10.  Governor Sam Brownback.  Something tells me the governor’s not in Kansas anymore – at least as far as his reputation goes. Brownback looked like a bully and created an unlikely teen hero with his handling of a nasty tweet about him posted by high school senior Emma Sullivan. Brownback’s staff, who tracked down the teen, put pressure on the school principal to extract an apology from Sullivan. When she ultimately refused, it was Brownback who did the apologizing. Meanwhile, the student’s Twitter following soared from 65 to over 14,000. Who’s sorry now?

9.  Delta. The airline hit rough PR weather when U.S. troops returning from Afghanistan were charged onerous fees for extra baggage, with one squadron spending nearly $3,000 out of personal funds. The disgruntled troops took the story of their rude welcome home to YouTube. Delta reacted about a day late to the video, which swiftly went viral, triggering hundreds of complaints on its blog.  It did end up changing its baggage fee policy for members of the armed services but not without reputation damage.

8.  Groupon.  Groupon’s reputation issues come in contrast to its previous image as a media darling. It started 2011 with that ill-conceived Super Bowl ad, followed by a halfhearted apology after it went wrong. It then ran into more PR hot water later as the company prepared for a much anticipated IPO. Founder Andrew Mason made impolitic remarks in an internal memo that was leaked to The Wall Street Journal, raising questions about “quiet period” violations. The Groupon IPO was a success, but its toughest reputation challenge will be to prove its business model actually works.

7.  Burson-Marsteller.  It’s notable when the world’s largest PR firm handles a crisis this poorly. In May, mega-agency Burson-Marsteller was busted by The Daily Beast‘s Dan Lyons after a clumsily executed “whisper campaign” against Google. The campaign was carried out on behalf of a mystery client who turned out to be Facebook. Not only was Burson guilty of a major ethical breach, but its response seemed to blame the client, which made it look both weak and defensive.

6.  AOL and CrunchFund.  TechCrunch Editor Michael Arrington’s plan to start an investment fund immediately raised conflict of interest questions. More troubling was the response from corporate owner AOL. CEO Tim Armstrong excused the move by referring to TechCrunch’s “different standards” of journalism. He was immediately contradicted by Arianna Huffington, who announced Arrington’s departure from AOL, which was then “clarified” by a subsequent announcement that he remained with AOL Ventures. While AOL struggled to get its stories straight, the incident undermined the credibility of senior management and its content standards.

5.  Netflix. The famous Netflix mea culpa is a good example of a public apology that backfired in a rather spectacular way. Instead of letting its admission of “poor communication” regarding a price increase stand, Netflix used the occasion to announce its split into two units – doubling the cost, and the hassle, for customers. It made the classic mistake of focusing on its business rationale rather than the customer interest and was forced to backpedal.  In the end it was Netflix that paid the price in lost business and a depressed stock value.

4.  The U.S. Congress.  One way to read the summer’s debt ceiling gridlock is a case of too great an emphasis on PR – to the detriment of real issues or progress. Both sides of the debate were so focused on their public posture — Tea Partiers hewing to the no-tax-increase line and progressives preoccupied with blaming the GOP — that everyone looked bad and absolutely nothing was done.

3.  Bank of America.  Its move to institute a $5 monthly debit card fee was not only poor judgment but terrible timing. B of A made the announcement just as the Occupy Wall Street movement was gaining steam. The new fee wasn’t tested, pre-announced, or even particularly well explained to customers, who responded with predictable outrage. Although the bank tried to justify the fee by tying it to new regulations, its argument was ineffectual. It ended up retreating a month later in the face of harsh criticism by consumers, bloggers, and even government officials.

2.  Herman Cain.  Political scandals were rife in 2011, but Cain’s meltdown stood out because he showed real mastery of public communication at the outset (remember “9-9-9″?). Yet when the candidate was hit with allegations of sexual harassment, the campaign’s response was amateurish. Politico sat on the initial story for ten days – an eternity in crisis response time – but Cain’s reactions ranged from denial, defensiveness, and hostility to humor and a plea for privacy. Consistency, credibility, and message control deserted the Cain campaign, and the result is history.

1.  Penn State. No shock here. Penn State will end 2011 taking the trophy for most egregiously bad handling of a crisis. Granted, the allegations against Jerry Sandusky would have been damaging no matter what, but it’s even worse when you consider that the Grand Jury investigation started in 2008. The university had plenty of time to prepare its public communication strategy. But when Sandusky was arrested in November, the statement by ex-President Graham Spanier, in which he called the charges “troubling,” was a study in what not to say.  Its focus on closing ranks and defending those in the know helped turn a shocking scandal into a serious breach of responsibility by the top players.

A version of this post was originally published on MENGBlend.

Those giant PR firms just can’t seem to get out of their own way.

When Edelman was caught fake-blogging for Wal-Mart, it waited nearly a week before admitting it had hired bloggers to shill for the client while pretending to be just plain folks. This week, the PR world was buzzing after news broke that two Burson-Marsteller executives undertook a stealth campaign to place negative stories about Google without revealing their client, who turned out to be – wait for it – Facebook.

What bothers me about the Burson-Facebook mess isn’t just the lack of transparency.  These types of covert “black ops” campaigns still go on, particularly in politics, and some of the industry outrage is overdone. (“Gambling? I’m shocked!”)

The real shocker is that such presumably sophisticated PR operatives didn’t foresee that they’d be outed. And that Burson management handled the fallout so clumsily. Burson is supposed to be the Special Forces of crisis management. It’s lived off its skillful handling of the Tylenol tragedy for decades.

When the truth came to light, the firm did ‘fess up. It said it should have declined the assignment, – an admirable sentiment, perhaps, but one that lacks credibility and seems to put the blame on the client. Not good. The offending executives won’t be fired or suspended, but they will be required to undergo “additional ethics training.” That’s lame and almost laughable.

And in the latest twist,  Burson deleted negative comments from its Facebook page, – not unethical, but certainly not in keeping with best practices. When criticized, a firm spokesperson apologized and made a show of inviting one critic to repost her comment. Embarrassing.

The first rule of crisis handling is to get out ahead of the story, and the best form of client counsel is to advise against flawed, risky, or unethical communications. This latest little dustup proves just how important – and challenging – both can be. And it reminds us that the PRSA code of ethics that we point to is essentially toothless.

To be fair, it’s easy to throw grenades about the handling of the situation when it’s not your crisis. We in the PR and reputation field like to bundle advice in neat packages, but the reality is more like a battle – chaotic, confusing, and often bloody.

But it’s regrettable that the PR brand that should be the Team 6 of crisis management – the best of the best – not only dug a hole for themselves, but behaved like Keystone Cops, to use writer Dan Lyons‘ words. And that it makes everyone in our business look bad.

Wikileaks. Whether Julian Assange is a hero or a “high-tech terrorist” depends on your point of view. But in 2010 Wikileaks perfected a media relations strategy for maximum impact for the release of thousands of  leaked diplomatic cables. Previously, Wikileaks had either trickled out its materials too gradually, or overwhelmed the media with an overlarge outpouring of classified information. But, in November, it seemed to get things just right. Its strategy was simple:  simultaneous publication of the leaked materials by five highly credible news organizations. The result was domination of news headlines for days.

Jon Stewart. Only Stewart could draw over 250,000 to a rally that started as a joke. Not only did his “Rally to Restore Sanity” beat Glenn Beck’s crowd by a surprising margin, but this year, Stewart showed he can do what no one else seems to be able to – bust legislative gridlock. His public shaming of the senators blocking the passage of the 9/11 first responders bill actually got the bill through. It earned him acknowledgement from the White House and a comparison to broadcast legend Edward R. Murrow in a glowing New York Times piece. Stewart still insists he’s not political, but his influence is formidable. This guy really gets things done. Jon Stewart in 2012?

The Tea Party. On the other side of the aisle, the Tea Party was able to cool some serious internal divisions to speak out with one voice. Despite some candidates who landed in hot water (“I’m not a witch” will live in PR infamy), most of the party’s key players spoke and behaved not like typical politicians, but like real people – mad as hell, and determined to do something about it. More importantly, its message was never diluted. A full-strength focus on government spending brought the party credibility and congressional seats.

The Chilean government. Its flawless handling of the rescue of 33 miners showed not just leadership on the part of  Sebastian Pinera and his government, but real storytelling genius and media relations savvy. The final rescue scenario was better than any mini-series, complete with a happy ending.

Gap. Yes, I know its logo fiasco looked like a bad fit and a PR blunder, but the company’s ultimate decision to return to the original iconic identity made it more relevant than it’s been in years, at least to a narrow slice of influentials. Not a model PR campaign, but a good example of turning bad publicity into good will. 

Conan O’Brien. He started the year by walking away from one of the most coveted gigs in television, and agreeing to a seven-month exile before the premiere of his new show on…basic cable? But Team Coco made clever use of the hiatus. Their social media strategy was genius. His hilarious Twitter feed was vintage Conan, while kicking off a string of updates that kept him in front of fans. Coverage from his “Legally Prohibited” comedy tour ensured his relevance until the debut of his third act this September.

JetBlue. 2010 was a tough year for travel companies. Start with a grounded economy, add higher fares and fewer services, throw in an eruption from an unpronounceable volcano, and top it off with a security controversy. JetBlue not only came out on top again in passenger surveys, but it handled flight attendant Steven Slater‘s unexpected, and highly publicized, exit from the job with PR savvy and typical JetBlue cool.

Facebook. Despite another privacy crisis in 2010, Facebook turned the potential reputation nightmare of the unflattering film “The Social Network” into an opportunity for a charm offensive on the part of founder Mark Zuckerberg. Reaching 500 million members and Time Magazine’s Person of the Year isn’t such a bad way to close out 2010.

Next up: Worst PR Moves of 2010.

Shall I quit Facebook?

Facebook’s recent fumble along policy, technology, and PR lines has many asking the question for the first time. Not just privacy activists or technophobes. But, regular people who are pretty savvy about the social Web. The perception is morphing from irritation to doubts about its integrity. That’s not a good thing.

I’ve never been a privacy freak. In my book, anyone who decides to live online is responsible for that choice, and no one’s forcing us to (over)share. But the recent flap is more serious than previous ones. True, Facebook users tend to resist change (ironic, isn’t it?), and the company has a history of clumsy and self-serving privacy moves. But with Quit Facebook Day looming, something is different this time. Loyal users feel misled by the “everyone can see everything” default and confused by the new settings. Privacy advocates smell blood. Even formerly apathetic Facebookers are on the fence. Has Facebook gone too far this time? Is it just clueless, or actually evil?

Two months ago, a close relative of mine who is, like me, an adoptive mom, was contacted on Facebook by the birth mother of her son. The birth mom had been out of touch with our family for over a decade. Her note was tactful and sensitive. But, my relative was startled by what was gleaned about our family, even with supposedly stringent privacy settings on our end. And when we set out to find out more about her before responding, we were amazed by how much we learned with little effort.

Neither of us had been friended by the young woman, and we had no friends in common. But within an hour, we learned where she worked, her complicated marital history, and the age, name, and gender of her young baby. We also pieced together other, less factual details about her life, including a recent family conflict. 

My little experiment was nothing compared to the findings of bloggers who’ve set out to test Facebook’s privacy parameters. If you want an eye-opener, check out PC World‘s post about the intimate secrets of perfect strangers here. But, the experience, coupled with fresh headlines about Facebook’s tone-deaf handling of the latest changes, has chipped away at my confidence. And I’m someone who makes a living counseling clients on how to harness the power of Facebook as a brand marketing platform.

This week, Mark Zuckerberg mounted a belated charm offensive, admitting mistakes, penning op-ed pieces, and pledging the change that the community demands. If Facebook follows through with real changes, instead of empty statements, it will probably blow over. This time. But, Facebook is vulnerable to a creeping mistrust in its commitment to users. And though I won’t be canceling my account any time soon, it’s a little less fun than it used to be.

uSocial, which boldly calls itself “the world’s most innovative advertising company” has already built a reputation for itself, although I wouldn’t call it one for innovation. It touts a dubious press release “distribution” service on the social Web, and it claims to sell packages of Twitter followers 1000 at a time. Although it’s vague about its search methods (something about targeting users with similar interests), it seems no different from the software packages that target thousands of users with indiscriminate follow invites. In other words, spam. Twitter has tried to have it shut down, so far without apparent success.

(Somewhat more innovative than its Twitter carpet-bombing is uSocial’s approach to popular bookmarking sites like Digg. It lets advertisers buy votes in hopes of driving traffic to their bookmarks and sending their links to sections that get the most visibility.  But I digress.)

With Twitter’s follow model, where anyone can follow anyone, and it’s hardly worth the trouble to block spam-bots, this kind of stuff is expected. But, a Facebook invasion’s more significant given its size and permission-based friend set-up. It’s bound to make users more wary, and Facebook, naturally, has denounced it.

uSocial’s shady methods have elicited the usual firestorm of criticism on sites like Mashable, but it’s amazingly open about its goals. This is in contrast to other, cleverer social marketing scammers who fly under the radar to avoid being shut down or blocked by legitimate sites.

And, maybe its methods aren’t ao new. One commenter described a Japanese practice known as benri ya san. Literally “handyman,” the expression can refer to those who are paid to show up at weddings, funerals, and other social gatherings in order to build up the esteem of the host. In other words, rent-a-friend.

It may be a time-honored practice, but junk by any other name is still…well, junk. It threatens to skew the social media space with bogus accounts and spammy offers. It’ll probably be the last straw for a few fed-up Facebook users. But, mostly, I feel bad for the real victims of the scam, who are any clients willing to pay for social  Web prospects by the bucketful. Money might buy friends, but it won’t get you long-term engagement.

At over 200 million monthly users, Facebook is vastly more popular than Twitter, but the micro-blogging service seems to be a growing public and media obsession.  Even Twitter-hater Maureen Dowd recently penned an interview with its co-founder, which, while ostensibly satirical, only fanned a Twitstorm of interest.  Remember when Facebook drew that kind of love-hate?

Now Facebook is set to announce tomorrow that it will permit third-party developers to build applications and services that will access user videos, photos, notes, and comments, with users’ permission.  According to the Wall Street Journal, the service will be free and will work within current open standards.

That’s a big change for Facebook, which has always insisted that developers work within its site to keep its content, and its users, firmly within its walls. But Facebook is both following in Twitter’s footsteps and recognizing that it can leverage its enormous user base to fill a need….basically, to allow people to update and search with far greater flexibility than before.  For those on Twitter, according to PC World, that means being able to copy tweets to their Facebook status in a single click.

And that’s just the beginning.  Look for more Twitter-like tools and applications in the coming months as Facebook flexes its muscles. Even though I think both services can and will coexist, the social-media battle is entertaining, and it only makes things more fun for us, the users.

Given the backlash, it’s hard to admit that I can’t get enough of “25 Random Things About Me,” the annoying, addictive chain-letter-cum-confessional that got started on Facebook and now is taking over the world. Yes, it typifies what many don’t like about Facebook and Twitter — the over-sharing, time-sucking, sometimes self-indulgent posts, games, applications and invitations that go on without end.  I was startled to read a calculation that, assuming it takes someone 10 minutes to come up with their list, roughly 800,000 hours of worktime productivity have been spent in what’s been called “an exercise in viral narcissism.” (Of course, the most surprising aspect is the assumption that a mere 10 minutes is enough to perfect one’s oh-so-random list.)

Then there’s the set-up; it’s a little disingenuous.  You’re meant to tag 25 friends “because you want to know them better,” but most people who aren’t raging narcissists stick to close friends and family members.  So, most likely, you’re talking to yourself.

Even so, most of the “25 Things” Lists I’ve read amused, entertained, surprised, or even moved me.  I learned new things about my own sisters, cried with laughter over forgotten anecdotes, and faced up to a few quirks of my own, (see #25).  When I peeked at lists of casual friends where I wasn’t among those tagged, it felt vaguely voyeuristic, but fascinating.  A former colleague mentioned the loss of her father when she was three, slipped in between her love for pasta fagiole and Alicia Keyes.  A childhood neighbor casually but poignantly referred to his coming-out. A relative’s list made me remember how much I really want to know her better, despite the fact we’re family.

But, in the end, it’s not just the sharing.  It’s the sheer randomness.  The bite-sized packaging, the juxtaposition of the silly, the profound, and the mortifying, and the ubiquity of the thing just make it irresistible.   Like it or loathe it, get ready for a whole new crop of social network games…”25 Random Things” may be only the beginning.