I’ll be taking a look at Southwest’s overall response to the report that they had been flying “unairworthy” planes. This controversy relates to missed or overlooked inspections, small or tiny cracks, a thumbs up by a FAA inspector, and a short period of continued flying violations after the problem was identified.

As usual, in cases like this, the story is hard to follow. That always seems to create initial hysteria and then allows to potential offending party to spin the story to their benefit, often leaving out key concepts.

It seems that in 2004, the FAA issued a ruling that all 737 airplanes must be inspected every 4,500 flights. These inspections were primarily concerned about cracking, a condition which that can lead to very dangerous situations.

On March 15, 2007, Southwest let the FAA that it may have allowed 46 planes to exceed that number of flights as decided by the FAA. Southwest then did and internal investigation and found that, yes, those 46 planes did indeed exceed that limit by a total of 59.791 flights. They reported back this information to the FAA on March 19. However, after disclosing this information to the FAA, they continued to fly those planes for four more days to March 23 for an additional 1,451 flights.

At some point within that March 15-23 time period, an FAA official gave Southwest the thumbs up to continue to fly the planes as long as they were quickly inspected. That official, now being disciplined, is supposedly based out of Dallas, which coincidentally, is where Southwest Airlines is headquartered.

For this transgression, the FAA is proposing a $10.2 million fine.

That’s the story as I see it so far. I’ll be examinging their response as time goes on.

Next, I’ll be taking a look at the way they’re corresponding through their blog.

That’s the story as I see it so far.

While we call the service we offer Defensive SEO (also online brand protection and online reputation management, search engine cleaning, reputation rehabilitation, etc), I guess the newest term for our process of “mopping” up bad search results has been given a name, and that name is “Search Moptimization.” Tip of the hat to Jonathan Trenn, via ClickZ

‘Yes, that’s “mop,” as in to clean up. This is the increasingly common, if not essential, brand practice of attempting to clean up negative search results against general or specific brand-related queries. For many brands, particularly in the consumer electronics category, hostile CGM (define) is beginning to fill, even dominate, the organic search shelf, a zone that we all know has an unmistakable impact on the awareness and trial of new products. For many brands, the mopping process can take two to three years (often longer) and heavily depends on operational and product, rather than marketing, decisions. Dell, for example, still has lots of “search moptimization” to clean up Jeff Jarvis’s two-year-old mess, though it’s worth noting its customer service blog and IdeaStorm initiatives have already helped mop up or reroute some of the venom.’ The Official 2008 Web 2.0 Buzzword Forecast By Pete Blackshaw

This is a follow up on my last Post about Otto, but this time in English!

Before I start complaining again, I will give you a brief summary of my last post.

The “Otto Versand” is the major German Mail-Order Company. But once again there is a huge gap between American and European Online Business. I guess Otto hasn’t realized the importance of the Internet yet. They still focus on rural stay-at-home Mums who order by old-school mail and this is supported by their Online Marketing practices. They use long cryptic URL s on their Web Pages, have no innovative Affiliate Programs like the “Amazon Wishlist,” and when you try to Google them, you have to assume that they have never heard of search engine optimization (SEO). Otto operates the second largest market in the world, but their web appearance is from ages ago!

Those were my thoughts two months ago and, to be honest, not a lot has changed in the meantime! The URLs are still cryptic, there is no new Affiliate Program, and the one they still use doesn’t have a good reputation at all! However, all of a sudden they do appear in Google’s top search results about nearly any consumer good! Bravo!

Listen up Otto, this was a start, but if you want to catch up, there is a lot of work that needs to be done! Go Otto Go!

Check out the article in last Thursday’s Times, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, that addresses how to handle consumers who develop a personal vendetta against your company. Well, you could send lawyers but legal cease-and-desists generally just make the customer madder than hell and it isn’t hard to just start yet another attack site.

I hate to say it, sucking less always helps. Start with treating your customers better. Also, be sure to register lots of domain names and work on your online reputation aggressively before it becomes a problem.

Online, the best defense is a good offense and an ounce of online promotion is worth a pound of cure. Here are some great commented-by-me excerpts from the article, Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics, so you can get a gist:

Read more…

There was an article in the The New York Times titled Dealing With the Damage From Online Critics. Many businesses, big and small, have customers that get upset and decide to take it to the net. They write negative things about you and ruin your reputation in the online realm.

Some people think this is nothing to be concerned with. But, the reality is that it can have a huge negative effect on your business. After all, the majority of people today turn to the internet to get a deeper look into a local business or any such business that they are looking at purchasing from.

Read more…