Businesses must protect their reputations online even if that means potentially blocking employee access to certain websites, an online expert has warned after two prominent legal firms moved to ban staff from accessing an industry gossip site called Firm Spy.
Law firms Mallesons Stephen Jaques and Clayton Utz have banned employees from accessing the Firm Spy site, which is operated anonymously, accusing it of spreading falsehoods and invading the privacy of staff.
James Griffin, chief executive of online reputation management firm SR7, says handling these types of cases is more difficult than handling a complaint about a product on a blog or forum.
“Reputation and brand management are very difficult things to put a tangible value on. It all comes back to the risk. Brand and image have been the number-one concern for risk managers in these companies, because many of them actually become valued and put their brand on their balance sheet.”
“Then, when they take a hit on their reputation it hurts their actual value. It becomes even more critical to protect themselves, and this is why these legal firms have taken such a strong approach.”
Both law firms said they had banned the Firm Spy website after posts were published spreading private information about employees and staff at other legal firms.
The site is designed as a type of gossip-blog for the corporate world, spreading information about layoffs, pay rises, and powerful changes within some of the biggest organisations in the country.
Both Mallesons and Clayton Utz were contacted this morning by SmartCompany. Mallesons declined to give any further comment, while a reply from Clayton Utz was not received before publication. The Firm Spy website was not functioning this morning.
However, Mallesons spokesperson Kris Barry has told News.com.au the site was blocked after posts were published containing private details about employees.
“We had traditionally given staff access to the site, but it had recently started to publish material of a personal nature about individual staff at various firms, not just ours, that had nothing to do with legal issues.
It is not the first time an online forum has created problems for corporate and the incident comes just weeks after mining giant CudeCo said it will pursue legal action against online forum Hot Copper for allegedly spreading misleading statements about the company.
Earlier this year, the Hot Copper and one member were successfully sued for defamation after software firm Datamotion accused both of spreading misleading statements.
At the time, one legal expert told SmartCompany the case proves there is an opportunity to take legal action against online forums and their members for spreading falsehoods or private information.
Griffin says while protecting your online reputation is crucial, having falsehoods spread on forums is more complicated than dealing with an aggravated customer on Facebook or Twitter. He says sometimes blocking access is an appropriate method when all else fails, to protect the business and employees from any further exposure.
“When you often look at these online forums like Hot Copper and so on, they can spiral out of control and then all these different discussions can happen. It becomes a lot more difficult to manage than someone saying something on Twitter.”
“It’s obviously impossible to ban a site outside of work hours, so the managing of the brand and imaging online internally just becomes paramount.”
He says this is why companies need a comprehensive social media strategy – to address complaints as soon as they appear, and avoid them turning into rumours which could damage your reputation, and even possible revenue.
“This is why having a social media strategy is so crucial. If you are purely using social media as just another tool, and not a primary part of your marketing effort, then you need to consider what you’re doing and start helping your reputation online.”
Patrick Stafford is a freelance journalist and a former deputy editor of SmartCompany.
Comments