…A line taken from an editorial by Will Blythe, former editor at Byliner, in a NY Times piece today.
Blythe talks about the ‘nondisparagement’ clause in his termination agreement: in effect, he’d gain two weeks of severance pay in exchange for never, ever, saying or writing anything bad about Byliner.
Blythe also gives his reason for not signing the agreement, in this paragraph:
‘The increased prevalence of nondisparagement agreements is part of a corporate culture of risk management that would have us say nothing if we can’t say anything nice. And yet it occurs to me that if a company isn’t strong enough to be reproached, then it simply isn’t strong enough, period.’
We’re seeing the proliferation of nondisparagment clauses all over the business community lately. Yelp or Facebook reviewers are being sued or threatened with lawsuits, for leaving uncomplimentary restaurant reviews about bad service and food. Online buyers are getting slapped years later with requests for TOS violation fees, because they’d complained about something that happened before the company even added a nondisparagement clause to its TOS fineprint.
Online ‘reputation management‘ companies have even streamlined and outsourced the process of countering or obscuring negative publicity against their client companies. Often, this work is completely legal and even honorable – a matter of airing the company’s side of the story so consumers can see all sides of the issue, and judge accordingly. The field is also rife with sockpuppets and duplicity: Rupert Murdoch’s own employees at Fox News have been implicated in the creation of hundreds of fake social-media accounts meant to monitor and counter negative claims, without being obviously linked to Murdoch’s companies.
The easy way is to say, ‘Well, just don’t say anything bad about anybody.’
What is the harm in just saying nice things? None, if they’re always true. None, if the company being discussed deserves to have nice things said about it.
Formerly good companies can slip up on quality. Should they get a free ride, based only on earlier great reviews?
Should well-meaning but incompetent businesses address their core problems, or try to sweep everything under the carpet by trying to buy or compel customer silence?
Should actively predatory companies be allowed to intimidate whistleblowers whose interests side more with consumers than the company’s bottom line? These businesses often rely on and tout a clean public image, and take extraordinary measures to convey such in their marketing copy and SEO profiles.
But if people who have a reasoned opinion, or who know the unsavory truth about a situation, stay silent, that only propagates the bad experiences, financial loss, and potential legal turmoil faced by future customers.
I’ve seen companies melt down over bad press. I’ve also seen companies rise to the occasion, address their issues straightforwardly, and regain the trust of their clients and customers.
In the long run, companies trying to hide from negative publicity might face worse problems, if their efforts to buy or extort silence are exposed. Even lashing out in public, without considering the effects of those comments, can damage a company’s reputation far more than expected.
The ‘Streisand effect‘ is real, after all.
Philosophically, the trend toward attacking or silencing critics has often been seen as the hallmark of the weaker side in an argument. At one time, it was even seen as dishonorable. Thanks to concept redefinitions from both right-leaning and left-leaning trend shapers, the practice of ‘telling big lies so often they become true’ seems here to stay.
When no one says anything bad, there is no way for anyone to know bad things are happening.
How bad can it get?
Some religious and social groups have taken their reputation management to extremes. They stalk, harass, threaten, and execute their detractors. It only seems like a long way from countering a nasty review on Yelp, to a fatwa or murdering critics.
But it can actually get worse than that, when negative opinions are redefined out of relevance by clever and persistent opponents. If scientific opinion is against your religious identity or short-term business gain, denigrate science. If rationality destroys your argument, respond with purely emotional attacks. Change the meaning of a word, and change the world…and not always for the better.
No legal threats, no assassinations needed. Just the slow and pervasive shift of public opinion, as insidious as anything dreamed up by George Orwell in 1984. Anyone wishing to counter that drift has to be at least as clever at manipulating emotions, and most folks are not.
The new breed of corporate/social/religiously motivated reputation management is deadly to truth and responsible free enterprise.
This is why Blythe was right not to sign his nondisparagement clause. It’s a start, and an example to the rest of us.