Entries from March 2008
According to a recent survey conducted by consultancy CoreBrand – Microsoft is rapidly losing credibility and mindshare with business users.
Its CoreBrand Power 100 2007 study , which polled about 12,000 U.S. business decision-makers showed that Microsoft dropped from number 12 in the ranking of the most powerful U.S. company brands in 2004 to number 59 last year. In 1996, the company ranked number 1 in brand power among 1,200 top companies in about 50 industries, said James Gregory, CEO of CoreBrand.
Read the full article at Infoworld
What I found most interesting is the criteria that CoreBrand uses. They measure brand power using four criteria.
1. Familiarity – It first rates the familiarity of a company’s brand.
Once a company has a certain level of familiarity, they are ranked according to three “attributes of favorability”:
2. Overall Reputation,
3. Perception of management and,
4. Investment potential.
James Gregory said that while Microsoft’s brand is still eminently recognizable, the company is declining in all three favorable attributes for a number of years now and that is worrying, he said.
What I found most revealing in the article was that it took IBM – 10 YEARS to to rebuild the brand’s reputation, after its decline in the 90’s. This is in line with international research that shows that it can take anything from 3 – 12 years to rebuild a reputation.
And what does Microsoft need to remake their reputation – A clearer vision & strong visible leadership.
Once reputation goes, it is not easily restored.
Categories: Brands · Reputation · reputation risk
So your organization professes that stakeholder relations is a priority for it.
So what % of PR expenditure are you spending on which stakeholder? What % of training budget are you spending on teaching managers to maximise relationships with stakeholders?
PR expenditure – is expenditure on attempting to influence perceptions of the organisation. What we try and do in stakeholder reputation work is to influence perceptions and ultimately affect stakeholder behaviour. Spending money on these relationships are not wasted. Spending money on learning how to maximise these relationships are not a waste.
We want stakeholders to act in a positive manner towards our organization. This means that we have to also measure their level of satisfaction in the relationship.
Analysis of this measure should include comparison of trends in the level of expenditure levels on stakeholder relations with trends in stakeholder satisfaction. This will provide the organisation with an understanding of the effectiveness of the ‘manage relations with stakeholders’ process and the efficiency with which it utilises its resources.
Since stakeholders differ and have different requirements, the resources required to manage relations with them will be different.
However it is necessary to measure the level of spending, impact and satisfaction. For example it takes investment and expenditure to build relationships with the media. If an organization does not deem this necessary and does not spend adequate resources on advertising and media relations, they only have themselves to blame when the time comes for a crisis and things go wrong.
Measurement of the level of expenditure on the management of relations with stakeholders provides an indication of the commitment to improving these relationships and assesses the efficiency of the ‘manage relations with stakeholders’ process.
Training managers to understand these processes and methodologies are not a waste, but an essential expenditure in building positive lasting stakeholder relations that can only benefit the organization.
Categories: Corporate Communications · HR · PR · Reputation · Stakeholder Management
I received this mail last night which should be of interest to all Reputation Managers.
The Research Network for Business Sustainability recently held a dialogue
forum on valuing business sustainability. The speakers and participants – 30
managers, 20 academics, and 15 government and NGO leaders – offered insights
on sustainability valuation from various perspectives.
These insights are summarized in a report available at
www.sustainabilityresearch.org/Docs/ValuingForumReport.pdf.
Highlights include:
- Thirty-five years of research shows that there is a small,
positive relationship between superior corporate social performance and
corporate financial performance; more importantly, there is no financial
penalty.
- Mainstream investors are starting to incorporate environmental,
social, and governance parameters into their investment decision-making
processes.
- Various tools are available to help managers put dollar values to
sustainability activities. For example, financial valuation analyses such as
discounted cash flow, economic value-added, and rules of thumb, can help
translate social activities in dollar values.
- Too often, managers ask ‘how much’ and ‘how far to go’ on
sustainability. This traps them in the old trade-off paradigm. Instead, they
should ask ‘why,’ which will encourage them to understand how sustainability.
- Activities can generate value for the firm and better position the firm to
harvest that value through innovation.
- While most consumers express support of corporate sustainability
initiatives, their behaviour in the marketplace often does not support this
view. Managers can influence customer behaviour more effectively by
adjusting the context in which they sell, rather than promoting a product’s
social attributes.
I quite like the emphasis on the asking of the "Why" question. In business we do tend to tell people what to do and how to do it, but we often forget the importance of selling the true and real benefits of a process.
Sustainable practices do have an outcome. Maybe not direct, but it impacts on corporate reputation. Look at the highlight – investors are starting to incorporate the triple-bottom line into their thinking & decision-making processes.
Quite simple, really! Do you invest in a company that soils the environment, kill people and have other scandals attached to their name? I don’t think so, unless there is a calculated risk and you believe that you can make a difference.
All in all, it makes for interesting reading!
One quote got my attention as well:“A future-oriented perspective of reporting is emerging to project future performance and value creation.” Alan Willis
Corporate Reputation is also based on future projections – I do business with you because of what I have heard about you. I put my trust in you. That is future focused thinking.
Categories: Corporate Responsibility · Reputation · reputation risk
An article in this morning’s Star newspaper entitled "Adopt New York Crime Solution" caught my attention.
Justin Foxton, a Durban – based businessman and founder of the Stop Crime Say Hello campaign, is a proponent of the Broken Window Theory developed by US criminologists in the 1980’s.The theory uses the analogy that if a broken window in a building is left unrepaired for an extended period of time, the rest of the windows in the building will, over time, suffer the same fate.
That theory applies to crime, in that it is perpetuated in areas where there is disorder and disrespect.
Feng Shui experts talk about the fact that clutter and broken items destroy energy and the flow of positive chi.
I guess the same applies to companies, where little things are ignored. Where near misses are ignored and small fires not seen as indicative of bigger problems lurking in the wing.
Where issues are seen as trivial.
Are there broken windows in your organization? Do you let the little things slide in your department?
Take a look at your windows! Maybe they need repair or cleaning!
Categories: Corporate Responsibility · Crisis Management · Issues Management
It is time again to enter the BEST Employers South Africa survey. This annual HR research & PR project is an ideal opportunity to benchmark an organization’s human resources processes and measure reputation success.
The ability to attract and retain human capital is one of the criteria of developing a sustainable reputation. By entering this survey – now in its tenth year, an organization can find out how they rate compared to their peers and best practice in industry.
Participating in surveys can:
- Credibly position your organization as an employer of choice
- Show the value of HR as a strategic business driver
- Identify gaps in an organization’s reputation building approach and assist in closing them
- Identify international and local trends to keep your HR practices current
For more information:
Visit http://www.bestcompaniestoworkfor.co.za
As a reputation management consultant, I highly recommend this participation. Developing a reputation as an employer of choice is no light task but absolutely essential.
Best companies attract top talent. Top talent innovate better and offer more value. Ultimately the organization will develop a superior reputation. It is a relatively simple formula.
A Good example of a company that used this type of survey is the banking group ABSA. They moved their position ranking from 20th to eventually No. 1 – for 2 years in a row. They even wrote a book about it called the Employee Brand.
Sure it took a lot of investment, but why did Barclays acquire the organization? Was it because of financial fit only or because of the people element? It is well known that in any Merger and acquisition the most difficult thing is to get the people element to blend.
Was this mere coincidence?
It is your choice to participate! Not participating does come with a cost. At least consider it with an open mind.
Categories: HR · PR · Reputation · Stakeholder Management · Surveys
Astana, the team of defending champion Alberto Contador, was among those not invited to compete in the 2008 Tour de France today.
Two American teams, Slipstream and High Road, were invited to take part in the Tour. It is the first time more than one U.S. team has been invited to the world’s most prestigious cycling race.
The Amaury Sport Organization announced Thursday the 20 teams invited to the premier race. Last month, ASO excluded Astana from its races this year because of doping violations in the last two years. As a result, the Tour de France in July will start without Contador.
Read more at:http://sports.espn.go.com/oly/cycling/news/story?id=3303184&campaign=rss&source=ESPNHeadlines
Apparently Astana are upset, because other clouded teams are allowed to take part.
Shame! The other teams acted immediately upfront when there were alleged impropriety. They realized their reputation were that important.
I guess winning at all cost does come with a price. The price of losing your reputation.
Protecting reputations sometimes demands drastic action. If I recall correct Rabobank did that when they fired Michael Rasmussen. Their timing was more appropriate – isn’t that a time trial concept? – although they left it a bit late!
There are so many lessons for management teams from this, as follows:
1. Act before it is too late
2. Deal with issues before they become full scale crises
3. Understand the value and nature of reputation. What do you value the most?
4. Learn the art and science of Reputation Risk Root Cause Analysis. Astana could have acted long before.
Categories: Crisis Management · Issues Management · Reputation · reputation risk
The latest version of Powerlines, my strategic reputation newsletter is now ready for your reading pleasure. The 77th edition contains a number of articles that will be of real interest to you, if you believe that reputation is your organization’s largest asset and risk at any one time.
First of all I feature an article on Consumer rights and expectations, then I provide some interesting thoughts on assumption blindness and developing stakeholder dashboards, there is an article about Crisis Leadership in Stormy seas , finishing off with an input on how people are using Twitter to stay in touch.
There are also details of my latest round of popular public workshops, including information regarding a new program. This may be of interest to you, if you are keen to add to your existing competencies, and finally there are some interesting links to useful resources and stories that you may find useful.
If you would like to receive a copy, just send an e-mail to deonbin@icon.co.za
If you are on Facebook, Twitter or IM, please send me your details, so that we can start to communicate in real-time, that is if you are interested.
Categories: Crisis Management · Reputation · Stakeholder Management
