This morning I saw this infographic on business2business about YELP . The infographic lists the five reasons why YELP should not be trusted and is instead a monster. YELP is a user review and recommendation service and I’ve used it many times. I thought to myself, well this is pretty defamatory. The site says “You might be asking, what really makes Yelp so bad? If seeing that up to 25% of the reviews on their site are fake and that sometimes they don’t even publish real reviews doesn’t convince you, then we have another five reasons that may help you believe that Yelp is a monster!” I often read infographics because they are fun and visually compelling. But I rarely see an infographic that is such a reputation-buster and lists why a company deserves to be mistrusted. After being taken aback by the five reasons not to trust YELP, I carefully read the reasons given and they were not so pretty. I am sure there is some reality behind the accusations but it was surprising to see an entire infographic that was so anti-YELP and reputation-damaging. Not so fun! Wonder what YELP has to say.
I wanted to read the chapter in Trust Inc. by Linda Locke on “Trust, Emotion and Corporate Reputation.” I bought the book because Barbara Brooks Kimmel has done such a terrific job building Trust Across America-Trust Around the World, an organization focused on the fundamental element of trust. Linda is the founder of Reputare Consulting which is a reputation management consulting firm. I know Linda from events at Reputation Institute and her work leading reputation management at MasterCard. She really knows the field, is a thought leader on reputation, has powerful insights, and I follow her regularly on Twitter (@reputationista)…love that handle.
In the chapter, Linda mentions that facts are often not enough. It is a good starting place to build trust but if that’s all a company has to provide in a crisis situation, it is not going to work today. She says: “To earn trust, a company must go beyond the requirements, beyond the simple facts of the situation, and demonstrate that it understands the concerns of the stakeholders.” Showing empathy, care and concern are necessary ingredients to rebuilding trust, protecting reputation for the long-term and beginning to repair the reputation tear. What caught my attention was her recommended breakdown of communications content when a company’s reputation is under the glare of spotlights:
- 50% of a company’s external communciations should express care and concern
- 25% should express the company’s commitment to fixing the situation (what are you going to do, when and how)
- 25% should focus on the facts (again, facts have to be there but it is not all there is).
These are very helpful proportions to use when explaining to companies what they need to do about the content of their risk communications. What fascinates me the most, however, is how companies today have to show their “softer side” when they are in the middle of a brewing crisis and be more vulnerable and empathic. This is a major change in how companies are expected to communicate when they have done wrong in the public’s view.
Linda provides some case studies in her chapter that truly intrigued me. She provides a social-pyschological framework to understanding the public’s emotions to losing trust in institutions. Here’s one to share. She gave an example of a financial services firm managing their reputation during the horrific and unprecedented financial recession of 2007-2008. The firm analysed what people were saying about how they felt during this period. As she describes it, the firm found that three emotions were most evident in the public discussions about the financial downslide that was causing a real sense of fear and loss of trust. They were: irreversibility (consumers fear that what was happening was irreversible and would be permanent); unfamiliarity (consumers having never experienced anything like this economic uncertainty before) and involuntariness (consumers had no control over what was happening to them and could not influence the outcome whatsoever). The consuming public was paralyzed by fear and what could companies do to assuage their loss of trust. For companies faced with these raw emotions, Linda recommends explaining in everyday language (certainly not corporate speak) how the situation happened, how it is similar to a familiar experience they may have encountered in the past, the role of the responsible parties to fix the situation so it does not happen again and how the company will do whatever it takes to repair that broken bond of trust. And certainly empathisize with those affected and show you care if you want to keep your reputation from cratering.
Building trust is the bedrock of reputation. If your company is not trusted and credible, it is going to fail fast and I mean really fast.
There are many ways to rebuild reputation but one way that companies might consider when recovering from a crisis is developing a Compliments page where employees and non-employees can anonymously thank those front line or other employees for doing their jobs well and conscientiously. I spoke to a company a short while ago as they were dealing with a reputation crisis and suggested that they start a Compliments page where community members could thank those front line people they encounter frequently for doing a honest day’s work. It could help. Of course, the site would attract uncivil types but there must be a way to delete them if they stray too far from the site’s purpose and goals.
Some universities have being doing this for a while. It started at Queen’s University in Ontario because the founders wanted to find a way to counteract bullying. University of Pennsylvania has a Compliments Facebook page as does Penn State. On the U of P site, people thank others for returning their lost wallet, for the sense of accomplishment they feel after doing nonprofit work, to a capella group for their beautiful sound and send support to a fellow classmate struggling with pain. The U of P Compliments page has the goal of “learning to do good and spread good.” Penn State’s site says that it is a social project to spread happiness.
Compliments pages are a wonderful idea considering that incivility that can sometimes surround and engulf us. In Weber Shandwick’s Civility in America 2013 study, we found that 70 percent of Americans believe incivility has reached crisis proportions. With Americans encountering incivility more than twice a day on average (2.4 times per day), and 43 percent expecting to experience incivility in the next 24 hours, dealing with incivility has become a way of life for many. Maybe it is time to turn this tide of negativity.
Compliment sites can be contagious and make people feel good despite their company’s blemished reputation. It could give an employee that extra boost they need to be productive and positive when they find everything uncertain. Hearing a compliment might keep an employee loyal to his or her company and make them feel they are doing their part in getting their company’s reputation back on its feet. Companies might consider trying this and seeing what happens. Reputations get repaired in the oddest ways.
You have to love him. Was just reading from Fortune’s Most Powerful Women summit and came across Warren Buffett’s latest description on great reputations. He obviously has the insanity in Washington D.C. over the debt in mind.
A great reputation is like virginity – ‘it can be preserved but it can’t be restored.’ Once you default, it’s hard to go back.
When I travel to speak in different countries , I spend a good deal of time investigating the reputation of the country I am traveling to and any recent reputational problems they are experiencing. I always want to know what the biggest business scandal, best example of a reputation recovery and what were the most widely covered social media assaults on a business. I usually get asked to comment on these types of questions one way or another during a media interview or in a Q&A session and I like to be prepared.
On my last trip, I was all prepared to talk about Turkey’s issues with the protests in Gezi Park. But everywhere I turned, I was also asked what I thought about the reputation of the United States in light of the government shutdown? Did I think its reputation was being harmed? I have to say that I was somewhat startled by the question because I am always so focused on the country that I am visiting that I forget that it goes both ways. But this time, I realized without any doubt that the reputation of America was being seriously damaged abroad by the incivility and absurdity of the standoff. It felt awful.
This week, we saw something I have posted about before….how companies are increasingly becoming involved in political issues, sometimes against their own will. And this week we saw first hand another form of Starbucks Diplomacy. The CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz, posted a note on his company website deploring the shutdown — “Please join me in pleading for civility and a respectful, honest discourse among politicians to bring a solution to the current stalemate.” And today, another note about Americans coming together for the collective good and signing a petition demanding that Congress put an end to the shutdown. Since I really want to get our reputation back on track, I’m all for this.
It has been a crazy few weeks — traveling to Berlin, San Francisco and Istanbul. But I am back in the USA. So here are a few observations about things I’ve read and learned that I wanted to share:
1. Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu just issued a new report on reputation risk. Reputation risk was the top strategic risk among 300 global C-suite executives surveyed. The survey found 40% of respondents listed reputation as their top risk concern today, with their business model second at 32% and economic trends/competition third at 27%. In 2010, reputation risk was at 26% so we can see that it has moved to the very top of the C-suite agenda. Henry Ristuccia, global leader of governance, risk and compliance at Deloitte had this to say (love this quote): “Reputation risk is going to always be the meta of all risks…how you manage the underlying factors that could affect the organization’s reputation or brand…how resilient are the people, the culture?” The meta of all risks!
2. In Istanbul, I spoke about Reputation Warfare, the theme of my Harvard Business Review article. The occasion was the 2nd International Reputation Management Conference at Kadir Has University. It was very impressive because there are not many reputation management conferences in this world (Reputation Institute holds one annually) and here I was in Istanbul. Very forward-looking of the university. The summer protests in Turkey at Gezi Park was an interesting backdrop to my discussion on using social media as an opportunity to defend one’s reputation in addition to the risk. Additionally, there was discussion about how the protests had affected the reputation of the country. Tourism took a hit in July but from the looks of it, it was pretty healthy this week. I am going to keep a watch out for how Turkey repairs its reputation and what types of reputation recovery strategies are employed. All very interesting and doable. I also experienced some of the Turkish hospitality that they are so well-known for.
3. Just this past week, I read two articles on how Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan are repairing their reputations. All in one week. Clearly this is a topic that has grown exponentially and particularly in the financial sector. The Economist article on Goldman Sachs was fascinating because it described the scenario setting that is being used to train vice presidents to better understand their responsibilities to the firm when faced with ambiguous and complex challenges to doing business today. The case study is preceded by a film that is described this way: “…an emotive documentary on the history of Goldman Sachs, filled with interviews of luminaries and former executives, each hammering home the virtues that supposedly make the firm distinctive—teamwork, personal accountability and the legendary exhortation by Gus Levy, a former leader of the firm, to be ‘long-term greedy’, by which he meant it should forgo short-term profits if they came at the expense of client relationships.” I mentioned in a previous post how Goldman Sachs is super-engaging in training which included their CEO from the start. In addition, incentives have been revampedd and tied more to collaboration and teamwork. The WSJ article on JPMorgan’s CEO Jamie Dimon focuses on how he is converying “business as usual” as he faces an imminent federal lawsuit, another revealing reputation recovery strategy. He has been touring midsize cities such as Cleveland, Oklahoma City and St. Louis meeting with local businesses and community leaders that are supported by JPMorgan’s philantrophy. According to the article, Dimon’s message are fine-tuned, upbeat and focused on the customer.
Fake commentary. This weekend I received constant fake commentary to my blog — every minute. I deleted over 1000 or more in the end. I just could not believe that anyone cares enough to assault my blog like that but apparently wordpress has been having these robo-attacks which affects its users. Very annoying.
On the subject of fakery and forging online reviews, this morning I read about the proliferation of fake reviews online. It is estimated that by 2014, nearly 10 to 15% of social media reviews will be fake. The problem with this is obvious to all — reputations are won and lost by such phony reviews. How many times have you turned away from a product because a review was scathing or negative? And how often has that bad review made you think less of the company behind the brand or anything else that company sells? This causes reputation doubt.
Some of our research at Weber Shandwick has found that online reviews were becoming nearly as important as professional reviews. For example,by more than a margin, consumers pay attention to consumer reviews over professional reviews for consumer electronics products (77% to 23%). They read 11 online reviews on average before purchasing products. Online reviews surely affect the bottom line. New York’s Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, who is leading a crackdown on companies in the business of creating false online reviews, gives good reasons as to why this is more than an annoyance: ”Harvard Business School found that increasing a restaurant’s review score by one star on Yelp.com could boost business up to 8 percent. Cornell researchers found an extra star on Travelocity or TripAdvisor could translate into an 11 percent increase in a room rate.” So there you go. Fake reviews destroy reputations and profitabilty.
Many of these firms hire people in other countries who get paid $1 up to $10 to write one negative review. Luckily, our attorney general in New York is trying to get rid of them and is giving out large fines to keep them from continuing this bad behavior. Reputations deserve better than this.
Reputation resilience is a topic I often think about because it should be on all leaders’ minds. How can I build the most resilient culture so that we can withstand a crisis that risks our hard fought for reputation? A new report from Schillings in the U.K. examined UK FTSE 350 and leading private companies about reputation risk and resilience. Respondents were Communications, Legal and Risk executives. Here are some of the findings:
- All executives surveyed are spending more time on reputation risk management than they did two years ago — 80% say more time (among risk managers), 68% (among communications heads), and 53% (among legal executives). No one said less time.
- Only 17% say that there is formal reporting to the board of directors on reputation risk. Clearly, not good enough.
- The top five threats to their company’s reputation are (in rank order): business underperformance, information risk, operational risk, health and safety incidents, and employee behavior. Social media comes in at 6th place.
- When asked what was the biggest obstacle to making reputation risk management top of mind at the company they work for, 37% of respondents said “CEO/Board removed from reputation risk: lack of focus without a crisis and too much reporting.” That is unfortunate. Companies should not need a real crisis to get them to pay attention to risk management.
- Fortunately, communciations and legal executives are onto it. They know that their jobs require them to take charge of their company’s reputation and any associated risks. A full 72% of communications executives said they feel directly responsible and 63% of legal executives are responsible for their company’s reputation.
- How resilient are companies to facing challenges to their reputation? There is a surprising (to me) fair amount of confidence. 55% are “confident enough,” 29% are “very or extremely confident” and 16% are “not at all confident or unsure.” Although this bodes well for many companies, I would be wary – essentially 84% of top executives are confident. If you ask me, they are not worrying enough about all the possibilities that could befall their reputations. Risks to reputation seem to be coming from all directions today and being over-confident is the wrong stance.
Another interesting aspect of this newly issued report is that Schillings is a law firm. They have rebranded themselves to be all about managing reputation risk. Their tag line is “Law at the speed of reputation.” Serious business. What would compell a law firm to switch to focusing on reputation? Here is what they say about their transformation: “To continue to lead at a time of such extensive change, we’ve fundamentally changed our own offering. By combining our unrivalled expertise in reputation law with new risk consulting and IT security expertise, we have been able to create an integrated offer that continues to safeguard the successful businesses and individuals we represent whilst living up to the promise that underpinned our business from day one.” It would be hard to name many law firms that have done the same. Reputation is changing the face of organizations all across the globe and some firms see the opportunity ahead. Maybe Schillings sees the risks down the road for them as a law firm and are taking their risk by the horns. Interesting approach.
Everyone wants to measure reputation. Measurement, big data, metrics are all the conversation today. As I have mentioned before, reputation is high on CEO agendas as they see more companies lose reputation equity and that calls for better research. I just came across the Arthur W. Page Society, The CEO View: The Impact of Communications on Corporate Character in a 24×7 Digital World study which noted that some CEOs “report measuring as many as 30 different brand attributes as experienced by as many as 15 discrete stakeholder groups.” That give you a sense of how research has become more complex as the world has become smaller and scrutiny greater. 15 different stakeholder groups! It used to be employees, customers, media, investors and government officials. So whose among these added groups? NGOs, online influencers, bloggers, naysayers….it is never ending.
The report calls this “high-resolution measurement.” A great term. Hard-data rules.
None of us want to ever underestimate the importance of corporate culture and the impact of employee satisfaction on performance. It is not just window dressing. A study by Professor Alex Edmans at London Business School found that when a company makes it onto the Fortune 100 Best Companies to Work For list, it generates 3.5% higher stock returns per year compared to its peers. To be exact, it found that companies listed in the “100 Best Companies to Work For in America” generated 2.3% to 3.8% higher stock returns per year than their peers from 1984 through 2011. Management journal, strategy + business says this about this effect of employee satisfaction,”There is money to be made from employee satisfaction. Let’s all get rich and happy, but not necessarily in that order.” I might have to argue with that but anyhow…here are the facts from the research. A great stat for demonstrating that it pays to build a terrific culture:
The results clearly point out that job satisfaction is beneficial for firm value and ultimately, reputation.
Read about it here.