brief reading of the exchanges so far, I would say that there is the danger of a reputation storm brewing for Mr. Wood. This is fuelled both by a combative style of communication and a tendency to dismiss as unworthy the views of those who disagree with him. You might get away with this with your employees but not with your customers.

The most dangerous path for any business to tread online is the path of dialogue with one’s customers – particularly when they’re not happy. This is the real space where reputations are made and destroyed – sometimes in the space of a single sentence. To dialogue with one’s dissatisfied customers productively in the glare of online visibility takes the kind of awareness that doesn’t come lightly. To borrow from Einstein:

most people try to solve reputation problems with the same level of awareness and communication skills that created those reputation problems in the first place

I’ve every respect for someone who has built up a successful business in insurance. I tip my hat. But if you want to see a potential reputation disaster in the making, then in Mr. Wood’s own words: feel free to watch what happens next.

Managing yourself productively through this kind of dialogue where your dreams, ambitions and beliefs come up against critical feedback from paying members is an extremely tough ask and it’s that much tougher when those customers haven’t had a very good deal so far. In those circumstances, it’s all too easy to vent your feelings and your frustration in a way that can do your reputation untold damage.

What do I recommend?

I would say:

• Take the position that you’re the last person to know the impression you’re creating

• Ask others who are not involved and who aren’t going to massage your ego what they get from the exchanges you’ve already had

• Increase your understanding of your own emotional reactions in this dialogue; invest in some new skills to stay out of reaction in such difficult dialogues

It’s the unconscious reaction that costs every time.

 

Felix Baumgartner full space jump video

If you’re looking for a full video of Felix Baumgartner making a jump – any jump – you’ll be sorely disappointed.

** Update! Good news! CLICK HERE for a bit of it from Liveleak TV!! 

So you go looking for video of Felix Baumgartner making his current stratospheric free-fall jump – you know, the 120,000 foot one that everyone’s talking about in traditional and social media. Oh, it’s been aborted, postponed, delayed or whatever? Ok. Fair enough. Then you notice he’s supposed to have done a 70,000 foot one in March 2012? Ok let’s go watch that instead, after all one very high jump is like another visually, right?

Ah. You find this supposed jump (which, if I recall correctly was itself cancelled, aborted and postponed at the time after a huge amount of Red Bull hype and build up) but guess what? You can’t find any of the hi-def footage that you know must exist – since that was the whole point, right?

If you’re stupid – like me – you spend a full 5 minutes looking on YouTube for footage of this test jump; to see the video that everyone wants to see: the moment he leaves the capsule and, heck, why not: some footage of his view on the way down. Even with a GoPro camera strapped to him like the ones those students send up every week on their little ‘edge of space’ projects the footage would be awesome. But there’s nothing. Nothing but carefully edited promotional pieces designed to tantalise you. Lots of build up in the American TV style; a fade to black at the money-shot of Felix about to go out the porthole, then grainy shots of a parachute intercut with Felix puffing up just how dangerous this all is / was.

So can I give you some advice? Forget looking for the video of any of Felix Baumgartner’s stratospheric space jumps unless you want to be manipulated by the Red Bull marketing people into an endless search where all that happens is you never get what you’re after while they certainly get what they’re after: the chance to expose you to Red Bull brand time and time again as you jump from one YouTube video to the next.

Personally, I’ll wait 30 years for the stills of this. If I want to feel like I’m in space, I’ll watch one of those student videos instead. Far more satisfying an experience and free from cynical marketing manipulation.

Alternatively, you can wait for the BBC/ National Geographic ‘documentary due out some time in November. That show, like the recent one about crashing a Boeing 727 in the Mexican desert will no doubt also feel like it has more to do with making money than with making good science or, in the case of our Felix, even making good history.

www.findmeagarage.com and www.ratemygarage.com

Both domains currently point to my post about The Good Garage Scheme

That’s quite interesting.

Steve Crompton, I’m honoured that you’ve pointed both those domains at my site and particularly the post about The Good Garage Scheme. It leaves me wondering what you’re doing it for. I reckon that you and your two backers are looking to set up an alternative to Good Garage Scheme and my post has provided you with some useful reseach…Am I close?

Well – good luck in your endeavour anyway. I’ll be watching both those domains to see what emerges. Hopefully you’ll learn from their mistakes! :)

Why spam and social media don’t mix


If you’re spamming people and you don’t make it easy for them to get off your lists…

…you’re heading for a potential reputation problem.

There’s nothing more frustrating than receiving spam. Oh, yes – actually there is. It’s receiving spam that you can’t STOP.

You know the kind; no unsubscribe link and no way of contacting the spammer to get them to take you off their infernal lists. Yes, that list you never asked to be on in the first place. Most people just give up and resign themselves to wading through the spam whenever it comes in. Some, like me, take to social media to force the spammer’s hand.

The fellow in the example (see screengrab, right) left me no way to contact him – and that was what really pissed me off. And remember this, when you piss off a member of the public (or for that matter a customer), they aren’t going to be reasonable about it and the longer it goes on, the less reasonable they’re going to be. And if they can’t get hold of you they’ll resort to social media. Because boy, does it work.

Less than two weeks after I blogged about this spammer, the gentleman in question AND the company he works for picked up my less-than-flattering reference to their practices and  got on the phone to me. Good. Now I’ve got your attention. Pity I had to work so hard to get it.

In both cases, I had the opportunity to let them know just how unwelcome their spam was and deliciously, there was nothing in my post they could object to: no libel and no defamation because it was all just fact.

As it happens, both individuals, to their credit, were fairly decent about it when they heard my objection. The spamming gent apologised fairly quickly – and hence I took down the post. So all’s well that ends well – except it will take some months for Google to flush the unflattering entry out of its indexes.

So it’s an important lesson to you folks out there using the internet to market your wares: for your own sakes, don’t spam people. And as a minimum, put an effective and instant ‘unsubscribe’ link on your mails. That way, even if you spam someone by ‘mistake’, you give them the chance to get off your list quickly.

If you don’t…well, you know what can happen. It’s surely not worth it.

No No Reviews – hairy stories from Google

Someone is gaming the system when it comes to reviews for No No Hair Removal

In a break in ‘The Wright Stuff’ today on Channel 5 I was struck by an ad for the ‘No! No!’ Hair removal system / gadget. I loved the claim that the product removes hair better than other methods (shaving, waxing, electrolysis) and with ‘virtually’ no pain. “If this actually worked, it would be a runaway success” I thought to myself. “Let’s see”

So I went to Google to find out.

Look at the pattern of review score in Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com sites:

It’s clearly overwhelming negative. I don’t know about you, but I tend to trust Amazon reviews marginally more than I trust everything else online for two reasons: 1) Amazon has a vested interest in making sure their system is trustworthy and 2) As a result the reviews are written by people who have bought and used the product. By comparison, everything else online is likely to be ‘gamed’ by the company in question. More and more these days, this activity consists of employing armies of young ‘social media-savvy’ people to blog, Tweet, ‘review’ the product favourably to flood Google with positive reviews.

Remember, there are millions of pounds and dollars at stake here – so paying people to fake a positive online reputation can, for some companies represent a better investment than actually making sure the product is any good in the first place.

And take a look at the sponsored ads. There appears to be one for No No at Amazon.co.uk that shows an average review rating of 4.6 stars. What?!? We already know that in really it scores an average 2* in real Amazon reviews. So what IS this ‘sponsored Amazon ad’ referring to? On closer inspection it turns out that other No No products (costing a fraction of the nearly £200 of the No No Hair removal system) score higher marks. It appears the sponsored result at the top of Google then is referring to an aggregate of all of those products.

A wider review of Google results suggests that No No has done quite a bit of work to get their own glowing reviews out there into Google to offset the Amazon review trends.

But I’m left with the same basic question: how can it be that when it comes to the right to make claims on daytime TV, your own propaganda and a fistful of cash are all you require to be allowed to say what you like? If you’re angry at the claims made by this company – a view shared by the vast majority of Amazon reviewers of this product – then please feel free to express your views here.

Do I have a vested interest? No. I’m for truth and accountability. If your product is sh*t and the consumer is telling you so, then you don’t have the right to continue making claims you cannot back up in reality.

Barclays flexible bonds

Will Google think that my friend Barclay and his flexible bonds is in any way interesting?

I was watching the TV tonight and I saw Barclay’s ad for Flexible Bonds which ended with the voiceover exhorting people to “Google ‘Barclays Flexible Bonds’. I enjoy watching businesses use Google in this way. Barclays are, of course, supremely confident that their results will come high up in Google. And so they do, I am sure.

Of course, I’m also interested to test just how well Barclays has sown this particular meadow for the keywords ‘Barclays flexible bonds’. You’d hope it was done well. You’d expect it to be done well. And if it IS done well, then you won’t see my post anywhere – which is how it should be. If you DO see this post, then I’d argue that something’s gone wrong somewhere in the Barclays’ online strategy.

You know me. Nothing malicious in my intent, just insatiably curious to see what happens.

TouchLocal listing: find out if you’re getting value for money

With our simple common-sense test

If you run your own company, it’s normal to want to increase the amount of business coming in. If you don’t understand online marketing, listing your business in an online directory might seem like a good idea – especially when these directories seem to guarantee a certain amount of traffic or enquiries.

If you are getting those promises from a salesman, the alarm bells should be going off at this point. Anyone who knows anything about the way the internet works will tell you that no one can guarantee you traffic (unless they’re clicking through to your site themselves), far less a guaranteed number of enquiries (even assuming you are getting any traffic) for the simple reason that a host of other factors about your business and your web presence combine to influence whether or not someone will actually contact you to buy.

The harsh reality is that you’re hungry for more business and the online business directories are hungry to sell you their services. This (in the light of the preceding paragraph) is an almost sure-fire recipe for inflated promises and, ultimately, unhappy customers.

The following is a simple, common-sense way to test what any online directory promises or implies in its sales pitches. Of course, only you can know what the salesman is actually promising, but do this test with those promises in mind – BEFORE you agree to anything!

I’m using TouchLocal for this common-sense test but you can do it for any one of those category-based directories.

First of all: Go to the TouchLocal home page. Choose one of their named categories. I chose ‘Sign Makers’

Step 1) In ‘Sign Makers’, select one of the paid listings (in this case a ‘sponsored business’) – I’ve chosen ‘Southern Neon Signs Ltd’ of Southampton

Step 2) Click on the company name and explore their TouchLocal listing. Click through to the company’s own website and make a note of their URL (so you can see if it comes up in Google searches later).

Step 3) Imagine you’re Southern Neon Signs Ltd. You’ve paid your money for TouchLocal to help people looking for a sign maker in Southampton to find you. Now you want to test how well they’re doing this. It’s time to put yourself in your prospect’s shoes.

Go to Google and do the obvious: a search on ‘sign makers southampton’. Look at the results. Do you see Southern Neon Signs there? No. Ok. Do you see any TouchLocal results there. Two. Ok. Do any mention your company? No.

Step 4) Explore the TouchLocal results. Click on the first one.

Step 5) This takes you to a TouchLocal listing page. Look careful at what’s happening on this page. First note that there are Google ads for your competitors in that all-important top part of the page. Next, note that there’s a listing for a direct competitor of yours directly above you! Then, note that you appear at the bottom of the page. Ask yourself what are you actually getting for your money here?

Step 6) Go back and explore the other TouchLocal result in the Google results page. Click the link to see what it leads to…

Step 7) Uh oh. This is worse. This leads you to a page with a single company listing on it – and it’s another direct competitor of yours! Plus another pile of Google Ads for your competitors.

So Southern Neon Signs Ltd paid money to a business directory in the hope of getting more business but their business name seems to be invisible on P1 of Google and where it DOES appear, it’s buried among their direct competitors and has no competitive advantage whatsoever.

At this point, you should be asking yourself ‘What did that business get for its money?’

They paid their money and got a listing in the directory. But remember, an entry in a directory is useless because nobody goes to a directory to search for products and services. They, like you, use Google when they want to find a sign maker in Southampton.

In Summary

The point of online marketing is that you’re trying to put your details (whether on your website or someone else’s – such as TouchLocal) in front of a potential customer. This customer is using Google to try to find someone to help with his problem. The words he’s typing into the Google search bar are what are referred to as ‘keywords’. You want your site to have those keywords in it, and you want Google to return YOUR site (not those of your competitors) at the top of its pile when someone searches for those keywords.

Google has to decide whose site is most relevant to the searcher. It does that by assessing the relevance (a complex and ever-changing formula) of your site to the searcher’s needs. An important part of that is your keywords.

If your site is well-made and has a liberal, and appropriate sprinkling of your business’s keywords (plus a host of other qualities that Google judges as contributing to its relevance) then it will be returned high in the search results when someone types – for example – ‘sign makers southampton’.

When an online directory offers to make your business more visible in Google and get you more enquiries or business, it will try to do this by competing for those keywords and presenting your business details as high up in Google as it can. The problem for any directory (and for you as a business with your own website) is that where there’s money to be made (for example, in sign writing in Southampton) there will be a lot of people competing with you to appear at the top of Google for those keywords.

Neither you, TouchLocal or anyone else can cheat your way to the top of Google (although many try). To get there – to be considered more relevant than all the other pages on the web that might reference ‘sign makers southampton’ (including all your competitors and all the other online directories competing with you and each other to get those top 10 slots) – you have to work really hard or pay a lot and take the short cut – using Google’s sponsored advertising ‘Adwords’ system.

So when an online directory offers you lots of exposure and implies that this will lead to lots of business, you need to remember that they’re going to be playing the game I’ve just described – along with literally dozens of other online directories doing the same thing for other sign makers in Southampton and everywhere else, for that matter.

The reality that nobody ever points out to you is this: there are only 10 worthwhile places on P1 of Google (plus the sponsored links). If you’re not in those, then (by and large) the business will go to those who are. And you can rest assured that those who are will be those who have paid or done the hard work to get their names on the first page. Not the name of TouchLocal or UpMyStreet or Yell or any of those directories.

Go to Google, type in ‘sign makers southampton’ again.

Look at the yellow shaded ads at the top and the ads down the right hand side of the page. These are Google Ads – paid for by the company wanting to appear at the top of Google. The more money there is to be made in their business, the more it will cost them to appear there. The normal law of advertising applies.

Look at the ‘organic’ search results – the rest of the results on that page. Note there are numerous entries at the top for TouchSouthampton and Yell. But put yourself in the buyers position. Those listings tell you NOTHING about any companies. To find a company to satisfy your needs, you’re going to have to click through to TouchLocal to find out more. The browsing prospect is going to go with a named company on the first page, not a ‘one-click-removed’ TouchLocal listing.

The bottom line is that a prospect is far more likely to click on any one of the paid ads or the Google business listings before they’ll go anywhere near the TouchSouthampton or Yell listings on that P1 of results.

The good news is that YOU can run this test yourself before you agree to sign up to any online directory.

Tin Eye reverse image search engine

Tin Eye is a great tool for finding out who uses your images online…

I went to a school reunion last weekend. One of my old school friends is now a bit of a ‘business guru’ and, inspired by the 30 year interval between seeing people, blogged about change – including a picture of a yellow road sign reading ‘change ahead’.

‘I wonder how many times that sign’s been used?’ I thought to myself – and went to consult Tin Eye, an amazing image reverse search engine. You upload the image you’re interested in (a screen grab of the yellow sign picture in my case), hit a button and in seconds it will find a whole list of instances where that image has been used. Since the file names of all these occurrences are different, this operation can only be by analysis of the bitmap itself – quite some mind-boggling feat.

Tin Eye found 17 instances of this image (but I’m sure there are a lot more out there). In each case, the wording had been changed but Tin Eye found it anyway based on the overall composition of the picture. I decided to add mine to the list but be a bit more… honest about it :-)

Premier Inn unshackles irons – responding to feedback?

A year ago, Premier Inn Edinburgh Haymarket’s ironing facilities reminded me how easy it is to get stuck in a defensive mindset

I had been staying in Premier Inns quite a bit on business in the last months of 2010. Nothing wrong with them. As I said in a Tripadvisor review, they do all the basics just about right. But something occurred to me one night while I was ironing my shirt for a meeting the next day.

When you’re away on business, and unless you’re wealthy and staying in the very best hotels, ironing a shirt in preparation for doing business the next day is a vital part of getting ready. I don’t know about you, but I can face just about anything with a nice quality, well-ironed shirt.

So why do hotels pay this vital activity so little attention? Why is the equipment they provide of the lowest quality?

In the case of Premier Inn, the irons and boards are kept in ‘Guest Services’ cupboards on each floor. No problem with that but last year, it went downhill from there. The iron & board combo was an unholy marriage of a regular (if cheap) steam iron shackled by a curly wire to a metal holder unit fixed to the board (see picture).

There are two main lessons here. The first is that this hotel (like so many) failed to spot the opportunity to improve my experience because it didn’t stop to think about the situation from the customer’s point of view. The second and more important lesson was that to treat everyone else like criminals because someone once stole a cheap iron from you was very short-sighted.

When I blogged about this last year, I got some quite fiery comments (see below) from people probably connected with this hotel. The very good news, a year later, is that Premier Inn Edinburgh Haymarket has set its irons free (see picture).

How cool to imagine that taking the time to blog about this (and giving them feedback) results in this slight modification. It might be a minor detail to some, but it certainly brought a smile to my face tonight.

So when you’re out and about tomorrow, take a look at how much of the world around you – from the buildings you work in to the processes and systems you use – seems to be built to accommodate the worst possible kind of person, not the best. The worst passenger, the worst employee, the worst patient, the worst consumer.

Then ask yourself: “Do I do this too?”

TripAdvisor: sliding down the trust curve?

TripAdvisor changes its logo yet again in the face of reality.

For a long time I’ve been watching TripAdvisor. This online hotel review site is a classic ‘user generated content’ business: it has to juggle making it easy for users to add content (reviews) from a position of effective anonymity, with trying to ensure those reviews aren’t gamed for advantage (or disadvantage). It has to try to do these while avoiding litigation from hotel owners and disgruntled travellers alike. And it has to somehow make the content relevant enough to drive valuable and qualified traffic to parent company Expedia.

As I’ve said previously, I think this is an equation that can’t possibly work out. Not particularly because TripAdvisor is doing something wrong, but because you simply can’t mix anonymous reviews with commercial interests and create ‘trust’.

Without trust, a business like TripAdvisor has nothing.

While the ‘downgrading’ of its strapline from claims about truth and objectivity (what the traveller REALLY needs) to claims about itself being a big site (who cares??) is at least realistic, it’s a shame. It goes to prove that somewhere in TripAdvisor, the decision has already been made not to try to build a business with trust at its core and to pursue a shorter term strategy instead.

Why shorter term? Because many people using TripAdvisor or watching it professionally get the impression that hotel owners (and others) are gaming the system. Given the precariousness of the economy and the struggle that most hotels are experiencing, it is hardly surprising that many will seek to raise their standing in what is still the most frequently-consulted hotel review site.