Reputation trends

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.

I feel like I have read this article before. The title in USA Today yesterday was "CEOs stumble over ethics violations, mismanagement." Is it 2002 over again when Enron, WorldCom and Adelphia made headlines over ethical transgressions and wrongdoing? I agree that there seems to be a rush of these events recently but I am not sure it is vastly different than it has always been. The Internet has certainly added to the scrutiny of corporate executives but the spotlights were just as glaring and intense as they were years ago. In fact, I tend to think that wrongdoing on the part of CEOs stayed in the news for a longer period of time than they do now. I am waiting for headlines about JPMorganChase CEO Jamie Dimon to be replaced soon.  Not sure what will substitute for him in the days ahead but I can bet $5 that something will surface in the next week to knock Dimon off the front pages (so to speak). And whistleblowers have been around for a long time.  It is not the first time I have heard about a note being sent to a board member about an executive transgression. The real difference is that there is zero tolerance for these missteps and for a simple reason -- "reputation." It was interesting to me that the word "reputation" did not appear once in the USA Today article. Boards are making split-second decisions about CEO tenures because they know the downside of having their reputations tarnished, trashed, torn and tattered. Not only are their own personal reputations at risk but that of the companies on whose boards they sit (and that impacts their compensation which is often in stock).  As Lucian Bebchuk, director of corporate governance at Harvard Law School said in the article, "Boards do seem to move faster to deal with scandals and public failings that attract shareholder and media attention."  Being in the headlines and chatted about online about reputation failure is the new scarlet letter. I hope that next time an article appears, the reputation damage that brings down share prices, dampens employee morale, attracts headlines and invites investor activists gets mentioned. The cost of reputation failings are higher than ever and the stain can be very deep. In fact, it takes years to wash out.

I don’t even have to do the math to figure this out. The increase in mentions about Jamie Dimon’s reputation is astronomical. Last year on May 14, there were nine mentions of Jamie Dimon with the word reputation.  Fast forward one year and there are 3,160 mentions just today. The articles all have a similar ring to them… no surprise considering that the bank he leads lost over $2 billion on a trading error. Pretty soon, I expect they will be calling for his head. “The reputation that Jamie Dimon honed for decades on Wall Street has been severely damaged in a matter of days.” “…tainted the reputation of the bank's high profile chief executive Jamie Dimon.” "We made a terrible, egregious mistake," said bank CEO Jamie Dimon, who had a reputation as a master of risk management.” “So here you are Jamie Dimon. You have a sterling reputation. Why? Because people say he knows how to manage risk better than anybody.” “A black mark for a survivor of the financial crisis.” The one thing I can safely conclude is that the word reputation is firmly embedded in our lexicon. I used to notice the mention of reputation once in a while but in the past year "reputation" shows up everywhere. It has become ubiquitous. This is not because crises and scandals are skyrocketing which is how it feels every day but is not the case. We had as many scandals and crises just two or three years ago when the economy tanked. It is just clear to me that "reputation" is such an economic competitive asset, that it is its own form of currency today.  Hence, it falls into the same rubric as dollars and cents.  Reputation is definitely playing a larger role in what drives our economy. There is no doubt about it.

Years ago at my former job, the research we did caught fire due to one simple finding. In fact, I used to think of myself as the 50 percent woman. Our research on CEO reputation revealed that 50 percent of a company's reputation was attributable to the CEO. For some reason, this one simple factoid traveled around the world like wild fire. People just found it incredibly memorable. Part of the reason that the "50%" was so radioactive was because CEOs had became better known (Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs, John Chambers, Jack Welch, Bill Gates, Carly Fiorina) and no one had really asked the question. Reputation as a body of knowledge was still nascent (not like it is now) but it was just about to tip. And tip it did. In our new survey on the corporate brand, we asked the question again.  It's been about 10 years since that earlier study. And despite all the ups and downs in the stock market, CEO compensation issues, scandals, Occupy Wall Street, celebrity CEOs, the Internet, etc etc, the executives in our study reported that 49% of a company's reputation is due to the CEO's reputation. As interesting, when we asked consumers -- the general public -- 66% say that their perceptions of top leadership also affect their opinions of company reputations a great deal to a moderate degree. Only 7% say that there is no link between the two.  So CEO reputations arenot going over their heads whatsoever. Thus as much as it might be politically incorrect to admit that the reputation of the CEO plays a significant role in how companies are viewed, it does. Of course, product quality matters most but leadership from the top, how they behave and what they communicate is not to be ignored. A large 59% of consumers cite leadership communications as influencing company perceptions. It no longer pays to be silent.

Just came across some research from ReputationInc that holds some very interesting information. Here are the main facts they discovered by examining the curriculums of the leading Executive MBA programs identified by the Financial Times. They were looking to see how reputation was incorporated into the course work.

 

•       1 in 5 leading EMBA programs teach none of the 10 core reputation disciplines

•       Just one of the 50 leading EMBAs has ‘Reputation’ as a core module

•       Communications & relationship building skills are taught in less than 20% of programs

•       Government & policy relations is covered by fewer than 1 in 5 EMBA program

•       Governance and ethics is the most popular reputation discipline being taught to business leaders today (no surprise there)

 

ReputationInc cites McKinsey research that found that one-half of global CEOs say managing external affairs is one of their top-three priorities. Yet one fifth of the world’s top 50 global Executive MBA programs do not offer any training in the core disciplines of reputation management. They report that the missing disciplines include CSR, stakeholder engagement, government relations, communications, and reputation management strategy.

 

More worrying still, just two of the top 50 business schools surveyed offer a dedicated reputation

module and 80% offer no training on either public affairs or external communications – the two core “hands-on” skills executives need to build reputation. “The results reveal a frightening gap between the reputation skills business leaders must possess in 2012 and the cursory attention they get in the traditional executive MBA.” 

                                                         

The programs with the highest ranked scores for including reputation are Henley Business School, Essec/Mannheim, and the University of Texas at Austin: McCombs.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement: “On this evidence, companies and shareholders should be concerned that Executive MBA programmes risk creating ineffective business leaders who leave academia without the skills to actively manage the precious asset of corporate reputation,” said John Mahony, CEO, ReputationInc.  “Reputation management skills are vital for today’s CEO who sets the tone and mood for a corporation and must lead from the front in communicating the purpose of the brand and its value to society. Many managers are not born ready to meet this challenge and will benefit from coaching and confidence building in reputation, something today’s Executive MBA courses fail to adequately provide.”

 

 

Just read an article in The Economist (which I love) that questions the business of reputation management. The columnist attended a recent meeting in London held by the Reputation Institute (RI) on their new RepTrak results for British companies. The writer rightfully acknowledges that we are living in a "reputation economy" where institutions and individuals literally trade on the currency of reputation and this type of exchange makes "intuitive sense" in a society where Facebook is worth more than many Fortune 100 companies. Reputation Economy is the term used by RI and its professionals, led by Charles Fombrun, and continue to provide valuable, far-reaching insights to companies around the world. The writer, however, raises several interesting objections to the effectiveness of the reputation management industry as it stands today. First, he/she (have no clue) objects to the idea that many different factors as disparate as product quality and corporate citizenship are all rolled up into one understanding of what reputation means. That may be true, but I am not sure why that is bad in such a complex and fragmented world where every individual becomes an interest group. For us reputologists (I just made that up), the factors contributing to corporate reputation vary depending on the company’s history, industry and situation they are facing. For example, in the financial industry, unlike say the automotive industry, it is often difficult to distinguish one company from another by focusing only on their products and services. Their reputations are far more likely to be built on sheer trust in the perceived integrity of their leadership and governance.   The columnist’s second objection to reputation management today is the assumption that companies with positive reputations will find it easier to attract customers and withstand crises.  As evidence of the supposed weakness of this assumption, the columnist cites many companies with strong bottom lines despite terrible reputations: e.g., tobacco companies (harmful product), Ryanair (poor service) and Daily Mail (mean spirit). Yes, there are always companies that will make gobs of money despite wrong-doing and poor service. Nevertheless, these companies have and will continue to have a hard time attracting and retaining the best talent. But in this online world where advocates and fans matter more than ever, it will be harder to keep that bottom line as stable as it once was. But the greatest objection to the reputation industry, according to the columnist, is and I quote… "its central conceit: that the way to deal with potential threats to your reputation is to work harder at managing your reputation.” He/she continues with… “The opposite is more likely: the best strategy may be to think less about managing your reputation and concentrate more on producing the best products and services you can."  Here I agree at least in part with the columnist’s thinking.  The best way to build reputation is to “have a customer” as Peter Drucker always said. Without customers, there is no business to have a reputation worth building. The reputation industry, however, does not urge industries to ignore producing the best products and services in favor of managing reputation.  To the contrary, building the best products and services is part and parcel of a good reputation.   Also, however, today’s society is much more complicated and often it behooves a corporation to do more than just having great products and services. Apple, for example, may have the best products but if it does not give a damn about how it treats employees or contributes to society, it will face problems that if allowed to accumulate may well threaten its bottom line. We see that now with regard to questions about their handling of factories in China. I think that the columnist should rename the article to Why companies should worry MORE about their reputations or else.

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.

A week or so ago, I started a new Twitter account on social media for CEOs -- @social4ceos . As you know, I'm interested in how CEOs are adopting social media at all stages of their tenure -- in the first 100 days, year one, year two and so on.  At Weber Shandwick, we did an audit on Fortune 500 CEOs and their participation in social media... Socializing Your CEO  and we are working towards the sequel. Just wanted to let you know that I will be providing information a la Twitter on the topic of Social CEOs to help steer CEOs and their executives towards the social side of the wired hemisphere.

Just read this article in Forbes about Amazon's Jeff Bezos' number one leadership secret. I've followed him for years and enjoy reading about how Amazon has grown from a bookseller to an everything store online.  I had already been thinking about about the importance of employees and customers for new CEOs when I read that Bezos' number one leadership secret is that the customer is always right. There is this example described in the article that when Bezos calls meetings, he leaves an empty seat at the conference table for what he calls the customer's seat.  A potent reminder to bring the customer's point of view to the table. The article hints at the fact that Bezos has built his hugely successful business bent on "coddling his 164 million customers, not his 56,000 employees."  This has me wondering that in this age of the Internet and social media galore, if customers are now more important than employees, maybe because of sheer size? The pendulum seems to be swinging again anyway. It used to be that all business activities were primarily all about customers, then all about employees and now... it's all about equal parts' employees and customers but with customers gaining the upper hand again.  The Internet has created a sense of urgency about how satisfied your customers are.  Probably because they spread word of mouth more quickly and seem to have more power than employees. They can advocate or criticize your business approach or customer service online for all to see. They have more power because they have so many choices from which to buy from.  The answer for new CEOs, however, appears to be focusing on employees with a healthy dose of understanding what your customers want and quickly scaling to reach them online to confirm what employees are telling you. Something to think about over the next few weeks. Whose more important -- employees or customers for new CEOs and CEOs who've been in office for some time?