The whale-naming competition launched by Greenpeace provides a perfect example of how the participatory nature of today’s Internet is coming full circle, redefining appropriate organizational communications.

The as-yet-unnamed whale, a South Pacific humpback, is going to be named Mr. Splashy Pants—man, it’s as fun to type as it is to say—and Greenpeace has citizen-driven media to thank for it.

The name is on a list of thirty candidates that includes plenty of wholesome, heartfelt, inclusive appellations from myriad cultures and literary traditions. The overall tenor of these names is very much in the Greenpeace wheelhouse; they’re warm, reassuring and guilt-free—like an organic-wool pullover.

But some of those Rainbow Warriors must have a sense of humor, because they allowed Mr. Splashy Pants to make the list—and make it it did. It’s good to know the organization knows how to lighten up, but I’m willing to bet that they thought they were merely indulging in a good inside joke.

Then the citizen-driven Web found out about Mr. Splashy Pants. The ballot page was posted on BoingBoing, Digg, and Reddit. Those content-aggregator communities spread the word faster than you can say, “Call me Ishmael,” and everybody got to voting.

The results? Mr. Splashy Pants is out front with 71 percent support; Humphrey, a comfortably wry choice, is a very distant second with only 3 percent. The rest, from Aiko to Mira to Shanti, might as well hit the showers.

What’s the point? The people, when aligned behind a common cause, are frighteningly powerful. And this weight is not merely influencing the options organizations offer to audiences; it is changing the very way organizations communicate. Greenpeace has no choice but to respect the intent of these communities. Of deeper significance: They are tempering a relatively intense mission with a modicum of humor. And this is hardly hurting its message.

Other organizations, regardless of their political leanings or industry, should pay attention. There’s something Mr. Splashy Pants is trying to teach us.

Today’s rhetorical question: How do you get to be a highly paid, high-power CEO and not know how to use email?

Spirit Airlines CEO Ben Baldanza is mulling that one over as negative spin caused by his customer-dissing missive works its way around the Web. A pair of passengers were irked that a three-hour delay caused them to miss a concert in Atlanta.

They were hoping Spirit would pick up the tab for the tickets and hotel room, renumeration that would have set the company back a bit less than four hundred bucks—probably lower than greens fees for one of the boss’ golf outings.

The couple took their complaint one step further by emailing Spirit CEO Ben Baldanza directly. But here’s the thing…they also copied several other Spirit employees on the complaint.

That’s when the email-challenged CEO hit “reply to all” in his response.

And his reply?

“We owe him nothing as far as I’m concerned. Let him tell the world how bad we are. He’s never flown us before anyway and will be back when we save him a penny.”

Ben, here’s my new Spirit slogan suggestion:
Spirit—We Cost Less and Couldn’t Care Less

If you have Spirit slogan ideas, let’s hear them here.

One of the best lessons I learned during my bartending days (besides a martini-shaking technique that makes them cold enough to skate on) came courtesy of an industry-savvy pub owner. “If someone has a good time here,” he told me, “they’ll tell a friend. If someone has a bad time here, they’ll tell ten friends.”

Such is the driving mentality behind word-of-mouth marketing. If people have a positive experience, they’re bound to share it. If they have a negative experience, they absolutely will. Human nature.

The funny thing is that you, as an organization, have no control over the feedback. You can only control the product or service you provide. And if you try too hard to sell yourself, you’ll get picked apart if you don’t deliver. Examples of this pepper the web. In their earliest incarnations, company websites were little more than over-amped billboards or Yellow Page listings. People threw up all kinds of affirmations – “We’re the best, just ask us!” – and maybe that flew for a minute, just because we were mesmerized by the fact that you were online.

Jump ahead a decade. Now, visitors have become users. They’re looking for a fulfilling experience as much as for information, and they’re the ones who are going to decide if it’s good or not. Oh, and once they’ve made their decision, they have a near-infinite means of sharing their p.o.v. That’s the muscle behind web-driven word-of-mouth marketing.

This is scaring the hell out of many traditionally minded organizations, and their messaging is suffering as a result. They’re afraid to say anything significant online. You can almost hear the company leaders deciding: “Well, if we reveal who we really are, we’re making ourselves too vulnerable to that devastating negative word-of-mouth. We might as well just keep quiet.”

Bad play, because here’s the news – people are going to find out whether you want them to or not. They’re experiencing your products and services – and those of your competitors – and they’re talking about it in blogs, forums, newsgroups and the like. Play your cards too close to the vest, and you’re just making it difficult for your audience to get the info it now thinks it’s entitled to.

It’s “not damned if you do/damned if you don’t.” More like “maybe damned if you do/definitely damned if you don’t.”

So, figure out what messages you want to push, back them up with credible performance, and your intended audience is bound to appreciate and echo it. Get clandestine and quiet, however, and you can bet that they’ll still find a way to dig out the truth. What’s more, they’ll resent you for making it so much trouble. Then they’ll really start talking trash – and there’s no martini I can make that will help with that headache.