Posts Tagged ‘social media’

I have to say that the headline in today’s WSJ re the $2 billion trading loss at JPMorganChase strongly resonated with me. The title is “J.P. Morgan Trades in Its Crown.”  In our research on safeguarding reputation, we start out by summing up reputation failures among the world’s most admired this way:

 

“The last decade has seen many of the world’s most admired companies descend from their once lofty positions. They were in a class by themselves — corporate reputation royalty whose invincibility was universally accepted by business executives around the globe. No one could have predicted that these companies would ever part with their crowns. How the world has changed!”

 

It looks like we now have another major kingpin to add to our Weber Shandwick “stumble rate” analysis that we calculate every year. You can find more about it in an earlier post.  But…between 2011 and 2012, 49% of the world’s largest companies experienced a reputational stumble, up from last year’s 43% but exactly the same as 2010’s rate.  There seems to be no more untouchables among the Fortune 500 with this recent news.

 

I was also intrigued by Jamie Dimon’s remarks about what he could have done differently to have caught this $2 billion blunder earlier. Dimon’s deadpan answer was paying more attention to the “newspapers” among other things. He was referring to earlier reports in the papers about the trading problem. Have to hand it to him for taking the blame and being brutally honest in his response. He’s been true to his reputation on that count.

“In hindsight, the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed and poorly monitored. The portfolio has proven to be riskier, more volatile and less effective an economic hedge than we thought.”

Another side note of interest is that this reputation crisis did not start in social media. It has certainly taken off online but as far as we know now, there's been no social media assault that instigated this crisis. No online cloak and dagger here.

Will be interesting to see how this pans out reputation-wise. Will this tarnish the bank’s reputation for the long-term or just be a stain? No doubt it will be headline news for a while. Dimon is eminently quotable --the WSJ has his most notable quotes already listed. I hate to have to say it but another one hits the dust.

A Wall Street reputation study among marketing and communications executives at financial services firms was released this week.  When asked to rate themselves, only 34% gave themselves an above average grade while 9% gave themselves a grade of  "perfect."  Wonder who those 9% are? The remainder -- 57% -- gave themselves average or below.  The survey by Makovsky and Company had some intriguing results:

• 53% said that Occupy Wall Street impacted their business
• 71% said that Occupy Wall Street will last beyond the upcoming election
• 38% were surprised by Occupy Wall Street (time to be better prepared)
• 74% believe that increased regulation of the industry will help to improve financial service firms' reputations and rebuild trust with customers
• 81% are worried about negative perceptions that exist about executive compensation
• somewhat more than 40% believe that social media has a positive impact on their company's reputation; over half only perceive a neutral effect (fair enough)

So what's a company in the financial sector to do? According to the findings, executives believe that management leadership, quality products and service, and a focus on reputation management will help restore reputation. The killer finding is that 96% of executives agree that the industry brought the problems on themselves. You don't get too much higher than 96%. That's a outright acknowledgement. Of course, today I saw an article saying that college students are still dying to get into the financial services industry. Many are waiting to hear news of summer internships and they are eager to make their way to the the cavernous alleys of Wall Street. So be it. However, I do think that this is the time for financial services firms to hunker down and repair their reputations for the long-term. I vote "yes."

While I am on the subject of Social CEOs (see my last post), I wanted to mention a study that was released by BRANDfog, a firm that helps executives get social.  Survey respondents report that more than 80% of respondents believe that CEOs who engage on social media are better equipped than their peers to lead companies in a Web 2.0 world. What’s more, 93% of respondents believe that CEO engagement on social media helps communicate company values, and grow and evolve corporate leadership in times of crisis.  Similarly, 82 percent of survey respondents said they were more likely to trust a company whose CEO and leadership team engage in social media. Since reputation is all about trust, it sounds like the demand is there....we've just got to supply it with examples and role models.

Have been reading about corporate brands and went back to my stash of articles. The IBM CMO C-Suite studies has solid information in their report, "From Stretched to Strengthened" which was conducted among the nearly 2,000 CMOs worldwide.  Not the main focus of the research but they do report that it is no longer enough for a company to just markets its products and services. In fact, the report talks about how the character of the company is now on full display as "social media has exposed the bones beneath the skin."  Only 53% of CMOs report that their corporate character is understood in the marketplace and 57% say they have significant work ahead to get employees on board. Here is the  part that I liked best because it speaks to corporate reputation today. "For many decades, the CMO's job was to market an organization's products and services. Today, it begins with the marketing of the organization itself."  A fairly sizeable 61% said that one of the initiatives they have set for themselves ahead is to orchestrate a single view of the brand, something we call enterprise branding. When people ask me what reputation means, I always say it is all about a company's character. Glad CMOs agree.

Have Asia on my mind as I am soon airborn. A few facts and stories I just learned as I am preparing to go and talk about reputation trends. These are all China-based for now....

• In four years, more than 700 million people in China will be watching online video sites. Youku, similar to our YouTube, is one such leading site. (McKinsey Quarterly, 2011). Pretty dazzling if you ask me.
• Even during the global recession, sales of luxury goods in China rose by 16%. (McKinsey Quarterly, 2011).
• An interesting incident that caught my attention. Apparently the CEO of DangDang (China's Amazon) exploded at his bankers in a profanity-filled tirade blaming them for an IPO that undervalued his firm. The language was so profane that when reported there were alot of ****s. This all appeared on Sina Weibo, China's Twitter.  Apparently some employees of the bankers fired back on Weibo although now there are reports saying they were not employees. Whatever the story, what I found interesting is that we focus so much on social media guidelines for employees and perhaps its time to develop them for CEOs too! Not exactly a reputation-building story.

When I was researching and writing an article  on safeguarding your digital reputation for the Wall Street Journal Europe's website this week, I found this interesting article on how the International Olympic Comittee (IOC) had issued social media guidelines for "athletes and other accredited persons" for the 2012 games. Now we all know that many companies and organizations have such guidelines, but this was different in that the IOC made it clear it would be monitoring online content and would withdraw accreditation "without notice, at the discretion of the IOC, for purposes of ensuring compliance with these Guidelines."  That will surely keep athletes and any other accredited individuals from using social media for commercial purposes and harming the reputation of the games and committee. At first I thought this was a bit harsh but on second thought, many companies and organizations monitor what employees are saying but don't outright admit it. Sounds like the IOC is being very transparent about keeping its reputation clear. I only wish they had defined "accredited" persons.  They have a definition of terms at the end of the guidelines but do not define what it exactly means. I assume they mean third-parties but I did not have much luck online figuring it out either. Does that mean only third-parties must follow the social policies set forth? What about fourth or fifth parties -- meaning four or five degrees of separation away from the first and second parties? I guess I am getting too technical and asking too many questions. But I think it would help to know if a vendor or supplier is an accredited person of interest! Anyhow, please read my article on digital defense and the five essential tips to safeguarding your reputation.

    Twitterologies. Is there such a word? I doubt it.  The CEO of Vodacom, Pieter Uys, apologized for outages via Twitter (@uyspj). Despite the inconvenience to Vodacom subscribers, the CEO is getting good marks for his simple apology. While it was happening, Uys was tweeting to customers about what he could do for them and kept in continuous contact. He tweeted the following:

"I do care for every one of our customers. What happened today was not acceptable. I'll work hard to make you smile again." "Words can't express how sorry I am about today's problem. Flat out working at making sure all is 100%. Pieter." "At the network switch with the engineers. All looks OK now. If you still have a problem, please switch phone off and on."

Fairly simple way to tell your customers you care. And that you are there. Helps to keep your company reputation intact.

  Lawyers and communications specialists seem at times to inhabit entirely different worlds.  This is something that I've often thought about but has received little attention in the public relations and legal counsels' worlds. So it's time to think about this new trend in reputation managment that can help companies managing crises and issues better. Consider this example I was told that has to do with the comments of one anxious general counsel reviewing his company's first few Tweets.  "Looks good but you have a typo at the end," the in-house counsel warned the communications officer.  The more socially-savvy communications person quickly replied that the so-called typo -- a colon and closed parenthesis -- was none other than that now nearly universal icon ... the smiley face :). Of course, not all general counsels are so unfamiliar with standard and new social media customs and practices.  However, companies can no longer afford a disconnect between legal and communications.  In times of crisis, particularly, the general counsel  (GC) and chief communications officer (CCO) represent two departments often at odds with one another.  Lawyers typically urge minimal or even no public comment out of fear that admissions might damage a company’s case in a court of law, while communications professionals typically demand prompt public comment, even a CEO apology, to avoid further damage to a company’s reputation in the court of public opinion. As the “information age” produces one corporate crisis after another and social media zingers multiply at alarming speed, everyone is responsible for keeping a watchful eye on defending company reputation as well as protecting against slander, libel and other legal  difficulties. Despite decidedly different approaches, GCs and CCOs are now both finding themselves participating in the same “reputation management” strategy meetings and conference calls.  They now have no choice but to trust and understand each other. Here are three ways that these corporate officers can get on the same page:

1. Socialize.   Instead of dealing with problems incident by incident, start strengthening the relationship between GC and CCO by getting them to the table to jointly craft the company’s social media policy and guidelines.  Only about one-third of companies have such policies which leaves plenty of seats left for the two departments to fill. Agreeing to and understanding the needs of the other and providing for thoughtful compromise ahead of time can only help protect against trade secret violations, adverse publicity, confidential leaks and inadvertent disclosures about employee departures and misbehavior. Companies with employees who know  what’s allowable and not allowable on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and blogs because the GC and CCO have cooperated will save their companies sudden embarrassment and reinforce continued cooperation between the departments.
2. Scenario Plan.  The time to build mutual respect is before reputation risk knocks at the door. Best practice requires getting  GCs and CCOs together with CEOs, HR, IT officers and others to rehearse various best and worst case scenarios, online and offline.  After a few sessions of rapid response simulations (we have an online simulation crisis drill called Firebell to do exactly this),  GCs and CCOs will have the opportunity to work out obstacles and craft prepared statements to hypothetical crises that will give them a head start should real crises occur.
3. Value Set.  Anchor both communications and legal concerns to the company's core values. The values by which a company operates serves as the grease that reduces the natural friction between legal and communications best practices.  Both departments need to consistently call up company values – for example, integrity, good governance and customer always comes first – as the standard by which any legal or communications decision is judged.  Once the primacy of company values is accepted as the ground rule, cooperation between GCs and CCOs can be more easily facilitated.

 No doubt you have heard about icorrect.com -- the web site that sets the record straight about rumors and hearsay. The website says that it  is about protecting " one’s reputation in cyberspace forever." ICorrect was started by the founder of Shanghai Tang, the terrifically classy and expensive department store chain. Since I was recently in China, I certainly did not pass up the opportunity to drop into Shanghai Tang and admire all its beautiful apparel and items. It is known as a luxury lifestyle brand.  Sir David, the founder and businessman, began this web site to help people clear up misinformation that lives permanently on the Internet. Several well-known celebrities and luminaries have taken to clearing their records. Anyone can view the corrections although to post costs $1,000 annually. There are posts from Cherie Blair, Sienna Miller and Michael Cain. I do wonder if they are actually took the trouble to post these corrections but it seems to be the case.  Here is an example -- the accusation followed by the correction.

Accusation: Kate Moss to make her acting debut in Shakespeare's The Tempest

Kate Moss is taking the acting world by storm - making her stage debut in the Tempest. The supermodel, 36, has landed a minor role as a nymph in an upcoming version of Shakespeare's play. It follows a series of meetings and phone calls with Kevin Spacey who is overseeing the production as part of the Bridge project at London's Old Vic. Our spy tells us: "Kate has had several acting lessons and is keen to broaden her.......

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.