Posts Tagged ‘reputation’

Interesting news today from my very own Weber Shandwick. We are releasing a study today called Socializing Your Brand: A Brand's Guide to Sociability that we did with Forbes Insights.  The survey was among nearly 2,000 marketing and communications executives with digital responsibility in 50 countries worldwide. As a reputation maven, I have to share the interesting insight about reputation. According to the study, global brand executives believe that sociability is growing rapidly as a contributor to a brand’s overall reputation, from 52 percent today with a projected estimate of 65 percent three years from now.  Thus having a vibrant and thoughtful online presence is not for the weak-hearted brands. 52% is a substantial estimate which is only going to grow. So for all those brands out there wishing to be world class, go get social. Check out the survey.

The new CSR Index from Boston College and Reputation Institute is out.  Katherine Smith, executive director of the Carroll School of Management Center for Corporate Citizenship at Boston College, remarked, "Reputation is now widely accepted as a valuable intangible asset for firms, and as such it is an aspect of business that is earning increasing interest and attention from the C-suite and board. It is an indicator of how strongly connected consumers are to a brand. The effectiveness of a company's reputation management will influence the bottom line — in either a positive or negative manner." A total of 285 companies were measured among the general public for their best corporate citizenship reputations in the U.S. Interestingly, there was a decline in ratings (2011's top rating of 80.59 vs. 82.67 in 2010) speaks to the higher expectations placed on companies and greater skepticism about business in general. The continuing scandals, CEO ousters, board malfeasance, strategic missteps, etc. is now placing an equally intense spotlight on integrity and governance issues as it does on corporate social responsbility.  Additionally, I have been asked more than once whether CSR is fading in importance as the economy sours and the world seems to be in one big funk.  My answer is that it is probably more important than ever that companies step in to make a difference and commit to creating a better world. I think that citizenship is tablestakes today.

Globalization. Everything is different and everything is the same. In an interview with the Dean of Harvard Business School, Nitrin Nohria noted: "When I came to Harvard Business School in the 1980s, the vast majority of people were interested in studying America, because this is where they hoped to have job opportunities. As late as 1988, when I joined, less than 5% of our case [studies] were outside of the United States. Last year more than a third of our cases were global." Similarly, Fortune's Most Admired Companies survey used to be broken into the America's Most Admired and World's Most Admired lists as if they were two different beasts. Fortune now combines them into one big list of the World's Most Admired and rightfully so. As we are seeing with the ups and downs of the stock market, we are all interconnected. The reputation of UBS or Sony or Procter & Gamble matters the world over. Global everything is on my mind because I am off to Asia to give a speech on reputation and how to build it, safeguard it and defend it. I've been catching up on how reputation plays out in Asia Pacific so that I can be a bit more relevant to my audience. As I am preparing, an article I found struck me as a good example of how things are the same and yet different. As a keen observer on how reputations get damaged in a crisis, I am always on the lookout for estimates of that damage.  A recent article provided me with some valuable information on how Chinese companies perform when scandal touches them. Scandal plays out slightly differently in China and on their balance sheets than it does in the US and Europe/EMEA. An academic study examined hundreds of scandals linked to companies traded on the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges between 1997 and 2005. Revelations of financial fraud and various other similar crimes, such as embezzlement and kickbacks, definitely impacted share price as it does in the US.  The researchers found, however, that to really create a cataclysmic collapse of a company's stock among Chinese companies, there had to be an additional element. "The study found that companies caught up in mere accounting scandals saw their shares drop by an average of 8.8% over the six months on either side of the incident. In those involving the bribery of government officials or theft of state assets, on the other hand, the stock fell by almost a third." As they conclude, "In China and other less developed markets....business is done on the basis of political and social relationships, not numbers."  Companies are all impacted by financial scandal but if you undermine the government in China or any of its officials, expect that your financial damage will be compounded by losing discounted financing, access to trusted suppliers, loss of customers, land acquisitions and other benefits that can come with good government relations. Thus, being on good terms with government is critical to success in China. In many ways, this is also becoming the norm in the US as government plays a more visible hand in business affairs.

As I mentioned in my WSJ Europe post on tips on defending your digital reputation, video has taken off and is an excellent means of communications and telling your business narrative for CEOs. Especially for getting CEOs comfortable with social media in general. As I quoted in the article, 75% of Internet traffic will be video this year. In our research on Socializing Your CEO, we talk about the benefits of using video for your CEO, particularly the ones who are wary of too much attention and visibility. Therefore I nodded to myself when I read about the major expansion of the WSJ's video unit. Now it is producing 3 1/2 hours of live daily programming. I did not realize that the Journal produces more live video than other newspapers in the US. I think we will be seeing a WSJ business network soon that rivals CNBC (who they partner with) and Fox (their parent company's network).  Will be interesting to watch and as I said, a good opportunity for CEOs as well. How much trouble can you get in three minutes live?

Short note for a busy Friday afternoon. This was in my alert inbox on reputation. I had to chuckle.

Indeed, Brandseye, an online reputation management service (“reputation” is the new catchword for companies once called marketers, PRs and media managers)....

I can attest that reputation is not a "new" catchword. It has been around for a long long time. It is just that the world has caught up with us reputation pioneers.

Last night I could not help but wonder how the huge decline in the Dow of 500+ points was a reflection on the perceived reputation of the U.S. government as well as the country itself. I was not at all surprised to see a poll today that expressed basically the same thing. Here is what I knew to be true as I turned in last night: almost three-quarters of the American public believe that the congressional debate over the debt ceiling agreement has harmed the worldwide image of the United States . And a whopping 82% say that the debate was all about political advantage, not what is best for the country. The reputation of the US has been severely bruised in the eyes of its own citizens and certainly around the world. We have plenty of reputation repair to do if distrust of government becomes the new normal. Whereas most companies and their leaders recognize that reputation is essential to their success today, our dueling political parties have yet to truly acknowledge how all the rancor and incivility is a vote from the daily majority about their behavior and decision-making. For more on civility in America, please click here for Weber Shandwick's recent poll. As I looked into people's somber faces last night as I subwayed home, I could not stop thinking about how the American public had given the reputation of the US a solid "thumbs down" on confidence in this country's future. You don't even need a poll to tell you what we already learned from the Dow. Reputation rules whether it's related to a company, a brand, an individual, an organization or a country. We cannot afford more reputation erosion on our country's reputation. In addition to a bipartisan committee on how to reduce the debt, I think that we should be calling for a task force on restoring our reputation for the long-term.  As more people tune out of government, as we learned in our survey, the harder it will be to build back America's reputation for getting things done.

Although I am addicted to reputation-related matters and to the word "reputation" itself, I am getting the strange feeling that reputation is the new green, as they say. Everywhere I turn and on everybody's lips is that one word. It is only 10 letters but carries much more heft than a $10 bill, $100 or otherwise. It is not easy to type quickly and I would not say that it rolls off the tongue. It has been around for a long time although it suddenly seems new. It certainly is the word for our new tumultuous decade that sees reputations toppled overnight. So just to see if it's me who thinks reputation has become ubiquitious because I have reputation-antenna, I went to do a simple search.  (As you know, one of my favorite quotes is that Google or Bing are not search engines but reputation management systems.) Guess what, is not just me who sees "reputation" everywhere I turn. In the first 7 months of 2011 (up to today's date, reputation surfaced 458,000,000 hits when searched. During the same time period in 2010, one year ago, reputation yielded 55,300,000 hits. That's a 728% increase.  Reputation is red hot. I think it will only continue to be on fire.

A lot interests me about the Rupert Murdoch and News Corp unfolding crisis. But two things are on my mind. One is a quote that I have used from Murdoch in articles or such: " Reputation's worth more than the last hundred million dollars."  The second is that Murdoch has not used the "reputation" word in his comments although the only female in this drama, Rebekah Brooks, has. She said the following in her resignation letter: "The reputation of the company we love so much, as well as the press freedoms we value so highly, are all at risk."  Let's see who uses it next. Update... 7-16 Just read that Murdoch said that the da mage to News Corp' reputation  is “nothing that will not be recovered" and that “We have a reputation of great good works in this country." More to come.

First, happy Memorial Day to those of us in the US. And many thanks to those who have fought valiantly in defense of the USA!  We are honored. Turning now to reputational matters on my mind, I was thinking about reputation rankings over the long three day weekend. I happily concluded that our national obsession with rankings is actually a good thing.  Although I often  post about the endless number of top 10 and "best of" lists that quantify the meaningless to the meaningful, there is a silver lining to our rankings mania.  Companies -- in all regions -- work hard to be admired. Instead of complaining about the information fog we now live in brought on my all this quantification, I realize that we are lucky to have them in the first place. These reputation yardsticks help to challenge companies to measure up reputationally or move out!  Companies, from good to great, want to be seen as the most admired, most respected, most reputable and be chosen over their peers. The end result is good for us all  because companies now must regularly apply their resources to being good corporate citizens, best places to work, good quality providers, etc.  And what could be wrong with that.  Just a thought for the lovely weekend that we are having here in the US and thanks again to those who have made Memorial Day what it is.

  Last night I was asked how long I had been blogging. I threw out a number without thinking about it.  However, since I was not sure, I went online to determine how long it might actually be and I was curious about whether I had hit an anniversary of sorts. Should I be celebrating my 5th or 8th or 10th year anniversary of blogging about reputation? My first web site was CEOgo.com.   I defined it as "The premier site on chief executive officers, leadership and management trends." Actually, there was no other comparable site so I could have easily said it was "The site on chief executive officers, leadership and management trends."  CEOgo is no longer live since it was closed down after I left my previous position and I joined Weber Shandwick, starting anew with reputationXchange.  I started CEOgo in February 2000 (according to when it was registered) which answers my question on how long I've been blogging -- 11+ years. Who would have thought I had so much to say on CEOs, CEO reputation, corporate reputation, CEO transitions, leadership and all things reputation-related. CEOgo was the site to go to on CEO turnover, whether CEOs were insiders or outsiders, average tenure, reasons for departure, reputation-building, etc.  It certainly chronicled my thought leadership in this area and eventually rolled itself all up into my book, CEO Capital. And although much has changed (the more common division of the Chairman and CEO role for one), much has stayed the same. It is among the hardest jobs there is, next to being President of the U.S. I have anniversaries on my mind today because I am looking at my five-year anniversary at Weber Shandwick. Although I like to think that annniversaries come and go and corporate life has its good-and-plenty ups and downs, I have to say that my past half decade at Weber Shandwick has been fulfulling, productive and full of pleasurable surprises. The leadership and collegiality are truly the real deal and I am thankful for what I have been encouraged to accomplish. And I have also been lucky enough to work with Liz and Jen who make all the difference to my ability to face those very early mornings that are my habit. It is important not to let important milestones just pass -- whether 11 years of blogging about reputation or 5 years at Weber Shandwick. I consider myself lucky.