Posts Tagged ‘industry reputation’

It has been an unusually warm couple of months here in New York. I can’t    help but think that global warming is staring me right in the face.  I often think of myself as a bear that hibernates when cold weather arrives. I often joke with my neighbors that they won’t see me until spring because I’ll be going into my bear cave for my “winter sleep” when the first chill arrives.  So the past couple of months have been an anomaly as I have wandered out doors more often than usual on the weekends. Of course I have to go to work and do the ordinary errands that surround my life but given the choice, I stay inside. Maybe that is why I like to write about reputation because it gives me an excuse to sit in my little office cave that is closed off to the world.

All of this got me to thinking about how climate change gets communicated today when there is criticism about  the science after controversies arose from the release of stolen emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. This happened a year or two ago.  Undoubtedly this is the perfect case study for how an industry (climate change scientists) suffered reputational damage and now has to recover and restore reputational equity. Climate change skeptics were fairly adept at effectively persuading many in the general public to doubt the scientific validity of global warming.

I was glad to see an article in the New Scientist (sorry, you need a subscription) by Robert Ward (policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at London School of Economics) on how some of the reputation recovery methods that I recommend in my book might be applied to regain confidence and trust in climate science.  He sees the situation right, “Even if the claims of misconduct and incompetence are eventually proven to be largely untrue, or confined to a few bad apples, mud sticks.”  This is a truism — no matter how much science you have on your side, it is sometimes never enough when it comes to public opinion.  Sometimes the facts just don’t matter as much as they should in a perfect world.

Ward is right that hope is not a solution to rebuilding reputation. Many CEOs used to think they could outlast controversy but in fact learn the hard way that it only extends the problem.  ”Communicating tirelessly” — one of my recommendations — is the right path forward.  ”No comment” does not work as it used to. Whether it is finding neutral partners or independent coalitions to bring additional voices into the discussion or actually training climate scientists to transparently talk about and defend the science — its certainties and uncertainties, communications will do more good than harm in this digital world.

An interesting analysis of temperature records appeared in an article in The Economist  which speaks to the importance of bringing in a third, fourth or fifth party opinion to validate scientific findings.  I read it on a plane to Europe in November but kept it because it made commonsense as an approach to understanding the climate change debate — is it getting warmer or not?  Let me just add here that the topic of global warming is a lot more complicated than I will ever understand — gaps in readings, different criteria, different types of thermometers, urban settings where temperatures might be recorder higher, etc.  But interestingly, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project stepped into the argument on climate change 18 months ago to test existing analyses. And they did so with the addition of skeptical scientists and funders as well as Nobel prize winners. As it is often said, let’s open the kimono and thus they did. And they found that the existing temperature records that the earth was warming was not far off the mark from what had been previously reported.  A peer review is underway and I look forward to learning more about that when it is released.  Next up, however, for climate scientists and institutions affiliated with climate change,would be communicating openly and collectively (and maybe relentlessly) to explain how the newest findings answer questions, raise new ones and guide us as to what we need to be doing Now not Later.

Industry reputation is always changing. One of the major shifts in reputation today is the collateral damage that one company can inflict on its entire industry. Wish there was a more positive incline in how consumers see American business and government. Gallup’s recent analysis is now out and provides a look into who is up and who is down. It is no surprise that the real estate industry reputation has declined preciptiously from 2001. Even my own industry — PR — has witnessed a decline besides the fact that it is doing well.  The computer and Internet industry look like they are surviving the best with positive lifts in reputation among US consumers.  

The drop in perception of government, the deepest decline, seems to the theme of the day. To learn more about why that might be…take a look at our research on Civility in America. It says it all. [Have to add that the CEO of Yahoo, Carol Bartz, was fired via a telephone call. How civil is that? Regardless of what was happening at the company, what happened to the pink slip?]

I’ve been very busy so have not had a chance to mention two studies related to reputation that are worth reviewing.

The first one is about industry reputation which continues to intrigue me. The Harris Interactive Poll found that the most credible industries among 2,152 adult Americans are supermarkets, hospitals, banks and electric and gas utilities. They have been doing this research since 2003. Not too surprisingly but disturbing nevertheless was that when asked this question about 17 industries, a large 48% said “none of these” industries are trustworthy. This was the highest number of people saying this since 2003.  Overall, no one industry is doing particularly well and this speaks to the overall downturn in perceptions of business over the decade.

The second survey that should be on your radar is research by Nora Ganim Barnes. She has been diligently surveying Fortune 500 companies with regard to their social media usage.  Social reputation is a growing component of reputation which is why I am writing about this. This is the third survey that she has done on this topic at the Center for Marketing Research at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Here are some of her key findings for 2010 (conducted in August/September 2010) which are great to track over time.

1. One quarter (23%) of Fortune 500 companies have a public-facing corporate blog with a recent post over the past 12 months. Two years ago, only 16% had blogs so this is a healthy increase.

2.  When it comes to industries, the industries with the most blogs are computer software, peripherals and office equipment. This includes companies such as HP, Microsoft, Apple. There have been increases in blogs in the specialty retail industry (Best Buy as an example) and telecommunications as well (Verizon, AT&T).

3. About one third (32%) of top 100 ranked Fortune 500 companies had a blog, a slight dip from 38% in 2008. 

4. A whopping 90% of  Fortune 500 blogs take comments, have RSS feeds and take subscriptions. That is good news to see that these blogs are interactive and not one-way.

5.  They looked at corporate Twitter accounts (had to have tweeted in the past 30 days) and 60% had Twitter accounts, a jump up from 35% in 2009. Nine of the top 10 Fortune 500 companies had accounts and consistently posted.  Specialty retail companies were the most likely to have Twitter accounts. Since they are so consumer-facing, makes sense.

6. A fairly large 56% of the Fortune 500 companies are on Facebook. Not bad but not up to the level it should be and will be over time.

Industry reputations are still failing but social media seems to be exploding (Twitter and Facebook) among the top companies in the US.  We are witnessing the Great American Reach Out. Industry reputations could begin the climb upwards if there was greater adoption of interactivity. No doubt industries will take this seriously and jump onboard. CEOs as well will become more socialized in the years ahead.

This week I joined a panel discussion on reputation and trust at American Banker/US Banker’s The 25 Most Powerful Women in Banking national workshop.  The women in attendance were all very senior women with years of experience. I spoke about the changing world of reputation and how complex it had become. No longer are we living in a world where large corporate advertising campaigns suffice for reputation-building. Today, Google is a reputation management system not a search engine, microconstituencies are increasingly influential, the visible arm of government is no longer faint, an activist general public matters, and the media is never turned off. I talked about the radical changes in industry reputation – such as the financial sector – and how little attention is paid today to the tobacco industry compared to a decade ago where they seemed to be the only ones who did not lightly offer their employer’s name when they walked into a room. In fact, there are few industries that have been untouched by issues and stumbles today.  As part of my comments, I mentioned how CEOs and companies are perceived to manage a crisis or catastrophe impacts reputation like never before.

The workshop was terrific. I was very impressed with the senior women in the room, their words of advice and the program itself. Thanks to Barbara Rhem for making the day so meaningful, downright educational and energizing.  I think every woman there would agree. A few things stuck out.

• The regulatory environment has placed much demand on banks and other financial institutions. Many agreed that the demands required an increasing amount of time to the point that it was hard to focus on improving the bottom line.
• There is no more climbing the ladder, it is climbing the lattice. The work place is more of a web than a straight chute to the top.
• Sylvia Hewett, founding president of Center for Work-Life Policy and prolific researcher and who I admire, spoke about new research that she will be publishing soon on how women can succeed. She talked about pitfalls or tripwires that get in women’s way. She talked about women clinging to “performance” while men focus on “relationships.”  And it takes relationships to succeed. Also, women have to do better at figuring out how to use their friendships or professional relationships to get ahead and not think that they are violating their relationships. Additionally, women need to not share their ambivalence as readily as they do.
• True or not, an interesting idea. GE’s CEO was mentioned as asking executives how many loyal lieutenants they have to determine whether they have the support when things get rough or to push initiatives through.
• As sexual politics and innuendos get exposed, it is becoming increasingly difficult for male and female executives to dine together. Had not thought of that. Ugh. Someone mentioned how at one Fortune 500 company, mentoring relationships where men and women are involved now include an executive coach for that very reason.
• The need today to deal with “ambiguity” and “uncertainty” all the time today.  How we have to operate in the “grey zone.” This of course applies to men as well as women.
• The importance of boards in ferreting out risk and how women board members need to speak up and be strong when they things being done wrong.
• Many of the women I sat with or overheard mentioned how they were used to being the only woman in the room in their companies and at meetings.  Remarkable how some things never change.

       Industry reputation is critical to companies today. It is many times more important than it used to be. Years ago, one company could have its reputation damaged and it did not tarnish the reputation of its peers. Today, one rotten apple affects the entire industry which is why we now hear so much about sectors when it comes to reputation – the financial sector, the pharmaceutical sector, the oil sector, the automotive sector, etc.  The media frequently reports on various industry associations banding together to promote their reputations. Industry reputations rise and fall but whatever problems they may have, the reputation after shocks for industries seem to linger for a long time. Whereas individual companies can repair their reputation in due course, it often seems harder for industry reputations to do the same. Weber Shandwick asked this question of executives a few years ago in our Safeguarding Reputation research and found that executives the world over consider industry reputation much harder to manage than company reputation (57% vs. 39%).

Harris Interactive’s latest research on reputation among consumers asked about sector reputation.  The greatest year over year reputation improvements were seen in the retail and the automotive industries.  Of 13 industries studied, only the pharmaceutical industry declined from 2008 to 2009. The financial services sector which is often in the headlines increased which I found interesting.  Perhaps the recovery is lifting perceptions of that industry and people believe that reform and stablility is finally on its way. Maybe they feel that there have been enough apologies and it is time to move on. Hard to know without asking.

Annual RQ 2009 USA, April 2010

When it comes to overall corporate reputation, consumers are not as negative as they were one year ago, according to Harris Interactive’s research. In 2009, 81% said today’s reputation of corporate America was not good or terrible. This compares favorably to 2008 when 88% said so. Still the figures are damming.  Harris Interactive reports that the increase in perceptions of good corporate reputations in the U.S. is the first increase in four years. We will take whatever we can get.  Let the “good” times roll.

Apologies for not writing during the past week. I started a posting but this week was a long one.  I had wanted to mention a compelling article that I have been carrying back and forth in my work bag and now is a better time than ever. No surprise but it came from The Economist and the topic was about how some companies thrive in the worst of times.  Despite the challenging days and months we’ve all been through, crises give birth to opportunities and this is surely one of those times when new companies rise or established ones leap frog ahead of competitors, reputation-wise. We can all read the tea leaves on how certain companies within particular industries are facing major shake-ups as to who is on first, second and third base.

The Economist article noted a few key points that I want to commit to memory (which is why I am writing it down):

• “Recessions shake things up rather than slowing them down. They reward strengths and expose weaknesses, create new opportunities and kill old habits, release pent-up energy and destroy old business models.” Is that what is happening with Wal-Mart and Amazon fighting over $10 best-sellers? Interesting turf wars.
• Several companies thrived or arrived during the Depression — P&G, Revlon, HP, Polaroid and Pepperidge Farms. FedEx, CNN and Microsoft first breathed life during earlier recessions.
• Bain management consultants reported that twice as many companies made the jump from laggards to leaders in their industries in the early 1990s recession AND the vast majority (70%) kept that momentum going in subsequent years.  Pity the 30% who did not.
• Nothing wrong with being big (although conventional wisdom seems to think that big companies are bad and too big to fail. Why does no one remember that the largest companies employ the most people? And as follows, they manage through adversity fairly well.) “The most obvious winners are established giants: market leaders that entered the recession with cash in their pockets and sound management systems under their belts. These companies are reaping rewards from investors who are skittish about shakier rivals. They are also using their corporate muscle to squeeze their costs (for example, by negotiating cheap rates for advertising) and so win market share from their competitors. BCG, another consultancy, notes that 58% of companies that were among the top three in their industry had rising profits in 2008 and only 30% saw their profits decline. In contrast, only 21% of companies outside the top three had rising profits, and 61% had falling profits.” Makes sense then to make it hold on for dear life if you are at the top of your industry. The same goes for reputation. Being highly regarded and among the top three most admired in an industry gives companies a second and sometimes third chance. Stakeholders are willing to look the other way and continue buying your products and services. I am not so sure about a third chance however. Reputation erosion almost always sets in if the third chance is wasted.
• Challenging recessionary times also are good for repositioning a company, according to this article. Cisco is repositioning itself as the Human Network, IBM as a Smarter Planet and according to Fast Company’s recent article about Intel, they too are pushing boundaries with their new Atom mobile chip.
• The last line of the article got me: “Indeed, business is more likely to take advantage of this ‘serious crisis’ than the world’s politicians.” Let’s hope not.

Humpty Dumpty Sat on a Wall

Humpty Dumpty Had a Great Fall

All the King’s Horses

And all the King’s Men

Couldn’t Put Humpty Together Again

Seems that some company reputations are irreparable.  Nell Minow is editor of the Corporate Library and a well-known guru of corporate governance. She recently wrote an article for CNN.com about Wall Street getting what it deserved. What struck me was her keen observation (no surprise) that not only has Wall Street lost billions in people’s wealth but they have dashed all equity they had in Wall Street’s reputation as a trustworthy source of financial information and reliance. My sense is that Wall Street’s reputation will take many years to recover and regain trust. Every time I think the industry is at ground zero, I hear new bad news such as the Stanford Group. After Enron, I was fairly sure that companies would right the course and focus on values and culture. No more cowboy-anything-goes type of culture. Nell is right in saying that it sure would have helped if Wall Street  firms had taken the first steps towards placing curbs on compensation, bonuses and perks. The collateral damage on Wall Street is severe and despite the bad behavior of some, firms will rise up again. However, it would be nice to hear more about how Wall Street firms are working together to improve their industry reputation and remedy their practices so that it never happens again. Being an optimist, the cracks will mend and Humpty Dumpty will get back on his feet.