There are various packages ranging from $500 per month and upwards. For $500/month, you get site evaluation, keyword research, five promotional pages and content that are optimized by the online company, full site optimization, inclusion in reciprocal linking systems and search engine submissions. You can move up from this minimum service fee (with an 8 month committment) to $750 per month service. The additional fee provides you with a shared techie “live” and at your service who is devoted to your reputation until the negative information no longer appears on page one of Google. And onward and upward.

 I have no doubt that there are people who want negative information about themselves or their company deeply buried or removed from the Internet.  I am not sure however that this takes care of the hard work of reputation building which almost always involves creating high quality products and services, engaging in corporate citizenship, ethical behavior, financial soundness, innovation and leadership development.

Oops. If you are also worried about your CEO’s reputation, they can help you too.  Any CEO missteps can be wiped off the face of the earth. As Reputation Repair reminds us, “A CEO’s reputation is directly linked to the reputation of the company. The CEO is the face of the company and a leader who provides direction and inspiration.” These words sound familiar since I have written about this topic for years.

I often wonder if these online reputation repair and protection sites can help you build reputation faster by damaging your competitor’s reputation instead. If I wanted to do some harm, maybe I should just spread rumors about my toughest competitor and get that on page one of Google. Could I find someone to do that? I doubt that it is easy to find companies willing to compromise themselves but this has crossed my mind. Might be less expensive.

All this is to say that online reputation management is important but if this is all that is done to build enduring reputations, this is a short-lived proposition. True reputation management deserves more consideration, planning, depth and years of hard work.

Saw an article in Fortune about what Wall Street analysts think about the importance of CEOs. The survey from DDI found that analysts consider the CEO the only executive worth their time and attention. One of the quotes cited in the brief article went like this, “I don’t spend my time worrying about how companies are fostering their next generation.” Talk about short-termism. [Note: I tried to find the survey so I could cite properly and could not. Neither could I find on Fortune's site, possibly because it was a short piece.]

Also took a look at McKinsey Quarterly’s new global survey on sustainability. Definitely worth a read because the information is very rich and noteworthy for those of us interested in how reputation and sustainability work together.  The findings that I found most compelling are:

• 72% say sustainability is “extremely” or “very important” for managing corporate reputation and brands
• 55% say that investment in sustainability helps build company reputation
• 36% believe that reputation-building is a top reason for addressing sustainability

No surprise to me was that NGO pressure was very low on the list as a reason for dealing with sustainability (3%). I used to think that the lack of attention paid to NGOs when this question gets asked demonstrated that executives were fooling themselves for not paying attention to NGOs and trying to engage them.  But now I am starting to think that results like this reflect executives’ unwillingness to admit that NGOs have an effect on their sustainability initiatives. Hard to sort out because I do not see how NGOs could not be a primary reason for pushing companies to see their role in greater issues facing society.

Astonishing as well was that 62% of executives surveyed say their companies do not report sustainability metrics externally to investors or are unaware of how they are used.  When reputation is so important today, why not?  Why not combine financial and non-financial performance into one annual report as Professor Robert Eccles explains in his new book, One Report?

The report also looks at the differences between companies who consider sustainability a top three priority for their CEOs and are effective at managing it . The differences are quite considerable — more “proactive” companies publish sustainability sections on their Web sites, embed sustainability data in their communications with investors, participate in sustainability rankings, issue sustainability reports and communicate with socially responsible investors. My sense is that companies who are more proactive are also more profitable over the long-term.

There is no doubt that the past 18 months of recession have stalled some of the great sustainability initiatives that companies have embarked on to improve the world at large and build reputations. However, I have no doubt that these programs will come back full force with a vengeance in the long-term.

By the way, before I get going with this post,  I should mention that I have an article on Huffington Post titled “Do Companies Care about Ordinary People?” You are welcome to read it.

Over the holiday, I saved some articles that are worth sharing as this new decade begins and 2010 is in its infancy. The first one in my pile is from the Economist. With all the doom and gloom about business greed and corporate no-no’s in the past decade, The Economist identifies several arguments in the defense of business’s reputation. Resetting the reputation of business seems to be an apt activity to start off this new year. For sure, business could use some reputation-building to replace the reputation-bashing we’ve all been witness too. Here are two to mull over:

1. Business “is a remarkable exercise in co-operation.” Businesses manage to get thousands, hundreds and tens of people working together to produce ideas and solutions to problems. The fact that people collaborate for the common good is pretty remarkable when you think of it. I work with my colleagues around the world all the time and some of us have never met. But we all come together to build the Weber Shandwick brand and help clients.

2. Business is “an exercise in creativity.” When business people put their heads together to solve a problem, we can invent the most amazing things such as “devices that can provide insulin to diabetics without painful injections” and One Laptop Per Child.

I might add one more.

3. Business is “an exercise in sense-making.” When I close my book ,CEO Capital, I have a plea for CEOs to infuse companies with meaning. I said and I repeat here, “…it remains a basic human need to be part of something larger than oneself. This essential yearning has not disappeared despite networked computers and the triumph of the Internet.” I urged CEOs to motivate employees and instill companies with a common purpose in the pursuit of worthwhile goals. As Max DePree, legendary leader of Herman Miller wrote, “Leaders owe a covenant to the corporation or institution, which is after all, a group of people. Leaders owe the organization a new reference point for what caring, purposeful, committed people can be in the institutional setting.”

With luck, committed leadership and an improving unemployment rate, business might be able to improve its reputation in 2010 (2011?). I am banking on it.

When it comes to reputation, we have known for some time that reputations are enhanced when a company’s words match its actions in the corporate responsibility space.  Also, Weber Shandwick’s Safeguarding Reputation research found that companies with better corporate citizenship track records recovered their reputations faster than those with poorer corporate citizenship records.

Interesting to me is that the survey found that CEOs are now leading the corporate citizenship agenda in three out of four companies. Understandably and not surprisingly, CEOs recognize that their reputations need improvement and corporate citizenship is one way to communicate to employees and other stakeholders that they are concerned about doing the right thing. The survey also identified REPUTATION as the number one driver of corporate citizenship (70% for all executives, 82% for large-company executives). Reputation shares that top spot for the first time with company traditions and values.

 Reputation is increasingly becoming a driving force in shaping company and leadership action. That can only be viewed as a positive. Glad to hear that senior executives agree.

Looking through all the 99 tips to safekeeping company reputation, it appears to me that the mainstays of lasting reputation are transparency, ethics, leadership, culture and responsibility. Regardless of what companies do online or offline, these values must be in place and religiously adhered to to sustain reputational trust during good times and bad. Of course, reasonable financial performance must be in place as well. As someone else has said, flat is the new black.

As the recession lingers and trust in business erodes, company reputations are at greater risk than ever before. Since October is around the corner, my mind turns to the distribution of Fortune’s World’s Most Admired Companies ballots which should be out the door momentarily.  Respondents are soon to be asked to rate the world’s largest companies on their reputational success or failure over these past difficult 12 months. What will it take to gain admired status in times as unprecedented as these ? Not an easy question to answer but some of the answers are in those 99 tips.

  Corporate responsibility is an integral component of reputation.  Even more so than ever because it matters to so many stakeholders – employees, customers, government, prospective talent, academics, media, bloggers and NGOs.  I think it might even matter to the financial community although perhaps to a lesser degree.  However, analysts have noticed its importance as we have seen with the proliferation of socially responsible investing funds.

In 2008, Weber Shandwick’s Planet 2050 corporate responsibility and sustainability practice conducted a proprietary analysis that demonstrated the rising prominence of corporate responsibility on leadership agendas. Corporate responsibility mentions in global Fortune 100 annual report CEO Letters to Shareholders increased 18 percent from 2003 to 2007. In 2007, energy efficiency and carbon emissions were the dominant corporate responsibility agenda initiatives addressed in Global 100 CEO Letters to Shareholders. These topics barely figured in CEO annual report Letter mentions in 2003. To a lesser extent, but still noteworthy, leaders in 2007 highlighted their eco-friendly products—such as hybrid cars and healthy food products—in their Letters to Shareholders. Volunteerism, a topic featured in 2003 CEO annual report Letters, appeared less frequently in 2007.

As business leaders seemed to increasingly  commit  to corporate responsibility initiatives prior to the economic meltdown, we thought we’d look into whether such efforts helped soften the financial blow of the stock market collapse in 2008.

Using the 2008 Fortune Most Accountable Companies list as the measure of corporate commitment to social and environmental goals, Weber Shandwick explored the relationship between accountability  and stock price performance within the Fortune Global 100. The Accountability Rating was first developed by AccountAbility and Csrnetwork and designed with Asset4.  Since nearly every company on this list experienced a share price decline during 2008, the analysis focused on the average percentage change of closing prices on December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2008. It was of particular interest that 9 out of the top 10 most accountable companies were European (GE was the only American company).

We found that the top 10 most accountable global companies performed better than the overall global Fortune 500 in terms of share price and profitability.  When compared to the 10 least accountable companies, the most accountable ones performed better. We were a bit surprised by the +1% lift in profitability among the least accountable and discovered that two highly profitable companies – Petronis at #99 and Berkshire Hathaway at #100 – were on the list, therefore driving the 1% increase. Even when we take Berkshire Hathaway out of the group, the difference is not as dramatic as we expected. The nine least accountable companies fell to -3% in terms of profitability. If Petronis and Berkshire Hathaway both come out the eight least accountable companies fall to -16%.

The analysis shows that even in an unprecedented  year like 2008, the most responsible companies  outperformed their peers. As my fellow colleague and founder of Planet2050 Brendan May said, “It is not surprising that effective and genuine corporate responsibility impacts the bottom line, in good times and bad.” Companies cannot afford to abandon their corporate responsibility efforts although it is understandable if progress slows in this economy.  Companies that abandon corporate responsibility and sustainability efforts are proof positive that it was all for show in the first place.

There are two major problems with this article.

First, the authors misunderstand the business of public relations.  A few select quotes from the article reflect a misunderstanding about the business of public relations when it comes to reputation-building.

“Now more than ever, it will be action—not spin—that builds strong reputations. Organizations need to enhance their listening skills so that they are sufficiently aware of emerging issues; to reinvigorate their understanding of, and relationships with, critical stakeholders; and to go beyond traditional PR by activating a network of supporters who can influence key constituencies.”

“Moreover, traditional PR spin can’t deal with many NGO concerns, which must often be addressed by changing business operations and conducting two-way conversations.”

“Reputations are built on a foundation not only of communications but also of deeds: stakeholders can see through PR that isn’t supported by real and consistent business activity. Consumers, our research indicates, feel that companies rely too much on lobbying and PR unsupported by action.”

Authors’ Sheila Bonini, David Court and Alberto Marchi are under the general impression that PR practitioners actually believe that reputations can be built on words, not deeds or action. This could not be farther from the truth. In addition, the authors imply in several sentences that PR is only about the one-way conversation, not the two-way dialogue.  Again, far from the truth.  Public relations has always been about the art of conversation with and perceptions of one-to-one or one-to-many stakeholders. The business has always been about developing relationships with many publics, no matter how small, how large or how hard-to-reach.

The second argument I have with the article’s direction is its premise that there are three new ways to manage reputational threats in uncertain times. They are 1) understanding key stakeholders and what matters to them (e.g., benchmarking competitors, quantitative research); 2) being transparent and action-oriented (e.g., more business activities, less lobbying); and, 3) engaging a wider portfolio of influencers through a variety of means to spread word of mouth (e.g., grassroots, partnerships with NGOs). These are good strategies for advising companies and their leaders about restoring and rebuilding reputation. No doubt about it.

These practices, however, are all commonplace in the public relations domain and have been for many years now. In fact, I would argue that this has always been the business of public relations – understanding a company or organization’s many publics, researching stakeholders on perceptions and concerns, getting the true story out, changing corporate behavior by doing the right thing, and engaging influentials in conversations that lead to deeper understanding.  These recommendations are part of the everyday toolbox employed by most PR professionals working now (and for decades). And in fact, PR professionals greatly expanded on these three recommendations years ago, particularly in the general public, corporate responsibility and social media space.

Today’s Financial Times had an article on business’ role in restoring reputation and mentioned the McKinsey article. The author seens to agree with me. Whew. Michael Skapinker wrote “This is all sensible but it strikes me as yesterday’s advice.”

Moving on….I do agree wholeheartedly with McKinsey’s conclusion that CEOs should lead a company’s reputation strategy. I have always said that CEOs are the guardians of company reputation. My first book on CEO reputation, CEO Capital (2003), argued exactly this point, as I am sure many others have too. 

After letting off some steam here, it occurred to me that PR firms have clearly not done a good enough job communicating what we do for clients or McKinsey’s authors would have known that their recommendations are core to PR engagements today. When I first joined the PR field from Fortune, I too had a limited understanding of what the industry did. Now that I have been in the field for nearly a decade, I recognize that PR is often misunderstood and we are partly to blame.

In short, it seems that McKinsey has succumbed to the stereotype of PR as an industry of spin doctors and no more. This is not true. And probably has never been true. McKinsey’s recommendations are not new and the best of them have been used by PR for some time now. What is needed is not as McKinsey proclaims, less PR but probably more PR.

  Not sure it means anything but we thought we’d take a look at whether there are more scorecards/rankings now vs. one year ago. We keep this large, complex and detailed database on which awards exist for companies seeking to be recognized as being the most responsible, best at diversity, most ethical, best leadership, best reputation, best training, etc.  The database looks at when applications are due, when they are announced, who fills out the surveys, how to apply, how popular the ranking  is, etc.  You get it.  The database, called Scoreboxx™, helps companies “credentialize” themselves and communicate how they lead the industry.  It is part of our reputation-building services.

Since we realized it would be next to impossible to determine if there has been a change in the number of scorecards year over year since many scorecards just disappear or just get added randomly, we took a look at response rates to some of the rankings in 2007 vs. 2008. Not a scientific analysis but interesting nevertheless.  Listed below is our brief analysis of some of them for what’s worth.

Some are up and some are down. Some are flat. Here is what Liz, my colleague, and I think. For those awards where recruiting or talent  are important, higher responses have been recorded year over year. More employers returned surveys for BusinessWeek’s Best Places to Launch a Career and Fortune’s Top 100 MBA Employers, more applications were received this year for DiversityInc Top 50 and more nominations came in for the World’s Most Ethical Companies.  It goes without saying that the lower number of respondents for BusinessWeek’s Most Innovative Companies means nothing since this has been a disruptive year for business and some executives were just holding your breath that they were not getting pink slips. And presumably many did.

				Chg vs. prior year
List	2007	2008	2009
BusinessWeek Best Places to Launch a Career				flat
Career directors	63	60	(will be out in Sept)
Employers	95	119		á
BusinessWeek Customer Service Champs		>1,000 readers	>1,000 readers	flat
BusinessWeek Most Innovative Companies		2,950 execs	2,700 execs	â
DiversityInc Top 50 Companies for Diversity		352 applications	401 applications	á
Ethisphere World’s Most Ethical Companies			“…received a record # of company nominations…” (no data)	á
Fortune Best Companies to Work For		100,000 employees (246/company)	~81,000 employees (229/company)	â
Fortune Top 100 MBA Employers		5,769 MBA candidates	6,207 MBA candidates	á
Harris Interactive Reputation Quotient		7,105 consumers	6,587 consumers	â
Reputation Institute Global Pulse		>60,000 consumers	>70,000 consumers	á

What does seem interesting is that in a world where companies have stumbled catastrophically and reputational equity has been slipping away, the focus on talent, diversity and ethics might be a good sign of better things to come.