Then I read spokesperson Ben Roome's blog post which provided a rationale explanation of the issue. But from a reputation measurement perspective, it got me wondering. As long as the WSJ stands by its story, and as long as that story is being tweeted and retweeted amongh the thousands of folks following #iranelection on Twitter, what chance does the company have of actually controlling the public's perception of the company's role in the brutal crackdown in Iran? And, does a company have an obligation to be more proactive in a crisis of this sort? I know that Nokia Siemens is following standard crisis communications theory by putting their story out there, listening (and publishing) the comments and criticisms, and I really can't fault them.
But I'm wondering if, in this era of instant communications and continuous news reporting, classic crisis communications no longer works. Do you have to do somethingn above and beyond the norm, something proactive, not reactive, that will tell the world that you do indeed stand for the basic human rights of freedom of speech and liberty for all?
I guess if I were them, I'd be tracking my social media presence against sales of phones, to see whether the call for a boycott has legs, But I'd be working on a blan B if it does.