So, now you can get insured against being brandjacked. The implication is that it mostly protects you against a staff brandjack, rather than aggressive external brandjacks by groups like Greenpeace.
The risks of staff brandjacks are certainly considerable. There was the Vodafone issue, when the official Vodafone UK Twitter feed was used to send the message "Vodafoneuk is fed up with dirty homo's and is going after beaver" or the Virgin flight crew Facebook chat which cast doubt on the safety of the aircraft and suggested Virgin customers are 'chavs'.
But external brandjacks can be just as deadly. Some people have estimated that the United Breaks Guitars issue knocked $180 million off United's share price. Or think of the way Nestlé backed down on sourcing its palm oil in just eight weeks.
Set against the scale of the damage a brandjack can do to your reputation, even the upper end estimate of $10 million premiums looks modest, but what benefit could the same organisation get from investing the same money in improving its social media strategy and profile.
If you have strong relationships in social media, you can resist brandjacking campaigns. Facebook has been the target of a Greenpeace campaign to 'unfriend coal', yet it has not only resisted but fought back - pointing out that Greenpeace too uses a datacenter powered by coal.
Insurance is great, but all it does is cover you against loss. It doesn't actually improve your standing in social media. That takes investment in training and internal communications.
Anyone who wants to spend $10 million on that should let me know.
Read more in PR Daily.