Negative campaigns and reputation management: how to effectively counter digital attacks in today's online environment? Gasan Akhmedov, head of the Remark agency's ORM department, debunks myths about ORM and explains why it is important to manage reputation.
Gasan, you have been working in reputational marketing for a long time, although your basic education seems to be technical. Tell us, how did you get into this profession?
Actually my profession is a software engineer, but I have never worked in that profession. I came to marketing and PR relatively recently, although this field has always been interesting to me, and it was through acquaintance, not through bed. (laughs). One day I was invited to work as an English-language content editor in the media support of the Astana Economic Forum. During the preparation for the event, it turned out that I am able to keep in touch with the media, communicate well, monitor and coordinate work with the media. That's how I stayed in this field.
When Remark had the task of creating an ORM team and understanding everything from scratch, I was happy to do it. The uncluttered look, the lack of a base that could conflict with the trends of the time, helped me figure everything out for myself.
How should ORM be understood and what is its difference from PR?
ORM involves constant monitoring and quick reactions. For example, if you saw a negative review, you figured it out, responded and fixed the bugs, if necessary. Or, on the contrary: we accepted the feedback, helped the person understand how to correctly perceive what our client is doing. It's a constant job to make sure that everything that is said about you is honest, but at the same time objective. ORM and PR are similar things, but different. PR is like a beautiful cover: come up with cool campaigns, attract attention, tell about something good. And ORM is more about responding quickly to any problems and maintaining an already created positive image. ORM does not mean at all to remove negativity for money, as some people think, not about "extinguishing fires". This is a constant systematic work to ensure that these very "fires" do not occur. For example, you have a page in Google service, on Google maps or in 2GIS. They write to you that your product is not suitable and does not meet the stated quality. An ORM marketer urgently gives feedback, directs a person to the right service in your organization, and suggests solutions to the problem.
If you want to maintain a good reputation, your page on online resources should not be one-sided. If you don't communicate in the comments, they will stop writing to you, therefore, you will never know where the negative is brewing, which will affect your reputation and your income tomorrow. I would say that ORM is a communication tool first of all, and it is a big prop for PR: sowing a positive information field, monitoring the media and social networks to see how this or that news "entered", what main points and thoughts the audience understood, making adjustments if necessary. For example, you publish information about the launch of a sales promotion, and if monitoring systems show that everyone has received this news neutrally or negatively, you should work with this, adjust your PR strategy, talk about the benefits, prevent negativity, and so on.
When you were talking about media monitoring, I remembered how about thirteen years ago, in the press service, we collected newspaper files and proofread all the publications. How did we all live without ORM before?
We lived quite well (laughs). In fact, the file overview is the ORM element. It's just that the digital world has accelerated the spread of information so much that now we monitor the media using automated systems and respond immediately. ORM is useless without PR, it's already a given. A PR man without an ORM is like a herald on the square. He came, shouted, and left, but he doesn't know what they told him. ORM gives feedback and adjustments to the "herald" on the second run, if necessary, so that the audience understands everything as intended.
I suddenly wondered if our government agencies use ORMs. After all, officials are often accused of being detached from reality and not knowing what people think of them, what decisions they expect from them.
I think they're using it. In government agencies, the problem is most likely the speed of response. They often perceive negative reviews as a threat rather than an opportunity for improvement. ORM, on the other hand, presupposes dialogue and transparency, not only prompt information about what is happening, explaining the reasons and offering solutions. This is proactive work: do not wait for a flurry of negativity to appear, but identify "bottlenecks" in advance and eliminate them, establish a dialogue. But the state apparatus is a clumsy bureaucratic machine that requires endless coordination with the "top". Perhaps for this reason, even with the automation of feedback collection, we are seeing communication crises.
There is a widespread opinion that the Kazakhstani audience is not very vindictive, so it's enough to wait three days when "news live" and everything will sort itself out. What do you think about this?
The fact that the news live for three days is a fact. But do you know what the problem is? Detractors will always "dig her out" and not let her die. If you don't manage your reputation and don't care about looking decent in the online space, your old mothball-smelling negative will be taken out for you and presented as news with a certain regularity. It will be constantly updated with new details and stories... This is a competitive world, and there are not always only decent people in it, do not forget about this, because restoring a reputation after such "greetings" from the past is very expensive. ORM is not about "waiting out the storm", but about creating a permanent foundation of trust. Your audience is your asset, and if you work with them sincerely, they can become your main defender in difficult times.
ORM is a fairly new area for Kazakhstan and is not entirely clear. What challenges do you face in this market?
- For a long time, the institution of reputation has been devalued in public discussions. It was believed that he simply did not exist. But if you ask marketing professionals, they will tell you that companies and their managers, professionals value their reputation very much. According to the most conservative estimates, reputation makes up from 20 to 40 percent of your capitalization. The problem is if companies don't realize this. I've been pleased lately that awareness of the value of reputation is growing. A few years ago, you could go to the company's website and see only "contacts", "pool of services", some stock photos and nothing about achievements. I have worked in oilfield service organizations, construction companies that have implemented social projects, but there is no mention of this anywhere. In my work history, there was an IT company that worked in a shift settlement near a populated area, and it paved all the roads there. It will remain on people's lips for centuries! You need to talk and write about good things. Bad things about you, that you stumbled, will be written anyway.
Do you separate a business reputation and a very fashionable now "personal brand"?
A personal brand is about what a person broadcasts about himself. But I cannot judge the reputation of people who "pump themselves up" on social networks in the way that bloggers and information businessmen usually do. It's important for me to know what's behind all these "funny pictures." It often happens that there is a void behind them. It's good to build a personal brand if you have a stable business reputation – this is your knowledge, experience, and professionalism. For example, if I have a toothache, I go for reviews and sort dental clinics, considering those with a rating of 4.9 or higher. I don't need a doctor who posts reels all day, I'm looking for a professional with a good education and the best reputation.
Do you remember how the not very public forensic expert Takhir Halimnazarov became a celebrity after his brilliant performance in court in the case of ex-minister Bishimbayev? Major media outlets interviewed him, and followers and grateful commentators came to his Instagram. Apparently, this is an example of the role that professionalism plays.
Yes. The professional's business reputation speaks for itself. He does not need to upgrade his personal brand, because he has many years of successful practice and recognition from colleagues. A personal brand that is not confirmed by deeds does not live. But I would not like to completely devalue self-promotion. There is nothing wrong when a person with an excellent business reputation speaks interestingly about himself and his business in various ways, transmits information to a wider circle, not limited to recognition in a narrow professional community, and engages in education. Such a personal brand will certainly be sustainable and will bring a lot of benefits not only to its owner, but also to society.
Gasan, you have been working in reputational marketing for a long time, although your basic education seems to be technical. Tell us, how did you get into this profession?
Actually my profession is a software engineer, but I have never worked in that profession. I came to marketing and PR relatively recently, although this field has always been interesting to me, and it was through acquaintance, not through bed. (laughs). One day I was invited to work as an English-language content editor in the media support of the Astana Economic Forum. During the preparation for the event, it turned out that I am able to keep in touch with the media, communicate well, monitor and coordinate work with the media. That's how I stayed in this field.
When Remark had the task of creating an ORM team and understanding everything from scratch, I was happy to do it. The uncluttered look, the lack of a base that could conflict with the trends of the time, helped me figure everything out for myself.
How should ORM be understood and what is its difference from PR?
ORM involves constant monitoring and quick reactions. For example, if you saw a negative review, you figured it out, responded and fixed the bugs, if necessary. Or, on the contrary: we accepted the feedback, helped the person understand how to correctly perceive what our client is doing. It's a constant job to make sure that everything that is said about you is honest, but at the same time objective. ORM and PR are similar things, but different. PR is like a beautiful cover: come up with cool campaigns, attract attention, tell about something good. And ORM is more about responding quickly to any problems and maintaining an already created positive image. ORM does not mean at all to remove negativity for money, as some people think, not about "extinguishing fires". This is a constant systematic work to ensure that these very "fires" do not occur. For example, you have a page in Google service, on Google maps or in 2GIS. They write to you that your product is not suitable and does not meet the stated quality. An ORM marketer urgently gives feedback, directs a person to the right service in your organization, and suggests solutions to the problem.
If you want to maintain a good reputation, your page on online resources should not be one-sided. If you don't communicate in the comments, they will stop writing to you, therefore, you will never know where the negative is brewing, which will affect your reputation and your income tomorrow. I would say that ORM is a communication tool first of all, and it is a big prop for PR: sowing a positive information field, monitoring the media and social networks to see how this or that news "entered", what main points and thoughts the audience understood, making adjustments if necessary. For example, you publish information about the launch of a sales promotion, and if monitoring systems show that everyone has received this news neutrally or negatively, you should work with this, adjust your PR strategy, talk about the benefits, prevent negativity, and so on.
When you were talking about media monitoring, I remembered how about thirteen years ago, in the press service, we collected newspaper files and proofread all the publications. How did we all live without ORM before?
We lived quite well (laughs). In fact, the file overview is the ORM element. It's just that the digital world has accelerated the spread of information so much that now we monitor the media using automated systems and respond immediately. ORM is useless without PR, it's already a given. A PR man without an ORM is like a herald on the square. He came, shouted, and left, but he doesn't know what they told him. ORM gives feedback and adjustments to the "herald" on the second run, if necessary, so that the audience understands everything as intended.
I suddenly wondered if our government agencies use ORMs. After all, officials are often accused of being detached from reality and not knowing what people think of them, what decisions they expect from them.
I think they're using it. In government agencies, the problem is most likely the speed of response. They often perceive negative reviews as a threat rather than an opportunity for improvement. ORM, on the other hand, presupposes dialogue and transparency, not only prompt information about what is happening, explaining the reasons and offering solutions. This is proactive work: do not wait for a flurry of negativity to appear, but identify "bottlenecks" in advance and eliminate them, establish a dialogue. But the state apparatus is a clumsy bureaucratic machine that requires endless coordination with the "top". Perhaps for this reason, even with the automation of feedback collection, we are seeing communication crises.
There is a widespread opinion that the Kazakhstani audience is not very vindictive, so it's enough to wait three days when "news live" and everything will sort itself out. What do you think about this?
The fact that the news live for three days is a fact. But do you know what the problem is? Detractors will always "dig her out" and not let her die. If you don't manage your reputation and don't care about looking decent in the online space, your old mothball-smelling negative will be taken out for you and presented as news with a certain regularity. It will be constantly updated with new details and stories... This is a competitive world, and there are not always only decent people in it, do not forget about this, because restoring a reputation after such "greetings" from the past is very expensive. ORM is not about "waiting out the storm", but about creating a permanent foundation of trust. Your audience is your asset, and if you work with them sincerely, they can become your main defender in difficult times.
ORM is a fairly new area for Kazakhstan and is not entirely clear. What challenges do you face in this market?
- For a long time, the institution of reputation has been devalued in public discussions. It was believed that he simply did not exist. But if you ask marketing professionals, they will tell you that companies and their managers, professionals value their reputation very much. According to the most conservative estimates, reputation makes up from 20 to 40 percent of your capitalization. The problem is if companies don't realize this. I've been pleased lately that awareness of the value of reputation is growing. A few years ago, you could go to the company's website and see only "contacts", "pool of services", some stock photos and nothing about achievements. I have worked in oilfield service organizations, construction companies that have implemented social projects, but there is no mention of this anywhere. In my work history, there was an IT company that worked in a shift settlement near a populated area, and it paved all the roads there. It will remain on people's lips for centuries! You need to talk and write about good things. Bad things about you, that you stumbled, will be written anyway.
Do you separate a business reputation and a very fashionable now "personal brand"?
A personal brand is about what a person broadcasts about himself. But I cannot judge the reputation of people who "pump themselves up" on social networks in the way that bloggers and information businessmen usually do. It's important for me to know what's behind all these "funny pictures." It often happens that there is a void behind them. It's good to build a personal brand if you have a stable business reputation – this is your knowledge, experience, and professionalism. For example, if I have a toothache, I go for reviews and sort dental clinics, considering those with a rating of 4.9 or higher. I don't need a doctor who posts reels all day, I'm looking for a professional with a good education and the best reputation.
Do you remember how the not very public forensic expert Takhir Halimnazarov became a celebrity after his brilliant performance in court in the case of ex-minister Bishimbayev? Major media outlets interviewed him, and followers and grateful commentators came to his Instagram. Apparently, this is an example of the role that professionalism plays.
Yes. The professional's business reputation speaks for itself. He does not need to upgrade his personal brand, because he has many years of successful practice and recognition from colleagues. A personal brand that is not confirmed by deeds does not live. But I would not like to completely devalue self-promotion. There is nothing wrong when a person with an excellent business reputation speaks interestingly about himself and his business in various ways, transmits information to a wider circle, not limited to recognition in a narrow professional community, and engages in education. Such a personal brand will certainly be sustainable and will bring a lot of benefits not only to its owner, but also to society.