I watched the opening ceremonies for the summer Olympics in China on TV last night. I was awestruck and exhilarated. The reputation of China and its people could only have been enhanced by the exquisite beauty and deep thought that went into the production. As a keen reputation watcher, I could not help but think about one of the clear sweeping trends — that is, the rise of nationalism and boundaries. Jack Welch, former CEO of GE, used to talk about boundarylessness as a strategy for expressing a world opening up to business in the 90s. Today he would have to choose his words more carefully and perhaps mention boundaryness instead. National borders are growing increasingly acute and walls – both visible and invisible – are being newly built and fiercely defended. Ascending nation reputations are being shaped with greater attention by governments. The reputation of China – with all its controversies and allure – dazzled last night. Thankfully I can watch the ceremony over and over again on YouTube and delight in its magnificence. China’s reputation (last night) was advanced for all to see. We will see how it translates over the course of the next few weeks.

Now that I am back in the USA, I keep thinking about the recurrent questions I received during my many media interviews and internal staff Q&A while visiting Shanghai and Beijing. I was repeatedly asked my opinion about what I thought of companies and organizations who were not donating the proper amount of money for the Sichuan earthquake victims. Having read everything I could before arriving in China, I did not really come across anything that fully prepared me for the intensity surrounding this topic. Although I had an inkling that this was simmering because a journalist alluded to it before I arrived, I did not appreciate how much attention was being paid by the Chinese people to which companies had given in earthquake assistance. In fact, company individuals were often asked to publicly disclose the amount they had given in relief and they were not sure what the right amount should be. When this topic came up, the story of the CEO of a large real estate company also surfaced. Apparently the CEO was among the first to donate money and discuss his contribution on his blog. However, many people believed that the CEO had erred by not giving enough and stained his reputation. The CEO apologized under public pressure and announced he was contributing more to the natural disaster. It seems that people were aware of a list of the top 20 company donors, multinationals and non-multinationals alike.

I can’t recall the U.S. media covering who did not give funds during Hurricane Katrina. Instead I tend to recall the companies that did the right thing, not necessarily only financially but in kind provisions and volunteerism. Obviously a very interesting difference between Eastern and Western cultures when it comes to disaster relief and understanding of what corporate responsibility means. This experience made me realize how important it is to see the world through the eyes of different cultures and to recognize the power of civil society upon corporate behavior. The pressure from employees and the community were dramatically driving corporate giving.

I was also asked twice in Beijing what would happen if an earthquake occurred during the Olympics in August. This question reminded me of how I felt after the terrorist attack on in New York on September 11th which I witnessed up close. After 9-11, barely a day went by for nearly two years that I did not think that another attack was imminent in New York. For that very reason, I did not regard the question as strange although now that several years have passed, I do not think about it constantly. In response to that question, I believe that the Chinese government is as prepared as any country and learned a lot over the past six months to effectively handle such a crisis if it should strike. Hopefully the Olympics will be smooth sailing and triumphant for all.

I am visiting our office in Shanghai before heading to Beijing. I was particularly excited to come to Shanghai because my son studied here for six months recently during his semester abroad from college. He has been learning Mandarin since he was about 10 years old and has already spent two summers in Beijing. So I wanted to see Shanghai as he saw the city during his many months here.

 Last night my gracious Weber Shandwick colleagues took me to a restaurant on the Bund that provided a view of the financial center and the old section of the city. The skyline is absolutely extraordinary — gleaming, tall, modern, flashy, whimsical, creative, and bold.  My first reaction was that the financial center looked like Second Life in real life. 

I am learning alot about the reputation of Shanghai and its cosmopolitaness. It is dynamic, energized and rushing to the future.

Just seeing the skyline caught my breathe. Beyond impressive.

Today I will be having lunch with clients, media interviews and even being interviewed on TV about my favorite topic. Reputation is certainly a hot topic here as China deals with the aftermath of the earthquake, the Olympics, globalization and building brand awareness and differentiation for its corporations and its country.

My son has lived in the future and his mom is just learning to understand what he saw.  I have alot of catching up to do.

I have not written recently since I have been traveling throughout Asia Pacific for my book and meeting Weber Shandwick clients. Media interviews are on the agenda as well. One of the side effects of my visit to AP, unexpectedly, is that my own perceptions of Weber Shandwick grows brighter and brighter every day. Although I often feel that I understand the depth and breadth of the firm, I see now that not until you visit the network do you truly understand. As a visitor for just a day or two in each market, I also get to meet my colleagues en masse in internal staff meetings. Without a doubt, my Weber Shandwick colleagues are WOWing me. Everyone is enthusiastic, client-focused, smart and generous of spirit. Little did I realize that as I talk about building corporate reputation at luncheons and events, I myself would personally be so impacted by Weber Shandwick’s reputation and its future. Definitely a big return on reputation for me.

So far, I have visited Sydney, Singapore and Hong Kong. Off to Shanghai and Beijing this week and then back to NYC next weekend.

I was catching up on my reading this morning when I learned about presidential candidate Barack Obama’s newest web site. Talk about taking a lesson from corporate America on handling myths and rumors! My blog has previously referred to Starbucks and Coca-Cola having designated areas on their sites that let them refute rumors. Well, Obama now has one and it is worth visiting.  It is called Fight The Smears. The YouTube generation is sure shaking up the entire presidential election.  Obama’s YouTube Channel has nearly 1,200 videos. More than 50m people have apparently watched Obama’s videos.  The advocates are turning out in numbers for this unusual presidential candidate. We are learning that reputation-building online is infectious.

On another subject, am listening to BBC while posting and heard that more confidential documents were left on the subway by someone. The information reveals data on money laundering, drug trafficking and terrorism. Since this is the second such incident in a week, embarrassment is an understatement. The reason I raise this is that our 2006 research found that “security breaches” and “data losses” are among the top five triggers of reputation loss.  Fairly prescient I might say.

We just released some new research on company reputation. This is a subject that I have always been very interested in. Considering the daily headlines about quality problems with products made in China, this research is very timely.  This is what we learned about managing country reputation — it is alot harder than you may think. 

Leading a large multinational company might be a complex and challenging task, but global business leaders believe that heads of state have a much tougher job than they do when it comes to managing reputation.  When asked which is harder to manage — a country’s or a company’s reputation — executives chose country reputation more than twice as often (68 vs. 29 percent respectively).  Our survey, Safeguarding Reputation™, was conducted in 11 worldwide markets in partnership with KRC Research.

In a challenging sociopolitical global environment, business leaders clearly recognize that managing a country’s reputation or brand is complex and subject to many external forces. Recent problems with manufacturing in China, news about terrorist breeding grounds in Pakistan and U.S. government efforts to improve its reputation internationally show how difficult it is to effectively manage country brands today.  By comparison, managing a corporate reputation looks tame to senior business people.

Not All Types of Reputations Are Managed Equally
Global business executives agree that when it comes to managing perception, some industry and publicly held company reputations are more difficult to oversee than others, while managing an individual’s reputation is considered easier than both according to business executives.

• An industry’s reputation is perceived to be harder to manage than a company’s reputation — approximately one-and-one-half times more difficult (57 vs. 39 percent, respectively).  Interestingly, executives in Italy differ from most of their regional peers and consider a company’s reputation harder to manage than an industry’s reputation (54 vs. 30 percent, respectively).

• Publicly held company reputation is considered much more difficult to manage well than privately held company reputation — nearly three times more difficult according to global business executives (71 vs. 24 percent, respectively).  North American executives, compared to those in Europe and Asia, were the most likely to agree with this finding (82 percent vs. 63 percent vs. 76 percent, respectively).

• Company reputation is nearly four times more difficult to manage than individual reputation (77 vs. 21 percent, respectively).  

Back to the difficulties in managing country reputation. A recent article in The New York Times, “China Steps Up Efforts to Cleanse Reputation,” described China’s efforts to improve its tarnished reputation after much publicized recalls of Chinese-made products such as toothpaste, tires, toys and pet food. The article said that Chinese officials have engaged in the following activities in their all-out public relations offensive: held news conferences on food and product safety, were apologetic in conversations with Western officials, offered tours to international media of government safety labs, initiated a new recall system and nationwide inspection of various industry operations, and added labels to food packaging indicating that the contents were safe. As quoted in the article, a high-ranking Chinese official said: “This is a special war to protect the safety and interests of the general public, as well as a war to safeguard the ‘Made in China’ label and the country’s image.”

Chinese officials have not just turned the other cheek. They have argued with critics about the safety of their products and have publicized that other countries too have had trouble with exports. Clearly, the Made in China reputation is being taken seriously and the country’s global communications campaign is in high gear.  China is intends to recover its reputation as the Summer Olympics in Beijing approaches next year. The country even launched a special broadcast on its largest state-run network called “Believe in Made in China.”

Without a doubt, country reputation is hard to manage well. And as hard as it is to admit, much harder than managing company reputation. For those of us living in the U.S., we understand very well how it feels to lose reputational standing around the world. Someone has to take charge.