Posts Tagged ‘badvocates’

I am always eager to learn how other countries are managing their company or brand online reputations. Here in the U.S., it is always a topic of conversation at work or at home. Therefore I was pleased when a colleague in our office in the Hague sent me some research they did among executives in Dutch organizations on the subject. I was particularly pleased that they cited our global research that we did on online reputation management in cooperation with the Economist Intelligence Unit. Here are some of the facts that jumped out at me and here is the link if you are interested in learning more.

• Most Dutch companies actively monitor social media but do not react proactively when something appears online that impacts their reputation.
• Dutch companies are slow to react to detractors online or what we call badvocates (I would say that companies here in the U.S. do not necessarily react that quickly either). Dutch companies are quicker to respond to advocates or those who support them than their critics. I think that this reflects the difficulty in getting executives to agree on what to say to detractors. There are so many opinions and people to consult unless you are extremely well-rehearsed or  fairly advanced on the social media continuum.
• A large 62% said that they had encountered badvocates online and one-quarter felt that they had difficulty controling their impact.  I would have expected the latter number to be higher since it is hard to control one’s badvocates. It is hard to know what to do unless you are in the social media conversation often and have built credibility.
• Suprising to me, these executives believe that positive comments online have a greater impact on reputation than negative comments. I would have thought the other way around since detractors’ negativity travels so quickly here in the U.S.  But this does make sense.
• Nearly two-thirds (64%) say that Dutch companies do not have a plan for managing reputation online.  That seems to compare with the U.S. in terms of preparation. I think that most companies think about online reputation management but their planning is less than perfect.

 As my colleagues concluded, “organizations hear what they want to hear.”  I have to totally agree with this conclusion. When I wrote my book on reputation recovery, one of the salient points I learned is how hard it is for companies to stop believing their own propaganda. It is more difficult than ever to think out of the silo or box.  Perhaps that is because every misstep today can be magnified and amplified. Someone once said to me that it is easy to listen but harder to hear. That is the truth.

If you can read in Dutch, you might want to go here.

Employee satisfaction is a prime driver of corporate reputation. Nearly all reputation studies conclude that talent makes a tremendous difference. A global survey from Forrester recently looked at employee advocacy – how much employees would recommend their employers’ products or services and recommend their employer as a good place to work to friends or relatives. They borrowed this questioning from the Net Promoter Score (NPS) work done by Bain and which is widely accepted as a strong proxy for excellence. What particularly attracted my interest was how employee advocacy differed by country. Advocacy is a key tenet at Weber Shandwick and for that reason, I find advocacy and its impact on reputation something to keep up on.

North American employees (US and Canada) are three times more likely to be advocates for their employers than those in Europe.  French employees had the most “badvocates” or detractors and the least advocates. The authors postulate that labor laws and cultural differences are factors in why France had the most detractors when it comes to answering questions about products/services made by their employer or as a place to work.  Germany fared better than the UK on the advocacy dimension but France performed the least well.

Yet, there were plenty of detractors in all regions which underscores how important it is for management to build better understanding of employees’ satisfaction if they wish to have admirable reputations and attract the best talent. This will only grow in importance as the baby boomers retire and the next layer of management thins.

The airlines have a lot to tell us about managing reputation and being prepared. I came across an article in BusinessWeek a few months late but I found some of the advice about preparedness and reputation resilience worthwhile enough to repeat here. The gist of the article was that the airline industry “is truly the school of hard knocks.” They are always dealing with immense challenges such as soaring fuel prices, terrorism, storms, horrific events such as 9-11 and the global economic downturn, labor strikes, accidents and government intervention. Plus the airlines have amazingly vocal naysayers who take to the Internet when they lose a bag, dislike the food, miss a connection. American Airlines (Disclosure: Client) reaches out to people on social networking sites, according to Roger Frizzell, vice president of corporate communications, brand and advertising and quoted in an article on Forbes.com about brand detractors or “badvocates” as we call them at Weber Shandwick. “In August, when New York’s LaGuardia Airport closed a terminal due to a bomb threat, American Airlines posted notices on its Web site and sent a Tweet to its followers on Twitter. It leaves general information on lost baggage and canceled flights on its Facebook site. Getting the word out before consumers run into problems at the airport is one way to avoid criticism, says Frizzell.” Reputation management is a daily business in the airline industry.

Here are the lessons from the airline industry that BusinessWeek summarized.

1. You need to prepare for what you cannot control which is most everything today. Executives should be trained to respond to the unexpected and boards should review contingency plans because worst case scenarios do happen.

2. Board members need to be more patient while plans are being implemented as airline executives manage with unintended events. Sometimes the implementation is what makes or breaks a successful crisis response. Stakeholders are more forgiving when the recovery plan works.

3. Get all stakeholders aligned. The airline industry seems to have more than their share of stakeholders and if one segment is not moving in line with the others, beware. “For example, when airline employees oppose management, they take it out on customers, who in turn stop flying the airline, which in turn affects shareholder returns – a vicious cycle.” No one should be overlooked although it takes an army to manage this.

4. Seize the moment. In my book on reputation recovery, I called it Seize the Shift but it is the same idea. Opportunities come around usually only once when massive shifts in business or public opinion are bubbling up. Make them your opportunity because chances are that they won’t resurface in the near term. It is everyone’s job to be alert to those moments when fundamental change can be applied.

    Recently reread GE Jeff Immelt’s Letter to Shareholders in its 2008 Annual Report.  A few comments.  I like how GE has a picture of its senior team in the introduction.  It is not the first time but it goes a long way in honoring the team.  I always find GE’s CEO Letters revealing.  The general theme is that GE along with the global economy and business in general have to be “reset” for the long-term and perhaps forever.  “The interaction between government and business will change forever.  In a reset economy, the government will be a regulator; and also an industry policy champion, a financier, and a key partner.”  Immelt calls it a reset world. The CEO is resetting the company to focus on three big themes – emerging market growth, clean energy and sustainable healthcare.

One of my favorite parts, of course, came when Immelt discusses GE’s reputation.  Immelt has often mentioned “reputation” in his CEO Shareholder Letters and clearly considers reputation a metric of success.  He said in an earlier CEO Letter (2002): “My own role on the GE Board is clear. I have two functions: lead the company as CEO with integrity, clarity and purpose, as measured by financial performance and reputation.”  This time he said, “Let’s face it: our Company’s reputation was tarnished because we weren’t the ‘safe and reliable’ growth company that is our aspiration. I accept responsibility for this. But, I think this environment presents an opportunity of a lifetime. We get a chance to reset the core of GE and focus on what we do best.”  

When I wrote my book on Reputation Recovery, I had a section on Resetting the Company Clock which came from a statement made by Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn.  It is the role of the CEO to not only be the company’s reputation guardian but to reset the company clock when crisis strikes, winds shift or people do not recognize the urgency of the day.  The word reset is a good one.

Interestingly, Immelt notes that GE has instituted more scenario planning, presumably to see around corners and a new process to identify what he calls industry “naysayers” who might have something important to tell his unit heads. We call these people “badvocates” but either way, GE intends to listen more carefully than before.

In the last paragraph, Immelt says “GE will be a better company winning through this crisis.” I underlined the word winning.  In recent weeks, I have heard several CEOs use “winning.” Maybe something’s changing.