Seeking Funding? Top Investors Reveal What They Look For Online Before Meeting Business Owners

Raising a round of funding is no easy task. There’s a lot to worry about and a lot to prepare for. Your pitch deck needs editing (again), there’s always one more networking event to attend, and you still need to prepare answers to tricky questions about your business.

You also need to land meetings with investors. That’s easier said than done, especially if you don’t have a strong online presence.

Consider this: 65% of internet users see online search as the most trusted source of information about people and companies. (That’s a higher level of trust than any other online or offline source.)

I polled dozens of top investors on their online search habits as they are deciding to take meetings with business owners. Some simply peruse LinkedIn and Google’s page-1 results for a quick first impression; others go much deeper, reading thought leadership articles, scanning social media profiles, and previewing news articles to get a more comprehensive view.

Among the wide range of answers, one thing became absolutely clear: entrepreneurs and founders with authentic and impressive online presences will find it much easier to land investor meetings than those without.

I’ve compiled answers below from eight top investors to use as reference when it comes time to raise funding for your own business. If your online presence needs improvement, you’ll want to review this entrepreneur’s guide to online reputation management and this comprehensive guide to personal branding.

James Joaquin

James Joaquin is the co-Founder and Managing Director at Obvious Ventures. James has been working in venture capital since 2007 and has invested in a wide range of mission-driven startups including Plum Organics (acquired by Campbell’s Soup), TenMarks Education (acquired by Amazon), and Opower (IPO April 2014).

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Joaquin: Every minute of every day we're looking up businesses online. The triggers are either to gain more information on a company that has contacted us, or to research leading companies in a business and/or tech area that we're focused on.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Joaquin: We look at a number of factors, including:

• Background of the team.
• Their points of view or thought-leadership pieces published online, at places like Medium.
• Products, customers and accomplishments of the business. If the company has already launched a consumer product, we look online for consumer sentiment and reviews (places like Amazon, Instagram, Facebook, and Twitter).
• Which firms and individuals have previously invested.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Joaquin: In addition to the points above, we use LinkedIn as an efficient way to better understand both current and former employees of the company.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Joaquin: We look for passionate, purpose-driven teams that are reimagining industries in a world positive way. When we find the intersection of profit and purpose, that excites us. A clear lack of authenticity is a turnoff.

Nitesh Banta

Nitesh Banta is an angel investor and the CEO of B12. Nitesh previously co-founded Rough Draft Ventures and was an investor at General Catalyst. He’s invested in dozens of companies including Handy, Boxed, Grammarly, and Mark43.

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Banta: I always look up businesses and entrepreneurs before meeting them. I generally do this before accepting a meeting and again before an initial meeting or call. If I end up doing subsequent meetings or diligence I will do an even deeper search online.

Looking up an entrepreneur is a key part of my job as an investor to ensure I am prepared and using an entrepreneur’s time wisely. I would hate to use meeting time asking questions I could clearly answer by spending a few minutes doing research online.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Banta: Initially, I look at the website of the business. I want to understand how the owner positions the business and how far along the company is in terms of team development, customers and product.

I also look up the LinkedIn and personal website of the founders to understand their experience and any mutual connections we might have. Next I will look up their Crunchbase or Angel.co profiles to get a sense of funding history. Finally, I may quickly browse something like Google news to see if there is recent press.

As I evaluate an investment further, I will more diligently look up competitors in the space, reviews from customers and employees and press about the company and founder to ensure there are no warning signs that might make this a bad investment.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Banta: My searches get deeper as I go further in the investment process. Before a first meeting I check out the key web presences mentioned above and I will rarely get beyond the first page on Google or initial postings on social. As I get closer to an investment, I will go deeper to make sure the story I hear from an entrepreneur is consistent with reality.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Banta: A well-designed website that makes a product stand out goes a long way. In addition, the type of people involved with the company (team members, investors, advisors and customers) provide social proof that the company has momentum. Finally, I want to feel like there is a compelling founder narrative to give me an understanding of why a founder is uniquely able to solve the problem they are going after.

Having a really bad product trial experience can be a big turn off. Similarly negative customer reviews or employee reviews are generally a bad sign. Finally, if the overall narrative of the company or founder seems undifferentiated, I would be less excited to take a meeting.

Anything else you'd be willing to share about that process?

Banta: Looking up a business online is a really efficient way to make sure you are taking the right meetings and making the most of those meetings. I am confident I can do initial online research in under 10 minutes, which makes a world of difference when vetting an opportunity.

Sue Heilbronner

Sue Heilbronner is the co-founder and CEO of MergeLane, the investment fund focused on companies with at least one female in leadership. MergeLane has made 37 investments since 2014, including Havenly, Mapistry, Pana, Shinesty, and TomboyX.

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Heilbronner: I always look up business owners and founders online, whether they are looking for potential investment, a connection to me, or a meeting. My first due diligence step is LinkedIn.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Heilbronner: If I’m focused on investment possibilities, I am first and foremost looking for indicators that the person has been a superstar in other places in her life. This can show up as educational reputation, honors received in school, promotions received in prior roles, or success in a previous startup. The indicators vary with age, but I’m essentially asking myself “has this person totally shot the lights off in her life?”

I don’t know that there’s much “negative” I’m looking for. Extreme job hopping might be an indicator of someone who might bail on a company if the going gets tough. I pay attention to poor writing, syntax, and sub-par communication skills.

Lastly, I will say that I also am running a personal filter that is something like “would this person be interesting to me?” That’s not the ultimate filter for an investment, of course, but it might be an initial filter to lead me to put my attention on a person or a company.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Heilbronner: LinkedIn gets a full background review. If someone is especially interesting, Page 1 of Google and Twitter.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

I end up looking up a lot of people who are earlier in their careers because as a part of my fund I focus more on startups and founders than I do, say, on fundraising (my partner handles that). I am attracted to people at this stage who have created opportunities, whatever that means. Perhaps they’ve chosen an unlikely path, or they’ve been in the Peace Corps or AmeriCorps in combination with being at the top of their college class.

I also love working with athletes. It’s not critical that someone be a Division 1 collegiate athlete, although that’s fun to see. I just like people who “get” sports and competition. I think sports breed competitiveness and tenacity, and these are key success indicators in my book for building a great company and a great career.

Lauren Jupiter

Lauren Jupiter is a Co-Founder and Managing Partner of AccelFoods, an investor in disruptive food and beverage companies, backing its portfolio brands with industry access, expertise, and infrastructure. AccelFoods has invested in over 30 innovative brands, including Aloe Gloe, Four Sigmatic, and Kidfresh.

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Jupiter: One of the first things we do when considering making an investment in a company is to check out the company’s website. Websites provide a glimpse into everything from a company’s brand identity and engagement with consumers, to how management prioritizes various channels of trade.

We always perform a full background check on brand founders with every transaction. Because we typically partner with early stage brands, we are investing in founders and management teams just as much as we are investing in companies, so we need to do our due diligence in researching people behind a brand, not just financial and legal info. One of the first steps of this diligence process is performing a Google search on the founder(s) and/or management and reviewing their social media presence, like LinkedIn.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Jupiter: When it comes to the brand, we would hope that, even if the company is small, it has a solid online presence and can be easily found in an online search. We like to see companies building an authentic brand and fostering a digital community of brand loyalists based on strong online content. We also want to make sure that what the brand stands for is aligned with AccelFoods’ own values as a brand.

In the early days, it can be very hard to separate a brand from its founder. A founder’s personal brand can be an extremely positive asset in building a company brand, as it can help reinforce the authenticity and passion that is so important to consumers today.  

That being said, we also want to make sure there are no red flags, with either the brand founders or the company itself. Bad press, litigation, or poor business track records (reputation) can be challenging, particularly when we are just getting to know someone. We expect our entrepreneurs to exemplify the highest standard of professionalism and quality and that starts long before our investment.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Jupiter: A quick Google search, especially the “News” results, can be very revealing. When it comes to the founders, how they portray themselves publicly and their own personal brand can have an impact on their likelihood for investment, be it from AccelFoods or other investors down the road. In the same way that a potential employee would put their best foot forward on social media, an entrepreneur seeking capital should too.

Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook are incredibly powerful tools to connect with consumers. Brands with a high number of followers, but little engagement, such as comments or likes, can come across as less authentic than brands with fewer followers but higher levels of engagement. We look for quality, not quantity, when evaluating a brand’s online presence the same way we do when we evaluate a brand’s retail footprint.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Jupiter: Early-stage brands need to be good storytellers. Having an engaging website that clearly states what the product is, its differentiation, and how it fits with your lifestyle is key for Millennial consumers.

We love seeing high quality content and engagement with followers, particularly for products with unique ingredient profiles or go-to-market strategies that require more consumer education than your typical consumer brand might.

Anything else you'd be willing to share about that process?

Amazon can also be incredibly useful when gauging product and company quality. Scrolling through reviews offers an insightful look into a consumer’s experience with a brand and its product.

Kyle Nakatsuji

Kyle Nakatsuji is the co-founder and CEO of Clearcover, a new data-driven auto insurance startup. Previously, he co-founded the VC team at American Family Insurance, where he and his team invested in promising startups at the intersection of technology and risk management including Ring, Life360 and Revolv (acquired by Google).

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Nakatsuji: Early and often. Venture capitalists typically start looking at businesses' and business owners' online presence before the first meeting to prepare, and continue to do so throughout the entire process, as they learn more about the networks of people and companies surrounding the company they're evaluating.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Nakatsuji: When I was on the VC team at American Family Insurance, the biggest thing I looked for was data to back up the overall thesis behind the investment. For instance, finding out that a founder had less experience in data science than you initially thought might seem bad. However, if your overall thesis on the business didn't hinge on the founder having an extensive knowledge of data science, then it's not necessarily considered good or bad -- it's just data, which is never a bad thing to have a lot of when looking to potentially invest in a company.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Nakatsuji: As a VC, I usually looked at Google results and LinkedIn profiles before meeting with founders. If they're technical, I also made sure I looked at GitHub, too. During the entire process, I spent time looking at both the business I was considering investing in and their competitors, employees and former employees.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Nakatsuji: I was always impressed by founders that had a history of study or analysis of the area they're trying to fix because it shows they were committed to the problem in a deeper way, and that it wasn't just a "spur of the moment" opportunity for them. For me, an immediate turnoff was finding facts or evidence that directly contradict what a founder stated in the past. For instance, if the work they did at a prior employer didn't align with the work they were doing and trying to do at their startup, that was a red flag for me. There's a big difference between a debatable hypothesis and misrepresentation.

Gil Beyda

Gil Beyda is the Managing Director of Comcast Ventures, the VC affiliate of Comcast Corporation. He has invested in B2B startups including Demdex (acquired by Adobe) and Divide and Invite Media (both acquired by Google).

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Beyda: I always look up entrepreneurs online before meeting them. I start with LinkedIn to see their background and then try to find places where they might blog, like Medium.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Beyda: I look for their qualifications and experience. Plus, I like to see that they are visionaries who have built networks over their careers.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Beyda: Initially I'll just do a cursory search, but as we enter into the diligence phase for a potential investment, we'll go deep and try to find anything and everything that is out there -- hopefully not finding anything that might question the character of the founding team.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Beyda: We are impressed if an entrepreneur has a long history of blogging and offering important insights into various areas of professional interest. Thought leadership is important.

Anything else you'd be willing to share about that process?

Beyda: If we decide to invest in a company, we'll also do background checks on key members of the team. Nobody's background is perfect, but we would like not to be surprised.

Jeff (J.D.) Davids

Jeff (J.D.) Davids has completed over $1 billion dollars of investment deals including angel investments, venture capital deals, corporate ventures, acquisitions & IPOs. He has served on the management teams of 8 VC-backed startups with 6 successful exits, and produces and hosts a series of expert videos, workshops and programs entitled SmartMoney Startups.

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Davids: We search companies and executives online 100% of the time.  

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

Davids: We do an initial screen before we agree to take a meeting. We save ourselves a lot of time by not taking meetings with people whose online profiles do not demonstrate active forward progress of the company. We filter out a big chunk of people who never get a meeting because their online profiles did not reflect that they had industry-leading technology and/or solutions with a "tribe" of supporters engaging with them online.

No tribe, no progress, no investment, no meeting.  

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

Davids: We scrub profiles in the following order:

• Company website with Team Page: This is the #1 place to see if they have a solid team that is well respected in the industry. If they only list the CEO, that's a red flag because they aren't sharing credit with anyone else. Easy to eliminate those.
• LinkedIn: We look at the profiles of the management team, the company, and any advisors. I look to see how many articles they have posted (an indicator of being a thought leader), and if they have any recommendations from colleagues.  
• AngelList & Crunchbase: Do I recognize the names of anyone affiliated with the company? Do they have a good reputation in the industry, and do I know them? If I see a profile with just the CEO and a company profile and no other connections, they either aren't building a tribe of supporters, or they aren't plugged in to them online. Either way, the CEO needs to be creating a "movement" that will attract people to support the company and rapid adoption of its products and services.   
• Google Search: I Google search someone's name to see if they are being written about in the press and to ensure that they don't have a troubled past.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Davids: If the founders are connected to someone I know who has a good reputation -- as an investor, an advisor, or any other role in support of the company -- this indicates that they have "social capital." You don't have to be "in the club," but if you have made positive contact with someone with a good reputation in the startup circles that I travel with, that elevates you from an "unknown entity" to a "somewhat known entity." I can easily call that person and ask a couple of quick questions to get a good gut check.

What turns me off is people that list 15 patents and how amazingly brilliant they are but no-one is connected to them. A company webpage where the CEO is the only one listed indicates that the culture there is not optimized for collaborative team work.  

Dennis Joyce

Dennis Joyce is an investor across multiple asset classes including commercial real estate, equities, and various alternative investments. He is an active member of Seattle’s Alliance of Angels and Puget Sound Venture Club and sits on the screening committee of both groups. His angel investments include Ripl, Blokable, Visual Vocal, Bluhaptics, and CityBldr.

How often do you look businesses and business owners up online? And at what point in the process?

Joyce: I look up businesses and business owners 100% of the time during due diligence on a deal. I don’t have time to search on every pitch I hear, but if I am at all intrigued and would like to continue a relationship with a founder, I will be connecting via LinkedIn, Twitter, FB and every other format to stay close. I’m your new best friend.

What things specifically do you look for? Both good and bad?

I want to know things like “what is your art,” or “what is your hook,” or “what is your angle.” I’m trying to determine what a future leader is bringing to the world that it desperately needs. I’m looking for that “it” factor.

I look for how many followers they have and how consistent they are with their message. I want to see how committed they are to this business. I want to know the depth of their domain expertise. I try to get an idea of the character of a founder and the circles in which they travel. It’s good to see a future thought leader express themselves in places like Twitter and on LinkedIn and Facebook. A founder needs to balance having a strong voice but must also be focused online. The best founders express their character in their work, but do not let it get out of hand.

How deep of a search do you typically do? Are we talking just Page 1 of Google? Page 3 and social channels?

I will follow on Twitter and LinkedIn. I try to dig into Google and see if there are news articles and will go even deeper and try to read anything I can find, even old blog posts. I will subscribe to YouTube and Facebook channels. I am a huge believer in marketing through these channels and I want to see how well a company is growing their audience in these arenas.

If the founder has an online hobby (like a mixtape DJ or geek stuff) I will try to delve into that deeper. At the end of it all, I am about to begin what is hopefully a long-term relationship with another person and their company, so I need to learn as much as I can about this person and the team.

What kinds of things have impressed you to the point of definitely wanting to continue the conversation? On the flip side, what kinds of things have been an immediate turn off?

Hard question. Of the thousands of pieces of information I am digesting, it is hard to determine things that are turn-ons. I will say a founder’s ability to self-promote and generate interest, get press, attract followers on Facebook or YouTube are the most impressive. That signals to me the founder has the ability to stand up and represent a product or company. I also try to get a sense of how a founder reacts to criticism and rejection because that comes with the territory and needs to be managed.

A turn-off for me is a particularly heavy-handed affiliation to one cause or another that interferes with the product one is selling. We are all guilty of turning others off from time to time, but it is very important for founders to show class and dignity.

Another turnoff is being boring. If I wanted to read a person’s boring tweets about their latest Uber ride, I’d follow more VCs on Twitter. That’s why they are VCs and not founders. Be yourself and be interesting.

Anything else you'd be willing to share about that process?

When I invest in a founding team or a product I am building a multi-year relationship with them. They are becoming part of my family. It is way more spiritual than most people think. People need to be thoughtful about how they portray themselves online. It is important to be the best version of themselves whenever possible.

Originally published on Forbes.

Ryan Erskine is a Senior Brand Strategist at BrandYourself, where he helps people take control of their online presence. Visit his website, follow him on Twitter, and read his book here.

20 Online Reputation Statistics That Every Business Owner Needs To Know

Have you Googled yourself lately?  If you haven’t, you may be surprised by what you find. Nearly 50% of US adults say the results aren’t positive.

And that’s not something to be taken lightly. We live in a world where your online reputation can be your strongest asset or your biggest liability.

Employers, clients, colleges and customers are increasingly using Google as their sidekick before making important decisions. What shows up in your search results could mean the difference between a job and the unemployment line, a new customer and a lost opportunity, an investor meeting and an unanswered email.

There’s no excuse for being unaware of your online footprint. In fact, it’s downright irresponsible.

Here are 20 statistics that prove the value of online reputation management:

The Power Of Online Reviews

1. 90% of consumers read online reviews before visiting a business. (2016)

2. Online reviews have been shown to impact 67.7% of purchasing decisions. (2015)

3. 84% of people trust online reviews as much as a personal recommendation. (2016)

4. 74% of consumers say that positive reviews make them trust a local business more. (2016)

5. Every one star increase in a Yelp rating means a 5 to 9% increase in revenue. (2016)

6. 82% of Yelp users said they typically visit Yelp because they intend to buy a product or service. (2013)

The Power Of Search Results

1. 91% of online adults use search engines to find information on the web. (2012)

2. 65 percent of people see online search as the most trusted source of information about people and companies. That’s a higher level of trust than any other online or offline source. (2014)

3. Nearly 50% of US adults who Google themselves say the results aren’t positive. (2012)

4. 93% of searchers never go past the first page, instead using only the first 10 search results to form their impression. (2014)

Impact On Business Revenue

1. Businesses risk losing 22% of business when potential customers find one negative article on the first page of their search results. (2015)

   • Businesses with two negatives on the first page of search results risk losing 44% of its customers.
   • If three negative articles pop up in a search query, the potential for lost customers increases to 59.2%. (2015)
   • Have four or more negative articles about your company or product appearing in Google search results? You’re likely to lose 70% of potential customers. (2015)

2. Nearly half of U.S. adults said they have Googled someone before doing business with them. (2012)

   • 45% said they have found something in an online search that made them decide not to do business with the person.
   • 56% have found something that solidified their decision to do business with the person.

The Effect On Hiring And Firing

1. A bad reputation costs a company at least 10% more per hire. (2016)

2. 70% of employers use social media to screen candidates, up from 11% in 2006. (2017)

3. Of all recruiters, 95% believe that the job market will remain or become more competitive. If you don’t stand out online, your competition will. (2015)

4. Seventy-five percent of HR departments are required to search job applicants online. (2010)

5. Eighty-five percent of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals say that an employee’s online reputation influences their hiring decisions at least to some extent. Nearly half say that a strong online reputation influences their decisions to a great extent. (2010)

6. Seventy percent of U.S. recruiters and HR professionals have rejected candidates based on information they found online. (2010)

7. 57% of employers are less likely to interview a candidate they can't find online (2017)

Originally published on Forbes.com.

Ryan Erskine is a Senior Brand Strategist at BrandYourself, where he helps people take control of their online presence. Visit his website, follow him on Twitter, and read his book here.

A 6-Step Blueprint To Improve Your Glassdoor Rating

Picture this: your company has a few bad apples pulling the rest of the team down. Maybe they have toxic personalities that are poisoning the team dynamic, or perhaps they are severely underperforming -- or not showing up at all! Whatever the issue, you’re way beyond the “three strikes and you’re out” rule. Eventually, you just say enough is enough, and you fire them.

Your disgruntled ex-employees rant about it to their friends and family, spinning the narrative however they please. You don’t care because you’re rid of them and won’t hear from them again. They eventually find new jobs and everyone moves on with their lives.

It’s a tale as old as time. The only problem today is that those ex-employees vent about their frustrations online too, leaving you to suffer the consequences.

Now picture this: your next round of job applicants look online to find out more about your company. They turn to Glassdoor to get a glimpse into your company culture and salary averages. Like a Yelp for employees, Glassdoor features anonymous company reviews by current and former employees to help applicants navigate the job market.

Unfortunately, when they scan your company’s Glassdoor page, all they find are scathing negative reviews from your unhappy former employees. With thousands of alternative career options just a click away, can you really blame them for passing on your opportunity?

Whether you decide to follow this process yourself or hire an online reputation management firm to do it for you, here is a six-step blueprint to improve your Glassdoor reviews and help you attract top talent.

Scope Out The Damage

If your Glassdoor page is in bad shape, you can take solace knowing that you’re not alone. Most companies can’t achieve a positive Glassdoor without a plan. In fact, the average company rating on Glassdoor is a 3.3 out of 5. (And that average includes all the companies with plans -- imagine how low that would be if you took those out!)

It all boils down to human nature. People tend to write negative reviews at a much higher frequency than positive ones. Angry employees look for justice by venting online while happy employees are content with the way things are. They have no reason to review.

To get a sense for how deep your Glassdoor troubles go, first, locate your average rating and the current number of reviews. If the number of negative reviews only amounts to a small percentage of your total employees, then it’s probably not representative of the average employee opinion.

On the other hand, if it looks like everyone in your company has already complained online, you may have bigger fish to fry. Excellent Glassdoor reviews start with being an excellent employer, and I can’t stress that enough. No amount of online reputation management is going to convince unhappy employees to praise your company online.

Assuming you have the ‘great employer’ bit down, and the Glassdoor numbers are in your favor, then it’s time to start improving.

Claim And Optimize Your Profile

Chances are, you already have a Glassdoor page with negative reviews on it. As a general rule, I’ve found that most business owners tend not to care about Glassdoor until they notice an issue.

In order to manage your company page on Glassdoor, you’ll need to create a free employer account. You can go here go do that. All you need is access to a company email address so you can verify your account.

A free employer account allows you to update basic company information, view analytics on profile visits, and join the conversation by responding to reviews -- more on that later.

If you don’t already have a company page, you’ll be able to do so once you create your free account.

There is also a paid version which allows you to further build out your page, feature a review of your choosing, and advertise your company and jobs on open competitor profiles. However, you don’t need a paid account to improve your Glassdoor rating so we get too deep into that here.

Send Review Requests To Current Employees.

Getting happy employees to review is more an art than a science. Usually, you can motivate employees to write positive reviews if they:

• see how it helps the company
• understand the process and are ensured anonymity
• have guidance on what to write, and how to do it
• don’t feel pressured
• are asked at the right time and place

Some companies prefer to use an external agency to avoid directly asking colleagues to write positive reviews. This helps the goal seem more business-oriented and less like a personal favor.

Start by rounding up management, marketing, and some long-tenured employees to consolidate a list of current people at the company. The benefit of starting here is that you’ll begin to immediately counteract the existing negative reviews from disgruntled ex-employees with the other side of the spectrum: happy current employees.

You may be tempted to immediately ask all your employees to review so you can wash your hands of this issue. There are a couple main reasons why this is a bad idea:

• It looks suspicious if you have very few reviews, then a waterfall of positive reviews all at once, and then none again.
• Negative reviews are likely to trickle in at the same rate as they always have. So those positive reviews are going to get buried by more negatives at some point.

For these two reasons, it is better to put your happy, current employees on a review schedule to spread them out over time. Depending on the size of your company, you may want to ask a few people to review each week or several dozens.

When you ask, remember to keep in mind the motivation factors mentioned above. You’ll want to make the process as easy as possible for your employees, while also ensuring that they understand why it matters and how their anonymity will be protected.

With this review schedule running, you’ll have the ability to begin configuring your ‘key moments.’

Determine Your Key Moments

In every organization, there are key moments when employees are feeling particularly enthusiastic and are most likely to write positive reviews about the company.

Common examples include promotions, meetings where you recognize good work, and fun activities like happy hours and retreats.

Think about those moments in your company. Do you host a Bagels with the Bosses event that brings the team closer together? Is there a particularly fun team-building activity you do every year? What about that amazing onboarding process that you’ve developed for new hires?

Draft up review request language that’s tailored for each key moment. Then, make sure you put a process in place to collect the names and emails of employees once they have encountered those moments.

All that’s left to do is send out the requests and you’ll be well on your way to a higher score.

Personally Respond To Reviews

When business owners get a negative review online, many get scared to respond. I’ve heard things like, “I don’t want to legitimize it,” or “that guy is absolutely crazy, he won’t listen to reason” or “what if we bring more attention to it?”

Think of it this way: if you were researching a company, how would you feel if you saw these two variations of the same review:

• Employee: There’s too much pressure, and people don’t seem to care. They won’t listen to you, even when you’re suffering.

or

• Employee: There’s too much pressure, and people don’t seem to care. They won’t listen to you, even when you’re suffering.
• Company Response: Sorry to hear that you didn't get the level of support you expected. Thank you for taking the time to give us your honest feedback! We care deeply about our people and go above and beyond to provide the support that you need. If you are not getting that support from your manager, please contact your HR business partner so that we can help. —Your friends at Facebook

I borrowed and roughly edited this exchange from an employee review on Facebook’s Glassdoor page. If you’re anything like me, you feel much more positively about Facebook as a company when you read the second version.

In the first variation, Facebook’s lack of response seems to match the reviewer’s complaints, and the company comes across a bit like a cold-hearted software engineer sweatshop. But in the second variation, you get a personal response with a sincere apology and suggestions for how the employee can get help. That kind of response can mean a world of a difference, both for the employee who left the review and for all the potential job applicants who are researching the company online.

And don’t forget to respond to positive reviews too! Imagine how thrilled your employees will be to receive a personal thank you for taking the time to review. Just hearing that their input matters and is deeply appreciated may be enough to turn your happiest employees into brand ambassadors.

Actually Adapt Based On Feedback

One of the biggest benefits of having an active Glassdoor page is that you receive consistent, honest feedback from your employees on what’s working and what’s not. Armed with that kind of information, you’ll be well-equipped to make internal changes to accommodate the most common compliments, complaints, and suggestions.

If you notice a worrying trend in the feedback you receive, you have the unique opportunity to fix that problem before it gets out of hand. And if you see that most employees are thrilled by something small, perhaps it’s worth doubling down on that perk to show that you’re paying attention.

Remember, excellent Glassdoor reviews start with excellent employers. And you never know — if you keep up the good work, you may just end up on Glassdoor’s Best Places to Work list one day.

Originally published on Forbes.

Ryan Erskine is a Senior Brand Strategist at BrandYourself, where he helps people take control of their online presence. Visit his website, follow him on Twitter, and read his book here.

What The Harvard Meme Students Can Teach Us About The Reputation Economy

In June, Harvard withdrew admissions offers from 10 students who exchanged offensive, obscene and hateful memes in a private Facebook group called “Harvard memes for horny bourgeois teens.”

You might be tempted to shake your head and chalk this up to immaturity, but it’s not just college kids being held accountable for their digital posts. Remember the woman who lost her job over an insensitive AIDS tweet? And earlier this year, a dean at Yale was fired for inflammatory and hateful reviews that she posted on Yelp.

If one thing is clear, it’s that we’re all becoming much more vulnerable to online blunders that can ruin our careers. Already, 50% of US adults say their Google results aren’t positive and that number is bound to increase as we live more and more of our lives online.

The scary thing is that, as our online vulnerability has increased, so too has our reliability on digital searches and screenings — both manual and automated — to make important decisions. Depending on the study, somewhere between 30% and 40% of college admissions officers admit to screening social media accounts to learn more about their applicants. And 30% said they had found info online that had negatively affected an applicant’s prospects.

College admissions officers aren’t alone. Today, 75% of HR departments are required to look candidates up online before offering them an interview. And 70% use social media to screen candidates, up from 11% in 2006. With access to tools that help automate this screening process, can you really blame them? Walmart receives 5 million job applications per year. Even if you only spent 5 minutes per application, it would still take you 205 years to get through every application before you even held a single interview.

Customers are following suit. Even when consumers start the buying process with a referral, Google is the very first place they look to do their due diligence. Online search has become the most trusted source of information about people and companies -- a higher level of trust than any other online or offline source.

The Rise of the Reputation Economy

These trends aren’t going to reverse anytime soon. As data aggregators become more powerful and digital information about our reputations becomes more readily available, we can expect our online reputations to play a bigger and bigger role in whether or not we land important clients, business deals, or job interviews. Even the White House is exploring what it would look like to make “social media screening” a part of the vetting process for immigrants to enter the country.

With our personal and corporate digital reputations so heavily scrutinized during purchasing decisions and big life moments, you might find yourself drawing parallels to how banks and credit card companies use credit scores to make their decisions on rates and loans. The difference is that, as we become savvier at retrieving and analyzing digital footprints, the impact of your online reputation is likely to play a much larger role than a credit score ever could.

Think of it this way: the average young person today will switch jobs 12 times in their career. That’s a new job (and another reputation screening) every three to four years of our professional lives. And by 2020, 40% of the US workforce will be working freelance on the side. All in all, more than 60 million people will consistently rely on the power of their personal brands and online footprint to further their careers and bring in a steady income.

Unlike any generation before, today’s employees must consistently pitch themselves to the next employer. (Hence, the rise of LinkedIn.) Any skills you acquire need to be showcased and visible, both for human and automated screeners. The people that figure out how to showcase themselves well for digital screenings will earn more opportunities. Those that don’t will miss out and wonder why they’re getting passed over.

Online Privacy Offers a False Sense of Security

Importantly, the reputation economy goes far beyond what is searchable and public.

The Harvard students shared memes in a private group message on Facebook, and the posts still ended up in the hands of admissions officers. How did that happen?

It’s simple, really -- someone shared them. Even if you believe in the general goodwill of the tech corporations that host all this data, your online posts and messages are only as private as the people you share them with. (One lesson we can take away from today’s political climate is that private emails have a funny habit of getting unwanted public attention.)

And don’t forget that apps like Snapchat have blanket permission to “store and distribute” your drunk and nude selfies — you agreed to it in the terms and conditions — and Facebook has admitted toplaying games with your privacy settings, offering up your “private” account to potential friends by using your phone’s GPS data.

Online privacy offers a false sense of security because it lulls us into thinking we can post, share, message, or email whatever we want online without repercussions.

My advice? Don’t post or share anything online that you wouldn’t want your customers or employers seeing.

Your Online Presence Can Be a Valuable Asset

When people hear horror stories like this one, their first reflex is to hide. Some folks change their name on Facebook or start spending less time on social media.

It’s a good idea, but unfortunately, it doesn’t solve the main issue, which is that colleges, consumers and employers are all using online reputation screenings as an integrated part of their decision-making process.

Your online reputation is the information people (and machines) find about you online, so hiding behind privacy settings -- or not posting anything at all -- actually puts you at risk. If a hiring manager’s automatic screening tool can’t find anything about you online, it’s an easy reason to move onto the next candidate. (57% admit to doing this.) When clients Google you and can’t find anything about you or your business, they’re just one click away from your competitors.

So while those Harvard students were using Facebook to spread hateful messages, remember that you can choose to use your digital presence to build identity capital, support your career and drive revenue.

Be smart about how you position yourself online. It may be your ticket to success, and it doesn’t require a Harvard education.

How Trump Supporters Tanked CNN's App With 1-Star Ratings

Earlier this month, Trump supporters and others accusing CNN of threatening a Reddit user took justice into their own hands by leaving thousands of 1-star reviews on CNN’s mobile app. The digital lynch mob left CNN with an average rating of just one star in the Apple App Store.

CNN suffered a similar attack in Google’s App Store but was able to more easily withstand the assault thanks to hundreds of thousands of preexisting positive reviews.

CNN currently has a one-star average in the Apple App Store.

The swarms of negative reviews have left Apple and Google in a tricky situation. Do they respond, implicitly taking a political side, or do they stand by and do nothing, perhaps eroding trust in their app store ratings?

Accusing an app of publishing fake news — as many of the reviews do — does not violate terms of service. There also aren’t any “rules” against masses of people deciding to review all at the same time.

“Legally, there is not an issue here,” Matt Pinsker of Pinsker Law wrote in an email. “The fact that the ratings are based on a perception of lousy and biased reporting is no different than giving a restaurant a bad review because you think their food or service is lousy.”

Even so, both Apple and Google have decided to respond. While Google Play has worked with CNN to identify and delete thousands of spammy reviews, Apple has added an editor’s note defending the app. “We’re diehard fans of 24-hour news channels, and CNNGo combines the depth of CNN’s reporting and original programming with the instant gratification we crave.”

How Did We Get Here?

It all started when President Trump tweeted a grainy, animated GIF that depicted him in a wrestling match body-slamming a man with a CNN logo superimposed on his head.

#FraudNewsCNN #FNN pic.twitter.com/WYUnHjjUjg

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2017

President Trump’s tweet was the latest in a series of objections to CNN’s coverage of him and his administration. The post has since earned well over a million likes, retweets, and comments, and has quickly become the president’s most-shared post of all time.

The edited video clip was originally posted on Reddit by a user that goes by HanA**holeSolo. When organizations dug into the original poster’s history, they found an archive of racist and anti-Semitic content. One reporter, Andrew Kaczynski, tracked down the poster, and CNN released a controversial article in which they chose to keep the poster’s identity anonymous but said, “CNN reserves the right to publish his identity” should the man ever “repeat this ugly behavior on social media again.”

While Kaczynski later clarified the statement, many interpreted it as a threat from a powerful news organization to publish a private citizen’s identity. Rallying behind the hashtag #CNNBlackmail, CNN detractors questioned the network’s motives and discussed various strategies for protesting the decision.

CNN’s latest reviews on the Apple App Store.

When one 4chan user started a thread called Operation: Mobile Assault, a digital lynch mob of online users took to other message boards and social media channels to spread the call to action. Thousands of negative reviews later, the CNN app is now stuck with a 1-star rating in the Apple App Store.

What Does This Mean For CNN?

In an ecosystem where each star increase or decrease often correlates to huge upswings or downswings in app downloads, attacks like this are usually of serious consequence. It can mean hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in lost revenue for the average company.

However, in the case of a well-known media brand like CNN, the protest may be more symbolic than anything. After all, how much weight are consumers really putting on star rating when deciding to download an app from their media network of choice?

Given the other ratings of popular broadcasters’ apps, the answer is probably “very little.” The New York Times’ mobile app has a 3-star average rating, yet remains the #1 top free app under the Magazines and Newspapers category. Wall Street Journal only has a 2.5-star average and sits in the #3 position.

CNN has actually seen an increase in ratings this year, thanks at least in part to its aggressive Trump coverage. Despite the president condemning the network as #fakenews and some Trump fans nicknaming it the Counterfeit News Network, CNN hit a ratings milestone in Q2 of 2017, posting its most-watched second quarter on record in total viewers.

So in a strange turn of events, could CNN actually benefit from the assault on its mobile app?

Mario Almonte thinks so. “The controversy could actually supercharge sales,” he told me in an interview. Almonte is the President of Herman and Almonte Public Relations, and he explained it to me this way: “Trump’s divisive and combative attitude in politics has politicized brands and consumers like never before, with consumers increasingly making purchasing decision based on their political positions.”

If CNN is lucky, it may indeed turn out that way. But the situation is illustrative of how internet users have the power to collectively ruin a brand’s online reputation in a swift and frightening way. Online news spreads so quickly that it’s not uncommon for situations to easily spiral out of control when people decide to take justice into their own hands.

It’s reminiscent of the woman who got fired over her AIDS tweet. Or of Pizzagate, where a rumor twisted and turned on 4chan and Reddit forums like a dystopian version of the game telephone until people were accusing an innocent pizza parlor of leading a child sex ring. The story grew like a firestorm, and the parlor suffered death threats and hateful comments, until someone actually showed up with a rifle to investigate the theory.

If CNN didn’t benefit from both national brand recognition and deeply polarizing Trump coverage, the effects of the digital assault would likely be damning and permanent. CNN’s situation is not unique, and is just the latest in a series of stories that highlight how we are still very much in the wild west of the digital age.

Originally published on Forbes.

Ryan Erskine is a Senior Brand Strategist at BrandYourself, where he helps people take control of their online presence. Visit his website, follow him on Twitter, and read his book here.

Tired Of Skimming Through Identical Resumes? Try This Instead.

I don’t know about you, but my eyes start to glaze over as soon as I pick up a resume. All those one-pagers with tight formatting, impressive-sounding titles, bullet points with powerful action verbs — it’s enough to make you crazy.

Resumes seem like a great idea.. until it’s time to actually hire someone. That way of sorting prospective workers may be effective for weeding out the careless (a-ha, a typo!) but it makes it extraordinarily difficult for companies to find standout employees. On paper, the clock-in-clock-out types look the same as the standouts — they have the same experiences, same job titles, and same responsibilities. It becomes impossible to distinguish between the passionate and indifferent, motivated and unmotivated, culture fits and rotten apples.

But those distinctions matter. My suggestion? Put down the polished resumes and try Googling your job applicants instead. You’ll get much more valuable information, and you’ll find it on your own terms.

Here’s exactly what you should be looking for:

Red Flags

There’s a reason 75% of HR departments are already required to search job applicants online. It’s a far more effective way to find those exceptional employees than a piece of paper. It’s also a more instructive method for finding red flags than a polished resume — 70% have rejected applicants based on info they find online.

The first page of search results are a great place to start. Take a quick skim and see if anything weird stands out. If you find a website and active social media properties, you can probably move on. But if you find any red flags — legal issues or negative press, perhaps — you might want to think twice. It’s not to say a bad search result is a reason to automatically reject an applicant, but it’s certainly worth looking into more.

Next, move on to images and public social media profiles. Do you find loads of drunk college photos and inappropriate pictures from Spring Break? Do they tweet, share and comment using offensive language? Do they bash their current employer, insult others and get involved in controversial topics?

Your employees represent your company online, so you’ll want to be careful before hiring someone with this kind of questionable material. Again, it’s not necessarily a reason to reject an applicant on the spot, but you’ll want to proceed with caution.

Unique Value

A job applicant’s online footprint is one of the easiest ways to locate their unique value-add for your company.

If they have their own website, that’s a great place to start. A personal website is a sign that your applicant takes their online presence, job search, and career growth seriously.

So take a quick look around. If they have a blog, read a few posts to get a feel for their writing style and thought process. If they have a portfolio, it could be the easiest way to gauge their skills and actual output on previous projects.

See what other nuggets of info you can dig up. Take a look at their press or awards page — if they have one — to see if anything stands out. Have they been published on top tier publications? Perhaps that’s a connection your company can leverage. Have they been mentioned in trade magazines? Have they published a book? That kind of credibility and expertise might be helpful to have on staff.

Next, explore their social media channels. A large and engaged audience could be a massive benefit for your company. The research shows that content shared by employees receives 8 times more engagement than content shared by brand channels. And brand messages are re-shared 24 times more frequently when posted by an employee versus the brand’s social media channels.

Don’t underestimate the value of a huge and engaged social media following. That network and level of reach comes in handy when it’s time to spread the word about new job openings, important company updates, or that latest piece of press.

Personality and Culture Fit

Don’t wait until the interview to gauge your job applicant’s personality and potential fit with your company culture. An initial look through someone’s social media is often enough to give you a sense if someone is worth pursuing or not.

Look through visual mediums like Facebook and Instagram to get a snapshot into their personal life. Check out their Twitter and LinkedIn to see what articles they’re reading, what stories they’re sharing, and what thoughts pop into their heads.

And if you still feel like you’re missing some high-level chronological understanding of this person’s career experience, just check out LinkedIn. It’s the internet’s functional equivalent of a resume and has the added benefit of providing a full list of other eligible applicants if this one doesn’t work out.

Originally published on Forbes.com.