reputation damage

Reed Hastings, CEO of Netflix, in response to recovering their reputation after several recent missteps:

"The focus is on bringing back our reputation and brand strength, but it won't happen through grand gestures."

 

 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.

Have Asia on my mind as I am soon airborn. A few facts and stories I just learned as I am preparing to go and talk about reputation trends. These are all China-based for now....

• In four years, more than 700 million people in China will be watching online video sites. Youku, similar to our YouTube, is one such leading site. (McKinsey Quarterly, 2011). Pretty dazzling if you ask me.
• Even during the global recession, sales of luxury goods in China rose by 16%. (McKinsey Quarterly, 2011).
• An interesting incident that caught my attention. Apparently the CEO of DangDang (China's Amazon) exploded at his bankers in a profanity-filled tirade blaming them for an IPO that undervalued his firm. The language was so profane that when reported there were alot of ****s. This all appeared on Sina Weibo, China's Twitter.  Apparently some employees of the bankers fired back on Weibo although now there are reports saying they were not employees. Whatever the story, what I found interesting is that we focus so much on social media guidelines for employees and perhaps its time to develop them for CEOs too! Not exactly a reputation-building story.

Whatever the merits on both sides, I wanted to point out here that what I thought was happening in the reputation warfare field is actually coming to pass.  Increasingly more companies are fighting back when they believe their reputations are at stake. Perhaps companies recognize that public opinion might be on their side as the general public loses trust in institutions. But without a doubt, companies are not necessarily turning the other cheek when they think their reputations have been unfairly damaged. In this blog, I have mentioned the increasing frequency of company documentaries that serve to tell their side of the story. Today's article about Del Monte's public spat with food regulators over restrictions on its cantalope imports underscores the trend.  To quote from the article,

"The company, which is one of the country’s largest produce marketers, says the restrictions could damage its reputation, and it has sued the Food and Drug Administration to lift them." "But advocates of safe food said that it was extremely rare for a major food company to take such a publicly aggressive stance, and that they suspected Del Monte Fresh Produce was trying to bully regulators into thinking twice before pursuing recalls in the future."

Expect to see more of this in the future.

I was quoted by Fortune's Geoff Colvin in the August 15th issue. He wrote about the Murdoch scandal and mentioned how "large ideas emerging from this story so far will influence companies of all types for years to come." One of those large ideas is that we have officially arrived at the pivotal point where reputation has an edge over financial performance. As Geoff says, this is Reputation's Moment. Companies may not have fully noticed but reputation is indeed "the new currency of corporate success." Music to my ears. In the article, Colvin makes a few points that could not be truer. I excerpt some below which includes my take on reputation as the new metric of corporate success.

"Previous major scandals were mostly financial; the numbers were lies. Not this time. The damage so far derives en­tirely from behavior—phone hacking and possible police bribery—that ap­pears to be illegal but has nothing to do with reported financial results. Wheth­er it’s illegal doesn’t matter anyway; it’s slimy, and that’s enough. News Corp. is deeply tarnished, and the financial ef­fects could be significantly bad. The company has lost about $5 bil­lion of value in the few weeks since the scandal hit. Longer-term effects could be much worse. “The greatest reputa­tional threat to News Corp., aside from criminal prosecution of Murdoch fam­ily members, lies within regulatory and policy circles,” says Rupert Younger, director of the Centre for Corporate Reputation at Oxford University’s Said Business School. News Corp.’s televi­sion businesses—TV networks, TV sta­tions, and satellite broadcasting ser­vices worldwide—are together a major source of profit, and they’re all subject to government regulation. Govern­ment leaders have treated News Corp. gingerly for years, but now “politicians who have been afraid to tackle such an important company are starting to feel that it may be possible to do so,” says Younger. “This could literally destroy News Corp.,” in the sense that the com­pany could be broken up.

Long-term damage to the company’s reputation among customers, employ­ees, communities, and others could also hurt. “In this new reputation economy, people care about whether a company shares the same values as they do,” ob­serves Leslie Gaines-Ross, chief reputa­tion strategist at the Weber Shandwick communications firm. Her reading on the scandal so far: “A clearer demon­stration of the direct relationship be­tween corporate reputation and cor­porate well-being is hard to imagine.”

 These two ideas, the one-man prob­lem and corporate reputation, are ob­viously related. At News Corp. they’re two sides of the same coin. Yet Rupert Murdoch never seemed to put them to­gether. Long before this scandal, he said, “Our reputation is more important than the last $100 million.” He was right.

 In this brave new recessionary world, we have evolved into a reputation economy where companies are trading on their reputations like never before. They are trading for better regulatory favor, more loyal customers, higher skilled talent, more positive word-of-mouth and more capital. Reputation has become an account in credit that you can draw down on or add to. In this new reputation economy, people care about how decisions are made and whether companies share the same values as they do. It is not just value, as in dollars earned, but also values, as in standards maintained, that has become a crucial element of corporate success.

Interesting to hear that The Wall Street Journal is outright asking subscribers how the Murdoch scandal at News Corp might be impacting its own reputation. Many companies prefer not to bring up an issue they are facing, even when it is often the elephant in the room.  Some companies, however, think that surveying customers about an issue or self-inflicted crisis is a smart way to demonstrate that they care enough about their reputation to ask the tough questions or they simply want to know in the name of transparency.  Apparently the WSJ is asking subscribers, of which I am one, "What impact, if any, do the illegal acts by News of the World journalists have on your impression of The Wall Street Journal?" or something close to that. And my favorite question from what I have read this morning is whether the CEO of a company should be held responsible "for all the actions of all its employees, no matter how large the corporation is" on a 1 to 10 scale (disagree completely --->agree completely).  I think I know the answer to that one. My guess is that 75% to 85% of subscribers, AKA business executives, will give this statement an 8/9/10.  All in all, as my colleague said to me....a brave move.

    Twitterologies. Is there such a word? I doubt it.  The CEO of Vodacom, Pieter Uys, apologized for outages via Twitter (@uyspj). Despite the inconvenience to Vodacom subscribers, the CEO is getting good marks for his simple apology. While it was happening, Uys was tweeting to customers about what he could do for them and kept in continuous contact. He tweeted the following:

"I do care for every one of our customers. What happened today was not acceptable. I'll work hard to make you smile again." "Words can't express how sorry I am about today's problem. Flat out working at making sure all is 100%. Pieter." "At the network switch with the engineers. All looks OK now. If you still have a problem, please switch phone off and on."

Fairly simple way to tell your customers you care. And that you are there. Helps to keep your company reputation intact.

 

The incidents were the latest examples of what security experts call “reputational attacks” on media companies that publish material that the hackers disagree with. Such companies are particularly vulnerable to such attacks because many of them depend on online advertising and subscription revenue from Web sites that can be upended by the clicks of a hacker’s keyboard — and because unlike other targets, like government entities and defense contractors, they are less likely to have state-of-the-art security to thwart attacks.

As I was reading this article this morning on how several media companies were dealing with recent hackings, I noticed a call out box saying "So-called reputational attacks follow controversial reports."  The hackings over the past few days of news programs on public television came about because of negative stories that were clearly disliked  by certain parties. I would underscore that most entities -- government, military, corporate or otherwise -- are having a very difficult time with hackers, privacy, leaked information, etc.  I was somewhat surprised when I saw "reputational attacks" in quotes as if this was a new label of sorts. Reputational attacks online have become commonplace and not just assaults on media companies. Either way, the most interesting element in the discussion on these "so-called reputational attacks" is the common refrain that they are usually the work of repressive governments. And these attacks are much more than reputation vandalism or Web site defacing. In fact, this is reputation warfare. No doubt about it. The reputational risks that companies and organizations are increasingly facing continues to amaze me.

I am in a big believer in being prepared for reputational damage or crisis. My book on Corporate Reputation: 12 StepsTo Safeguarding and Recovering Reputation is all about learning from crisis and being ready for the next one.  As Weber Shandwick's most admired stumble rate declares, every company should plan on some reputational mishap or misstep in the future. Nearly four in 10 companies have lost reputational status in the past year. I just read an article sent to me about the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative at Harvard. The initiative's goal was to learn lessons from leaders who have faced crisis situations such as terrorist attackes (Israel, Madrid, London), natural disasters (Hurricane Katrina), health scares (pandemics), oil spills (Deepwater Horizon), etc.  One of the first lessons they uncovered applies to companies and institutions and is:

"...that bad leadership – much like smoking – is a public health risk factor. Whether in the aftermath of a terror attack or a natural disaster, we have seen that when leaders don’t perform well lives are lost and people abandoned."

And the second lesson is getting everyone on the same page so everyone can work quickly, effectively and efficiently on behalf of a common and shared goal. 

"Working together after a disaster requires forging bonds before a disaster." 

Third, and a powerful lesson for companies, is to "expect every citizen to participate."  Leaders have to listen no matter how soft or weak the signals are. And these early warning signs need to get to those who can act and whose job it is to protect reputation. Empowering employees is critical to averting reputational disaster. As the National Preparedness Leadership Initiative found, "citizen bystanders" can make all the difference as we saw with the shoe bomber and underwear bomber airline incidents of the past few years.

"We should regard these heroes as leaders in their own right."

Good to be home from traveling around Asia Pacific the past couple of weeks talking about Reputation Warfare.  So am now back on the blog posting trail. Two things struck me this week although I will make sure to write more about some of my observations about reputation in Asia in the weeks to come. Just to start out, while I was away, Barron's World's Best CEO list came out.  This highly coveted and selective list usually has a theme in addition to its traditional focus on longterm financial performance.  As they say, they like to  identify corporate leaders who make a difference to their companies and deliver for investors. Barron's require that a CEO has been at the job for at least three years and prefers companies with market values of at least $5 billion. This year their advice to leaders is "Go Thee to Asia."

"Any big company looking for serious growth in the 21st century must have a plan for Asia. The region is home to half the globe's population and, increasingly, it's driving the world's economy. So, as Barron's drew up its annual list of the world's 30 best chief executives, we took a hard look at how each candidate was approaching Asia and other developing markets."

On another note, this morning while waking up super early from jet lag crazies, I read about the Warren Buffet-Berkshire Hathaway reputation bruise.  In a New York Times article, it says: 

 "In a July 2010 letter, Mr. Buffett instructed his managers to “zealously guard Berkshire’s reputation.”

“We can afford to lose money — even a lot of money,” Mr. Buffett said. “But we can’t afford to lose reputation — even a shred of reputation.”

These Buffett quotes don't surprise me and neither does the removal of Mr. Sokol. When I turn to my favorite quote of all time from the sage/oracle from Omaha, it appears he acted swiftly and deliberately. In case you have never heard me say it, it is quite appropriate today. 

"If you lose dollars for the firm by bad decisions, I will be understanding.  If you lose reputation for the firm, I will be ruthless."