This post is not about Thomas vs Simon B, but instead about the long term online impacts to personal and corporate brands.
A focus on online reputation and brands
I’m hesitant to publish this post, not because I don’t think it’s important, but instead, I don’t want to be caught in the cross fire between Thomas Hawk and Simon B of the SF museum. My focus is on the online impacts, not the specific quarrel these two have around photographers rights, I wasn’t at the museum that day, so I really can’t comment on what happened.
[Seventy-seven percent of recruiters report using search engines to find background data on candidates. Of that number, 35 percent eliminated a candidate because of what they found online… –StarTribune]
First of all, please note that Thomas Hawk is a friend of mine for a few years now, he supported me at my first Lunch 2.0 at Hitachi, and a blogger dinner with the CEO of Hitachi Data Systems, and even took the picture I use everywhere (see right), I admire the man’s work, we will continue to be friends for many years.
A personal brand is damaged
Yesterday, he published a post outlining a conflict he had with a director at a SF museum regarding photographing in public. The post characterized Simon B (I’m not using his full name as I don’t want to make the situation worse) as an a-hole. Thomas’s blog is well read, his social media prowess strong among his community and in true social media fashion, it spread to Flickr, Zoomr (where Thomas is the CEO), Friendfeed, Twitter and perhaps the biggest driver —it was seen by millions on Digg (including a portrait of Simon).
Today’s resume is your Google search results
Today, if you do a search result and examine the first search engine results page (SERP) you’ll notice that as of today 9/10 results are tied to Simon being an “a-hole”. Perhaps most importantly the first two results are of Thomas (we know most clicks start there), the only one that’s not is Simon B’s Facebook profile, which has very little info.
[Your relevant resume is your Google Search results. You should spend as much time managing your search results as you do your printed resume]
Simon had very little online footprint to start with, and now it will be dominated online by all of these social media elements. Even if Thomas chose to change the title of his blog and flickr, the Twitter, tailrank, and many other online echos will forever be archived –Simon’s online reputation is forever linked to this incident.
Essentially, Simon B’s online reputation has been burnt.
The Long Term Impacts of Online Criticisms on Personal Brands
For Simon, these online results are a big impact, we know that many recruiters use the web to find candidates, and seeing several results like this could result in a recruiter passing up a candidate. If a recruiter doesn’t care, or doesn’t see this, hiring managers are likely to do Google searches on the individual finding this. Of course, this could swing towards Simon’s advantage, some museums or businesses may seem him as serving as a defender of the property, if he positions himself correctly. Perhaps the biggest damage is to Simon’s personal and family relationships, who will see this incident online for years to come.
Key takeaways:
For those that don’t already participate online, and have a small digital footprint, they don’t have a strong platform to stand from. Anyone is susceptible to brand damage, even if you’re not in this space (Simon is not in a web professional) Bloggers with large social media platforms are incredibly powerful, and must recognize the long term impacts of their actions. Businesses should assume every customer (and employee) is capable of impacting an individual or company’s online reputation Companies should already have a crises plan ready to deal with online criticisms, read this article from CBS on outsourcing brand damage experts Simon B may have to buy search ads to get his printed resume or story correctly positioned Customers and Corporations should first consider the Company Customer Pact
Update: To be fair, if Simon or the museum come forward with a statement, I’ll update this post and link to it.
Thomas Hawk has left a thoughtful comment below, see comment #28 A similar blog post (and discussion on Friendfeed) has started to take place. A post reviewing Thomas’s change and update to the post (it now reads “jerk”)— since the community reaction has been so fiery August 13: The Museum has made an official statement, suggesting we move on –I agree.
Dec 3, 2008: It’s a few months later and Thomas Hawk’s blog still shows first for searches on Simon’s name in my SERP, of course, your results could vary.
Reading this, I am thinking, not only companies should have a crises plan, people should as well. When you get in a situation like this, you should know what to do. Buying search ads is just half the work. I think it requires getting online, telling your side of the story. Engage in the conversation yourself, where it happens. So don’t start your own blog without having conversations on other blogs/friendfeed/twitter/where ever the fire is burning
Jeremiah, I appreciate your commentary. You, as someone who knows Thomas, are the only person not too scared of having YOUR online rep destroyed to attach your name to posts. The rest of us fear his bullying wrath.
In comments on Thomas’ blog, the truth is starting to emerge.
People need to remember a few points:
-Thomas conveniently posted this at the end of business on Friday, knowing it would explode on the internet by the time MOMA could scramble to issue something on Monday.
-Simon obviously CAN’T come out and defend himself all over–he is not a lone wolf (bully) like Hawk, and he has his superiors to await direction from.
-Even if he did eventually come out through a major blog, it’s bully psychology (I’m a psychologist by training). Hawk will not rest. Hawk will need to feel utter and complete in the knowledge that he has destroyed this man’s life beyond repair. This will make him briefly happy, until his next target surfaces.
-Hawk has created an angry mob. Blint has now received *physical threats* from strangers, and the museum has received countless demands that he be fired. So Hawk wants this man fired, unable to find new work, and fearing for his own safety–all because he did his job and tried to protect an employee whose blouse he saw Hawk shooting down.
This defamation of character is horrible, and I hope Blint has his day in court. Hawk keeps referring to Blint as power-hungry, etc . I have never seen a worse example of the pot calling the kettle black in my life. I’m sickened by it.
And the sad part is, I don’t think he will ever change, no matter how many people blog about his indecency.
Thanks both Jeremiah and Thomas. Very interesting reads.
I find myself thinking about all the young kids who are already ruining their online reputations completely oblivious to the impact they are making on their future. (I mean, things like kids videoing criminal behavior like fights, doing drugs, assult etc.)
As we all intellectual blog about the various impacts the internet has on our lives, I need to repeat this:
THE MAN IS NOW RECEIVING THREATS. The internet is full of a million wack-jobs, and many of them apparently are Hawk’s followers.
This is not a polite intellectual discourse. Mr. Hawk has created a situation of actual physical danger for someone.
Mr. Hawk committed the verbal equivalent of taking out a gun and shooting someone who cut him off in traffic, and suddenly hundreds of people are actually saying, “well, the guy DID cut him off…”
Seriously, people. This isn’t your life, or your dad’s life, or your brother’s life being destroyed, but think for a moment how you would feel if it were.
There is an important, ordinary and rational step missing from the decision process Thomas Hawk describes in comment 28: the step where instead of immediately publicizing his dispute, he contacts the museum, Blint’s office, or someone else in a position to mediate or re-mediate his complaint via direct, private contact. A phone call, a visit, even and email.
It doesn’t sound like he ever considered contacting the aggrieving party one-on-one, which is what I think one would do if one didn’t have a public soap box from which to share one’s grievance. Using threats during the heat of the dispute to scare someone into backing down isn’t really “rational” or “righteous,” to use Gui’s words.
I don’t know who’s right or wrong here, but my point is that the recourse to public humiliation sounds more self-righteous than righteous.
Jeff says:
“Simon can respond in the comments on Thomas™ blog.”
Where his response will be drowned out in the sea of “I agree with Thomas, what a douchebag!” comments. And how many people will actually get down past the article and into the many comments? How many will never actually read the article – but will see the result on Google, read the single line, and go “Oh yeah, no way am I hiring that guy”.
?
“If he had a blog of his own, and if the museum did, he could also respond there and explain his policies and actions.”
If there was no such thing as network effects, and no such thing as Google, that would be fine. Except, of course, there’s no way that a blog post by Simon will ever get the link-juice that Thomas has – Thomas’ post will rank above anything Simon or the museum posted for a very long time.
Someone unknown, starting a blog, responding to someone with a lot of Googlejuice will not get them a level playing field.
In response, Dan, I’m not missing any points.
I’ll be honest. I’m a friend of Blint’s. He has repeatedly implored his friends and family not post since this began, because he was afraid of this awful mob descending on us, as well, and affecting our lives and careers as it has affected his. He also wanted to respect the museum’s wishes that he not speak out while they decided what, if any, response they might issue. This is why I posted anonymously here (where Jeremiah offered a bit of reason), but have refrained from doing so otherwise.
I don’t think this would have de-escalated quickly, regardless of response. Should the museum have come crawling to Hawk, prostrate on their knees? He would have just escalated that response again, ensuring further hero-worship and more pain for Simon.
We’ve all seen the photo in question now. While we understand it was a wide-angle shot, any of us non-photographers in the crowd could easily have mistaken it for a telephoto lens, and the camera was clearly pointed down at a young girl. Misunderstanding on Simon’s part? Yes. Might you have assumed the same thing? Yes. Was Hawk “forced” to respond the way he did? No.
The internet, in this situation, is where the worst of human nature has emerged–mob mentality, based on only one side of the story and blind emotional loyalty to a blogger, whom people create in their minds to be whomever they want him to be. And frankly, that blogger himself is a creation of his own emotions and ego–flashy name, shiny site….this isn’t a man who does laundry and works for a living! This is a man who crusades about the city, fighting the good fight for freedom!
And so the mob is born to protect their superhero. And while you might get mad in traffic and curse a little, the guy next to you might get mad and pick up a gun.
And while you go home and sleep all warm in your bed tonight, my friend is reduced to couch-surfing, because his address was outed, and now he can’t go home.
If this were YOU we were talking about, would I still be missing the point?
bitches
i appologize for my innapropriate comment as it was not ment to be posted here sincere appolgize decembers very own