Brand Reputation for the FTSE 100 vs. the Fortune 100

Before we can start work aligning a brand’s online reputation to match their corporate objectives, we need to understand something about the playing field.

We need to understand what types of results are typical for brands in the same market. Many of our clients are Fortune 100 and Fortune 500 companies, so we have done extensive research into this market.

Below is a table depicting the frequency with which we find various sites as top ten results in Google’s natural search results. (Data is from Nov 9, 2012).

The number above each bar represents the number of company search results in which each website appears.

Frequency of top 10 results google

 

As you can see from this chart, the most prevalent result for companies in the Fortune 100 is Wikipedia – appearing in 90% of page one results for Fortune 100 companies.

It’s interesting to note that Facebook and Twitter are each appearing in F100 first page Google results about 25% of the time.

Also interesting is that Yahoo Finance continues to be an important finance site as compared to Google Finance – which does not show up in the top ten.

A takeaway for companies in the space would be to look at the frequently occurring websites and determine if your brand should also have similar results. Knowing that Google tends to “like” showing a specific type of result seems to make it low-hanging fruit – an easy win if it’s something that will help your online reputation.

What about the FTSE 100?

In preparation for a week of meetings in London, we decided to compare the same type of data as seen in Google.co.uk results for the FTSE 100.

Frequency of top 10 results google.co.uk

 

In the UK, Wikipedia is even more prevalent. Only 3 FTSE 100 companies have no Wikipedia page appearing in their Google page 1 results! Also noteworthy is the strength  of The Guardian as a result shown in the first page Google results for 59% of all FTSE 100 companies! (Note to PR department – The Guardian is more likely to impact online reputation than the BBC, The Telegraph and Reuters combined!). In the UK Markets.ft.com outranks Yahoo Finance in prevalence by a significant margin, with Yahoo Finance still maintaining a significant foothold.

On the social media front, Twitter and Facebook are less than half as likely to be in the Google first page search results for a FTSE 100 company – as compared to a Fortune 100 company.

Notable as well is that neither group has video results coming up with any frequency. Image results show up in 6 of the FTSE 100 search results, but in only 2 of the Fortune 100 first page results.

With this knowledge, we are better prepared to look at FTSE 100 companies – and indeed at company results for other companies in the UK with a better understanding of which sites play significant roles in online reputation. When we approach a client program, we then take the additional step of doing a more exact comparison of the peer group – the companies or individuals that are most similar to the client. This offers further insight as to the way in which Google treats those keywords within the local search market.

Knowledge is Power: Wikipedia Fact Sheet

The 5th most visited website in the world has changed the way we seek out information, and the way we think about knowledge as a collaborative effort. If you are a CEO with a Wikipedia page, that page will  likely be the second result on a Google search for your name.

Here’s a 2019 look at Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia Index: Facts and Big Business

We’ve said it before, but it’s worth saying again: Monitoring changes to corporate or executive Wikipedia pages is an essential component of reputation management.

As we’ve noted previously on this blog, Wikipedia is the 5th most visited website in the world, with 80 million registered users and 200,000 editors. Wikipedia has changed the way we seek out information and determine its accuracy, with two thirds of US adults saying that they sometimes or always trust what they read on Wikipedia, according to our recent  research — which also found that half of Fortune 500 CEOs (and 94% of companies) have an entry that ranks on page one of Google for searches of their names. Wikipedia is a key component of online reputation for notable organizations and individuals.

With that in mind, look how frequently major brands have their pages edited by Wikipedia’s many editors: 

 

 

 

WikiAlerts™ by Five Blocks facilitates monitoring by sending real-time email alerts when edits are made to tracked Wikipedia pages.

Trash Talk in the Edit Field: The Vandalism Wars

For real sports fan trolling, center court is Wikipedia. 

Sporting events in the 21st century are played both on and off the field.

As highly paid athletes compete for fame and glory on televised fields and courts the world-over, an alternate set of teams compete in the shadows.  

Fighting it out across cyberspace, on social media platforms, are the fans who mainly exercise their fingers.

The victorious show no mercy to the vanquished. They make memes mocking fumbles and celebrating touchdowns. What’s the point of your team winning if you can’t rub it into the face of those crushed and humiliated in defeat?

A surprising venue for this testosterone-driven trashing of players, umpires, and coaches: geeky Wikipedia.  

Wikipedia, trusted as an authoritative source by most of the 1.6 billion people who use it monthly, has become a rather likely spot for good old hooliganism. Appearing at the top of page 1 in search results for many terms, yet editable by anyone, it is a most appealing target for vandalism: People will see what you scrawl.

However, there is a lesser-known, but more significant, consequence of vandalizing a Wikipedia page.

Vandals change Google.

Here’s a story.

Recently, the Patriots were crushing arch-rival NY Jets, and fans were looking for cyber blood.

And it was then that Patriots fan Pvega789 made his move. He logged onto the Jets’ Wikipedia page, and changed the lead sentence of the page to read: 

“The New York Jets are a professional American football team based in the New York metropolitan area and owned by Tom Brady and the Patriots’ Defense.”

(Get it? “Owned?”)

Unknowingly, editor Pvega789 was also altering Page 1 of Google search results.

The Knowledge Panel that appears on the top right of Page 1 for a search usually takes its text directly from the opening sentence/s of a Wikipedia Page.


As Pvega789 saved his edit, Google updated the Knowledge Panel for the Jets virtually instantaneously, quoting the first sentence from Wikipedia verbatim.

 

 

 

As if that weren’t humiliating enough for the Jets, another anonymous editor went in 15 minutes later and corrected what he (or she) described as a “typo.” Now both the entry and Knowledge Panel read:

“The New York Jets are a semi-professional American football team”

Within a minute the vandalism was all reverted by an administrator, who also added protection to the page to temporarily prevent further vandalism. The Knowledge Panel returned to normal. 

 

When the vandal has a sense of humor and the damage is reversed quickly, we can all have a chuckle about it. Like this edit made to a page about a martial arts event.

 

 

But what if it’s defamatory, mean, or intentionally malicious?

Vandalism can then have serious consequences, and stain reputations. 

Sport isn’t the only arena where Wikipedia vandalism takes place. There are many other examples, to which we will not link here for obvious reasons.

 

  • An ex-student unhappy about their old school
  • A customer unimpressed with how a brand treated them
  • A former employee disgruntled with their prior workplace 

Any of these types of people can go onto Wikipedia with an ax to grind and run the page, at least temporarily, into the ground — and have that reflected in search, if it’s a well-known brand.

If it’s on a dormant page with minimal interest, vandalism can just sit there. Going months, if not years until someone notices it. 

 

How does Wikipedia defend itself against vandals?

Protecting its integrity relies on it being able to identify vandalism quickly. 

There are Wikipedia Bots designed with the sole purpose of detecting vandalism and reverting the edits. 

There is also a page with a list of recent changes which editors can monitor to see what’s been happening recently.

Frequently vandalized pages can be protected to prevent unauthorized edits. 

But this isn’t, as we have seen above, fail-safe. Who has time to monitor a Wikipedia page? Other than the aforementioned sports trolls, probably nobody.

However, there are great tools available to notify you when changes have been made to pages you track.  

We will leave the final word to Abraham Lincoln, whose page on Wikipedia is one of the most vandalized of all time. In his Gettysburg Address he said:

“The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here but know that the problem with a Wikipedia page is that you can’t always depend on its accuracy.”

 

The Wikipedia Index: The Edits that Matter

We’ve noted before how important a Wikipedia page is:  98% of Fortune 500 companies have their Wikipedia page ranking in their first page of Google results. Previously (here and here), we examined the sheer volume of edits made to Fortune 500 companies’ Wikipedia pages. 

But what is the nature of these edits?  What kinds of changes are being made by Wikipedia’s many editors, and which ones should you care about most?

It turns out that the vast majority of all edits to Fortune 500 company pages are just one of four types – text, infobox, links, and references. Text and infobox changes are the most crucial. 

 

Edits to text include changes, additions, and deletions of any text in the body of the article. This content is obviously what readers come to a Wikipedia page to see; what many don’t realize is that it’s also where Google pulls pieces of its search results.

Therefore, changes to text on a Wikipedia page often become incorporated into both the search page results and the knowledge panel (Google’s data summary box on the right side of the page).

 

In some cases, this happens as soon as an edit is made, creating an opportunity for vandalized text in Wikipedia to show directly in Google. We wrote about that here.  

Another key component of a Wikipedia article for a company is the infobox. This is the box on the right side of a Wikipedia article that gives a synopsis of key points about the company. Critically, Google often pulls points directly from the infobox into its own knowledge panel. 

 

Don’t Panic, But Do Pay Attention

 

Google and Wikipedia are two of the most visited websites in the world. When people search Google for information about a person or company, their answer on Google’s search results page often comes directly from Wikipedia.

Whether a company’s page is edited with malicious intent – vandalized – or simply updated with incorrect information, the strong connection between Google and Wikipedia means that edits within Wikipedia have ramifications for a company beyond just Wikipedia.

When someone edits the body of a Wikipedia article, that change may be picked up by Google right away, or it can take a few days. This sometimes allows other editors to undo or remove vandalized text before it ever makes it to Google. However, when an edit is in the first sentence of the Wikipedia article, Google picks up the change immediately, making such edits highly risky for the company or person. This can be the case also for edits made to the infobox.

Companies, brands, and individuals with a Wikipedia article about them need to be vigilant about continuously monitoring their Wikipedia pages for any edits. That way, they can be on top of any changes to these pages that don’t convey an accurate picture and, most importantly, take steps to remove these changes when necessary.

 

 

Error: Contact form not found.