Brands

The New York Times had a very interesting article yesterday for a variety of reasons. But one reason that hit the spot was about how consumers make decisions and how the author went about choosing the right baby formula for his infant. After he and his wife researched every possible formula on the market and found that they were all basically the same, he came to this conclusion:

"Despite knowing this, I still insist on paying twice as much for Enfamil, which its maker claims is “scientifically designed.” (Aren’t they all?) I splurge because Mead Johnson is a 107-year-old company that has been promoting a single baby-formula brand for more than 50 years. I figure that it’s less likely to squander its name by skirting the rules or engaging in shoddy manufacturing than a company with less to lose. This peace of mind costs me about $7 per day."

This is emblematic of our research on how the company behind the brand matters more than ever. The author was reassured in his purchase of Enfamil because he learned that the company behind it, Mead Johnson, had been around long enough that they were not going to risk their century-old reputation by messing around with the manufacturing and production of  its baby formula.  The parent company made a significant difference in a confirming to the writer that this was the better buy, even at a premium. And not only did this infant get to taste Enfamil but the writer blasted his choice around the world. There you go for serendipity public relations. After reading this gem which was fairly upfront in the article, I kept reading.  The Enfamil example led into the article's main message which is that information overload is plaguing us all and making it increasingly hard to find what we are looking for unless we want to devote days to researching.  "Too much information, it turns out, is a lot like no information."  Therefore to deal with this information smog, people need guides orsherpas to guide their way through the data chaos. According to the author, "economists have a name for these cues that companies employ to convey their hidden strength: signaling." Reputation-building uses the strategy of signaling.  Good reputations serve as a shorthand to identify whom you want to buy from. A company that is a best place to work for or most sustainable or trains its leaders best helps to narrow the choices between products. Do I want to buy my infant formula from a company that treats its people right? You bet.  The thinking goes like this: if they treat their employees well,you can make the leap that they turn out safe products.  In our research on parent brands, we had an open-ended question on why the parent company mattered when buying a product brand. Over and over, consumers mentioned that knowing the parent brand helped them sort out which products to buy. For example, one consumer said: "The integrity of a company will ultimately show in its products." The article also made me think about anniversary celebrations. Many companies make a big deal about how long they have been in busines -- 50, 100 or 200 years. It turns out that it is good to do so in order to remind consumers and other stakeholders that there's alot of reputational equity behind those promises.

P&G is announcing its new corporate campaign that is a "global serenade to mothers." It is covered in an article today. The reason this is big news to me (and I am not an Olympian's mother) is that it is part of the P&G initiative to focus on the corporate brand behind the products they sell. Our research on The Company behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust is all about the increasing interdependence between corporate and product brand reputation. As the global CMO says, "P&G is in the business of helping moms." Or he could have said that P&G is in the business of building its corporate brand reputation. The new campaign is focused on the moms of athletes, particularly Olympians. Right on. As we learned in our recent survey, 87% of executives report that the corporate brand is as important as the product brand. And consumers also agree -- 70% of consumers in markets around the world say that they avoid buying products if they do not like the company behind the brand. We are releasing some more information shortly from the study on the link between CEO and reputation as well as the impact of leadership communications so check here soon.

Prophet, a brand consultancy, released its recent reputation survey today. The survey was conducted among over 5,000 consumers in the U.S. Among the most important drivers of reputation rankings were:

• Is a company whose products and services make a difference in my life
• Is a company that inspires me
• Gives me peace of mind
• Is for people like me

Clearly, the above highlights that consumers are thinking of reputations in terms of emotionally-driven factors and ones that resonate with their personal lives. Not a surprise considering how difficult the past few years have been economically speaking. Companies need to think about communicating less in terms of functional performance and more in terms of what they stand for. We've noticed this shift ourselves and it continues to be more dramatic each year. It falls in line with the findings from BAV (Brand Asset Valuator) that I have mentioned on this blog before where they found that generosity and kindness have risen profoundly in terms of key reputation drivers among consumer populations. The world is going soft! Maybe that is all you can depend on these days. Another finding is that consumers are twice as likely to purchase, pay a premium for and recommend products from companies with the best reputations versus those that are less liked. Reputation pays!  They also report that companies with the best reputations "convert customers from considering a company's products/services 90% of the time." This conversion figure is lower at companies with less than stellar reputations -- 60%. Another result that confirms again that reputation and brand reputation are aligning at a greater speed than ever imagined is mentioned in their report: "Prophet’s reputation study found that reputation and brand have overlapping drivers that make both critical for creating impact throughout the purchase funnel. While a company’s brand often plays a crucial role in making customers aware of a company, and is important for driving long-term loyalty, reputation is critical for ultimately driving consideration and purchase." The survey looked at 150 reputations so take a look. Winners and losers for all.

While I am on the subject of Social CEOs (see my last post), I wanted to mention a study that was released by BRANDfog, a firm that helps executives get social.  Survey respondents report that more than 80% of respondents believe that CEOs who engage on social media are better equipped than their peers to lead companies in a Web 2.0 world. What’s more, 93% of respondents believe that CEO engagement on social media helps communicate company values, and grow and evolve corporate leadership in times of crisis.  Similarly, 82 percent of survey respondents said they were more likely to trust a company whose CEO and leadership team engage in social media. Since reputation is all about trust, it sounds like the demand is there....we've just got to supply it with examples and role models.

Just was forwarded an interesting study out of Northwestern's Kellogg school. It found that the share price of a company that is being boycotted drops nearly one percent for EACH day of national print media coverage. Ever wondered what happens when those protesters zero in on your company and tell people not to buy your products? Often I will hear the response, "The boycott is not affecting our sales so let's not worry too much about this."  However, the research uncovered that perhaps your sales are not being affected, but watch out for your reputation and stock price. Assistant Professor Brayden King found that Day One may not be as much a problem (decline of one half of one percent in share price) but there is an average decline in share price of 0.7 percent for EACH day afterwards that the company remains in the national print media spotlight.  After looking at 177 firms who were boycotted over several years (1990 to 2005), King concludes that there is a clear link between reputation and media coverage. And when you think of today with the Internet, whoah. I liked this fact -- about 25% of those companies generated a concession from the targeted company.  What does that say about the other 75%? Perhaps there are some behind the scenes negotiations that we are not privy to. And clearly companies stuck to their position if they felt they were right. Also liked this fact. King used the Fortune Most Admired Companies ranking (one of my favorites) and found that boycotted firms with a high reputation ranking generated 4.4 times the coverage generated by boycotted firms that were unranked, three times the coverage of those in the lower quartile and six times those in the middle ranking group. Essentially, the bigger you are and the more admired, the greater the coverage when boycotts land on your door. Like I often say, when you make it to the top of your industry in the Most Admired, you might as well paint a bulls eye on your back (or logo).

While I am on the subject of the corporate brand, I thought I would mention another interesting group of findings from our research. We asked consumers several questions on what influences them when it comes to company perceptions. They report that among other things, the importance of awards/recognition (63% of consumers mention) as well as leadership communications (59% of consumers mention) are influential.  As expected, word of mouth ranks at the top of the influence list, regardless of region.  Clearly, despite the fire hose of information aimed at us every day, some things are getting across when it comes to distinguishing companies from one another and influencing our decisions to buy some products over others easier. Recognition of companies for doing good or just simply doing well is making a dent after all these years. And leadership communications seems to matter to consumers if CEOs are talking about something that matters. Figuring out what resonates with the public is the hard part for communicators although jobs and education would be two good starts.  And a third good start would be the safety of our natural resources.  One additional factoid to add for a Sunday in January: In Brazil, awards and leadership communications are even more influential than what consumers in the U.S., U.K. and China say in our study. Brazilian consumers seem to be more receptive to what leaders say in Brazil. Will have to figure out why. Perhaps the connection between the economy and business is more direct than in the U.S. and U.K and China while we are at it.  More to come on this challenging subject of the interdependence between the corporate brand and product brand.   [caption id="attachment_2464" align="alignleft" width="460" caption="Weber Shandwick, The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust"][/caption]                    

What do CEOs think about the importance of the corporate vs. product brand? Luckily we were able to discern the answer when we looked at this group in our recent survey on The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust.  96% of CEOs said that the corporate or parent brand is as important as the product brand. That is nearly 100% agreement.  Basically, they have little doubt of the corporate brands' importance in this new age. Why would that be? Executives --across all four markets in our study-- agreed that the primary impetus for the rising equality between corporate  brand and product brand is the reputation halo that the parent company brings to its products. Some might call it the reputation premium. Notably, the CEOs in our study cite the bottom-line as their number one reason for equalizing corporate and product brand. They essentially say that there is greater efficiency in marketing and communicating one overall corporate brand rather than several different brands. The concept of an "enterprise" brand that communicates the company's reputation and product brands' reputation all at once gets underscored in our new study.

I have thought about the company behind the brand for at least a decade (maybe more?). Years ago, I was involved in a pilot test where we placed corporate and product ads for several companies from different sectors in a business publication to try to determine the right balance of corporate to product messages to generate awareness and interest to buy. Should a company run one corporate advertisement and 1, 2, 3, 6, or 10 product ads to gain notice? Should they alternate the order -- three product ads, one corporate ad, three product ads in that order? Do they even need corporate ads? Over how many months would it take to generate the most interest for the company and the products being sold? This was in the days when companies were wondering if they should communicate what they stood for, who they were and if it really mattered. Obviously pre-Internet days. It was a huge research undertaking that involved printing presses and hand-inserted advertisements. I learned alot about rubber glue and washing sticky hands. But my interest in the company behind the brand has always remained with me and kept me wondering how important it was to consumers (and executives). Do they really care? Does anyone notice the face of a company and its character, its values, its narrative? What do people do if they don't like the parent company but still want the product?  Luckily, we now have research on how important the corporate brand or parent company really is and why it matters to consumers and executives alike. We released the research today, The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust, conducted with KRC Research. Some of the key findings are:

• 70 percent avoid buying a product if they don't like the company behind the product (consumers)
• 67 percent are increasingly checking product labels to see what company is behind the product (consumers)
• 61 percent get annoyed when they can’t tell what company is behind a product (consumers)
• 56 percent do research to learn about the companies that make what they buy (consumers)
• 56 percent hesitate to buy products if they can’t tell who makes them (consumers)
• Executives estimate that, on average, 60 percent of their firms’ market value is attributable to its reputation. 
• 86 percent of executives report that their companies increased their efforts to build reputation over the past few years

More to come. And it's been a busy day getting the research out so will return shortly.  

Have been reading about corporate brands and went back to my stash of articles. The IBM CMO C-Suite studies has solid information in their report, "From Stretched to Strengthened" which was conducted among the nearly 2,000 CMOs worldwide.  Not the main focus of the research but they do report that it is no longer enough for a company to just markets its products and services. In fact, the report talks about how the character of the company is now on full display as "social media has exposed the bones beneath the skin."  Only 53% of CMOs report that their corporate character is understood in the marketplace and 57% say they have significant work ahead to get employees on board. Here is the  part that I liked best because it speaks to corporate reputation today. "For many decades, the CMO's job was to market an organization's products and services. Today, it begins with the marketing of the organization itself."  A fairly sizeable 61% said that one of the initiatives they have set for themselves ahead is to orchestrate a single view of the brand, something we call enterprise branding. When people ask me what reputation means, I always say it is all about a company's character. Glad CMOs agree.

  Because I am off from work for the holiday, I have a little time to catch up on things I meant to read in the months before. I was particularly interested in some research on CEO transitions and its impact on the value of the enterprise conducted by FTI.  A few facts jumped out at me from their study among the financial community. They found that one-third (32%) of investor decisions are impacted by the reputation of the CEO. Moreover, the reputation of the CEO was more important to investors than the reputation of the company's products and services. The research covers the value at risk depending on what type of CEO transition occurred. The greatest risk to the enterprise is when a CEO is forced to resign. Because of my work on CEO tenures and how to build CEO reputation, the findings confirm my own research over the years that CEOs need to show success by that 12 month marker. FIT found that investors give new CEOs about six months to assess the challenges and opportunities facing the company, setting a vision and strategy.  They give new CEOs more leeway to improve market performance and valuation -- about 12 months. After the first year, all engines need to be firing. Another particularly interesting finding was what investors look at in their first 100 days to further establish the CEOs credibility in their eyes....here is what they said was of "significant importance." Despite the ranking for "charisma," it is still interesting that it is still estimated to be of high importance and only 16% said it was of limited importance.  FTI concludes that investors take a multi-dimensional view of new CEOs. They expect to see it all.

During First 100 Days Of A New CEO	“Significant importance”
Grasp of the company’s challenges and opportunities	96%
Knowledge of/experience with industry dynamics	92
Vision	88
Operational focus	88
A strategic plan	88
Leadership style	76
Charisma/personality	54

 FTI Consulting