reputation

Is it me or is there an article every single day about how to manage your online reputation, particularly if you are a job seeker. I know that I get Google Alerts as to when anything surfaces on online reputation but I don’t think I can read any more. For instance, today I got another one and I took a deep sigh. How many times do people have to read that they should do a Google or Bing search of their name to see how they are being talked about online? How many times do people have to read about buying their name on a domain site or be positive online and off? Oh well. I think I figured out the answer. “A lot.” Obviously people do not follow these simple rules because otherwise there wouldn’t be a demand for this information. And from my experience with job seekers, many people do not think twice about how often employers check out candidates online (I think that 70% of employers check online).

So I get it. But I can still ask the question. I guess it is just me.

Yesterday I was asked to talk about what I do at Weber Shandwick to our Crisis and Issues group in New York. It was an end of the week get together to take the edge off of all the long hours. I talked about reputational issues and answered several questions. It was a nice opportunity for me to reflect too.

I was asked where all the celebrity CEOs had gone which made me recall my first book on CEO reputation. The book was released at the height of the dot com boom when 22 year old CEOs were the norm and celebrity CEOs were plentiful.  In my book, I tried to make the point that it was not CEO celebrity that mattered but CEO credibility. As I was answering this question, I realized that I hit on some of the right notes as to why CEO celebrity was not the same today but missed a few. In fact, I mentioned that being CEO today was not  an easy job whatsoever. CEOs are much more embattled.  Here are some of the reasons I talked about yesterday but others as well taken from an Economist article I was saving to post about.

• CEO tenure is shorter than it used to be (on average 6.6 years, according to Booz’s research).  They usually come into office with great fanfare. They get approximately two years of grace when they start out (more like 18 months), 2 years to provide evidence that their strategy is working and two years to get pushed out. After six years like this, it’s best to be a CEO nobody.
• CEOs don’t have all the power anymore. Most CEOs now have separate chairmans that are looking over their shoulders and asking a lot of questions.  Booz found that in 2002 48% of incoming CEOs were also chairmen.  In 2009, that number dropped to 12%.  Hard to be a celebrity when there is power sharing going on.
• CEO compensation is always a headline and increasingly links the CEO title to perceptions of greed. CEO compensation is actually declining.
• Shareholders and stakeholders are not sitting idle. They are much more aggressive.  Some hedge funds are actively browbeating CEO and corporate decisions and in executives’ faces. The ridicule can get strenuous.
• Boards are more active too. They don’t want their reputations shamed either by poor CEO decisions or poor behavior. And according to Korn Ferry, new board members are more likely to be deep in international experience and have worked abroad. They are not necessarily golfing buddies like board members of yore. Angry birds maybe, but not necessarily tee time!

With all these barriers in place to curb the power of CEOs, celebrity CEOs can hardly flourish. Instead, we are looking at a new world of convening CEOs who communicate internally to employees, communicate online or through video to netizens, travel to speak to customers and influencers at forums they convene themselves (IBM‘s Smarter Planet  method), partner with third parties and government to problem solve on today’s economic woes and so forth.

In a piece I wrote for The HuffingtonPost for 2012, I forecasted that reputation blackmail would show its hand this year. Lo and behold, a front page article in yesterday’s paper headlined “Hackers-For-Hire Are Easy to Find.”  The article had to do with two feuding brothers from Kuwaiti who were suing one another over business they held. One of the billionaire brothers found someone to hack into his brother’s account and post online all his brother’s personal emails including finances, legal affairs, pharmacy bills and everything else that you can imagine gets sent and received from one’s personal account. The cost: $400. Hackers to hire are that cheap and apparently easy to find. One of the reasons there has not been much on this topic where reputations can be easily lost is that people do not want to report this type of reputation blackmail and generate even more attention.

In this instance, the one brother hired Invisible Hacking Group located in China and here is how it works:

“It requested the target person’s email address, the names of friends or colleagues, and examples of topics that interest them. The hackers would then send an email to the target that sounded as if it came from an acquaintance, but which actually installed malicious software on the target’s computer. The software would let the hackers capture the target’s email password.”

You get the picture.

Reputation blackmail presents a very scary scenario. Not only is privacy damaged but reputations which take a long time to rebuild get decimated.  Reputation protection can only go so far. Risk management and reputation warfare gets more complicated by the day.

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.

Tomorrow is the anniversary of the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, Congresswoman from Arizona. And let’s not forget the unnecessary killings of six people including a young 9 year old. Many were also hurt, including our nation’s reputation.

At Weber Shandwick, we started studying civility in June 2010 with a follow up in 2011.  We realized that civil discourse was taking a turn for the worse in 2010 and we set out to better understand how the American public felt about this . We did not of course realize what was to come in the Arizona killing spree but we definitely knew that America’s reputation for civility was heading in the wrong direction.

Our research with Powell Tate and KRC Research on civility was breakthrough for a pr firm. The coverage has been consistently high.  There are approximately 10  million mentions of civility when I last searched.

The idea came to me when I was at the Council of PR Firms’ annual event in October 2009.  David Gergen, the political commentator and advisor to presidents,  was a guest speaker and he was talking about how President Obama had mentioned how he had to figure out a way to get people interested in civility. The light bulb went on in my head and I could not let it go. Why not ask Americans what they thought of the tone of our national discourse in politics, schools, on television, online and in sports? How had the American public square become so unruly and what did Americans think they could do about it? And so we started the research. I am proud that Weber Shandwick added to the national conversation in a thoughtful and meaningful way. In my opinion, we should make it our business to teach people what is civil and uncivil behavior. There needs to be a national public education program to better inform people what the limits are.

In 2011 when we did the last survey, Americans expected civility to erode even further. Whereas more than one-third (39%) expected things to turn less civil when surveyed in 2010, more than one out of two Americans — 55% — expected a lack of civility to become the norm in 2011. And incivility did become the norm, not just in politics but in cyberbullying, school bullying and workplace bullying. I could not even guess what people think now as we enter the political cycle. We will be asking again as the incivility season (oops I meant silliness season) begins again.

At least tomorrow, on the one year anniversary of the Arizona tragedy, we can hold our tongues and keep our clicks at bay and be civil to our neighbors. The Arizona tragedy was not really due to incivility but due to the mental illness of a lone shooter. But it did touch the nation’s nerve and made us all think twice about the widening of our civility deficit.

Same goes for reputation.

“The value of things is largely determined by their rarity.”

The more that companies lose reputation, the ones that keep it and build it and enhance it will be the ones that are most esteemed. For that reason, reputation will be one of the holy grails that the best leaders vie for.

Good reputation is becoming one of those rarities.

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