logo
+41 44 254 80 00

Renforcer et protéger votre réputation. Aujourd’hui. Demain. Toujours.

Il faut beaucoup de bonnes actions pour construire une réputation et une mauvaise pour la perdre.
Benjamin Franklin

Devenez actif encore aujourd’hui et optimisez votre réputation de demain.

Ce que nous faisons

#Réputation #Optimisation #Crise #Diffamation #Changement #Restructuration #M&A #Internationalisation
Nous renforçons et protégeons les entreprises, les familles et les personnes influentes en cas de problèmes complexes de communication . Depuis le cœur de la Suisse, mais aussi grâce à une présence internationale, nous vous aidons à contrôler des menaces liées à la communication.

Que pouvons-nous faire pour vous ?

Nous rendons le risque situé à la croisée de votre entreprise et du monde de la communication tangible, quantifiable et exploitable. Nous veillons à l’évaluation, à la préparation, au soutien et au contrôle des risques et nous intervenons rapidement en cas de besoin.
Strengthen

Renforcer

En nous basant sur une analyse complète, nous élaborons en commun une stratégie proactive pour vous aider à bâtir sur du positif et à renforcer durablement votre image.
prepare

Prévenir

Votre environnement professionnel détermine les scénarios les plus probables en cas de préjudice causé à votre réputation. Nous établissons un dispositif, cartographions puis formons vos stakeholders les plus importants. Nous surveillons, testons et évaluons en permanence votre disponibilité.
protect

Protéger

Dans les périodes difficiles, nous montons à bord et vous aidons à gérer les crises et à sauvegarder votre réputation.

Stratégie

Ecouter et surveiller, analyser des scénarios et risques, lobbying, relations publiques, relations presse et influencer-management, menaces de la concurrence, stratégies de communication, content toolkits et plateformes, ainsi que formations médias et stakeholders.

Communication

Coaching des porte-paroles, conseil en cas de litiges médias et calomnies, communication marques et IP, optimisation SEO, Google, Facebook, Wikipedia, prévention de cybermenaces et criminalité numérique.

Performance

Gestion des crises, communication des changements, arbitrage fake news, gestion de la réputation en ligne, travaux écrits, stratégie des canaux de diffusion pour plateformes payées, acquises et détenues, stratégies des réseaux sociaux et élaboration des contenus.
business-impact

Impacts sur votre entreprise et ses activités

Une mauvaise presse a toujours des répercussions négatives sur votre réputation – et les dommages ne sont pas linéaires. Dans ce cas, prévenir vaut mieux que guérir. Se renforcer et bien se préparer quand tout va bien est payant à bien des égards.

Impacts financiers cumulés

Sur une période de cinq ans, une entreprise de taille moyenne ayant son siège dans l’UE et un chiffre d’affaires de € 100 millions peut passer à côté de jusqu’à € 40 millions cumulés, en cas de préjudice causé à sa réputation, si l’entreprise n’y est pas préparée. Les dommages peuvent être limités à € 16 millions grâce à une planification judicieuse et une structure intacte. Une approche proactive de la gestion de la réputation, peut réduire les effets négatifs sur les recettes à moins de 10% (calculé sur une base de trois ans). Sans parler des autres avantages d’une gestion proactive de votre réputation.

-10m

Gestion proactive et permanente de la réputation

-24m

Plan et stratégie prêts à l’emploi

-40m

Pas préparé, pas de plan disponible
financial-impact
Clause de non responsabilité : dommages causés à la réputation et à la fortune d’une entreprise de taille moyenne dans le secteur financier, calculés sur un chiffre d’affaire annuel de € 100 millions après la fraude d’un collaborateur. Les exemples et chiffres servent uniquement d’illustration.

Experts à votre service

Notre compétence clé et notre ADN se situent dans la conception et maîtrise de situations complexes dans le domaine de la communication – interne et externe – sous toutes ses facettes et à tous les niveaux. Le cumul de nos connaissances se monte à 100 années d’expériences pendant lesquelles nous avons fait face à divers défis de communication, tout en entretenant des relations de confiance, dans de nombreux secteurs, marchés et cultures. Nous mettons à votre disposition un team d’experts en communication, très varié et expérimenté. L’éventail des compétences va de la recherche au développement conceptuel, en passant par le copywriting et l’analytique jusqu’à l’expertise numérique.
Markus Kramer

Markus Kramer est titulaire d’un MBA de l’Université d’Oxford ainsi que d’un diplôme en FinTech et Future of Commerce du

Plus d’infos sur Markus
Reto Zangerl

Reto Zangerl a étudié l’économie à l’Université de Saint-Gall (programme de master HSG). Avant de créer sa propre entreprise, il

Plus d’infos sur Reto
Cedric Jacot-Guillarmod

Cédric Jacot-Guillarmod est notre directeur des comptes en Suisse occidentale. Il est titulaire d’un master ès arts en sciences de

Plus d’infos sur Cedric

Partenaires de confiance

Notre team interne est complété par nos partenaires externes, des sommités dans leur domaine de compétence, bien au-delà de leur fonction et région.
Simkins

Media Law & Defamation

Simkins Ltd. UK and Global
meili

Media, Communications and Entertainment

Switzerland and Continental Europe
trend

Cybersecurity and IT

Trend Micro, Global
bcw

Global Communications and Public Relations

Burson Cohn & Wolfe
iprime

Trademark, Intellectual Property and Brand Protection

IPrime, Global

Notre point de vue

Réflexions, points de vue et suggestions de notre team.
Reputational Realities
According to a survey by Deloitte, 87% of executives rate reputation risk as more important than other strategic risks.1 Despite the fact that the global business class has come ...
Your Right to be Forgotten

“It takes twenty years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it,” says Warren Buffet. A quote which, thanks to digitalization, is even more true today than it was ever before. But what happens after those critical five minutes when things just don’t go the way they should, or even worse, what if you are negatively portrayed in media without any wrongdoing on your part (think ‘Fake News’)? Will your reputation be tarnished forever, or do you have a right to be forgotten? The right to be forgotten is a concept that involves the idea of every person having the right to have his or her personal information, which is somehow available on the internet, deleted. The most popular case occurred in Spain in 2014, when Mario Costeja González asked Google to delete links to an old newspaper articles about his bankruptcy. The piece, just 36 words long and dating back from 1998, had a prominent position among Googles’ search result. He argued that the information was outdated and had no legitimacy to still be found. The case was brought to the European Court of Justice. The court ruled that search engines as data controllers are obliged to consider deletion requests if they are justified. The result of this case was, that Google, as soon as facts about it were made public, was overrun with deletion requests. However, this did not solve Mr. Costeja Conzáles problem and in fact, the victory was pyrrhic: While he had concerns about 36 words prior to the court case, 850 articles in the world’s largest media outlets were published the day after the court ruled in favour of him. The famous Streisand effect caught up with him. That was not the only problem, though. In this specific case, only Google Spain was taken to court, which means that the link was still accessible on pages in other languages. Moreover, the right to be forgotten is in direct conflict with the notion of an open web and a free flow of information. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, describes the EU’s right to be forgotten as “deeply immoral”. The biggest critics argue that this so-called right represents a step towards media censorship. The Basics The General Data Protection Regulation or in short GDPR, which went into effect in all EU Member States on 25 May 2018, regulates the “right to erasure” in Art. 17. The title of this article contains the addition in brackets "Right to be forgotten". However, the provision mainly contains rights and obligations to delete certain data. Only Article 17.2 continues with the idea of the right to be forgotten, to prevent or reverse the (further) dissemination of personal data (in particular on the internet), at least to some extent. The regulation reads as follows: Where the controller has made the personal data public and is obliged pursuant to paragraph 1 to erase the personal data, the controller, taking account of available technology and the cost of implementation, shall take reasonable steps, including technical measures, to inform controllers which are processing the personal data that the data subject has requested the erasure by such controllers of any links to, or copy or replication of, those personal data. Long story short To this day, the right to be forgotten is not specifically regulated by law. The data protection laws, which are country-specific, only contain provisions on the conditions under which personal data must be deleted. From a technical point of view, solutions have not yet been found to guarantee the eradication of outdated or wrong content. X-pire, for example, is a software that allows users to give their pictures an expiration date after which the photo becomes unrecognizable. Yet neither this nor any other program on the market offers complete protection, as copies of the pictures could be made and reposted before the originals are encrypted. So, what now? Ultimately, your most promising choice is to reach out to the person who uploaded the content and to apply for deletion on the relevant websites and search engines. This is time-consuming but guarantees the fastest success if your request is justified. Therefore, you firstly try to get in touch and make your case. If you are an organization that is already exposed in media, you need to proceed with caution as an aggressive behaviour from your side can easily backfire. This also hinges on a positive and good reputation that you have already in place. Secondly, if you have credible grounds to be believe that content is defamatory on a personal or corporate level, you can request removal based on reputational damage. Let’s look at these options. For example, the most popular search engine, Google, offers its own pages for deletion requests. Apply to delete outdated content on Google This request can only be submitted for pages or images that have already been modified or removed from the Web. Simply enter the URL that you copied from Google search results and request removal. If the request is successful, the cached result and snippet will be removed from Google search results. Apply to delete other content on Google On this page, you will find instructions on where to report content that you wish to be removed from Google's services in accordance with applicable law. This procedure, however, is much more time-consuming than the deletion of outdated content, as Google asks for background information on why they should delete this content. One also needs to bear in mind that transparency is fundamental for Google: Without having legal evidence, deletion requests are often turned down. There are many points to consider for your request to be successful. Is there public interest behind the information? Is the information time-critical? Are public figures involved? With that being said, even if there are doubts as to whether your application is justified or not, it may be worth making the claim. There are many examples where Google has granted the request for cancellation, although there was no right to do so. Should Google reject the request, a written justification must be provided. If you don't agree with the justification, you may file a lawsuit against it. File a lawsuit The final option, if all claims are rejected, is to go to court. The extent to which this is promising depends on the individual case: Are personal rights violated? Was there a violation of honor? Does the negative content perhaps even concern unfair competition? Is it a public person? Is the offender known or is it a complaint against an unknown person? There are many reasons for and against (not) going to court. But what is already clear in advance: a court case is time-consuming, expensive, and may have to be repeated in different countries until all links, photos and posts disappear. It may only take five minutes to ruin your reputation – but what happens after these ominous 5 minutes is at least partly in your own hands. Repairing reputational damage can be done, but it is no easy feat. Your best bet is to make sure everything is in place not to provoke negative mentions to start with. Learn more on how Reputation Affairs can support you on that journey.

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal - Part II

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal The scandal erupts   The rise of Facebook seems to be one of the most successful stories ever. What began in 2004 as a platform for Harvard students became popular and conquered the world in a very short period of time. Within 15 years, Facebook has become one of the most powerful corporations in the world, playing a major role in shaping the online environment. Although the company has had to deal with criticism again and again, nothing hit it as hard as the (un)voluntary cooperation with Cambridge Analytica. Most likely the most famous data scandal the world has ever seen, the aftereffects and reputational damage are still very difficult to assess. 2018 did not start well for Cambridge Analytica and its CEO Alexander Nix. In February – just one month before the bomb dropped – Mr. Nix told the British parliament that CA did not receive data from Facebook, which very soon turned out to be a lie. Only days later, several news outlets published a secretly taken film where Nix talked about “beautiful Ukrainian girls” to discredit political opponents in Sri Lanka. This was not the first secret recording in which Nix boasted about CA's (illegal) activities. A few days later, on March 17, 2018, the scandal was about to fully hit the fan when The Guardian and The New York Times simultaneously published a story, based on insider information received from a whistle-blower, about how a British consultancy firm helped the Ted Cruz presidential campaign in 2015. Within a week, the story became the perhaps biggest scandal about data mining to date, with newspapers worldwide writing about data misuse on Facebook and the manipulative activities of CA. The two main protagonists saw themselves, at least at the beginning, in the role of the victims. It took both companies several days before they finally broke their silence. CA denied to have broken any laws and also denied using the data during the US presidential election in 2016. Facebook, on the other hand, apologised to users with a letter in various newspapers but only called the scandal a “breach of trust”. The apology came too late, though, and it didn’t address the issue in detail. As a consequence, it wasn’t perceived as honest. The public outrage was immense – Google alone listed 129 million findings addressing the term “Facebook data scandal” and 1.92 million results for “Cambridge Analytica data scandal”. The bosses of both companies felt compelled to take a public stand for the second time. Alexander Nix's was suspended from Cambridge Analytica on March 20. Next up was Facebook's CEO Mark Zuckerberg. In early April 2018, he stated that Facebook would undergo a reform in its policy to prevent a similar breach. Facebook also decided to implement the new EU data protection regulations (GDPR) in all areas of operations worldwide on a voluntary basis. Ye,t the reputational damage was severe and as it turned out not just for the short run. On April 10, 2018, Mr. Zuckerberg had to endure an uncomfortable testimony before the US Congress and one month later, he also had to stand trial before the EU Parliament. 2018: The aftermath In late April, Facebook had to reveal its first quarterly report after the scandal broke out. Despite an immense fall in Facebooks stock prices between March and April 2018, the report showed that Facebook has had the second strongest quarter in its history, generating a revenue of $11.97 billion in the first quarter of the year. Shareholders seemed to be relieved about the fact that the share price not only stabilized, but it even reached a new all-time high in July 2018. However, the joy was short-lived when, on July 26, it became public that 3 million European users had deleted Facebook as a consequence of data abuse. Facebook was caught up by its recent past for a second time and the share price literally collapsed and plummeted by $109 billion – with no end in sight. Still in July, UK’s “watchdog”, the ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office), announced to fine Facebook with £500,000 for the data scandal, which was the maximum fine possible under the old data protection rules. “Even after the discovery of data misuse in December 2015, Facebook did not do enough to ensure that those who continued to hold the data had taken adequate and timely remedial action, including deletion,” was the verdict of the ICO. Cynics might argue that this fine was a modest price to pay – a mere  0.05% of the company’s free cash flow. While the consequences for Facebook seemed to be very unpleasant, Cambridge Analytica and its mother company SCL Group,  were hit even harder. Within the first days of the scandal, both companies lost many clients who left as a response to the public pressure. The reputational damage was perceived as too heavy to continue operations. On May 1st, 2018, just about 40 days after the data scandal peaked, CA and the SCL Group both had to announce the closing of their doors with immediate effect. Neither Cambridge Analytica nor the SCL Group were legally convicted at this point. Once again, history seemed to prove that restoring a damaged reputation – regardless of whether a moral or legal problem arises – is in the best case a long-winded project and in the case of untrue statements and bad crisis management, a thing that often ends with the demise of the company. Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data used 2014 involvement in midterm elections 2015 presidential campaign Ted Cruz 2016 presidental campaign Donald Trump 2016 Brexit vote 2018 Mexican general election Read Part I of the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal – Part I

The Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal Timeline of a reputational disaster   The rise of Facebook seems to be one of the most successful stories ever. What began in 2004 as a platform for Harvard students became popular and conquered the world in a very short period of time. Within 15 years, Facebook has become one of the most powerful corporations in the world, playing a major role in shaping the online environment. Although the company has had to deal with criticism again and again, nothing hit it as hard as the (un)voluntary cooperation with Cambridge Analytica, which is most likely the most famous data scandal the world has ever seen – resulting in an unprecented loss of trust and reputation. When extensive Wikipedia pages are dedicated to a “breach of trust”, and Google displays 2,690,000 results for this “breach”, it is a safe bet to say that something definitely has gone (very) wrong. And that, perhaps, there was more than just a breach of trust. In this specific case, though, it took almost three years after the first articles were published until the big media scolding and the resulting consequences occurred. Three years in which one would have had the chance to actually prevent reputational damage. This is the story behind the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal and its implications for the reputation of two of the world's most influential companies. 2013: How it all began “This is Your Digital Life”is the innocent name of an app which Aleksandr Kogan developed in 2014 at the Cambridge University. An app that was different than others, though. It was designed to vacuum up the data of the people using it. And the data of their friends – including the data which they hadn’t intended to share publicly. Mr. Kogan provided the app to a young British political consulting firm called Cambridge Analytica (CA), which combined data mining, data brokerage and data analysis with strategic communication in electoral processes. The London-based agency had developed a profiling system using online data, such as Facebook interactions and smartphone data. As a political consulting agency, CA mainly focused on voters demographics, consumer behaviour, internet activity and other private and public sources. Cleverly combining strategic advice and new newly acquired technological capability, CA was quickly able to run a Facebook survey that silently aspirated the data of people participating – and their friends. The entire operation was mainly orchestrated and run by two key people: Alexander Nix, Director of the SCL Group – CA’s mother company – and CEO of Cambridge Analytica, and Steve Bannon, vice president of Cambridge Analytica, executive chairman of Breitbart News and former chief strategist of president Donald Trump. 2014 – 2015: Data misuse and first newspaper articles In 2014, CA actually started harvesting data on Facebook. Data which was used in the 2014 midterm elections in the US and in 2015 for the presidential run of Ted Cruz.While Cambridge Analytica later admitted to collecting 30 million Facebook user profiles, Facebook itself estimated that around 87 million profiles were affected by Mr. Kogans App. A Bloomberg article reported in November 2015 that CA was hired by the pro-Brexit campaign group Leave.EU, headed by Nigel Farage. As it turned out, Alexander Nix and Nigel Farage were friends, and this operation was done pro bono. It was the first time microtargeting was raised to a public level and used to influence an election campaign. On 11 December 2015, the Guardian first published an article on Cambridge Analytica and its methods. The journalist Harry Davies was already able to show that the election campaign of the Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz was driven forward by data from Cambridge Analytica. It was also known at the time the data was being collected via an application of Facebook, which led to the first time that Facebook had to take a public position on the issue. Their comment on this article was very general: “[M]isleading people or misusing their information is a direct violation of our policies and we will take swift action against companies that do, including banning those companies from Facebook and requiring them to destroy all improperly collected data,” a Facebook spokesman said. However, nothing in this direction was actually undertaken by Facebook – apparently this simple intervention was enough and no further media outlets caught on to the story at this stage. 2016 – 2017: Ongoing operations 2016 and 2017 was a busy year for the SCL Group and Cambridge Analytica. After the Ted Cruz campaigning team lost against Donald Trump, CA was hired by Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016 to help them win the national election against Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile in Europe, another firm with close ties to the SCL Group, AggregateIQ, helped the second pro-Brexit group “Vote Leave”. During that time, media attention lay almost exclusively on the surprising election results and not on CA and its Facebook data. The calmness continued until December 15, 2017, when CA was again mentioned in the media, this time in a Wall Street Journal report, stating that Robert Mueller, the American Special Counsel to investigate potential Russian interference in the US presidential election, had requested files from Cambridge Analytica. Once again, however, this did not get the attention of other media and neither Cambridge Analytica nor the SCL Group nor Facebook had to face any further negative press. This was about to change drastically, though, in early 2018. Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data used: 2014 involvement in midterm elections 2015 presidential campaign Ted Cruz 2016 presidental campaign Donald Trump 2016 Brexit vote 2018 Mexican general election Read Part II of the Facebook and Cambridge Analytica Data Scandal

Nos bureaux

Zurich

Reputation Affairs
Mühlebachstrasse 8,
CH – 8008 Zürich

T: +41 44 254 80 00
E:

map-switzerland

Lausanne

Reputation Affairs
Route de la Corniche 4,
CH – 1066 Epalinges

T: +41 21 651 90 90
E:

Lugano

Reputation Affairs
c/p Spazio 1929, Via Ciseri 3,
CH-6900 Lugano

T: +41 44 254 80 00
E:

lugano

Berlin

Reputation Affairs
Erkelenzdamm 29,
10999 Berlin

T: +41 21 651 90 90
E:

Berlin

Dusseldorf

Reputation Affairs Germany
c/o Herz & Seele Pfalzstraße 2
40477 Düsseldorf

T: +49 211 16455203
E:

map-dusseldorf

Vienna

Reputation Affairs Austria
c/o Felix Kemkes PR Consulting
Stiftgasse 6/1
1070 Wien

T: +43 676 44 60 269
E:

map-austria

London

Reputation Affairs UK
c/o Cohn & Wolfe, Lynton House,
7-12 Tavistock Square
London WC1H 9LT

T: +44 7769 68 44 51
E:

map-uk
Reputation Affairs™ renforce et protège les entreprises, les familles et les personnes influentes lors de problèmes de communication complexes. Reputation Affairs™ est un département bien ciblé de Brand Affairs™, une agence reconnue, au service de la communication des marques, des relations publiques et des réseaux sociaux.
Reputation Affairs™
c/o Brand Affairs AG,
Mühlebachstrasse 8,
8008 Zurich, Switzerland

T: +41 44 254 80 00
E:[email protected]

© 2021 Reputation Affairs.