A free resource for nonprofit organizations, NGOs, civil society organizations,
public sector organizations, and other mission-based agencies

Jayne Cravens, www.coyotecommunications.com


 


How to Handle Online Criticism / Conflict
(&, yes, you will have to eventually)

 

Your nonprofit organization or community initiative starts an online forum for its volunteers or clients, so that they can talk about various issues relating to the service they give or that they receive via your organization, and so that they can help each other. Or, your executive director starts posting her own monthly blog, offering opinions on various subjects. Or your marketing staff posts videos to YouTube. Or you announce a new program via your web site. Or you start posting to various platforms to recruit volunteers. Whatever your program staff does online, eventually, your program is going to be faced with an online discussion that includes criticisms of your program or even individual staff members. It may be about your organization's new logo or mission statement. Or about the lack of parking. Or about the volunteer orientation being too long. It may be substantial questions regarding your organization's business practices and lack of transparency.

Online criticism of your organization, even by its own supporters, is inevitable. And keep in mind: your nonprofit is probably going to be criticized on other people's blogs, Facebook profiles, LinkedIn groups, Reddit, etc., rather than the online spaces you "own" and manage.

How a nonprofit organization, government office or community initiative handles online criticism and conflict speaks volumes about that organization or initiative, for weeks, months, and maybe even years to come. Your response, or lack their of, can even cause discord offline, among volunteers and employees. Is your response going to make you look credible, transparent and someone people would want to collaborate with in the future, or will it make you look defensive, angry, out-of-control, unprofessional, more concerned with your image than your accomplishments and, perhaps, even unbalanced emotionally?

There is no way to avoid online criticism entirely, but there are ways to address online criticism that can actually help a program to be perceived as even more trustworthy and worth supporting. Criticism doesn't mean failure - it can mean people are paying attention to you, it can mean that your messages are reaching the intended audience, and it can be an opportunity to improve something. An organization MUST be able to honestly and openly deal with online criticism, particularly from supporters and participants. Otherwise, the organization puts itself in a position to lose the trust of supporters and clients, and even generate negative publicity -- and, once lost, trust and credibility can be extremely difficult to win back. Lots of people are watching how you react to online criticism - what do you want that online audience to think about you as a result of your reactions?

Before staff members panic at the idea of supporters not being so supportive, or before the organization panics and removes its online forum and profiles altogether, withdraws its participation from someone else's forum, or gets defensive, remember: being perceived as allowing critical discussions usually, ultimately, reflects very positively on an organization. By contrast, the aforementioned alternative responses can be perceived as negative and will probably do more to hurt the organization's reputation and credibility than help it.

What about when the criticisms are happening on someone else's forum, web site or blog? You can't control what other people post on their own online site or blog or profile on an online social networking site such as FaceBook or YouTube unless they violate the law or it violates the site's Terms of Service (ToS). If the site allows online discussion or has a comments board, you should engage in any of the aforementioned activities on this other person's site, and invite the other forum's participants to write you directly for further information/clarification. If the site does not have a discussion forum or comments board, you should write directly to the author with your information/clarification. You may also consider posting information on your own online forum in response, if you feel that the criticisms could cause concerns among supporters.

How can you find out if online criticism is happening outside of your own online fora? Ask your volunteers to be on the lookout for postings about your organization on the online groups, blogs and social networking sites they frequent -- encourage them to pass on such information so your organization can be more in tune with public opinion, NOT so you can shut down criticism. Also, go to Google or any other online directory system and search for your organization's name, or the name of your organization's executive director. You may find criticism or praise from a volunteer, donor, or client about your organization that you will want to address. You should also check your organization's name on Wikipedia, a free online encyclopedia that is staffed by online volunteers. If your organization is listed, is the listing accurate and complete? Is there a subject listing that you feel should link to your organization's web site? It's easy to edit listings yourself on the service, which are then verified by wikipedia volunteers.

And what should you do if you find someone is writing blogs or producing videos that are critical about your program, or has written a negative review on a third party site like Yelp? It depends on so many things. If it's someone else's opinion, the best course may be to live with that and ignore it, as people are entitled to their opinions about you and your work, even if you strongly disagree with it. If the person has gotten facts wrong - if they say you didn't have an event on a certain date in a certain place, but you did - you may want to comment on their blog or social media post and say so. Sites like Yelp allow you to respond to reviews, and you may want to do that, in a factual, dispassionate way. You may NOT want to respond at all, especially on your own blog or social media post, or on a YouTube video, because then you create more publicity for the criticism, shining a spotlight on something that you really do not want more people to read.

When reading an online complaint, consider: is the complaint an indication of a greater problem? Could there be a credibility gap among some supporters that could spread to others if not addressed? Could online criticism be an indication of a problem or perception among supporters you were not previously aware of? It might be worth brainstorming with staff and supporters onsite, in a special meeting, to find out if there is something more to criticisms that might initially meet the eye... or the heart. A blog at CNET by Dana Blankenhorn on "How open should your open source business strategy be" is something anyone working in public relations/press relations should read, including nonprofit organizations. Blankenhorn uses an example of one CEO at an open source business who blogs openly and thoughtfully about criticisms of his company and himself. Blankenhorn notes that "success in open source also requires transparency in other areas, even when it comes to development strategy, and a willingness to acknowledge what others may see as mistakes in that strategy. She says, "This goes beyond merely engaging with your community, but treating critics as adults rather than as adversaries, and questions as opportunities to provide insight... a willingness to listen and even change your mind in response to criticism." As I wrote in my own blog, agreeing with hers, "Isn't the same true for nonprofit organizations? Isn't it necessary, because of the nature of nonprofit organizations, that they must be transparent about their program development strategies and activities, and be willing to acknowledge what others may see as mistakes in that strategy, in a thoughtful and open way, in order to distinguish themselves from other sectors and to garner community investment?"


Where might people be complaining about my program?

In addition to your online community, on the comments on your posts to your program's Facebook page, on comments on a blog you publish, or other online spaces you created and control, criticism can show up on:

Here's advice specifically on how to use online tools to find out when your organization or key staff members are being named on public fora.


When to delete and block?

What did I mean earlier when I said "a few particular circumstances"? I meant trolls. Someone who is disgruntled, suspicious and questioning is NOT automatically a troll -- be careful in dismissing someone as such, to avoid being seen as just trying to shut down legitimate, although uncomfortable, conversation.

Someone moves from being an angry or frustrated person with legitimate criticism to being a troll when that person:
You are or your organization is entirely inline to prohibit certain topics from discussion its own forums, such as information about clients, internal documents, and other confidential information, or to censor such information from your blog or any online space you manage. You are within your rights to censor foul language, and to ban someone from your own online spaces for using such. Again, if you ban someone, the group needs to know who and why.

You may decide to block a troll - someone who seems to exist mostly to criticize you or your organization - from seeing your posts on any social media platform. The only downside of that is that you cannot see what they might be posting about you - that may be for the best, but if the person might spread misinformation about your program or a person to a large audience, or might threaten violence, it's something you will want to know about immediately, and you can't if you block them. If the person is calling you on the phone, absolutely block their number - no one has the right to call you on the phone if you don't wish to talk to them.

But trolls can, indeed, be more than annoying: ongoing posts and insults can cross the line at some point into online harassment.

PEN America is a registered 501(c)(3) organization. It is headquartered in New York City, with offices in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. Founded in 1922, PEN America is the largest of the more than 100 centers worldwide that make up the PEN International network. PEN America works to ensure that people everywhere have the freedom to create literature, to convey information and ideas, to express their views, and to access the views, ideas, and literatures of others. Its members are a nationwide community of more than 7,200 novelists, journalists, nonfiction writers, editors, poets, essayists, playwrights, publishers, translators, agents, and other writing professionals, as well as devoted readers and supporters who join with them to carry out PEN America’s mission. Writers and journalists, particularly women, are facing unprecedented levels of online hate and harassment. PEN America has created an Online Harassment Field Manual that has strategies and resources that writers and journalists, their allies and their employers can use to defend against cyber hate & online abuse. I highly, highly, highly recommend it for nonprofits as well. Manual chapters include:

Should you threaten to sue?

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer and this shouldn't be considered official legal advice.

Defamation is when someone's words end up causing harm to someone else’s reputation or livelihood. Libel is a written or published defamatory statement. Slander is defamation that is spoken by the defendant. And defamation is not always illegal - it depends on the laws of your country and state.

A difference in opinion, a difference in how something is observed, does not meet the legal definition defamation, at least in the USA. A person calling your event boring, your executive director unworthy of praise or your programs silly is not committing defamation. A person saying that it is suspicious that your web site doesn't list your board of directors or the qualifications of your staff is not committing defamation. A person saying, "I find this nonprofit questionable in terms of its effectiveness" is not committing defamation . Even if your reputation is damaged by a comment, an insulting comment, a critical comment, you may not be able to collect any money if the communication was true or if the person can show that they were not neglectful in making the comment - if they can present evidence that shows why they made that statement and thought it was true.

And consider the consequences of a lawsuit: you are bringing publicity to the critical statements - you are tying yourself and your organization much more closely to them. A great example of this is actions by US Representative Devin Nunes, who is upset that there are parody accounts criticizing him on Twitter, like Devin Nunes' Cow. But instead of ignoring the account, he has decided to try to sue, which has lead to many thousands of people following the parody accounts he dislikes so much - his lawsuit has brought more attention to the accounts than they would ever have had otherwise. The lawsuits have also made the parody accounts look like Davids against an evil Goliath in the press. The negative media attention his lawsuits are bringing are far more damaging than what the parody accounts are saying, in my opinion.

A much better idea may be to simply write a rebuttal on your own blog and then move on with no further comment.

Even if you are seeing a drop in event attendance, a drop in the number of volunteers, or a drop in donations, and you think it's because people have a growing sense of negativity about your program or someone associated with such, your first reaction shouldn't be "let's sue!" Again, you may end up giving the critic more attention and create more believers in that person's narrative. If you have built trust with clients, volunteers and donors, you have an army of people that would probably love to be a part of videos, podcasts, blogs and memes celebrating your organization and the great work it does - and this can be far, far more effective in countering a negative narrative than a lawsuit.

Here are web sites that offer good summaries of defamation and libel and your legal options - and, if things turn even more dire, online harassment and cyberstalking.


Creating Trust

If you have already worked to create trust with those with those whom you interact online, long before criticisms surface, through transparent and honest information in past communications, you are going to have a much better time dealing with online criticism; readers will already trust you, and be ready to give you the benefit of the doubt. If you have volunteers who are enthusiastic about their experience with you, donors who are committed to seeing your organization succeed, lots of clients who have had a positive experience with your programs, you have all you need to counter negative messaging online. I'll say it again: if you have built trust with clients, volunteers and donors, you have an army of people that would probably love to be a part of videos, podcasts, blogs and memes celebrating your organization and the great work it does - and this can be far, far more effective in countering a negative narrative than a lawsuit.

Online criticism is not always a bad thing

A short case study: the Henderson Humane Society
In March 2005, the local government of Henderson County, Kentucky (my hometown), received information from a staff person at the Henderson Humane Society, which operates the animal shelter there. This information documented horrific conditions at the shelter and gross mismanagement. Unfortunately, not much changed, so the staff person then contacted the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which then launched an online campaign in the Fall of 2005, and a local television station, which produced a story about the inhumane conditions at the shelter. It was the online criticism and online activism, as well as the resulting local press coverage and further public outrage, that at last prompted radical changes at the shelter, and a vastly-improved organization. In April 2006, the local newspaper ran a glowing story about the changes at the shelter. How the organization handled its initial criticism -- by ignoring it -- lead to even more intense and public criticism, including online with a major national advocacy organization, and a great deal of public mistrust and loss of credibility. How it handled the resulting more intense criticism, by accepting it fully, by firing some staff members, by changing leadership and by addressing complaints, has lead to a very different, and much better, organization that's on its way to restoring its credibility.

Another short case study: a Chicago nonprofit asked for feedback online about its YouTube video - was the response criticism, or free consulting?! The comments may have bruised someone's ego, but the criticisms were all legit, and the comments offered solid, credible advice for improving the online video campaign.

But what about an organized, pervasive online effort to discredit your nonprofit organization, one that results in individuals, knowingly or naively, spreading falsehoods, about your organization via various online fora? A good example of this is the seemingly-grassroots campaign to discredit the UN Population Fund by a variety of right-wing activists. I've written to UNFPA directly to see if they will share their strategies to counter such efforts, and posted to various online fora to gather ideas from other organizations -- I'll update this page as soon as I can pull together some concrete good examples (can't seem to get anyone's attention at UNFPA...).

Support Your Local Online Discussion Manager!

When you, the Executive Director or Marketing Manager or Program Director, see your online discussion manager facilitating an online debate about something your organization is or isn't doing, the temptation may be for you, the senior person, to jump in and start posting. That may or may not be a good idea. It's a good idea if there is something you need to clarify that you can say better than your online discussion manager, particularly if it might relieve pressure on that person and allow him or her to move the discussion forward. It's also a good idea if you see the manager under fire - it can be wonderfully motivating for an online community manager that is bruised from an online virtual debate to see your public support for him or her, and it can help for discussion group members see your faith in that person. However, it's a bad idea if you are seen as "taking over;" your posting to the discussion can disempower your online discussion manager, reducing his or her importance to the community. Why should the community look to that person as their liaison with the organization online, when you've made it clear that YOU are higher up and in-charge, and you took over the discussion? If you think there is a different way to handle an online situation than your online discussion manager is doing, talk with that person FIRST, and if at all possible, have the discussion  manager continue to be the lead in facilitating the discussion. If you must post something, be sure to add verbiage that shows you still have faith and trust in your online discussion manager, and that you fully support that person.

In Addition...

On a related note, I have also been gathering and sharing examples for several years now of how folklore, rumors, urban myths and misinformation campaigns interfere with development and aid/relief efforts, as well as recommendations on preventing or responding to such.

Also see the February 2008 Beth Kanter blog entry, "Transparency, Social Media, and Dealing with Criticism"; the second case she relates, regarding Seagulls Global Internship International and its new logo, as well as and the blog comments, are an excellent example of what online criticism can look like among supporters and ways to handle such (and please note that I used the example at the start of this page regarding controversy over a new logo back in 2006; that's how common such controversies are!).

And view as well "Apology's Sorry State", by Workforce Management editor John Hollon. "Even at that point, when they finally, grudgingly admitted their transgression, the 'apology' I received was terribly shallow and totally insincere. I came away from the incident wondering how the company manages to keep any customers at all given such a ham-handed business philosophy. Who wants to deal with an organization that behaves like that?... a timely, personal and sincere apology could have turned me around and made me feel really positive toward the organization. Instead, I was left with the strong impression that it was a shoddy operation with bad business practices an organization that would do the right thing only if somebody forced it to."

Also see this this profile of Captain David Faggard, Chief of Emerging Technology, US Air Force, who says that he wants to foster an environment in which all enlisted personnel are equipped to engage in online discussions about the US Air Force -- that's a 330,000-member communications team. Have a look at this Air Force Web Posting Response Assessment flow chart in PDF and think about how you can adapt it for your own organization.

Example...

Here's an example of online criticism - by me, about a government office where I live. They handled it by ignoring me. What do you think my impression is of this organization now, not only because of my complaint, but because they made no effort to address such? If you were in charge of this initiative, how would YOU handle it?


Also see:

 
See more resources re: Outreach & Engagement, With and Without Technology
 


  Quick Links 

 my home page
 
 my consulting services  &  my workshops & presentations
 
 my credentials & expertise
 
 my research projects
 
 my book: The Last Virtual Volunteering Guidebook
 
 How to Support This Web Site & My Work

 contact me   or   see my schedule
 
 Free Resources: Community Outreach, With & Without Tech

Free Resources: Nonprofit, NGO & other mission-based management resources

 Free Resources: Technology Tips for Non-Techies

 Free Resources: Web Development, Maintenance, Marketing for non-Web designers

 Free Resources: For people & groups that want to volunteer
 
 linking to or from my web site
 
 Coyote Helps Foundation
 
 me on social media (follow me, like me, put me in a circle, subscribe to my newsletter)

how to support my work & this web site

             view my YouTube videos

Disclaimer: No guarantee of accuracy or suitability is made by the poster/distributor. This material is provided as is, with no expressed or implied warranty.

See this web site's privacy policy.

Permission is granted to copy, present and/or distribute a limited amount of material from my web site without charge if the information is kept intact and without alteration, and is credited to:

Jayne Cravens & Coyote Communications, www.coyotecommunications.com

Otherwise, please contact me for permission to reprint, present or distribute these materials (for instance, in a class or book or online event for which you intend to charge).

The art work and material on this site was created and is copyrighted 1996-2022
by Jayne Cravens, all rights reserved
(unless noted otherwise, or the art comes from a link to another web site).