Brands

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.

Weber Shandwick, The Company Behind the Brand: In Reputation We Trust

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.

 FTI Consulting

Another stat to add to the many on how long it takes to recover reputation. Actually I should say…to add to the few. There really are not that many besides the one we did some research on that shows it takes about three to four years after a crisis. However, I found this one from the Ponemon Institute and Experian that says that nearly 850 executives say that it takes about one year to restore an organization’s reputation after a data breach.  It also found, depending on the type of breach, that the average loss ranges from $184 million to over $330 million. Or put another way– the minimum brand damage is a 12% loss which could increase to 25% of the brand value if the breach was horrific.

Just as disturbing is the lack of data breach preparedness according to the research. A fairly large 43% had no plan in place to deal with a breach of confidential leak or theft of customer data.  Perhaps this is why there seem to be so many. Most companies are unprepared and do not think of a data breach in the same way they do another type of crisis that is more common. Either way, it is critical to be prepared since if you really want to make your customers mad, a data breach is a surefire way to make that happen.

 This week we launched our excellent survey on what it takes to socialize a brand. It is among top marketing and communications executives in companies around the world. One of the drivers of world class social brands is being ever so careful about the assaults on a brand’s reputation.  We learned in the survey conducted with Forbes Insights that executives of world class social brand companies are 35% more likely than the average global company to report that their brand experienced an online crisis in the past year that affected its reputation. These social champions who have dealt with a recent online crisis are no stranger to the risks of the hyper-connected world — two-thirds (66%) report that they deal with negative online commentary on a daily basis (vs. 51% of total global companies). The latter point was good news to me although perhaps not so for companies. The reason I say that is because I often get asked about how often companies experience reputation crises and I quickly respond “daily.” Our research reveals that nearly two-thirds of socially aware companies are dealing with reputation threats and its just the tip of the iceberg. Just this week we saw Netflix and RIM in the news — some self-inflicted and some not.  If you want to read more about the blackberry crisis and my comments, go here. These types of online crises will only increase as the world gets smaller, more people go online and more are eager to share their opinion about brands.  Being vigilant is the job of everyone. Lets not fool ourselves — we all have to play cop.

Interesting news today from my very own Weber Shandwick. We are releasing a study today called Socializing Your Brand: A Brand’s Guide to Sociability that we did with Forbes Insights.  The survey was among nearly 2,000 marketing and communications executives with digital responsibility in 50 countries worldwide. As a reputation maven, I have to share the interesting insight about reputation.

According to the study, global brand executives believe that sociability is growing rapidly as a contributor to a brand’s overall reputation, from 52 percent today with a projected estimate of 65 percent three years from now.  Thus having a vibrant and thoughtful online presence is not for the weak-hearted brands. 52% is a substantial estimate which is only going to grow.

So for all those brands out there wishing to be world class, go get social. Check out the survey.