The latest political drama to hit cinemas is The Ides of March (based on a play based on truth) adapted for the screen by the ever-relevant George Clooney and starring the newly ubiquitous Ryan Gosling, as the “country’s greatest media mind” behind the campaign of a presidential candidate (played by Clooney).

The film’s themes are provocative for those of us in the business of PR, as they reflect many ingredients of effective reputation management:  one part media relations, one part crisis, and a helping of ethics on the side. In the film, Gosling’s character is a media relations superstar, tasked with maintaining the high profile reputation of a potential future president, yet grappling with a possible sacrifice of values.

No one would argue that reputation management can be a sneaky game especially in politics, but these days, flaws are harder to sweep under the rug. On the other side of the silver screen, everyone from corporations to students are realizing that it’s not just the media at the helm of their reputations – it’s social media. We know the examples: Nestle ran into trouble, as did Urban Outfitters. The political world is almost too obvious, with the downfalls of Anthony Weiner and Chris Lee as examples.  Hollywood itself isn’t exempt – what’s the most buzzed-about topic related to the affair rumors facing Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore? Tweeting habits.

Though the film doesn’t address social media specifically, it recognizes the power of public relations on an individual and broader level, presenting a compelling narrative on ethics and the role of reputation and media. It does a particularly good job of examining the lengths that those in the highest echelons of politics go to in order to maintain that critical, yet fragile, sphere of influence.

But today, the approach by many lately has been the opposite of the underhandedness in Ides – it is openness over exclusivity, transparency over bureaucracy. Whether in Hollywood or in Washington, we’re all learning hard and fast that the person with just about as much power as that scrappy reporter from the Times, might just be your Facebook friend.

fhamid General Corporate Facebook, Ides of March, Nestle, Twitter, Urban Outfitters

Bottled water, once a cash cow product ballooning in consumption from the early 2000s until 2007, is now a difficult business. Ask Nestle.

Along with others, Nestle is facing pressure from activists groups and other opponents to reform its bottled water business. The Wall Street Journal reports:

In Cascade Locks (Oregon), Nestlé is trying to tap 100 million gallons of water annually for its Arrowhead water brand from a new spring—and keep the environmentalists happy, too. A key is proving that water drawn from the spring—which supplies a hatchery that raises Idaho Sockeye, an endangered species—can be replaced with municipal well water, with no harm to the fish.

Nestlé is running a one-year test here to raise 700 rainbow trout in a tank filled with well water. Worried that activists might sabotage the test, Nestlé put the 1,700-gallon tank under lock and added security cameras.

Further:

Its role as leader of the U.S. bottled-water market and the fact that it taps springs in often-pristine rural areas has exposed it to particular criticism from opponents of bottled water.

The article goes on to recount the number of, to my mind, reasonable measures Nestle is taking to ensure they are (at least currently if not historically) tapping water sources responsibly. Engaging the local community, working with government entities, conducting studies. In general, it sounds like they are listening and trying to do this right.

But in the zero-sum game of activist campaigns, that counts for very little.

A couple months back, my colleague Ame wrote about Nestle’s response on the social Web to a Greenpeace campaign on Nestle’s purportedly harmful palm oil sourcing leading to deforestation. Since then, Nestle has, as some media has put it, “caved” to activist demands and reevaluated its sourcing.

But the truth is Nestle has, at least, a respectable track record of trying to do the right thing for the environment. This isn’t some big company mindlessly gobbling all the resources it can sink it’s ravenous teeth into, regardless of how activists paint it.

My advice to Nestle is, keep doing what you’re doing. Rebut critics with facts. Work with all stakeholders to understand their often real concerns. That’s where reputation is made.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications, CSR activists, Nestle

Companies often find themselves in a dilemma that goes something like this: “I want to connect with people through social media but I’m worried about what I can’t control. People may say bad things about us.” So?

Companies that do the right thing have an understanding of their issues and risks and know in their hearts that they are taking appropriate steps to be good corporate citizens have nothing to fear. And, in fact, have an opportunity to tell their story through social media.

Take the recent palm oil debacle Nestle faced. It’s not as if Nestle didn’t know about Greenpeace’s concerns. Nestle and others in its space have been dealing with activist concerns for decades. And Nestle, like others in its space, have taken numerous steps and made active commitments to protect the environment in communities in which they do business. But, activist groups exist to push companies harder and Nestle knows that. So rather than get defensive — even belligerent — over Greenpeace’s use of social media to push Nestle, why didn’t Nestle use it as an opportunity to tell the story of their efforts to do good.

True, the dialogue would have continued and the activists would have critiqued but both sides of the story would have been aired and the story would have lived out its “news cycle”. Instead, by taking on the activists in a defensive manner, Nestle missed an opportunity. Nestle wouldn’t have handled a live encounter without arming themselves with their positive actions and positive messages, nor would they have dealt with a reporter without having the balanced story at hand. Social media is no different.

Establishing a social media policy — just like the media policy most companies use — is one way to avoid such situations while also taking advantage of the opportunity for transparent dialogue that is the primary value of social engagement.

Ame Wadler can be reached at awadler@mww.com.

awadler Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media Greenpeace, Nestle, Social Media