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.

Universum’s list of ideal employers for undergraduates and MBA students is out and not surprisingly, Google ranks #1 as it did in 2007. By the way, if you are interested in reputation and do not know about Universum, check them out. I think their research is fascinating and provides important clues into why some employers are preferred over others. The next four ranked companies are Disney, Apple, Ernst & Young and the U.S. State Department. How does E&Y get such a high rating when it was #12 one year ago. BusinessWeek says that its high score comes from E&Y’s early adoption of Facebook as a recruitment tool.  I checked it out. It has nearly 15,000 fans, a You Tube on why to intern at E&Y, profiles, events, internship info, and lots more.

Another reputation survey is out as well. Reputation Institute’s third annual Global Pulse survey is out and the following companies head the list. Again Google leads the best reputation list. This survey is among consumers which differs from the younger audience sampled in the Universum study. Congratulations to the folks at the Reputation Institute who have succeeded in delivering a top-notch survey and reputation monitoring business.

2008 Best Corporate Reputations in the US-Top 25 Companies
(Rank    US Companies    Global Pulse Score of 1-100)
1    Google    85.23
2    Johnson & Johnson    83.48
3    Kraft Foods Inc.    82.79
4    General Mills    81.34
5    Walt Disney    81.22
6    United Parcel Service    81.05
7    3M    79.79
8    Xerox    78.44
9    Colgate-Palmolive    78.04
10    Texas Instruments    77.22
11    Eastman Kodak    77.13
12    General Electric    76.82
13    Sara Lee    76.48
14    FedEx    76.28
15    Deere & Co    76.12
16    Goodyear    76.00
17    Apple    75.42
18    Hewlett-Packard    75.10
19    Intel    74.94
20    Publix Super Markets Inc.    74.91
21    Caterpillar    74.78
22    Whirlpool    74.41
23    Boeing    74.37
24    Costco Wholesale    74.33
25    Dell    74.26

Reputation Institute’s research model is built on 7 dimensions of reputation: Products/Services, Innovation, Workplace, Citizenship, Governance, Leadership, and Performance. What interested me was that when two drivers — Governance and Citizenship — are combined, they account for more than 30% of a company’s reputation. This proves that leadership at the top and corporate responsibility are critical to reputation today.

While on the road last week, I was asked whether I knew of any surveys about perceptions of government entities. This question probably came up because I was talking about the extraordinary rise in coverage and chatter on country reputation. At the time, I said that I did not really know of any survey on government bodies and thought it would make for an interesting survey. When I returned home, we looked into whether such a survey existed and yes, found one. The GFK Roper Consulting survey on federal agencies was mentioned in the The Washington Post in January 2008. The sample comprised nearly 2,000 Americans in the summer of 2007.

The most favorable ratings were given to the U.S. Postal Service, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service. The lowest favorability was given to FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (for the second year in a row FEMA came in last place). The poor handling of Hurricane Katrina has been responsible for lowering perceptions of FEMA’s reputation over recent years.

Interestingly, Americans did not know much about some agencies to be able to rate them. This included the Bureau of Land Management, the Administration of Aging, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. Hate to say it but they need some pr assistance on getting their reputations noticed!

I have always wondered if those huge advertising ads in airports do their job in reputation building. It is hard not to notice them and they are fairly captivating to me. As I get off the airplane, I look forward to what new campaigns might be up. So I was glad to see some data behind my question. The Ipsos MediaCT U.S. Business Elite Study that was conducted for the American Association of Advertising Agencies (AAAA) found that airport ads are indeed a good way to build reputation and get your message across. Nearly six out of 10 say they notice them.

• Have You Noticed Advertising at the Airport on Your Last Trip?
  Total Business Elite   59%
  C-Suite    59%

As well, the survey answered the question about viewing TV while waiting at the boarding gate. Nearly four out of 10 business executives said they do so. Again, another way to capture this audience although I imagine that the other six out of 10 are watching their blackberries or iphones.

• Have You Watched TV at the Gate on Your Last Trip?
  Total Business Elite   39%
  C-Suite    39%

One other fascinating fact that I picked up from the survey was that the U.S. business elite turn to the Internet first for “helping them in business.” Among CEOs, however, the first place they go to is business magazines. I guess that is why the business publication space is expanding despite the advertising decline over the past several years. In addition to the stalwarts – Fortune, Forbes and BusinessWeek, we now have Portfolio, a new Slate business site coming to us in June I believe and Bloomberg ramping up its business and news coverage once Norm Pearlstine gets in the door.

Clearly, the Internet is a main source of information for the U.S. business elite although national newspapers, cable TV, and business magazines are close competitors. Reputation building online is as important as ever but let’s not lose sight of the power of these other mediums.

Thought I should report on some analysis we did with Planet2050, Weber Shandwick’s corporate responsibility and sustainability arm led by my friend Brendan May. As you know, annual reports often begin with a Letter from the CEO and/or Chairman to company stakeholders. When it comes time to learning about companies, I always read the CEO Letter since it encapsulates what is on the minds of company leadership and the business environment overall. These Letters always contain some clue as to what might is important in terms of company priorities.

Since corporate responsibility is increasingly in the news, it seemed that we could determine how permanent corporate responsibility really was from reading Letters to Shareholders. It would be interesting to discover whether the world’s largest company CEOs were acknowledging corporate responsibility initiatives now vs. several years ago. To just underscore the growing importance of sustainability in shaping corporate reputations today, think about this week’s announcement that KKR, the private equity leveraged buy-out firm, is teaming with Environmental Defense Fund to incorporate sustainability measures into its business operations and practices. This action is a continuation of KKR’s smart efforts to listen carefully to environmentalists as it did when it bought Texas utility TXU last year and reduced the number of coal-burning plants to minimize environmental harm.

Back to the Shareholder Letters, what did we find?

• Corporate responsibility mentions in CEO Letters to Shareholders increased 18 percent from 2003 to 2007.  I agree with Brendan when he said, “Clearly, CEOs in the second half of this decade have embraced corporate responsibility as a critical driver of business strategy and reputation-building.”
• Interestingly, broad environmental issues were the most frequently mentioned corporate responsibility initiatives mentioned back in 2003 CEO Letters to Shareholders. In 2007, energy efficiency and carbon emissions were the most common corporate responsibility agenda initiatives. Volunteerism, a topic featured in 2003 CEO annual report Letters, appeared less frequently in 2007.

When I used to review the findings from the Fortune Most Admired Companies survey a decade ago, I would be distressed that corporate responsibility was always the least important factor in driving corporate reputation.  Now we see that is permanently on the CEO agenda. That’s a good thing.

We are still reviewing Fortune’s Best Companies to Work For and found some more interesting facts on how reputations can be enhanced by this accolade. We decided to look backwards at the award winners over the past three years to see if there are any differences in what makes a winning workplace. [I should note that the most important factor is employee ratings which accounts for two-thirds of the final score.]

Among the benefits offered by the 100 Best Companies to Work For, the most commonly offered perk is telecommuting (at least one day per week), followed by on-site child care. However, on-site child care may be losing some of its strength as a “Best” driver – 12% fewer companies on the 100 Best listing offered it in 2008 than did in 2006. On the other hand, 43% more Best Companies are offering fully-paid health care suggesting that this benefit is helping drive companies to be ranked as a Best Company to work for (not surprising considering the rising costs of health care and how hard it is to find an employer that pays 100% of health benefits). In fact, eight companies that offer fully-paid health care did not appear on the best employer list in 2006.

As for fully-paid sabbaticals, it looks like this is diminishing as a best workplace factor. Too bad.

Fortune Best Places to Work For Driving Factors

Source: Weber Shandwick proprietary analysis 

We just released a report on Corporate Communications Officers AKA CCOs. The survey, The Rising CCO, which was conducted with partners’ Spencer Stuart and KRC Research examined the changing role of today’s CCO. Anyone who knows me is well aware that I firmly believe in the contributions made by corporate communications departments. Perhaps because I came into the public relations world late in my career and was basically clueless about what public relations/corporate communications people did, I now have the deepest respect for CCOs. Perhaps because I felt like an outsider for so long. They used to call me a “non-traditional” hire. 

This is all to say that I am particularly proud of this research. Our intent was to quantify the hunches most of us have about this evolving and rising position in the corporate hierarchy. To focus on one aspect of what we learned from Fortune 500 CCOs themselves, we uncovered a strong correlation between a company’s corporate communications organization and the company’s ranking on Fortune’s “World’s Most Admired Companies” list. Most admired company CCOs, compared to those in “contender” companies, stay in their jobs longer, have fewer internal rivals and are more likely to report straight to the top (the CEO). See below.

HOW CCOs IN MOST ADMIRED COMPANIES DIFFER FROM CCOs

IN CONTENDER COMPANIES

Other interesting reputation-related findings include:

• The CCO focus is shifting from financial communications, media relations and internal communications to the broader strategic issues of environmental/social responsibility and corporate reputation. Reputation just continues to grow in importance every year and capture top management attention. I cannot say that I was disappointed to learn this.
• Nearly one-half of elite CCOs report directly to the CEO (48 percent).  Again, this finding underscores the COO-CEO partnership in protecting a company’s reputation. If the CCO and CEO are not in sync, reputation risks can easily multiply.

[The Arthur Page Society recently released research on the changing role of public relations officers too.]  

Weber Shandwick just released some new research on the executive conference business. The Global Strategic Media Group at Weber Shandwick audited the CEOs and top executives of the world’s 50 most admired companies to see where they were speaking and how the conference world had changed over the past three years.

The “Five-Star Conference” study found that executive participation in top-tier, or Five-Star, events is soaring. Since 2005, there has been an extraordinary five-fold (525 percent*) increase among elite C-level executives at five star speaking forums. For elite CEOs during the same time period, there has been an increase of 35 percent in participation at these distinguished events. Strikingly, the rising importance of these events as a vital communications tool is underscored by a 50 percent rise in the number of top-tier global conferences from 2005 to 2007.

The research also identifies the top events for CEOs (#1 WEF) and C-suite executives (Fortune Innovation/iMeme).

I am pleased to see the CEO/executive conference business heating up again. A few years ago, many of the business publications abandoned this service offering due to the expense and difficulty proving the return on investment. In my humble opinion, it’s a great way to push CEOs to think outside the box and find something important to say. It requires putting one’s thinking cap on and on that subject, I am in favor.

*Small sample size

A great beginners guide to online reputation management (ORM) can be found at Andy Beal’s Marketing Pilgrim site. I spent some time this holiday reading through his suggestions to managing your online reputation. He has many helpful sites and sources. Definitely worth the time if you want to quickly see what you are missing. Our research found that only one-third of global business executives pay attention to their company’s reputation online. That number will grow in time but it is eye-opening to realize how much chatter about your company is escaping executive vision. (You can also find the research on our reputation-related site, www.reputationRx.com )

Beal has a new book coming out with Dr. Judy Strauss called Radically Transparent. Will be a must-read.

There has been much media coverage about the Pew Internet and American Life Project research (12.16.07) on Americans googling themselves for what I call reptuation checkups. I felt that I could not ignore it since it falls into what I also call my reputation bucket (all things reputation-related).  Afterall, your “good name” is all we have.

Pew found that nearly one-half (47 percent) of Americans have searched for their own names to see whether they were receiving a thumbs up or thumbs down. This name-searching figure has dramatically doubled since 2002 when Pew found only 22 percent targeting themselves online.  I can’t say I blame them. I have searched my own name several times since reputation is my middle name (just kidding).  Interestingly, most Americans don’t search for their names online on a regular basis. Apparently they are not worried about what might be said about them. This bears out in the research — the majority (six out of ten Americans) are not worried about how much information is available about them online. I assume they believe they can manage their reputations well enough. Probably a mistake as privacy gets increasingly scarce.

Interesting tidbits in the Pew report include:

• Only 4 percent found disturbing or inaccurate information online associated with their name
• Most searches are innocuous — looking for someone’s contact info
• Those under 50 were more likely to be interested in their online reputations

As one of the co-author’s wrote: “Nostalgia seems to motivate quite a few Internet users. the most popular search target is someone from the past — an old friend, an old flame, or a former colleague.”

I imagine that name-searching is much higher among business executives who depend on their reputations for career opportunities and advancement and enhancing their own company reputations.  My guess is that the figure would be closer to 85 percent  vs. the 47 percent Pew found.  Either way, reputation checkups are important and will probably soar when Pew does its next research in 2012 (five years from now!).