Leadership and vision is one of the pillars that determines the reputation of an organization. The foundations of this pillar are not falling apart but one cannot deny that we are experiencing a national and global shortage of trust in America's leaders. This lack of trust is reflected in the tarnished reputations of American corporations, the U.S. government and the failing financial systems. But, as shown by a recent finding from Reputation Institute, reputations of leaders can be strengthened through a strategic combination of heartfelt actions and communication.
A new study by Reputation Institute names Microsoft's Bill Gates as the most admired CEO in the United States, with 35% of the general public viewing him as the leader they admire most. In addition to Microsoft's Bill Gates, real estate tycoon Donald Trump and Warren E. Buffett of Berkshire Hathaway are the three most respected leaders in the U.S. while CEO of Harpo Productions Oprah Winfrey and Apple's Steve Jobs round out the top five.
"Being seen as a visionary leader who can deliver strong results on the bottom line at the same time as being a good corporate citizen is what the US general public admires. Leaders who link their philanthropic involvement to the core business purpose of their organization are creating the highest level of respect and admiration" says Kasper Nielsen, Managing Partner of the Reputation Institute.
According to Reputation Institute research, the reputation of an entire corporation is built on seven dimensions: products & services, innovation, workplace, governance, citizenship, performance, and vision & leadership. Those final three - citizenship, performance and leadership - have the strongest tie to CEOs. Gates, Buffett and Winfrey each have very visible commitments to philanthropic endeavors. Gates, Trump and Jobs are respected because they have lead their companies to strong financial performance, and all the top five are savvy managers. Though not essential, a strong CEO with these characteristics supports a company's overall reputation strategy and ultimately its bottom line.
After the top five, the next admired corporate leaders include former Chrysler Corporation CEO Lee Iacocca, the late Sam Walton of Wal-Mart, Martha Stewart CEO of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia as well as former CEOs and presidential nominees Ross Perot (Electronic Data Systems) and Mitt Romney (Bain & Co.).
Top 10 Most Admired CEO's
1 Bill Gates
2 Donald Trump
3 Warren Buffett
4 Oprah Winfrey
5 Steve Jobs
6 Lee (Lido) Iacocca
7 Sam Walton
8 Martha Stewart
9 Ross Perot
10 Mitt Romney
The 2008 Most Admired CEO Study asked over 7,450 American consumers to name up to three CEO's in the United States that they admire most. CEOs were ranked according to number of mentions in response to the question "Please name up to three CEO's in the United States that you admire most." The data was collected between February and March 2008 during fielding for Reputation Institute's annual Global Pulse Study, a study of the reputations of the largest 600 companies in 27 countries, including the 150 largest U.S. companies.
Source: www.reputationinstitute.com
Showing posts with label corporate reputation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label corporate reputation. Show all posts
Sunday, 2 November 2008
Monday, 1 September 2008
The Future of Reputation Management
Reputing is focusing on stakeholders’ needs
The world of reputation is expanding. This is one of the main conclusions of the 12th International Conference on Reputation, Brand, Identity and Competitiveness which was held between May 28th and June 1st 2008 in Beijing. This conference marked the end of an era and the beginning of the next wave in how to create value from reputation. Let’s go back in time and review how the field has evolved.
At the first conference in 1996 in New York the discussion was about the concept of reputation. What does it mean? How is it defined? Does it matter? Can it be measured? Is it relevant? The first conference launched a period where scholars and practitioners were focused on defining how reputation was influencing organizations and behavior between people.
Approaching the year 2000 the field became further defined and the focus became "if and how reputation can be measured". How can we measure something that is intangible? What creates reputation? How do we understand perceptions? How do we link perception to behavior? The conference in Copenhagen in 2000 marked the next phase where the Reputation Institute began to get real measures of corporate reputation. The Institute was able to look at data from stakeholders evaluating the reputation of companies. These data gave a better understanding of what drives reputation and how perceptions are formed.
Today we know what reputation is. It is the trust, admiration, good feeling and overall esteem people have for an organization. Reputation is created by the perception people have about 6 key dimensions: Emotional Appeal, Products & Services, Leadership & Vision, Workplace & Environment, Financial Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility. We know that strong reputations lead to supportive behavior. And we know that supportive behavior leads to improved performance of organizations.
The next phase of Reputation Management will focus on two key areas: Reputation Systems and Reputing
Reputation Systems
Now that we know how to measure and track reputation we need to integrate this insight into the business decisions we make. Executives will expect from the Reputation Institute to use the knowledge it has to make better business decisions. They also expect the integration of the different measures in a simple and powerful system that works together across functions and stakeholders. This challenges the way organizations are structured. It requires more cross-functional collaboration and common vision for integration.
Reputing
Organizations need to engage with their stakeholders on what is relevant to them in order to create trust, admiration, good feeling and high esteem. Companies need to understand what the stakeholders want from them and how they can become relevant to their stakeholders. Reputing are the actions and communications a company takes to become relevant to its stakeholders. Reputing is using an outside-in perspective rather than an inside-out perspective. It is focusing on stakeholder needs and not the company’s own plans. The strategy is centered on co-creation of trust, respect and admiration through interactions with the ones who are evaluating the organization. The fact that stakeholders do not trust organizations means that there is a need for more personal interactions. Companies need to open up and engage with all stakeholders in a dialogue. Companies need to listen instead of talking. Companies need to ask questions they don’t know the answers to, trust instead of being skeptical, and empower employees to represent the organization because they are the only ambassadors that stakeholders believe.
These two areas of Reputation Systems and Reputing will become the focus of the next period. The question is “How can we create strong reputations?” And so organizations must now ask: “What are the actions that stakeholders like? Which ways can we co-create a better future? How do we involve our employees in the creation of support from stakeholders? How do we manage the risks and leverage the opportunities?”
This poses some challenges to the community involved in the reputation management conversation.
1. We need to focus on integration of measures. How do we link research on reputation, brand, satisfaction, and engagement? How do we link the reputation measures to specific financial performance? How do we make all these measures work together in a simple and integrated matrix so executives can have a quick overview of all the factors influencing business performance?
2. We need to focus on practical examples of how to improve reputation. What works? How do you do it in real life? Which methods work best? Who are the influencers among stakeholders? How do we start and sustain a dialogue with them? How do we involve them in the co-creation of our reputation?
These and more questions will be answered in the coming months.
Source: Kasper Nielsen and Nicolas Trad, Managing Partners of the Reputation Institute, The Summer 2008 Reputation Institute Newsletter. Visit reputationinstitute.com/about/news to read the latest on RI News.
The world of reputation is expanding. This is one of the main conclusions of the 12th International Conference on Reputation, Brand, Identity and Competitiveness which was held between May 28th and June 1st 2008 in Beijing. This conference marked the end of an era and the beginning of the next wave in how to create value from reputation. Let’s go back in time and review how the field has evolved.
At the first conference in 1996 in New York the discussion was about the concept of reputation. What does it mean? How is it defined? Does it matter? Can it be measured? Is it relevant? The first conference launched a period where scholars and practitioners were focused on defining how reputation was influencing organizations and behavior between people.
Approaching the year 2000 the field became further defined and the focus became "if and how reputation can be measured". How can we measure something that is intangible? What creates reputation? How do we understand perceptions? How do we link perception to behavior? The conference in Copenhagen in 2000 marked the next phase where the Reputation Institute began to get real measures of corporate reputation. The Institute was able to look at data from stakeholders evaluating the reputation of companies. These data gave a better understanding of what drives reputation and how perceptions are formed.
Today we know what reputation is. It is the trust, admiration, good feeling and overall esteem people have for an organization. Reputation is created by the perception people have about 6 key dimensions: Emotional Appeal, Products & Services, Leadership & Vision, Workplace & Environment, Financial Performance and Corporate Social Responsibility. We know that strong reputations lead to supportive behavior. And we know that supportive behavior leads to improved performance of organizations.
The next phase of Reputation Management will focus on two key areas: Reputation Systems and Reputing
Reputation Systems
Now that we know how to measure and track reputation we need to integrate this insight into the business decisions we make. Executives will expect from the Reputation Institute to use the knowledge it has to make better business decisions. They also expect the integration of the different measures in a simple and powerful system that works together across functions and stakeholders. This challenges the way organizations are structured. It requires more cross-functional collaboration and common vision for integration.
Reputing
Organizations need to engage with their stakeholders on what is relevant to them in order to create trust, admiration, good feeling and high esteem. Companies need to understand what the stakeholders want from them and how they can become relevant to their stakeholders. Reputing are the actions and communications a company takes to become relevant to its stakeholders. Reputing is using an outside-in perspective rather than an inside-out perspective. It is focusing on stakeholder needs and not the company’s own plans. The strategy is centered on co-creation of trust, respect and admiration through interactions with the ones who are evaluating the organization. The fact that stakeholders do not trust organizations means that there is a need for more personal interactions. Companies need to open up and engage with all stakeholders in a dialogue. Companies need to listen instead of talking. Companies need to ask questions they don’t know the answers to, trust instead of being skeptical, and empower employees to represent the organization because they are the only ambassadors that stakeholders believe.
These two areas of Reputation Systems and Reputing will become the focus of the next period. The question is “How can we create strong reputations?” And so organizations must now ask: “What are the actions that stakeholders like? Which ways can we co-create a better future? How do we involve our employees in the creation of support from stakeholders? How do we manage the risks and leverage the opportunities?”
This poses some challenges to the community involved in the reputation management conversation.
1. We need to focus on integration of measures. How do we link research on reputation, brand, satisfaction, and engagement? How do we link the reputation measures to specific financial performance? How do we make all these measures work together in a simple and integrated matrix so executives can have a quick overview of all the factors influencing business performance?
2. We need to focus on practical examples of how to improve reputation. What works? How do you do it in real life? Which methods work best? Who are the influencers among stakeholders? How do we start and sustain a dialogue with them? How do we involve them in the co-creation of our reputation?
These and more questions will be answered in the coming months.
Source: Kasper Nielsen and Nicolas Trad, Managing Partners of the Reputation Institute, The Summer 2008 Reputation Institute Newsletter. Visit reputationinstitute.com/about/news to read the latest on RI News.
Thursday, 7 August 2008
Have you googled yourself lately?
Managing online reputation should be a key priority
Have you googled yourself lately? It sounds egocentric but corporations should be very sensitive to this question. Do you know what is being written on the internet about your organization? Are you aware of the fact that people that have a bad experience with your products and services might be jeopardizing the reputation of your organization by starting a blog on the net? Do you realize that blogs can have an enormous negative impact on your corporate reputation? Blogs, forums, wikis and social networks gain popularity every day and without a plan to monitor and manage your company’s online reputation, you could be at risk.
Recently, Fox Business News dedicated a news item to this topic. Blog expert Rob Neppell explained the essence of the importance of blog tracking: “You have to know what is being said about you on the internet. Without having that information you are really flying blind from a public relations standpoint”. Dell Computer Corp. has the honour to be one of the first big corporations that did not know how to deal with a growing number of customers who were ventilating their dissatisfaction by putting blogs on the internet. It all started in August 2005 when Jeff Jarvis started to post a series of messages entitled “Dell Hell” on his blog. He enumerated his struggles with Dell’s customer support service. Very soon, his widely circulated criticism had triggered dozens of other bloggers and hundreds of commenters to publicly complain about the service they received from Dell’s technical support. After two years of struggling with this viral nightmare Dell realized that it should have communicated very sooner with the bloggers. Finally, Jeff Jarvis met CEO Michael Dell, he toured the factories and he was embraced by the Dell management. This case started extremely badly but Dell seemed to learn from the lesson.
Embrace or sue?
Should you embrace bloggers that are complaining about your company’s products and services? Or should you sue them? “Suing a blogger is probably the worst thing you can do, unless something illegal is going on. You always look like Goliath beating up on David if you send a legal notice to a blogger” says Rop Neppell. A first lesson is to talk and to communicate with the blogger. Get your facts out. Try to make personal contact with them and say that you are willing to sort out any problem. A second lesson is to understand the blogosphere. Who is a leading blogger? Who can have an impact on others? Does the message get a widespread attention? And how popular are these bloggers?
So, have you googled yourself? What are you waiting for? From a public relations standpoint it is becoming more and more clear that every company is going to have evangelists (who are spreading good news in the blogosphere and who undertake good relations with bloggers) and vigilantes (who are searching for all kind of negative news on your organization) in order to manage the reputation of your organization.
You can find the interview with Rop Neppell on the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbO9TIrj65s
Have you googled yourself lately? It sounds egocentric but corporations should be very sensitive to this question. Do you know what is being written on the internet about your organization? Are you aware of the fact that people that have a bad experience with your products and services might be jeopardizing the reputation of your organization by starting a blog on the net? Do you realize that blogs can have an enormous negative impact on your corporate reputation? Blogs, forums, wikis and social networks gain popularity every day and without a plan to monitor and manage your company’s online reputation, you could be at risk.
Recently, Fox Business News dedicated a news item to this topic. Blog expert Rob Neppell explained the essence of the importance of blog tracking: “You have to know what is being said about you on the internet. Without having that information you are really flying blind from a public relations standpoint”. Dell Computer Corp. has the honour to be one of the first big corporations that did not know how to deal with a growing number of customers who were ventilating their dissatisfaction by putting blogs on the internet. It all started in August 2005 when Jeff Jarvis started to post a series of messages entitled “Dell Hell” on his blog. He enumerated his struggles with Dell’s customer support service. Very soon, his widely circulated criticism had triggered dozens of other bloggers and hundreds of commenters to publicly complain about the service they received from Dell’s technical support. After two years of struggling with this viral nightmare Dell realized that it should have communicated very sooner with the bloggers. Finally, Jeff Jarvis met CEO Michael Dell, he toured the factories and he was embraced by the Dell management. This case started extremely badly but Dell seemed to learn from the lesson.
Embrace or sue?
Should you embrace bloggers that are complaining about your company’s products and services? Or should you sue them? “Suing a blogger is probably the worst thing you can do, unless something illegal is going on. You always look like Goliath beating up on David if you send a legal notice to a blogger” says Rop Neppell. A first lesson is to talk and to communicate with the blogger. Get your facts out. Try to make personal contact with them and say that you are willing to sort out any problem. A second lesson is to understand the blogosphere. Who is a leading blogger? Who can have an impact on others? Does the message get a widespread attention? And how popular are these bloggers?
So, have you googled yourself? What are you waiting for? From a public relations standpoint it is becoming more and more clear that every company is going to have evangelists (who are spreading good news in the blogosphere and who undertake good relations with bloggers) and vigilantes (who are searching for all kind of negative news on your organization) in order to manage the reputation of your organization.
You can find the interview with Rop Neppell on the following link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbO9TIrj65s
Friday, 11 July 2008
Toyota Motors Highest in Reputation Ranking
Stakeholders consider CSR as a reputation maker
On June 5th 2008 the Reputation Institute (RI) of New York announced the results of its Global Pulse 2008. These results are based on a survey measuring consumer perception of the worlds’ largest corporations. Toyota Motors led the pack and was followed by Google, Ikea, Ferrero and Johnson & Johnson. “Of the top 200 companies measured in 27 countries, all earned Global Pulse scores significantly above the global mean of 64.2,” says Kasper Nielsen, Managing Partner of Reputation Institute.
The Global Pulse 2008 study measures the overall respect, trust, esteem, admiration and
good feelings consumers hold towards the largest 600 companies in the world.
Other highlights from Global Pulse 2008 include:
• Toyota is the only car company in the top tier of reputation leaders
• Two US companies - Google and Johnson & Johnson - notched top 5 rankings
• Food-related companies (Ferrero, Kraft) dominate the world’s most respected top 10
• Consumer and tech product companies enjoy the best reputations followed by pharmaceutical companies, conglomerates, raw material manufacturers and airlines.
• The largest gains in reputation from the previous years’ study were in the information/media and computer sectors, where companies like Infosys Technologies (India), Sharp Corporation (Japan) and Xerox (U.S.) rose in the rankings between 2007 and 2008.
• Cracking the global top 10 this year is Denmark’s diabetes drug specialist Novo Nordisk, Mexico’s food retailer Grupo Bimbo and Switzerland’s food giant Migros.
• Making a big jump in rankings this year were China Faw Group Corp, Norway’s Coop, Canada’s Sobey’s, and Japan’s AEON
Reputation Institute’s research model indicates that reputation is built on 7 pillars from which a company can create a strategic platform for communicating with its stakeholders on the most relevant key performance indicators. These dimensions are: Products/Services, Innovation, Workplace, Citizenship, Governance, Leadership, and Performance.
The Global Pulse 2008 study indicates that consumers are most influenced by a company’s delivery of high quality products and services, accounting for 17.6% of a company’s reputation. But, governance and citizenship combined account for more than 30% of a company’s reputation. “This makes it critical for companies worldwide to communicate how they support good causes, protect the environment, behave ethically and act openly and transparently about the way they do business,” says Anthony Johndrow, Managing Director, RI.
The Global Pulse 2008 offers insight on how reputation impacts and influence’s a company’s stakeholders worldwide – and its bottom line. “When people trust, admire and have a good feeling about a company, they are willing to support and recommend the company to others,” explains Johndrow, of the significant value of reputation. “We see a strong pattern between reputation and support, demonstrating that building a favorable reputation platform should be a part of a company’s overall business strategy.”
Rank Company Global Pulse
1. Toyota Motor Corp. (Japan) 86.53
2. Google (US) 85.23
3. IKEA (Sweden) 84.14
4. Ferrero (Italy) 83.52
5. Johnson & Johnson (US) 83.48
6. Tata Group (India) 82.84
7. Kraft Foods Inc. (US) 82.79
8. Novo Nordisk (Denmark) 82.28
9. Grupo Bimbo, S.A. (Mexico) 81.75
10. Migros (Switzerland) 81.54
11. General Mills (US) 81.34
12. Walt Disney (US) 81.22
13. Haier Corporation (China) 81.19
14. Infosys Technologies (India) 81.18
15. United Parcel Service (US) 81.05
16. Sharp Corp. (Japan) 80.44
17. Coop (Norway) 80.43
18. Jean Cotou Group (Canada) 80.11
19. El Corte Inglés (Spain) 80.00
20. Petrobras (Brazil) 79.97
21. Carlsberg (Denmark) 79.82
22. 3M (US) 79.79
23. Barilla (Italy) 79.44
24. Grupo Gerdau (Brazil) 79.26
25. Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany) 79.22
Survey Methodology
The Global Pulse 2008 was conducted online between February and March of 2008. A Pulse score is a measure of corporate reputation calculated by averaging perceptions of 4 indicators of trust, esteem, admiration, and good feeling obtained from a representative sample of at least 100 local respondents who were familiar with the company. Scores range from a low of 0 to a high of 100, Pulse scores that differ by more than +/-0.5 are significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Scores can be categorized using the below key:
Excellent/Top Tier above 80
Strong/Robust 70 – 79
Average/Moderate 60 – 69
Weak/Vulnerable 40 – 59
Poor/Lowest Tier below 40
About Reputation Institute
The Reputation Institute is a private advisory and research firm specialized in corporate reputation management. The Global Pulse is its flagship research study conducted annually with some 60,000 consumers in 27 countries from which emerge detailed ratings of the reputations of the world’s 1000 largest companies. For more information you can visit http://www.reputationinstitute.com/.
On June 5th 2008 the Reputation Institute (RI) of New York announced the results of its Global Pulse 2008. These results are based on a survey measuring consumer perception of the worlds’ largest corporations. Toyota Motors led the pack and was followed by Google, Ikea, Ferrero and Johnson & Johnson. “Of the top 200 companies measured in 27 countries, all earned Global Pulse scores significantly above the global mean of 64.2,” says Kasper Nielsen, Managing Partner of Reputation Institute.
The Global Pulse 2008 study measures the overall respect, trust, esteem, admiration and
good feelings consumers hold towards the largest 600 companies in the world.
Other highlights from Global Pulse 2008 include:
• Toyota is the only car company in the top tier of reputation leaders
• Two US companies - Google and Johnson & Johnson - notched top 5 rankings
• Food-related companies (Ferrero, Kraft) dominate the world’s most respected top 10
• Consumer and tech product companies enjoy the best reputations followed by pharmaceutical companies, conglomerates, raw material manufacturers and airlines.
• The largest gains in reputation from the previous years’ study were in the information/media and computer sectors, where companies like Infosys Technologies (India), Sharp Corporation (Japan) and Xerox (U.S.) rose in the rankings between 2007 and 2008.
• Cracking the global top 10 this year is Denmark’s diabetes drug specialist Novo Nordisk, Mexico’s food retailer Grupo Bimbo and Switzerland’s food giant Migros.
• Making a big jump in rankings this year were China Faw Group Corp, Norway’s Coop, Canada’s Sobey’s, and Japan’s AEON
Reputation Institute’s research model indicates that reputation is built on 7 pillars from which a company can create a strategic platform for communicating with its stakeholders on the most relevant key performance indicators. These dimensions are: Products/Services, Innovation, Workplace, Citizenship, Governance, Leadership, and Performance.
The Global Pulse 2008 study indicates that consumers are most influenced by a company’s delivery of high quality products and services, accounting for 17.6% of a company’s reputation. But, governance and citizenship combined account for more than 30% of a company’s reputation. “This makes it critical for companies worldwide to communicate how they support good causes, protect the environment, behave ethically and act openly and transparently about the way they do business,” says Anthony Johndrow, Managing Director, RI.
The Global Pulse 2008 offers insight on how reputation impacts and influence’s a company’s stakeholders worldwide – and its bottom line. “When people trust, admire and have a good feeling about a company, they are willing to support and recommend the company to others,” explains Johndrow, of the significant value of reputation. “We see a strong pattern between reputation and support, demonstrating that building a favorable reputation platform should be a part of a company’s overall business strategy.”
Rank Company Global Pulse
1. Toyota Motor Corp. (Japan) 86.53
2. Google (US) 85.23
3. IKEA (Sweden) 84.14
4. Ferrero (Italy) 83.52
5. Johnson & Johnson (US) 83.48
6. Tata Group (India) 82.84
7. Kraft Foods Inc. (US) 82.79
8. Novo Nordisk (Denmark) 82.28
9. Grupo Bimbo, S.A. (Mexico) 81.75
10. Migros (Switzerland) 81.54
11. General Mills (US) 81.34
12. Walt Disney (US) 81.22
13. Haier Corporation (China) 81.19
14. Infosys Technologies (India) 81.18
15. United Parcel Service (US) 81.05
16. Sharp Corp. (Japan) 80.44
17. Coop (Norway) 80.43
18. Jean Cotou Group (Canada) 80.11
19. El Corte Inglés (Spain) 80.00
20. Petrobras (Brazil) 79.97
21. Carlsberg (Denmark) 79.82
22. 3M (US) 79.79
23. Barilla (Italy) 79.44
24. Grupo Gerdau (Brazil) 79.26
25. Robert Bosch GmbH (Germany) 79.22
Survey Methodology
The Global Pulse 2008 was conducted online between February and March of 2008. A Pulse score is a measure of corporate reputation calculated by averaging perceptions of 4 indicators of trust, esteem, admiration, and good feeling obtained from a representative sample of at least 100 local respondents who were familiar with the company. Scores range from a low of 0 to a high of 100, Pulse scores that differ by more than +/-0.5 are significantly different at the 95% confidence level. Scores can be categorized using the below key:
Excellent/Top Tier above 80
Strong/Robust 70 – 79
Average/Moderate 60 – 69
Weak/Vulnerable 40 – 59
Poor/Lowest Tier below 40
About Reputation Institute
The Reputation Institute is a private advisory and research firm specialized in corporate reputation management. The Global Pulse is its flagship research study conducted annually with some 60,000 consumers in 27 countries from which emerge detailed ratings of the reputations of the world’s 1000 largest companies. For more information you can visit http://www.reputationinstitute.com/.
Thursday, 13 March 2008
Hoe groene pr fout kan lopen
Greenwashing is het nieuwe codewoord. Bedrijven communiceren anno 2008 al te graag over hun milieu-inspanningen. Dat is goed voor het imago. Maar er zijn grenzen waarmee men rekening moet houden...
Tijdnet deed het verhaal van autobouwer Saab die een paar maanden geleden een campagne deed rond zijn Biopower-motor die op E85-brandstof draait:
'Het wordt eindelijk groener op de weg' stond in een folder. 'Greenwashing', vond Groen!-europarlementslid Bart Staes, en de Jury voor Eerlijke Praktijken inzake Reclame (JEP) oordeelde dat de folder in strijd was met de milieureclamecode. Tijdens het Autosalon volgde een klacht van Friends of the Earth, waarna Saab zijn website aanpaste en brochures introk. 'Meer vermogen met een zuiver geweten', was een van de slogans.
'De C02-cijfers op onze affiches waren we vergeten', zegt Umberto Stefani van Beherman European, de invoerder van Saab. 'Dat was een fout. We hebben ook onze claims anders geformuleerd, en als we nu iets schrijven, zorgen we dat we het honderd procent kunnen staven. We zijn voorzichtiger geworden, ja.'
Monopolie
Op de andere punten pleit hij onschuldig, en de relatie met Friends of the Earth is niet echt goed. 'Die mensen moeten er zijn, maar ze hebben niet het monopolie op ecologie. We spenderen er miljarden aan maar mogen van hen het woord 'bio' niet gebruiken. Waarom niet? Een motor op E85 vervuilt minder. Dat er in België geen E85 is, is mijn fout niet. In Frankrijk, Engeland, Duitsland, Zweden is het er wel.'
Pijnlijk toch: communiceren over hoe groen je bent en dan zo in het nieuws komen? 'Ik denk dat de consumenten verstandig genoeg zijn om te zien wie te ver gaat en wie niet', zegt Stefani. 'Van de klanten hebben we geen reacties gekregen. En ik geloof niet dat we één auto minder verkocht hebben. Maar als de mensen het gevoel hebben dat ze niet goed geïnformeerd zijn, zullen we anders communiceren, ook al hebben we de wet aan onze kant.'
Reputatiemanagement
'Milieucommunicatie is een deel van je reputatiemanagement', zegt Peter Frans Anthonissen van het communicatiebureau Anthonissen & Associates, dat bedrijven terzake begeleidt. 'Je moet je claims altijd hard kunnen maken en zorgen dat je de toets van de ongewenste stakeholders kunt doorstaan. Als je aangevallen wordt, kun je het beste nagaan in welke mate de aantijgingen kloppen en vervolgens geen verstoppertje spelen. Als je puur defensief reageert, word je de speelbal van drukkingsgroepen.'
'We staan sterk in onze schoenen, maar het is altijd moeilijk om met zulke organisaties te discussiëren', erkent René De Cleyn van Bayer. Bekritiseren is makkelijker dan het bewijs van het tegendeel leveren. En de publieke opinie staat meer open voor een aanklacht dan voor een verdediging. In het verleden hebben wij ook de fout gemaakt in het defensief te gaan. Je moet open met die mensen kunnen spreken. Ook in de werkgroepen nodigen we altijd de ngo's uit.'
Gepubliceerd op TijdNet - 16:24 - 12/03/2008
Tijdnet deed het verhaal van autobouwer Saab die een paar maanden geleden een campagne deed rond zijn Biopower-motor die op E85-brandstof draait:
'Het wordt eindelijk groener op de weg' stond in een folder. 'Greenwashing', vond Groen!-europarlementslid Bart Staes, en de Jury voor Eerlijke Praktijken inzake Reclame (JEP) oordeelde dat de folder in strijd was met de milieureclamecode. Tijdens het Autosalon volgde een klacht van Friends of the Earth, waarna Saab zijn website aanpaste en brochures introk. 'Meer vermogen met een zuiver geweten', was een van de slogans.
'De C02-cijfers op onze affiches waren we vergeten', zegt Umberto Stefani van Beherman European, de invoerder van Saab. 'Dat was een fout. We hebben ook onze claims anders geformuleerd, en als we nu iets schrijven, zorgen we dat we het honderd procent kunnen staven. We zijn voorzichtiger geworden, ja.'
Monopolie
Op de andere punten pleit hij onschuldig, en de relatie met Friends of the Earth is niet echt goed. 'Die mensen moeten er zijn, maar ze hebben niet het monopolie op ecologie. We spenderen er miljarden aan maar mogen van hen het woord 'bio' niet gebruiken. Waarom niet? Een motor op E85 vervuilt minder. Dat er in België geen E85 is, is mijn fout niet. In Frankrijk, Engeland, Duitsland, Zweden is het er wel.'
Pijnlijk toch: communiceren over hoe groen je bent en dan zo in het nieuws komen? 'Ik denk dat de consumenten verstandig genoeg zijn om te zien wie te ver gaat en wie niet', zegt Stefani. 'Van de klanten hebben we geen reacties gekregen. En ik geloof niet dat we één auto minder verkocht hebben. Maar als de mensen het gevoel hebben dat ze niet goed geïnformeerd zijn, zullen we anders communiceren, ook al hebben we de wet aan onze kant.'
Reputatiemanagement
'Milieucommunicatie is een deel van je reputatiemanagement', zegt Peter Frans Anthonissen van het communicatiebureau Anthonissen & Associates, dat bedrijven terzake begeleidt. 'Je moet je claims altijd hard kunnen maken en zorgen dat je de toets van de ongewenste stakeholders kunt doorstaan. Als je aangevallen wordt, kun je het beste nagaan in welke mate de aantijgingen kloppen en vervolgens geen verstoppertje spelen. Als je puur defensief reageert, word je de speelbal van drukkingsgroepen.'
'We staan sterk in onze schoenen, maar het is altijd moeilijk om met zulke organisaties te discussiëren', erkent René De Cleyn van Bayer. Bekritiseren is makkelijker dan het bewijs van het tegendeel leveren. En de publieke opinie staat meer open voor een aanklacht dan voor een verdediging. In het verleden hebben wij ook de fout gemaakt in het defensief te gaan. Je moet open met die mensen kunnen spreken. Ook in de werkgroepen nodigen we altijd de ngo's uit.'
Gepubliceerd op TijdNet - 16:24 - 12/03/2008
Monday, 20 August 2007
RepTrak™ Pulse 2007: Russian Companies Make Largest Reputation Gains
According to the RepTrak™ Pulse 2007, the second annual study of the reputations of the World's Largest Companies, Russian companies made the greatest gains in reputation. The largest change was Sberbankwhose reputation catapulted the company into the top 10. Gazprom, Magnitogorsk Iron & Steel and Lukoil also enjoyed huge gains, reflecting "the growing public optimism about Russia’s corporate sector".
Lego took gold in 2007, IKEA coming in 2nd, followed by 2006 winner Barilla. Lufthansa suffered the greatest decline in reputation, dropping from third place to a #36 position.
The RepTrak™ Pulse 2007 was developed by the Reputation Institute. Over 60,000 online interviews with consumers in 29 countries on six continents were conducted in January and February 2007. More than 175,000 ratings were used to create reliable measures of the ‘corporate reputation’of more than 1,000 companies.
Get the RepTrak™ Pulse 2007 report here.
Lego took gold in 2007, IKEA coming in 2nd, followed by 2006 winner Barilla. Lufthansa suffered the greatest decline in reputation, dropping from third place to a #36 position.
The RepTrak™ Pulse 2007 was developed by the Reputation Institute. Over 60,000 online interviews with consumers in 29 countries on six continents were conducted in January and February 2007. More than 175,000 ratings were used to create reliable measures of the ‘corporate reputation’of more than 1,000 companies.
Get the RepTrak™ Pulse 2007 report here.
Saturday, 31 March 2007
De neergang van Open VLD: een schoolvoorbeeld van reputatieverloedering
Het falen van Slangen's gespin
Dat Open VLD zo diep wegzakt in de verkiezingspeilingen, is geen verrassing voor communicatiedeskundigen die vertrouwd zijn met reputatiemanagement. Meer nog, indien men in de Melsensstraat niet oplet, heeft men het diepste punt nog niet bereikt. Op dit ogenblik is de top van Open VLD bezig met een PR-operatie die evenwel niet veel meer om het lijf heeft dan wat window-dressing. Imagebuilding is niet hetzelfde als een reputatie (opnieuw) opbouwen. Van logomerk en huisstijl kan men van de ene dag op de andere veranderen. Dat is geen punt. Ook in het bedrijfsleven hebben we de voorbije jaren tal van imagocampagnes gezien. Denk maar aan de naamswijzigingen binnen de bank- en verzekeringsector. Maar iedereen weet dat een naams- of logowijziging daarom niet leidt tot een wijziging inzake reputatieniveau. Vergelijk imago met een laagje vernis. Onder die laag vernis zit de echte inhoud, reputatie genaamd. Er zijn voorbeelden legio van organisaties en bedrijven met oubollige of afgrijselijke logo's die toch een goede reputatie genieten en omgekeerd, ondernemingen met gepolijste merken, maar waaronder niets anders dan reputatiemiserie schuilgaat.
In de politiek is dat niet anders. Technisch bekeken, scoren 3 Vlaamse partijen op dit ogenblik vrij goed qua reputatiemanagement: CDenV (abstractie makend van diens coalitiepartner), Vlaams Belang en de Lijst De Decker. Misschien worden sommige van deze partijen goed geadviseerd, misschien is het het resultaat van het volgen van een buikgevoel. Dat laten we even in het midden. De SP.A, Spirit en NVA doen niet veel verkeerd, maar kunnen beter. Wie de voorbije 4 jaar benedenmaats presteerde op reputatievlak, is de VLD. Sommige liberale coryfeeën hebben de afgelopen jaren, net als een paar socialistische jeunes premier,s flinke uitschuivers gemaakt. Het ging ogenschijnlijk om faits divers, maar onderzoek leert dat sommige van die reputatieblunders blijven nazinderen in de geest van de publieke opinie. Daar komt nog bij dat liberale lokale mandatarissen zich in de steek gelaten voelen door hun ideologische medestanders uit de federale regering en de partijvoorzitter. De financiële consequenties van de politiehervorming en het niet nakomen van de gedane beloften inzake de splitsing van het arrondissement BHV, hebben letsels nagelaten, een congres met betrekking tot de rol van de lokale besturen ten spijt. Op het maandagse partijbestuur werden echo's dienaangaande waarschijnlijk met te weinig sérieux behandeld en geëvalueerd. De doelstellingen van de top primeerden, met het kwalijke gevolg voor hun reputatie, zelfs binnen de eigen partij.
Daar kan een goed geöliede verkiezingscampagne georchesteerd door meesterstrateeg Slangen op enkele maanden van de verkiezingen niets meer aan verhelpen. Het kalf is reputatiegewijs verdonken. Ettelijke wetenschappelijke studies tonen aan dat verkiezingscampagnes enkele maanden voor de stembusgang geen of slechts in zeer beperkte mate invloed hebben op de verkiezingsuitslag. Consumenten, burgers, kiezers beoordelen de woorden en daden van ondernemingen, overheden en politici volgens een zeer eenvoudige lakmoestest: "doen ze wel wat ze zeggen?". Indien men in de straat vaststelt dat dit niet het geval is, dan valt een onverbiddelijk verdict en gaat de waarde van een reputatie naar beneden. Karakteristiek aan reputaties is dat het heel lang duurt om ze op te bouwen, maar dat het zeer snel kan gaan om ze kwijt te spelen. Het grootste probleem is evenwel het volgende: van een reputatie heb je er maar één. Spare parts bestaan er niet. Deze vaststelling komt hard aan bij marketeers en spindoctors die geen rekening houden met de reputatiecomponent, want het toont ook onmiddellijk hun grote zwakte. Met een nieuw logo en dito huisstijl redt men het niet. En zeker niet op een paar maanden voor de verkiezingen. Waar Open VLD en diens adviseurs dringend werk zou moeten van maken, is dat het basisprincipe van goede communicatie in de praktijk wordt toegepast: zeg wat je doet, en doe wat je zegt. Het eerste deel van dat principe wordt de voorbije dagen en weken in de praktijk omgezet, maar het hoera-geroep steekt in schril contrast af met het gezwalp en het windhaangedrag van de top van de Vlaams-liberale partij.
Opiniepeilingen hebben hun beperkingen. Helaas wordt bij de publicatie van de resultaten geen melding gemaakt van de foutenmarge, die in sommige gevallen tot verrassingen kan leiden. Typisch voor Open VLD en diens voorganger, de VLD, is dat ze het afgelopen jaar wel hebben geschoten op de boodschappers van opiniepeilingsinstrumenten die een veel kleinere foutenmarge hebben dan de normale peilingen. De top van de VLD heeft sinds afgelopen zomer geen goed woord voor de Stemmenkampioen van prof. Frank Thevissen (VUB). De publicatie van de resultaten van de Stemmenkampioen zou geleid hebben tot de afkalving van het resultaat van de VLD. Een uitspraak die op zijn minst raar is. Het is alsof een patiënt een arts zou beschuldigen dat hij hem ziek maakt omdat dat de dokter hem vertelt dat hij koorts heeft. Op de pianist schieten is makkelijk maar... getuigt niet erg van reputatiebewust zijn. Men zou beter moeten luisteren naar de wetenschappelijke diagnoses, veel meer dan de oppervlakkige analyses en de amateuristische reacties op peilingen met een kwaliteitsniveau, waarmee eerstejaarsstudenten sociologie niet zouden slagen.
Maar er is meer... ondertussen is de Stemmenkampioen op zeer merkwaardige manier ten grave gedragen (zie artikel "Barabas of de Stemmenkampioen? Barabas!"
Open VLD moet zich dringend gaan herbronnen, niet alleen inzake het beleid maar vooral met betrekking tot het uitvoeren wat men zegt. De ooit zo geroemde opendebatcultuur en het gebrek aan koers leiden tot de miserie, die de liberale partij nu kent. En het ergste moet nog komen, want als men niet snel het roer omgooit, zakt men nog dieper weg. Een partij die zo graag dweept met allerlei zaken die hun nut en waarde hebben bewezen in het bedrijfsleven, zou nu eindelijk eens werk moeten maken om hun manier van communiceren, die misschien 20-25 jaar geleden efficiënt was, te vervangen door een model dat reputatiebewustzijn in de hand werkt. Maar dat gaat niet door zesjarencontracten voor achterhaalde strategiemodellen zonder enige resultaatsgarantie. Zulke verbintenissen worden zelfs in de privésector zelden aangegaan. In ieder geval zullen de recente peilingsresultaten een aantal mensen het gevoel geven alsof ze bij de keel werden gegrepen. Er wordt immers deze keer door de man in de straat een ecotaks geheven, nl. de electorale bestraffing van communicatietruken die niets meer om het lijf hebben dan die van een wegwerpverpakking.
Dat Open VLD zo diep wegzakt in de verkiezingspeilingen, is geen verrassing voor communicatiedeskundigen die vertrouwd zijn met reputatiemanagement. Meer nog, indien men in de Melsensstraat niet oplet, heeft men het diepste punt nog niet bereikt. Op dit ogenblik is de top van Open VLD bezig met een PR-operatie die evenwel niet veel meer om het lijf heeft dan wat window-dressing. Imagebuilding is niet hetzelfde als een reputatie (opnieuw) opbouwen. Van logomerk en huisstijl kan men van de ene dag op de andere veranderen. Dat is geen punt. Ook in het bedrijfsleven hebben we de voorbije jaren tal van imagocampagnes gezien. Denk maar aan de naamswijzigingen binnen de bank- en verzekeringsector. Maar iedereen weet dat een naams- of logowijziging daarom niet leidt tot een wijziging inzake reputatieniveau. Vergelijk imago met een laagje vernis. Onder die laag vernis zit de echte inhoud, reputatie genaamd. Er zijn voorbeelden legio van organisaties en bedrijven met oubollige of afgrijselijke logo's die toch een goede reputatie genieten en omgekeerd, ondernemingen met gepolijste merken, maar waaronder niets anders dan reputatiemiserie schuilgaat.
In de politiek is dat niet anders. Technisch bekeken, scoren 3 Vlaamse partijen op dit ogenblik vrij goed qua reputatiemanagement: CDenV (abstractie makend van diens coalitiepartner), Vlaams Belang en de Lijst De Decker. Misschien worden sommige van deze partijen goed geadviseerd, misschien is het het resultaat van het volgen van een buikgevoel. Dat laten we even in het midden. De SP.A, Spirit en NVA doen niet veel verkeerd, maar kunnen beter. Wie de voorbije 4 jaar benedenmaats presteerde op reputatievlak, is de VLD. Sommige liberale coryfeeën hebben de afgelopen jaren, net als een paar socialistische jeunes premier,s flinke uitschuivers gemaakt. Het ging ogenschijnlijk om faits divers, maar onderzoek leert dat sommige van die reputatieblunders blijven nazinderen in de geest van de publieke opinie. Daar komt nog bij dat liberale lokale mandatarissen zich in de steek gelaten voelen door hun ideologische medestanders uit de federale regering en de partijvoorzitter. De financiële consequenties van de politiehervorming en het niet nakomen van de gedane beloften inzake de splitsing van het arrondissement BHV, hebben letsels nagelaten, een congres met betrekking tot de rol van de lokale besturen ten spijt. Op het maandagse partijbestuur werden echo's dienaangaande waarschijnlijk met te weinig sérieux behandeld en geëvalueerd. De doelstellingen van de top primeerden, met het kwalijke gevolg voor hun reputatie, zelfs binnen de eigen partij.
Daar kan een goed geöliede verkiezingscampagne georchesteerd door meesterstrateeg Slangen op enkele maanden van de verkiezingen niets meer aan verhelpen. Het kalf is reputatiegewijs verdonken. Ettelijke wetenschappelijke studies tonen aan dat verkiezingscampagnes enkele maanden voor de stembusgang geen of slechts in zeer beperkte mate invloed hebben op de verkiezingsuitslag. Consumenten, burgers, kiezers beoordelen de woorden en daden van ondernemingen, overheden en politici volgens een zeer eenvoudige lakmoestest: "doen ze wel wat ze zeggen?". Indien men in de straat vaststelt dat dit niet het geval is, dan valt een onverbiddelijk verdict en gaat de waarde van een reputatie naar beneden. Karakteristiek aan reputaties is dat het heel lang duurt om ze op te bouwen, maar dat het zeer snel kan gaan om ze kwijt te spelen. Het grootste probleem is evenwel het volgende: van een reputatie heb je er maar één. Spare parts bestaan er niet. Deze vaststelling komt hard aan bij marketeers en spindoctors die geen rekening houden met de reputatiecomponent, want het toont ook onmiddellijk hun grote zwakte. Met een nieuw logo en dito huisstijl redt men het niet. En zeker niet op een paar maanden voor de verkiezingen. Waar Open VLD en diens adviseurs dringend werk zou moeten van maken, is dat het basisprincipe van goede communicatie in de praktijk wordt toegepast: zeg wat je doet, en doe wat je zegt. Het eerste deel van dat principe wordt de voorbije dagen en weken in de praktijk omgezet, maar het hoera-geroep steekt in schril contrast af met het gezwalp en het windhaangedrag van de top van de Vlaams-liberale partij.
Opiniepeilingen hebben hun beperkingen. Helaas wordt bij de publicatie van de resultaten geen melding gemaakt van de foutenmarge, die in sommige gevallen tot verrassingen kan leiden. Typisch voor Open VLD en diens voorganger, de VLD, is dat ze het afgelopen jaar wel hebben geschoten op de boodschappers van opiniepeilingsinstrumenten die een veel kleinere foutenmarge hebben dan de normale peilingen. De top van de VLD heeft sinds afgelopen zomer geen goed woord voor de Stemmenkampioen van prof. Frank Thevissen (VUB). De publicatie van de resultaten van de Stemmenkampioen zou geleid hebben tot de afkalving van het resultaat van de VLD. Een uitspraak die op zijn minst raar is. Het is alsof een patiënt een arts zou beschuldigen dat hij hem ziek maakt omdat dat de dokter hem vertelt dat hij koorts heeft. Op de pianist schieten is makkelijk maar... getuigt niet erg van reputatiebewust zijn. Men zou beter moeten luisteren naar de wetenschappelijke diagnoses, veel meer dan de oppervlakkige analyses en de amateuristische reacties op peilingen met een kwaliteitsniveau, waarmee eerstejaarsstudenten sociologie niet zouden slagen.
Maar er is meer... ondertussen is de Stemmenkampioen op zeer merkwaardige manier ten grave gedragen (zie artikel "Barabas of de Stemmenkampioen? Barabas!"
Open VLD moet zich dringend gaan herbronnen, niet alleen inzake het beleid maar vooral met betrekking tot het uitvoeren wat men zegt. De ooit zo geroemde opendebatcultuur en het gebrek aan koers leiden tot de miserie, die de liberale partij nu kent. En het ergste moet nog komen, want als men niet snel het roer omgooit, zakt men nog dieper weg. Een partij die zo graag dweept met allerlei zaken die hun nut en waarde hebben bewezen in het bedrijfsleven, zou nu eindelijk eens werk moeten maken om hun manier van communiceren, die misschien 20-25 jaar geleden efficiënt was, te vervangen door een model dat reputatiebewustzijn in de hand werkt. Maar dat gaat niet door zesjarencontracten voor achterhaalde strategiemodellen zonder enige resultaatsgarantie. Zulke verbintenissen worden zelfs in de privésector zelden aangegaan. In ieder geval zullen de recente peilingsresultaten een aantal mensen het gevoel geven alsof ze bij de keel werden gegrepen. Er wordt immers deze keer door de man in de straat een ecotaks geheven, nl. de electorale bestraffing van communicatietruken die niets meer om het lijf hebben dan die van een wegwerpverpakking.
Tuesday, 27 February 2007
Bain Comments Corporate Reputation Ranking
Mark Bain, President of Upper 90 Consulting, has compared the Harris Interactive’s Reputation Quotient (RQ) rankings with the Reputation Institute’s U.S. RepTrak results.
Although the two studies take different approaches, both generally agree on the worst and best corporate reputations in the US.
Mark has made a nice summary of interesting thoughts: "Rankings matter to the most reputable companies, which care about how they compare with all firms, not just their direct competitors. These companies work to improve their reputation rankings every year. Their CEOs view corporate reputation as an asset to be leveraged for strategic opportunity, not just a risk to be managed for minimal business harm. It’s no wonder these firms enjoy strong competitive advantage and consistent, sustained financial success.
Companies with the lowest reputation rankings seem to emphasize financial performance over all else, including reputation. Though most have strong financial results (none more than ExxonMobil), reputation is more of a risk than opportunity for this group. In a written response published in the Wall Street Journal, Halliburton’s spokesperson basically said her firm doesn’t care about public opinion represented in these rankings because her company doesn’t sell to consumers. But one has to wonder: would her management still feel that way when top-notch talent chooses to work with Halliburton’s more reputable competitors? Or when some government refuses to give Halliburton the benefit of the doubt in their next self-inflicted crisis, resulting in excessive regulations and/or fines?
There are B2B and B2C companies in both rankings and virtually all are highly visible. These firms work hard to build awareness, familiarity and understanding. They use the full arsenal of communications tools to tell their story proactively, and they reap the benefits of their visibility. Meanwhile, low-visibility companies can only congratulate themselves for saving money on such frivolities while their reputation languishes.
Not every company is large enough or familiar enough to be included in these rankings. But any company can use the exact same models, tools and techniques the reputation leaders use – and those that do will benefit the most."
Have a look at the rankings (source: Wall Street Journal)
read more about the subject here
Although the two studies take different approaches, both generally agree on the worst and best corporate reputations in the US.
Mark has made a nice summary of interesting thoughts: "Rankings matter to the most reputable companies, which care about how they compare with all firms, not just their direct competitors. These companies work to improve their reputation rankings every year. Their CEOs view corporate reputation as an asset to be leveraged for strategic opportunity, not just a risk to be managed for minimal business harm. It’s no wonder these firms enjoy strong competitive advantage and consistent, sustained financial success.
Companies with the lowest reputation rankings seem to emphasize financial performance over all else, including reputation. Though most have strong financial results (none more than ExxonMobil), reputation is more of a risk than opportunity for this group. In a written response published in the Wall Street Journal, Halliburton’s spokesperson basically said her firm doesn’t care about public opinion represented in these rankings because her company doesn’t sell to consumers. But one has to wonder: would her management still feel that way when top-notch talent chooses to work with Halliburton’s more reputable competitors? Or when some government refuses to give Halliburton the benefit of the doubt in their next self-inflicted crisis, resulting in excessive regulations and/or fines?
There are B2B and B2C companies in both rankings and virtually all are highly visible. These firms work hard to build awareness, familiarity and understanding. They use the full arsenal of communications tools to tell their story proactively, and they reap the benefits of their visibility. Meanwhile, low-visibility companies can only congratulate themselves for saving money on such frivolities while their reputation languishes.
Not every company is large enough or familiar enough to be included in these rankings. But any company can use the exact same models, tools and techniques the reputation leaders use – and those that do will benefit the most."
Have a look at the rankings (source: Wall Street Journal)
read more about the subject here
Fame & Fortune by Charles Fombrun and Cees Van Riel
In Fame & Fortune: How Successful Companies Build Winning Reputations, Charles Fombrun and Cees Van Riel explain corporate reputation in simple and clear terms. The book serves as a guide for quickly applying the concepts of reputation.
The book provides a comprehensive overview of the critical success factors of reputation management and discusses a number of interesting case studies to underline key points. It shows how to quantitatively measure a company's reputation, estimate its business value, and enhance it over both the short and long-term. This book teaches one how to benchmark an organisation's reputation against key rivals in six key areas. It also shows how to follow a set of core principles to build visibility, distinctiveness, and consistency.
This book should be read by any PR professional, manager or communication student. It is one of the best introductory publications on corporate reputation in recent years.
Published in 2004, Financial Times Prentice Hall
[Business / Economics / Finance]
304 pages.
The book provides a comprehensive overview of the critical success factors of reputation management and discusses a number of interesting case studies to underline key points. It shows how to quantitatively measure a company's reputation, estimate its business value, and enhance it over both the short and long-term. This book teaches one how to benchmark an organisation's reputation against key rivals in six key areas. It also shows how to follow a set of core principles to build visibility, distinctiveness, and consistency.This book should be read by any PR professional, manager or communication student. It is one of the best introductory publications on corporate reputation in recent years.
Published in 2004, Financial Times Prentice Hall
[Business / Economics / Finance]
304 pages.
Saturday, 9 December 2006
Loss of Reputation is a Risk for All
Corporate responsibility has not always played an influential role in reputation management and recovery. When Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman was once asked "Do corporate executives, provided they stay within the law, have responsibilities in their business activities other than to make as much money for their stockholders as possible?” His answer was a resounding “no.”
Times have clearly changed. People now regard corporate responsibility as fundamental to the kind of society where they wish to live, work and raise their families.
Reputation failure is no longer a threat for companies in high-risk industries and activities alone. It has become reality for companies and organisation around the globe and in whatever sector. A 2006 Weber Shandwick proprietary analysis revealed that 33% of the Global Fortune 500 – the world’s largest companies – experienced reputation deterioration in their “most-admired” status from the previous year. And the Weber Shandwick’s Safeguarding Reputation survey showed that approximately 1/3 of global business leaders believe it is likely their company will sustain reputation damage in the next two years.
According to Weber Shandwick this higher rate of reputation loss has prompted boards and CEOs to ask how they can best shield their companies from extended reputation damage. One way is by adopting a “triple bottom line” approach – in other words, going beyond financial goals by also protecting the environment and attending to social justice.
I do agree with WS's point of view of adopting a triple bottom line approach, but I do not agree that the higher rate of reputation loss has prompted companies leaders to act. The ones who did are rather exceptions than the rule.
Source: Weber Shandwick
Times have clearly changed. People now regard corporate responsibility as fundamental to the kind of society where they wish to live, work and raise their families.
Reputation failure is no longer a threat for companies in high-risk industries and activities alone. It has become reality for companies and organisation around the globe and in whatever sector. A 2006 Weber Shandwick proprietary analysis revealed that 33% of the Global Fortune 500 – the world’s largest companies – experienced reputation deterioration in their “most-admired” status from the previous year. And the Weber Shandwick’s Safeguarding Reputation survey showed that approximately 1/3 of global business leaders believe it is likely their company will sustain reputation damage in the next two years.
According to Weber Shandwick this higher rate of reputation loss has prompted boards and CEOs to ask how they can best shield their companies from extended reputation damage. One way is by adopting a “triple bottom line” approach – in other words, going beyond financial goals by also protecting the environment and attending to social justice.
I do agree with WS's point of view of adopting a triple bottom line approach, but I do not agree that the higher rate of reputation loss has prompted companies leaders to act. The ones who did are rather exceptions than the rule.
Source: Weber Shandwick
The Link between Corporate Responsibility and Reputation
As part of its Safeguarding Reputation™ survey of 950 business executives in 11 countries, Weber Shandwick explored the relationship between corporate responsibility and reputation management. According to this survey corporate responsibility contributes increasingly to company reputation and the bottom line, and its role in reputation recovery.
Today, every lapse, error or other corporate misstep, whether it is true or just perceived, is seen. The internet, e-mail correspondence and mobile communication technology has lead to a situation where the behaviour of a company and the individuals who are working there is watched, criticised and spread at a speed which should make contingency managers re-think their communication strategies.
About a year ago, I experienced the speed of digital pictures being sent by MMS as soon as an aircraft landed after a pressure loss in an aircraft cabin. Inside the aircraft were a group of business who were going to a conference in Barcelona about... the latest mobile phone applications! Many of them were early adopters of new technology and used the built-in camera of their mobile phone to photograph the oxygen masks which dropped from the ceiling. Less than 30 minutes after the aircraft had landed at Brussels Airport the first images were spread on the net.
Not only it means that the response time of the company is decimised compared to 10-15 years ago, there are other implications too. Any communication manager who would dare to think that he would be able to conceal or withhold information must be aware that in this modern age he would make of his organisation a sitting duck for journalists, competitors, bloggers and everyone else who would feel like criticising the company.
When the company acts responsibly, it will be better protected during the crisis and afterwards. This view is supported by the findings of the WS survey: the vast majority of global business executives (79 %) surveyed believes that companies with strong corporate responsibility track records recover their reputations faster post-crisis than those with weaker records.
Read the executive summary for more interesting findings.
Source: Weber Shandwick
Today, every lapse, error or other corporate misstep, whether it is true or just perceived, is seen. The internet, e-mail correspondence and mobile communication technology has lead to a situation where the behaviour of a company and the individuals who are working there is watched, criticised and spread at a speed which should make contingency managers re-think their communication strategies.
About a year ago, I experienced the speed of digital pictures being sent by MMS as soon as an aircraft landed after a pressure loss in an aircraft cabin. Inside the aircraft were a group of business who were going to a conference in Barcelona about... the latest mobile phone applications! Many of them were early adopters of new technology and used the built-in camera of their mobile phone to photograph the oxygen masks which dropped from the ceiling. Less than 30 minutes after the aircraft had landed at Brussels Airport the first images were spread on the net.
Not only it means that the response time of the company is decimised compared to 10-15 years ago, there are other implications too. Any communication manager who would dare to think that he would be able to conceal or withhold information must be aware that in this modern age he would make of his organisation a sitting duck for journalists, competitors, bloggers and everyone else who would feel like criticising the company.
When the company acts responsibly, it will be better protected during the crisis and afterwards. This view is supported by the findings of the WS survey: the vast majority of global business executives (79 %) surveyed believes that companies with strong corporate responsibility track records recover their reputations faster post-crisis than those with weaker records.
Read the executive summary for more interesting findings.
Source: Weber Shandwick
Wednesday, 29 November 2006
Fombrun about Corporate Reputation
What is Corporate Reputation?
Learn about it via this podcast interview with Dr. Charles Fombrun, founder of the Reputation Institute
Learn about it via this podcast interview with Dr. Charles Fombrun, founder of the Reputation Institute
Reputation Institute RepTracked 600 Companies Worldwide
This year the Reputation Institute (RI) and Harris Interactive parted ways. The two organizations have been ranking corporate reputations since 1999 by means of the Reputation Quotient (RQ). This year, the RI has ranked 600 companies worldwide following the RepTrack methodology.
Have a look at the top 50.
Have a look at the top 50.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
