A specter haunts the web. The specter of distrust. There is distrust when reading or listening to news, when receiving a contact request, and even when about to complete a purchase.
The overpopulation of the web and the spread of notorious "fake news" make it increasingly complicated to clearly distinguish between what is true and what is false. "Looking with circumspection" is now a natural element of defense. An often impenetrable armor that represents a serious problem for both the individual and the brand seeking to improve its awareness.
The only, true, and infallible antidote against this process of progressive erosion of the trust threshold is the acquisition of ever-increasing shares of reputation.
Always, long before social media, Google, and the Internet, the consolidation of reputation has been a powerful cognitive tool capable of helping us bring order among the various entities that populate our world. It helps to arrange them according to a precise hierarchy, from the most reliable to the least credible.
Reputation is an extremely important asset. It is no coincidence that its injury is sanctioned by almost every legal system on the planet. According to Article 595 of our Penal Code, “Anyone (…) communicating with multiple people offends another's reputation, is punished with imprisonment up to one year or with a fine up to 1032 euros.”
The injury to reputation would therefore seem like an easily solvable problem. But it is not. Not online, at least. On the web, the distance between defamer and defamed is often enormous. Discrediting and discredited parties are distant subjects, and those called upon to take a side, to form an opinion, often lack the means to evaluate the matter.
The only tool to appeal to is precisely the reputation level of the actors.
A kind of decisive factor capable of significantly influencing the final judgment on the contenders.
But how is a solid reputation built? The cornerstones upon which this invaluable concept rests are essentially two: reliability and credibility.
Reliability is the maintenance of a brand's or person's promise of value. The result of having to do and/or wanting to do. Elements that certify the type of intentionality and the degree of freedom of the subject. (S.P. Lampignano, 2016, Digital Reputation Management).
Whoever is reliable boasts a credit of correctness capable of supporting any action even before it is performed.
Credibility is competence, knowledge. It is knowing how to do things (well). According to Guido Gili, the granting of credibility cannot disregard the qualities actually possessed.
In short, one must be good at their job and know how to communicate it (2005, Credibility).
Reliability and credibility require time and consistency to consolidate. It is necessary to provide value and be useful, satisfying the needs of one's audience.
Monitoring how a brand communicates and, above all, how it is perceived is crucial to ensuring a proper reputation.
Reputation is not static. Even if optimally consolidated, it can face crises and be damaged. Often even without our knowledge. For this reason, it requires constant and thorough monitoring that cannot disregard the use of verification tools that help analyze public sentiment, contributing to identifying areas for improvement and strengthening.
Oscar Wilde's old adage “It doesn't matter whether you talk good or bad about it, the important thing is that you talk about it” is no longer applicable. What truly matters these days is that it is spoken of only and exclusively well.