Reputation World

Reputationovski - now there's a challenge

2008-01-17T09:40:00.000Z

So Christmas is finally over, the tree (now bald) has found its way into the garden to appear sad and forgotten until Easter when it'll finally find its way to the local refuse site. But in the wonderful world of international relations, there's no let up in the horn-locking that goes on between the countries of this fair world of ours.

So the latest contestants in the ring are Britain and Russia who appear to have dusted off an old copy of Two Tribes by Frankie Goes to Hollywood (look it up on YouTube) and are trying to bring it into the 21st Century. In a bizarre turn of events, the Russian authorities decided to wade into one of the British diplomatic offices in Moscow and....err....close it down. Now the British Foreign Secretary is claiming that the dispute will "hurt Russia's reputation".

Now, correct me if I'm wrong Mr M, but precisely what would that reputation be ? I do feel that people in the public eye, and this extends to the popular press too, are all too quick to play the reputation card, almost like everyone walks round with a reputation rating inscribed on their foreheads ("I'm better than you" - that sort of thing). Sure, there are cases where an objective appraisal of reputation would result in a broad consensus that reputation is either good or bad (usually the latter) but that's almost impossible to do with a country. It's just too complex and contains far too many dimensions to make such a statement meaningful and, further more, is more or less meaningless since it is impossible to convert it into any sort of tangible value because it's so hard to compare it to anything.

So Russia's reputation is on the slide ? So what.

I'm often asked in my line of work how you can contextualise reputation, and the honest answer is that you have to boil it down to aspects of personality (corporate or personal - doesn't matter) that matter to the reputation in question. And those aspects can only really come from the person or corporation themselves. It's not for the humble likes of you or I to decide that a company should be carbon neutral, for example. That needs to be the company's decision.

I intend to step this one up a level and start a comparison of the reputations of planets. Or trees. Or lamp posts. Or politicians....

Waiter, there's some data in my soup

2007-12-18T12:53:00.000Z

OK, firstly an apology for being rather quiet on my blog recently. Christmas and work seem to be conspiring against me. But something in the press really fired me into action.

It actually started when one of my colleagues at work asked me to write a piece on "best practices in data management" (stop yawning at the back...). It's a topic I know well having worked for many years in data-centric environments. But as I wrote my epic it occurred to me that some of the fundamentals around data, and in particular data privacy, are more grounded in individual awareness than they are in corporate protocols or policy making. When it comes down to it, in today's world people just simply need to be more aware of data, what it means to them, and what they need to do about helping it remain in the right hands. Data is simply part of life now, in the same way as food, water or The Archers.

The recent debacles in the UK around losing sensitive data really do illustrate this point very, very well. Clearly, those involved have little awareness of what data means and how it needs to be protected or, quite simply, they would never have done what they did. If you asked them whether they would be happy posting the entire contents of their wallet - cash and cards - in an unrecorded letter then I would be amazed if anyone would say yes. But because data is a big mish-mash of text and numbers (usually sitting on a rather dull looking CD-ROM) then somehow people completely miss the value of it. It's obviously too intangible for most people to get their heads around. Yet, as I say, data is simply part of everyone's life now. We've opened Pandora's Data Box and we should just get our heads around what it means. And that means you, me and everyone else need to understand that data is both important and valuable, especially where it relates directly to us. And, in many respects, it is potentially even more valuable than cash and cards.

Now where did I put that envelope.....

Gordon Bean

2007-11-29T10:00:00.000Z

There comes a time in the lifespan of a reputation where you must consider cutting your losses. PR gurus wax lyrical about their Phoenix-building expertise and how even the most damaged of reputations can be revived with a bit of effort. But even those in the lofty heights of PR land must be wringing their hands about poor old Gordon Brown.

It must have come as a bit of a shock to the House yesterday when Vince Cable compared Gordon Brown (the Prime Minister of one of the richest countries in the Western world, don't forget) to Mr Bean. More particularly, he noted Brown's "remarkable transformation in the past few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean". Now, apart from that being a bit of a blunt insult, it does reflect a more serious undercurrent that Brown is a bumbling and inept fool, a view being held by an increasing proportion of the population.

Is this a lost cause ? I think not. Sure, he's had a bit of a rough ride of late but in the grand scheme of things its no worse than some of the japes that Blair was involved in, and certainly hasn't cost the country anywhere near as much as the whole Iraq debacle. Furthermore, people - journalists especially - have very short memories, conveniently forgetting how strongly Brown managed the economy for quite a number of years.

If I was Johnny Spin in charge of Brown's reputation, I'd be doing everything I can to build up his profile in the areas in which he is unquestionably strong, and let the tabloids do their short-term thing coming up with new and innovative Bean-esque headlines. There'll soon be something else to feed their vitriol allowing Brown to get on with the job. Just ask Steve Mclaren....

Alphabetti Spaghetti Job Titles

2007-11-16T15:32:00.000Z

I remember when I started out in my career that the whole existence of the "Chief-Something-Officer" just didn't really hit the radar. Everything was about "Directors", with the epitome of one's career being the "Managing Director". How times change, heavily influenced (yet again) from our illustrious friends from across the pond. From the Chief Executive Officer stable came Financial and Marketing variants, closely followed by Information and Knowledge. Then banks came out with a Risk variant, post-911.

Now, hot on the heels of the sub-prime credit crunch comes the Chief Reputation Officer at Merrill Lynch. Fabulous. How do you write a job description for that one ?

What is most important to understand is what the very existence of such a role says about the company employing such a nebulous executive. Is it effectively saying that everyone else doesn't need to worry about reputation because Johnny PR has it all covered ? I firmly believe that, in today's online world, it is everyone's responsibility to defend a company's reputation, not just the senior management or, in this case, the CRO. But in a world where CSR is becoming such a hot topic, why shouldn't there be an equivalent and equally important initiative around Corporate Reputation ? Surely it's in everyone's interests to elevate and maintain a respectable and moral reputation for today's corporations. And it is the acts of the masses that can make a difference, not poor old Mr CRO at Merrill Lynch.

Raising The Stakes In Your Next Career Move

2007-10-29T14:06:00.000Z

In today's world of online job searching sites it is more likely that your next board position will not be posted anywhere, with The Sunday Times being perhaps the most obvious exception

"We now live in a world where data proliferates online at an unprecedented rate."

Senior positions are the realm of that nebulous and often misunderstood world of 'Search and Select'. Those in the search business rely on deep-rooted networks of senior contacts to recommend, coerce and hopefully poach their candidate from their current position, often for substantial fees.

There are a number of criteria on which they base their judgement as to whether they have the right candidate. A major factor is familiarity of the market, of the movers and shakers in that industry and of people who can reach likely candidates. Reputation, or at least public perception of the candidate's successes, becomes very relevant. This will be backed up by an appropriately worded CV, interviews and possible background checks.

Traditional background checks for very senior appointments tend not to look very deeply, largely because the candidate is almost certainly well known in his sphere of business already. But we now live in a world where data proliferates online at an unprecedented rate and social commentary about everyone and everything is becoming commonplace.

ONLINE BACKGROUND

Search firms are now turning increasingly to the online world as a valuable source of information to add 'colour' to a prospective candidate’s background, with this interrogation of data, especially across social media, providing dimensions to an applicant’s character that previously would have been unseen.

Data may reveal how staff regarded them, competence as a public speaker and leadership skills. Someone may even use today’s blogsphere to reveal other, more revealing information. Such issues may be addressed and search firms find this very interesting.

But this should not be interpreted as the portent of doom, nor should the budding chief executive fear this data backdrop. It is simply a reflection of the world we live in today; a world where people's willingness to capture their thoughts, beliefs and frustrations are ever-more frequent. We have truly opened Pandora's Box in allowing everyman to express their views online so now we should simply engage in that environment, understand it and use it to our advantage where possible.

"Social commentary about everyone and everything is becoming commonplace."

So what should a proactive CEO do? To quote an old cliché, be prepared: know what people are saying about you and know which of them matter. Whether you set up a few simple Google Alerts, or engage an external reputation monitoring service for your business, you need to have an early warning system that allows you to be the first to know when a potentially damaging story comes out. If needed, the usual PR and corporate governance processes can kick in to represent your side. Make sure you are transparent and responsive.

WEB AWARE

But before one of these stories emerge, make sure you know which are the influential writers and which can be quietly ignored – be they traditional journalists or bloggers. Carry out an audit of all the traditional and online media in your industry, keeping a list of the top ten or 20 most influential. If one of them mentions you or your company, pay attention and respond if appropriate. But remember that your top 20 may change each week.

For the more web-savvy, you can respond via a corporate or CEO blog. however this is not for everyone. Some people are not natural writers and others run the risk of their blogs looking too edited or sanitised and therefore not the natural views of the writer.

Whichever method of communication you are most comfortable with, engaging your customers and employees early on is the best way to avoid an avalanche of criticism - and potentially losing that great job.

This article was first published in Chief Executive Magazine, a reprint of which can be found here.

The long and winding road

2007-10-22T15:42:00.000+01:00

How many people remember Gerald Ratner ? Anyone who does probably remembers him for one thing - the fact that he very publicly destroyed the Ratner brand, literally overnight.

The Sunday Times published an excerpt from his forthcoming book, which is the story of the circumstances of this quite astounding corporate suicide, and what happened next. What is quite interesting is Ratner's observation that, 16 years on, the ridicule he suffered still hurts. Well, that hurt is certainly something that he'll live with for the rest of his life, but what about his reputation ? There have certainly been some phenomenal bounce-backs from public ridicule in recent years. Jonathan Aitken, Jeffrey Archer and Neil Hamilton (OK, maybe not) spring to mind, but in all cases they were the brand, and it was their public reputation that was under threat. This is wholly different, because it involves gaining the public's trust to buy your products. And when the very person who gave his name to the brand says they are rubbish, and furthermore that the buying public are idiots if they buy there again, there can really only be one outcome.

I have to admit that I have only read the Times article, not the whole book (yet - it comes out on 1st November) so can't really comment much further than that, but I wonder whether there are some cases where damaged reputations are just irretrievable. Or whether the public's memory of what happened is such that, 16 years on, their memories of what happened are substantially less than Mr Ratner himself. Perhaps his book can shed some light on that answer to that, but given his Ratner Online site doesn't appear to be challenging Ernest Jones or H Samuel (the brands that Ratners turned into when Ratner was ejected from the board), the evidence would suggest not.

For those that want to read the article, click here.

Reputation on the line

2007-10-10T14:32:00.001+01:00

The CEO blog is a well-established phenomenon in the US, with up to 70% of large companies having one. And their UK counterparts are catching up. Blogging, for those not yet in the know, is the internet equivalent of writing a diary, but with each entry being available to millions of readers.

The online world is undergoing a revolution, fuelled by consumer-driven-content sites such as MySpace and YouTube, which allow users to post their videos, pictures and views. Where the internet was once all about downloading, we are now seeing a culture shift and people are creating data like never before.

THE NEW CONSUMPTION DYNAMIC

"A recent survey showed that 94% of consumers value opinion as highly as advertising."

This new world of online opinion – also known as 'citizen journalism' – is changing how individuals interact with companies and their brands, and how they purchase and form perceptions. And traditional PR and marketing urgently need to adapt to this emerging trend. A recent survey showed that 94% of consumers value opinion as highly as advertising when selecting products.

Ultimately, this is shaping how reputations are built, altered, improved or destroyed. While corporate reputation is becoming an essential component of success, the online effect of public opinion can create worldwide fame and notoriety in a matter of minutes, and can destroy a brand in a matter of days.

So, even if you don't 'live' in the world of blogs or have never visited a chat room, you can't afford to ignore them. There is no 'truth checker'. Blogs can be anonymous – and dangerous.

BLOGGING YOUR OWN VIRTUES

This phenomenon isn't limited to the under-25s. It was estimated that by the end of 2006, 70% of large companies in the US had an official blog, often contributed to, if not owned by, the CEO. But is the CEO blog a valuable part of the citizen journalism phenomenon? And, more importantly, is it a valuable part of a company's PR or marketing strategy?

A well-regarded blog is an immensely powerful vehicle for the marketer, providing candid and succinct views on topics of the day to a large audience, and at very little cost. However, this can be diluted when the originator is a CEO. People are more willing to trust their peers than corporate leaders. And herein lies the problem. While CEOs are increasingly feeling a need to take part in the blogosphere, their very existence calls into question their objectiveness, which is a founding principle of blogs.

Most companies have corporate communications policies and programmes that are carefully monitored, and corporate blogs are therefore perceived by many as being as controlled and biased as formal corporate marketing. The blog's subject matter and tone can be just as problematic, as CEOs bear the expectation that their communications should cover serious industry issues.

BLOG CONSIDERATIONS

So, does this polarised approach to corporate blogs have a material impact on the reputation of either the CEO or the corporation he or she represents? The answer is a resounding yes, but not necessarily because of the information contained in the blog itself.

"People are more willing to trust their peers than corporate leaders."

Blogs spawn commentary, opinion and views from those that consume them. And the background chatter can be as potentially damaging as the breaking of a corporate scandal.

The CEO considering contributing to a corporate blog should carefully consider its impact on company reputation, as the desire to use it as another marketing channel could seriously damage the very opinions that the CEO is attempting to augment.

Your reputation is your most valuable asset. It can take years to build and seconds to destroy. Don't let citizen journalism put it at risk.

(This article was first published in Chief Executive Officer magazine on 22nd September 2007)

http://www.the-chiefexecutive.com/features/feature1390/

Something fishy

2007-10-04T15:39:00.000+01:00

In contrast to the doom and gloom that I normally write about on these pages, I was pleasantly surprised today when I came across a story about how reputation is helping in a very positive way. Apparently, UCLA in the US has such a good reputation that its marketeers need not leave the comfort of their own offices to attract high quality students the world over. The article specifically referenced its reputation about attracting good swimmers, but I'm sure there's something more fundamental in there.

What struck me as particularly interesting about this is that most of the measures and metrics used to promote educational establishments and attract students come from their performance at teaching, their successes at research etc. Many actually bring up the topic of reputation explicitly. Which got me thinking just how Universities wish to build and promote their reputations. I'm sure this is a very subjective thing to do, but I know in the UK at least that Universities often are quoted at being "good for law" or "good for sport". Fundamentally, these are the building blocks of their reputation.

So come on Professor Blog, come up with a better measure for your University - I'm sure every prospective student would find this very valuable indeed !!

The inter-what ?

2007-09-27T10:47:00.000+01:00

It's becoming a little much of a regular occurrence on these pages, my apologizing for jumping on the media bandwagon. So, apologies in advance.

The disturbing events over in Burma (if you're a Brit or an American) / Myanmar (if you from the rest of the world) have raised a very interesting perspective to the power of modern technology. We're all fairly familiar with the use of government controls in China to prevent certain "undesirable" stories from raising their ugly heads in a Google search for popular tourist destinations. Tiananmen Square springs to mind.

Well, the military junta in Burma appear to be following suit to prevent pictures, stories and blogs from leaking the virtual borders of the country to tell the world about what's really going on. Except it isn't working very well, largely because the 20-something students who are doing all the dirt-digging are far smarter when it comes too technology than the junta dinosaurs.

It struck me that this really is a world that knows no boundaries, but also an important warning/lesson/reminder of the power of the internet. I think we've well and truly let the cat out of Pandora's box (second apology on its way for mixed metaphors) on this one, now the world at large has realised that they can flex their journalistic frustrations in whatever direction they like, using the internet as their soap box. In the case of Burma, all to the well and good, but it does prove beyond all shadow of a doubt that if someone wants the world to know their views on a topic, it's going to get out whether you want it to or not.

So, watch out all you Facebook posters....

King Pin

2007-09-21T14:37:00.000+01:00

OK, so there have probably been enough column inches written about Northern Rock in the past week to shave another few inches off the ozone layer (in lost foliage), so I'm not about to try and get on the bandwagon after the horse has bolted. Or words to that effect anyway.

Mervyn King has been the latest public figure to have rocks thrown at him, this time for his alleged mishandling of the whole affair. "His reputation is in tatters" reads one red top. "His resignation imminent" reads another. It struck me, as I am often prone to saying, that reputation is about perception. So, if I went out on the street and canvassed people's views on Mr King, I wonder what their perception would be ? Well, of those that know who he is (!), I'm sure most would remember him for offering to secure Northern Rock's customer's savings. Very admirable. So precisely who thinks his reputation is in tatters ? Well, listening to the rather verbose bunch of MP's who barracked him like he was a market stall holder, there are clearly those who think he is one step away from being King Pin, not King of the Bank.

A lesson learned in reputation. Your reputation only matters to those who matter to you. From the very impressive, and often dismissive, responses provided by Mr King, he obviously values his moralistic standpoint far more than a few B-list MP's trying to dig up some dirt. I'm sure Mrs Geordie from South Shields couldn't agree more.

Taking it all for Granted

2007-09-20T14:54:00.000+01:00

OK, so this isn't specifically about reputation (maybe it is - you decide), but I thought it was a very interesting story nonetheless. Hands up who has heard of Avram Grant ? If you live within the shadow of the King's Road in London, then you're forgiven for knowing who he is. Anyone else ?

Nope. Me neither. But he's now sat at the helm of one of the biggest football clubs in Europe (Chelsea, in case you haven't caught up yet). Alright, Mr Mourinho wasn't exactly employed for his tact, diplomacy, or his love of Smirnoff but by and large, he did do a fairly good job of shepherding the South-West London rich-kids into some semblance of a quality football team. Two league titles ain't all bad.

If you were to take a walk down football memory lane, it would be riddled with examples of managers falling out with their Chairmen but I do think this one has a very different subtext. Mr Grant has no pedigree for managing Chelsea and probably not even the Chelsea under-18's. But he is best mates with the man with the cash. So, love him or hate him, at least Jose was true to his word, gave everything 110% and had a belief in his ability second to none. He cared little about his reputation in the eyes of the press, the media and often his fans, concluding that what happened on the pitch was most important. And you can only imagine that this carried little weight in the lofty towers of Stamford Bridge when agreed to part company with Roman's empire.

It's funny. All those that denied that billionaires buying football clubs was not about the money, or profit, or commercial enterprise and they were doing it "for the club", must be looking at Chelsea and wondering what the next toy on Roman's Christmas list will be. And I wonder whether one day Chelsea will just forget to field a team at all, in favour of counting all the lolly.

Racing Post

2007-09-14T12:54:00.000+01:00

Scandal and intrigue never appear far away from sport, as I have noted on this site previously. Mclaren's recent £50m fine (£50m !!!) from the FIA would surely have made Ron Dennis, the boss, wince but I'm sure their coffers will live to fight another day. But the media have made a far bigger story about the fact that the fine was levied for cheating and that Mclaren's reputation has been tarnished.

Does anyone care ? Formula 1, in my rather naive view, is so heavily burdened with technology it's wonder that the likes of Stirling Moss haven't cried foul a long time ago. I'm sure it's not within the bounds of all possibility that the F1 teams could build a Schumacher Machine, capable of driving the cars without human intervention. They're not far away from that already.

Yet again, I fear the reputation that matters most here is in the eyes of the cash-rich sponsors rather than the spectators. Will they all be leaving the Mclaren stable in their droves now ? Highly unlikely. My guess is they'll be so confused about who did what to whom and when that they'll throw their arms in the air and write another cheque.

Such is the nature of the richest (and most confusing) sport in the world.

Does Disney's Princess really hold Bob Iger's purse strings ?

2007-09-11T12:22:00.000+01:00

Oh, to be in Bob Iger's shoes right now. As CEO of Disney he is sat on one of the most lucrative franchises that the company has seen in recent years, only to be faced with the prospect that one of its stars may bring the franchise crashing to the floor. High School Musical was a film shot on a fairly low budget (about $2m) and shown only on the Disney cable channel. It is the modern equivalent of Grease or Fame, but for the clean-cut tweenie generation. However, the film became a phenomenon, watched by over 200 million viewers worldwide and spawning sequel soon to appear on UK television. The franchise is alleged to be worth over $1bn.

So why all the fuss ? Well, simply because the male star of the film shot a topless photo of his girlfriend, the female star of the film, which has now found its way into the internet badlands. All fairly innocent, if not a little naive, you may think. Well, not if you're Bob Iger. Taking the very squeaky clean approach he did with HSM (there's none of the swearing, smoking or teen pregnancies of Grease, or youth angst of Fame), he has built a franchise that requires its participants to mirror such high morals in their own real-world lives. Or does it ?

I'm going to be very interested to see this one play out. It is clear that the target audience for HSM find it harder than mature adults to delineate between fact and fiction, hence the need to ensure that they are not exposed to potential bubble-bursting if their stars' crowns start publicly slipping. This protectionism has tended to be the preserve of the pop industry for the past decade, but would equally apply to the media-driven film franchise. But what I find most interesting is that this hysteria is being whipped up by the (adult) media who understand such issues, with scant reference to the viewers themselves.

Reputation, as I am often prone to saying, is based on perception, not fact. Fact adds credibility but often too late in the day, when perception has done the damage. But whose perception matters here ? The under-14 target audience or the adult media ? I would be amazed if the audience of HSM would find a picture of its lead star topless at all interesting, or indeed controversial, unless their adult informers advised them that it was so. Sure, if Vanessa Hudgens (the unclad one) had engaged in something far more explicit or illegal, then I think there would be just cause to take swift action and for Iger to take the moral high ground. (The Richard Bacon / Blue Peter scandal springs to mind.)

Bob, I think your franchise is safe, at least for now...

Does reputation matter in sport ?

2007-09-03T14:22:00.000+01:00

Last week a story was reported in the press about Ian Thorpe being cleared of charges that had used illegal drugs to enhance his performance. Granted, this was no doubt a very stressful time for the Australian swimmer but it struck me as slightly odd that his comments, the subsequent story should centre on reputation as being the single biggest positive outcome from this story.

Why should that be ? Well, imagine the converse outcome. If he had been found guilty of using performance enhancing drugs, then clearly his career would be over. But surely being found not guilty of the same charges necessarily implies he's done nothing wrong ergo his reputation has not been tarnished.

I suppose in this high-profile, endorsement-driven world of sport today, reinforcing that you are squeaky clean (in all senses of the word) allows you to maximise the commercial value of your reputation. Not that sportsmen ply their trade off their reputation - one hopes their talent does that - but it does allow them to maximise their own earnings potential.

Long live the day when we remember sports "celebrities" more for their prowess on the pitch and field, than for endorsing trainers or safety razors.

The Price of Fame

2007-08-22T09:01:00.000+01:00

Andy Warhol is famous for saying that everyone should achieve "15 minutes of fame" in their lifetime, referring (according to Wikipedia) "to the fleeting condition of celebrity that attaches to an object of media attention". Well, this week the British Actress Keira Knightley went on record heavily criticising young people whose single goal in life was fame and fortune, saying that if those same people truly wanted to become rich, they should aspire to a career in banking which achieves the same financial end-state but without the additional pressure of errant paparazzi.

I do find the whole subject of the cult of celebrity very interesting indeed. The glamour, wealth and popularity portrayed in the glossy celebrity magazine is clearly very attractive to many. But none of that is anything new. But, for those that exist within that artificial bubble, reputation becomes possibly the single biggest asset they possess, far more so than money. And most that aspire to become rich and famous probably do not realise that maintaining reputation takes a considerable amount of money, time and effort. Reputations that take many years to build can take seconds to destroy and, in doing so, the fragile celebrity ecosystem that surrounds the them is destroyed too. The ability to earn huge sums of money disappears over night, often never to return.

So, when you open the cover of Vogue and long to be sat on that gin palace in Cannes, surrounded by fawning nobodies, well, just give a passing moment to how they got there. And how quickly they could come back down to earth.

Reputation - Made in China

2007-08-21T08:25:00.000+01:00

How do you go about building the reputation of an entire country ? And one of the world's biggest countries at that ? Not a small task, you have to admit. I suppose the honest answer to that question is it depends on what damage has been done.

Hot on the heels of the worldwide product recall by Mattel, the Chinese government has launched a week long campaign, promoted on state television, to defend its reputation as a safe exporter. This presents an interesting challenge for the Chinese government. On the one hand, they can rely on a strong heritage of efficient worldwide exports, and on the other, it adds fuel to an already well-stoked fire of those that say manufacturing in China relies on corruption, cheap labour and (at worst) human rights abuse.

Sometimes there's a case in reputation management to take a very light touch and perhaps this is one such case. Granted, reassuring consumers and trade-partners alike that products manufactured in China are not going to be toxic or dangerous is a prudent thing to do. But when the price of raising the publicity in this area to levels that begin to attract an already fervent hotbed of critics, it could actually raise awareness of a whole host of less savoury issues.

But then managing reputation is all about walking a tightrope between being seen as good, but not too good.

Lexicography, or how to change history in one easy lesson

2007-08-20T13:30:00.000+01:00

Does your PR company or department have a "lexicography team" ? Why on earth would I want one of those, I hear you say. Surely lexicography is the preserve of Oxford boffins who preside over the definitions of words and their semantic use. Why would this be of any use to the PR world, other than to settle arguments over the use of the phrase "public relations" ?

Well, ask that to an increasing number of companies - McDonalds and Apple to name but two - who are starting to challenge the words used within our English dictionaries because they do not present words that relate to them favourably enough. For example, McJob - according to Sir Digby Jones, former head of the CBI in the UK - should be “changed to reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding and offers genuine opportunities for career progression and skills that last a lifetime”. I'm sure those working in McDonalds would relish the opportunity to put their names to that definition.

Now, I'm the first to agree that PR, and reputations, can be won and lost on the clever use of words and that without a common understanding of the use of words, this becomes an impossible challenge. But surely this is a step too far ? The principle reason traditional marketing is suffering at the hands of everyman citizen journalism is because people want independence and objectivity in their engagement with corporations. Company spin has been displaced by peer group opinion, which people tend to trust far more. So, if it gets to the point where people can no longer trust the objectivity of dictionaries, what next ? Rewrite history books ? Or Wikipedia ? Ah, that one has already started....

On the brink of disaster, but only this week

2007-08-17T09:22:00.000+01:00

So, the world is on the brink of collapse, if you believe some of the pundits this morning. A rather black day on the world's stock markets and people are already thinking the next Wall Street Crash is just around the corner. Having spent the best part of my working years working with, and for, investment banks this journalistic sentiment is rather unsurprising.

Here we have on the one hand, the private and institutional investors who are already nervous about interest rate rises, a collapse in the debt market, and unspectacular equity performance who are now being told in no uncertain terms that they should be taking all the money they can lay their hands on and putting it under a rather large bed somewhere.

What I find interesting is just whose reputations are at risk here. Is it the banks, already heavily criticised for profiteering who are "gambling with your hard earned cash" ? Or the exchanges for running a less than acceptable service ? We should think long and hard about how we accept the freedom of the press, and the downstream impact (often negative) of their reportage on sensitive topics like stockmarket performance. It could all too easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy, allowing the fervour of negativity to stimulate precisely the heightened levels of investor paranoia that perpetuate such downward spirals in the world's stockmarkets.

It just goes to show you. Almost everything in business has a reputation, and increasingly those reputations are becoming key influencers in financial performance.

...and here's The Times story I referred to yesterday

2007-08-16T14:20:00.000+01:00

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article2266255.ece

You can post anything you like....as long as it's positive

2007-08-15T14:40:00.000+01:00

An interesting article in today's press about Wikipedia. It turns out that several multi-nationals (who shall remain nameless, until you read The Times tomorrow, or some of the online press today) have been "enhancing" their reputations on Wikipedia by censoring anything negative that appears about them on the site. How do we know this ? Like so many things nowadays, some clever chaps over in the a US University have written a piece of technology. In this case it tracks down the source IP address of the "editor" and matches it off to a published list of those reserved by corporates. Add 2 and 2 and you have a complete view of who is trying to manipulate their own reputations.

Is this a bad thing ? Well, it's probably no different than the strategy of posting false blogs (splogs) to try and divert attention away from negative and towards positive press. And, within the rules of Wikipedia, I doubt very much that anyone could claim it is illegal.

I think the bigger question is, how will people react to this online reputation management strategy ? I see opinion being polarised on this one, but it will be interesting to see how it unfolds. Watch this space (but not on Wikipedia).

Poacher turned Gamekeeper

2007-08-15T09:06:00.000+01:00

The Cult of Celebrity rears its ugly head once again. Reported in The Times (London) this morning was the manager of Sunderland football club, Roy Keane, launching a diatribe in the direction of "the growing number of players who are more concerned with cash, photo shoots and shops than sporting glory". With salaries of Premiership players stretching out in excess of £100K a week, his comments are clearly founded on more than just superfluous irritation. Ironically, in the same week came the story of another football player who did not wish to receive such a large salary for his sport, preferring instead to focus on his own "sporting glory".

It's hard to see how these players who aspire as much for a Ferrari as winning the league could care much about their reputations. On the one hand, they enjoy the attention they receive when on the pitch, and on the other they treat the attention off the pitch as either a necessary evil, or a money-spinner. Here we see an interesting dynamic which confuses the monetary value of fame with the moral value of reputation.

In most lines of business, a good reputation normally attracts business growth, with the converse also being true. Yet, a football player can be known for living a hugely extravagant lifestyle, with apparent disregard for his profession, yet still reap huge benefits in sponsorship and endorsements.

I'll close with more words of wisdom from Mr Keane: "these players have lost the hunger that got the Rolex, the cars and the mansion". An unsustainable future ?

Does money speak louder than reputation ?

2007-08-14T13:02:00.000+01:00

I read with interest this morning the next chapter in the Thaksin Shinawatra, the former Prime Minister of Thailand who recently purchased a controlling share in Manchester City Football Club and, as of yesterday, now fugitive in his country of origin following the issue of an arrest warrant by the Thai Supreme Court.

I find this an unusual, and probably disturbing, set of circumstances on several fronts. For those familiar with his reign in Thailand, his reputation as a tyrannical leader is well documented. Brad Adams, the executive director of the Asia division of Human Rights Watch (HRW), branded Thaksin a “human rights abuser of the worst kind”. So, notwithstanding a hugely negative view of his activities in the Far East, he was still allowed to purchase a Premiership Football club, passing the League's Fit and Proper Person Test.

Therein lies a rather contradictory juxtaposition. Clearly anyone dealing with him in a business context in Thailand would be well aware of his reputation and, provided subversion did not come into play, his reputation would necessarily have negatively impacted his ability to do business. So why would the same not apply to his doing such high profile business in the UK ? Even a cursory search on Google for his name brings back copious amounts of negative press. So, does this mean that his money became more valuable than his tarnished reputation ? I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions.

What I think will prove interesting is whether, in buying Manchester City, he is attempting to buy himself a new (and positive) reputation. Success in such a high profile sport brings huge kudos in the UK. Is it possible to use money alone to sweep past wrong-doings under the carpet, and using the very mechanics of the popular press that reported his life in Thailand to achieve his goals ? And will this "Reputation v2.0" be a springboard to new business success ?

Amy Winehouse - literally

2007-08-13T15:38:00.000+01:00

Here's an interesting challenge for all prospective popstars. You want the cool image so need the right mix of drink, sex, bad behaviour so people think you're credible. But not too much. You still need to attract the teens (their parents would never approve). So what happens when you slide down that slippery slope into becoming incapable of carrying out your day job (i.e. singing).

I read recently of Amy Winehouse's sad struggle to contain her addiction to alcohol. This acts as a stark reminder that striving for that "perfect" reputation sometimes comes at a price. Clearly, we all hope that she manages to overcome this addiction and continue to record such superb music.

Portentously, however, I fear that we now live in an age where constructing your reputation based on the illicit and the illegal actually has no impact on your ability to sell records (perhaps with the exception of the vice of sex, vis-a-vis Gary Glitter). Pete Docherty is certainly testament to that. Perhaps we should be injecting a moral backdrop to the whole cult of fame and reputation that permeates todays pop world.

And in the red corner, Virgin....

2007-08-04T12:02:00.000+01:00

Interesting, the price-fixing story in the papers this week between BA and Virgin. Neither companies are strangers to the courts, either in Britain or overseas, but I think the interesting dimension in this one isn't with BA at all, who are now licking their quite severe financial wounds, but with Virgin.

Although Virgin were alleged to be "involved" in the price fixing, they were not fined. So does that provide further damage to BA's reputation, and further bolstering of Virgin's ? I think not. Ask yourself how your purchase behaviour is affected by scandals like this, and whether this would change your choice or airline. The answer by the vast majority of the "profitable" (i.e. business) customers is that this has nothing to do with reputation. It comes down to loyalty. Loyalty schemes are the single biggest driver of airline choice for the corporate passenger, over and above cost.

So to what end this particular tete-a-tete ? Is this an example where it doesn't matter how bad your reputation is, people still use your services ? You decide. Just hope and pray your luggage thinks the same....

Reputation - who cares ?

2007-07-14T12:00:00.000+01:00

I'm asked a lot about why reputation should matter to anyone. Most claim that they have no reputation of any value therefore it is only the egotistic, eccentric or paranoid that really benefit from understanding and protecting their reputations.

I was browsing Facebook last night and came upon readily accessible, but highly personal, information about complete strangers. My first reaction was to think how careless of them to use a forum in this way (details of someone's kid's names spring to mind) but it then struck me how easily reputations could be won and lost on sites like this. The landscape is totally wide open - comments about workplaces, brands, companies, each other are commonplace and each contribute to the mental picture someone has of the object/person in question.

And why does this matter ? Put quite simply because we're all both contributors and beneficiaries of the impact this has on the products and services we consume. You want a recommendation for a new mobile phone ? Post a question on Facebook.

Reputica Launch Event

2007-07-03T10:13:00.001+01:00

The launch for Reputica took place to great success last Thursday. Already we've had over 60 enquiries from all over the world and they keep coming.

So, for those that want to know what I said in my launch speech, here goes:

"Good evening, and welcome to the launch of Reputica

Let me start with an anecdotal story that hopefully describes the reason why we believe Reputica is so important.

Blogging, for those not yet affiliated with the new wave that is hitting the internet, is the process of effectively capturing one’s thoughts, opinions, views and stories online for others to see. It is the modern day equivalent of writing a diary, but with each diary entry being exposed to literally millions of readers.

In September 2005 a posting appeared on a popular blog site in America giving a demonstration of someone picking a bicycle lock with a Bic biro. Within 10 days of the posting appearing, the manufacturer of the locks, a company called Kryptonite, had lost over $10m through having to conduct a worldwide product recall. Why ? Quite simply because the blog generated a reputation of its own almost instantaneously, fuelled by human interest and in turn creating thousands more blog postings containing reference to the original story. The effect of this so-called “blog storm” was to bring the name of Kryptonite, previously viewed as the world’s most secure locks, into disrepute. And all within the space of a few days.

The online world is undergoing a revolution, fuelled by consumer-driven content sites like MySpace and YouTube, which allow everyman to post their videos, pictures, opinions, thoughts, views and beliefs for the world to see. Everyone has always had an opinion but now those opinions are being captured online, for all to see, and for all time. The internet was once all about downloading : downloading of useful (and not so useful !!) information, downloading of music, downloading of news. What we are undergoing now is a culture shift from download to upload. People want to create data online like never before.

And this isn’t limited to the under-25’s. It is estimated, according to one survey, that by the end of 2006, 70% of large companies in the US had an official blog, often contributed to, if not owned by, their CEO.

These online opinions explode around the world faster than ever before too. In 2001, 9/11 took 1.5 minutes to appear on the internet. In 2005, the blog about Kryptonite had had 60,000 hits in the first hour – that’s 1000 every minute, or 16 per second.

This new world of online opinion – so-called “Citizen Journalism” – is changing the face of how individuals interract with companies and their brands, how they purchase and how they form their perceptions. Traditional PR and formal marketing is having to rapidly adapt to this emerging trend. A recent survey showed that 94% of people value opinion as being just as valuable as advertising in selecting products for purchase.

And ultimately, this complex web of human interraction is shaping how reputations are built, altered, improved or destroyed. Reputation is becoming a de facto currency, as real as cash, in valuing corporations in today’s world. The online viral effect of public opinion can create world fame and notoriety in a matter of minutes, and can destroy brands in a matter of days. So, even if you don’t ‘live’ in the world of blogs, or have never seen a chat room, you can’t afford to ignore them. There is no ‘truth checker’. Blogs can be anonymous. And dangerous.

Today we are launching a new service to assist both companies and individuals in enbracing the new challenges posed by citizen journalism in managing reputation. Reputica trawls the online world, in real-time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, looking for material that could change the reputation of a company, brand or individual. It then checks that it’s got the right ‘John Smith’, from the right company, and gives the article a positive or negative score depending on how it could impact reputation. This is the so-called ReputicaRating.

As this is what it looks like. Imagine a share price tracker for reputation. You can watch your ‘stock’ go up and down, compare it with your competitors, and see which articles have affected it. You now only need to go to one place for this information.

Reputica acts as an “early warning” system to alert you of a potentially damaging story breaking, inherently valuable in itself. But we don’t stop there. Reputica’s heritage is built on a deep understanding of data. And, by analysing the data that is being captured, we are able to build predictive or propensity models to plan how, where and when the story will unfold. In other words, if a negative blog about your or your product comes out one day, we will aim to predict where that story will go in the next 24, 48 hours, giving you the chance to get involved, and make your point. You are no longer just watching it happen. You’re participating.

So Reputation Management has suddenly moved from being reactive to being proactive. And THAT is powerful.

“But why do I need this ?”, I hear you say. “I already have a PR agency who looks after this for me. They manage all my corporate PR and that includes managing my reputation.”

We are not a PR Agency, nor do we aspire to be. What we have built is a service that will become invaluable to the PR Agencies that you already employ. It is an information source, a test bed for PR strategies, and a powerful tool to assist in the real-time challenges presented by citizen journalism. It is the service PR Agencies and Departments cannot risk NOT having. For consumers of the services of these agencies, it also acts as an objective measure of success – “I want you to raise my ReputicaRating by 10 points”. The esoteric world of PR has suddenly become measurable and predictable.

But our service is not only of use to PR Agencies and Corporate Communication Departments. ANYONE who relies on having a particular perception of them in the public domain can benefit from our service. CEOs who are seeking the next board appointment or who are courting the City for investment; politicians seeking election or re-election to parliament; music and film artists who rely on their reputation for work; companies who take a moral or ethical stance; business start-ups who want to know whether they’re getting traction in the market (like us !!). The list goes on.

Your Reputation is your most valuable asset, but has never been more under threat. It can take years to build and seconds to destroy. Don’t let citizen journalism put it at risk. Take control.

Reputica."

Makes you think, doesn't it ?

For those that think blogging is only for the under 25's.....

2007-06-28T12:39:00.000+01:00

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article1923706.ece

Technorati

2007-06-19T17:05:00.001+01:00

Technorati Profile