Reputation Garage

We've Moved...Here's Our New Web Address

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:38:00 +0000

To Our Readers:

We've renovated the Reputation Garage site and moved the platform off Blogger to WordPress. Find us here:

www.reputationgarage.com

If you currently get to us through our Blogger URL via a reader, email notice or other way, please go to our new site and re-subscribe.

We look forward to connecting with you there!

Jarvis

Our New Site - Coming Soon

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:45:00 +0000

Well it's happened. We've become a business consultancy. Readers of this blog know that the Reputation Garage has operated for some years as a "garage band" of chief marketing officers, agency types, training, and performance experts. Our mission has been to create new ways for organizations to build trust and improve reputational performance. As an open source collaborative, we've been posting new ideas, best practices and research on this blog since 2007.

Our apologies to our readers all over the world for having neglected this blog over the past few months as we've concentrated on establishing the new consultancy. But good things our on the say. Our new site will be up in another week. We look forward to connecting with you there!

All best,

Jarvis

The "All-Digital-All-the-Time" Agency Network

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 16:43:00 +0000

Andrew Jaffe

Maurice Levy is perhaps the most under-reported, undervalued person in advertising. In the span of 20 years, he has taken a smallish European network of agencies based in Paris and built it into a colossus.

Levy's Publicis Groupe today owns Publicis, Saatchi, Leo Burnett, Fallon, 49% of Bartle Bogle Hegarty, Droga5, Starcom, Mediavest and now the digital giants, Digitas, the largest digital agency in the world, with Razorfish and VivaKi, Denuo and on and on.

But though we hear frequently from Martin Sorrell of WPP, Michael Roth of Interpublic and occasionally even from press-shy John Wren of Omnicom, the American business press rarely features Levy. When it came time for Business Week to do a cover story on advertising's current problems, it bypassed Levy for the flamboyant (“Love Notes”), Australian-born CEO of the Saatchi network, Kevin Roberts.

One reason Levy has quietly outdistanced his rivals in terms of turning in solid, quarter-on-quarter revenues and profits, is that he saw the shift coming 10 or so years ago and began buying up digital assets. Today 25% of Publicis Groupe revenues come from digital advertising and media services. Levy saw the future, bet the farm on digital and now is worth careful watching.

A week ago MediaPost.com reported that Levy plans to transform Publicis Groupe into an “all-digital agency.” “We have very good numbers for growth in digital,” he said. “And this is something which is offsetting the decrease of some other activities.”

I've been trying to figure out what Levy means by “all-digital agency.” Was he talking about just letting Digitas and his other digital assets grow and prosper, or was he saying that all his properties were going to become “all-digital?”

And then I started thinking about what that phrase would mean if Levy implemented this strategy across his three big traditional networks, Leo Burnett, Publicis and Saatchi.

If these great monoliths dared to call themselves "All Digital" would they jettison the layers of people still trying to shoehorn clients into big branding campaigns played out in TV, print and radio?

Or did Levy simply mean that he was going to get his agencies thinking digital first, coming up with digital solutions that then could be applied to other platforms and media?

Maybe "All Digital" a new language in branding-so all he was talking about was gaining universal literacy in the new mother tongue. Or is "All Digital" a strategy? Or the natural evolution of where the agency business is going?

When Business Week in the Kevin Roberts' cover story noted the drop in revenues at Saatchi and asked Levy what he was going to do about it, he responded that he wasn't going to do anything about it-that that was Kevin Roberts problem. Quoting Business Week:

[Levy wondered] if a creative agency like Saatchi should continue to manage a client's branding efforts. Perhaps the digital specialists should do it….Levy expresses nothing but affection and admiration for Roberts. But he warns: "It is no longer necessarily the creative agency dictating what's best for the client."

Here I think Levy, visionary that he is, is pulling our leg. Saatchi has a number of major clients-led by global duties on Toyota. Until Toyota is ready to demand an “all digital agency” - I don't think Roberts is ready to change its spots - nor is Levy about to demand it.

Ah me, sometimes we can see the future so clearly. But we have to wait months or years for what we see in our crystal balls to become reality.

Everyone is changing gears as fast as they can, led by clients who helped Internet advertising grow 37.5% in the second quarter of this year. But when and if Toyota is ready to make its big move, say transforming Prius into a separate division rather than a couple of hybrids, will it rely primarily on digital to make the change?

I think not.

I think we are still in the nether world where it's going to take us 10 years or so to resolve these issues. Digital may be a language, which is becoming second nature to all of us. But it may not be a strategy. The strategy still is to create in consumers a need, affinity for, and trust in a brand. We know, then, that the Prius must act a certain way over time - and respond to consumers wherever they connect with the brand, either in an ad, in a call to customer service, in the showroom, on the Web, and (the one Detroit forgot) while on the road.

I think where Levy is going is similar to what Bill Gates did at Microsoft, when he told his charges years ago that from now on everything at Microsoft would be built to live on the Internet. But wait, Windows 7 still comes in a box. You still can buy it in a store (in fact soon you're going to be able to buy it in a Microsoft store). Sure, it must be available on the Web, and everything it does must easily move back and forth within the cloud to other users. But Gates' destination hasn't been reached quite yet.

Setting the right destination and figuring out how fast to go there remains the single most important real-life issue for agency heads, especially now as they re-engineer their agencies and budgets for 2010. Unfortunately there are no hard answers. So they can either follow Levy, and seek to make major changes now, or take baby steps and let the future take care of itself.

All Digital, to me, is an intriguing concept. But tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and the future performance of the world's most important brands depend on each agency head making the right call.

Sometimes the hardest trust issue of all is the future.

About Andrew Jaffe

Reputation Garage Trustmeister Andrew Jaffe is the former executive director of The Clio Awards and a former editor of Adweek. His latest book "Casting for Big Ideas: A New Manifesto fo Agency Managers," published by Wiley, lays out why big agencies are slowly dying at a time when new kinds of smaller firms are giving marketers the relevancy and performance they need in today's marketplace.

Why You must Offer Customers a Guiding Oar in Today's Environment

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Thu, 14 May 2009 18:39:00 +0000

By Britton Manasco

What does it take to earn the trust of key decision-makers and influencers in today’s turbulent economy?

It’s no longer simply about product features or service capabilities. When your customers are making a significant commitment and putting precious dollars (even their own business) at risk, they expect more than ever before. They want a helping hand and a guiding oar. They aren’t just investing in your solutions; they are investing in a promise of superior returns and best practice. They are investing in your company as a leading advisor and authority who is ready, willing and able to help them navigate a challenging period in economic history.

That is why buyers will increasingly gravitate towards thought leaders.

Cisco Systems, the $40 billion maker of networking systems and solutions, represents a great example of this point. The company managed to eclipse competitors such as Juniper Networks and Alcatel-Lucent by thinking of itself not just as a technology company but a “leadership consultancy.” John Chambers, the firm’s CEO, contends that the insights Cisco has gained by networking its own business can now be shared with its clients to help them drive growth. “We’re really talking about business process change,” he says. “And since we have done it for ourselves, we can show others how.”

Over more than a decade, Cisco has actively promoted its ideas about how to leverage networks for business success. It has underwritten ground-breaking research. It has published extensively. And its executives, particularly Chambers, have been visible proponents of network-driven business. Such efforts help to set Cisco apart from other players in the networking sector while opening up new markets – such as telepresence and web conferencing – for the company to penetrate. The company’s thought leadership positions it as a respected authority as opposed to simply another vendor.

So what does it take to become the authority in a marketplace and earn the trust of one’s prospects? As the experience of respected players such as Cisco, SalesForce.com, McKinsey and FedEx suggest, there are several steps once must take to become a thought leader. Among them:

1. Identify issue(s) that you wish to own and content that helps customers.

You can’t be an authority on everything. It’s critical to determine the issues that matter – or will matter – to the customers you intend to engage. SalesForce.com recognized the growing expense of software implementation and integration as a growing source of dissatisfaction. Note that the issue was framed from the point of view of the buyer’s problem as opposed to the seller’s product features. The company’s CEO, Marc Benioff, became the voice of a buyer backlash and promoter of a new approach that turned a painful capital expense into an operational one that is comparatively easier to justify and implement.

2. Invest in the development of solid, research-driven insights and perspectives.

The key here is to actively engage in the research necessary to stay on top of market trends, customer concerns and new business opportunities. Consistently cited as the most prestigious and influential consulting firm in the world, McKinsey & Co. recognized the wider potential of investing in thought leadership back in the 1970s and 1980s. It would produce top research on management topics and then, present it as scholarly articles in the Harvard Business Review or thought-provoking editorials in the Wall Street Journal. Other research and insights – such as those produced by the McKinsey Global Institute – are presented to clients and prospects in its own influential publication, the McKinsey Quarterly.

3. Develop a distinct, high-level position/message that resonates and is authentic.

Companies must move beyond what they sell to focus on the results they deliver and their thought leadership is a powerful way of conveying this perspective. Cisco offers another interesting example here. The company recognizes that “networking technology” is a little cold and mechanistic on its own. With this in mind, it has coined the umbrella term “human network effect” for its marketing and customer outreach efforts. The concept not only humanizes the company, but reflects the fact that the real winners are people and that its success stories have a distinctly human face.

4. Leverage your insights in multiple channels.

FedEx's thought leadership marketing program, known as “Access,” reaches C-suite decision-makers through multiple channels including executive events, web site initiatives and direct mail. The company also publishes a custom magazine, Access Review, to reach its targeted customers. The program is designed to show FedEx's leadership role in the global economy. Grounding its point of view in solid research, FedEx commissioned the independent, nonprofit research firm SRI International to study and measure the movement of goods and information around the world. Each year, the company releases a new report ranking 75 nations based on nearly two-dozen indicators of access to information and physical goods.

As the premium for customer trust continues to rise in the coming years, companies will increasingly embrace thought leadership as a means of earning and strengthening it. Buyers now expect their suppliers and solution providers to illuminate the path forward and guide them through demanding decisions. By meeting this profound need, thought leaders take the steps necessary to become market leaders.

Britton Manasco is a contributing "trustmeister" to the Reputation Garage and founder of Manasco Marketing Partners, a firm that specialized in thought leadership strategy and execution. He also produces the blog, Illuminating the Future: How Thought Leaders Become Market Leaders.

Recession Landmines Do Not Discriminate: Proceed With Extreme Caution

noreply@blogger.com (Stephanie Fierman) — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 03:33:00 +0000

by Stephanie Fierman

A recession landmine is like a real landmine. It’s going to kill or maim whomever steps on it. The guilty, the innocent… it doesn’t matter. A landmine does not discriminate. You just explode.

And so it was with a recent Pepsi ad for G2 (low-calorie Gatorade).

When you watch the ad, you can see what Pepsi was trying to do almost immediately, then BLAM: it spins around like Linda Blair’s head and everyone’s covered in slime. This means Pepsi now have something in common with AIG, but more on later.

The shots move back and forth between NBA player Kevin Garnett and a normal, suburban-looking guy - also named Kevin – who loves to swim. The voiceover also switches back and forth between the two men, and herein lies the problem. In trying to write a Nike-reminiscent “athletic striving” ad, the supposedly inspiring statements appear to mock and insult people who have lost their jobs or are otherwise suffering due to the economic crisis. See for yourself (if you cannot already see the ad on your screen, click HERE).

When I first heard about this controversy, I’ll admit it: I really, really wanted to support Pepsi. Pepsi's a great brand. But this spot has issues.

The lines are being called "arrogant and insensitive" and a "cruel" "slap in the face":

Garnett: “I’ve never been handed a pink slip…” “I’ve never had to tell me wife ‘We can’t pay the mortgage.’” (Kevin “The Big Ticket” Garnett has a $24.75 million contract with the NBA)

Normal Kevin: “I’ve never had to fill the holes in my sneakers with cardboard.”

Garnett: “I’ve never used the backstroke as a ‘coping mechanism.’”

And with these statements, my professional persona disappeared and I became a person who can’t pay for food, who doesn’t have health insurance, who has to drop out of school. The sneaker comment struck this trustmeister as particularly startling. Normal Kevin moves us swiftly down the road, past unemployment, with homelessness straight ahead.

How did Pepsi end up in this place? The financial services companies got into trouble for how they handled their (financial services) business. They made endemic mistakes, in their own backyards. This energy drink runs right into a buzz saw for no reason at all.

And so let us come back to how Pepsi now shares something with AIG. Both companies failed to grasp how people are feeling today… how “business as usual” no longer applies. 1.3 million children in the United States are homeless at some time every year - and that was before the recession started. One could assume that some of these children must use cardboard to fill the holes in their shoes.

If you think this is overly dramatic, we would respectfully suggest that you could step on the same landmine that Pepsi and the banks did, either while you’re on the job or chatting at a cocktail party. This is a sea of vast, vast pain.

Personally, I am counseling clients today to look hard at the need to advertise right now. If you are running ads, make sure they are seen and tested with a much broader swath of consumers and experts - people who may not be in your target audience. Put the ads through the mill. Have linguists and child advocates and food bank directors mull every word, every image.

Is all this fair? Fairness is not at play; raw nerve endings are. We are all in the business to sell, of course, but at what cost at this very moment? The news and current events are swinging wildly from one day to the next: are you comfortable deciding what messaging won't spark an undesirable (albeit inadvertent) reaction? Think long-term. If you’re not 100% secure in next week’s flight, cancel it. Because getting this wrong could negatively affect your brand’s reputation for years, if not a lifetime.

#1 In Our Series for Keeping Customers In Tough Times (Nicolette Wuring)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:11:00 +0000

TIP 1: In Today’s Low-trust World Your Promises Are Much Less Likely to Be Believed. Focus Instead on Improving Your Ability to Deliver Meaningful Interactions With Customers that Build Trust.

A cable company in Europe launched a re-branding soon after a roll-up of acquisitions by a group of venture capitalists.

The investors demanded that the re-branding take place almost immediately. This was not only premature and meaningless to employees and customers, it proved harmful. Premature because on the inside this organization was far from one company. Harmful because important organizational, operational and cultural objectives necessary to sustain the rebranding hadn’t been met. Worse still, mistrust and insecurity could be found throughout the organization in abundance. Employees were insecure about retaining their jobs after the roll-up. They were uncertain about how to represent the new entity. And for many loyalties remained rooted in the company they used to work for. Customer-facing policies and procedures were not in place yet. Systems had not been integrated.

Disregarding all this, the investors demanded that management forge ahead with a re-branding. The effort introduced a vision for a completely new DNA for the culture. It painted a picture for the outside world of a company that sets itself apart by truly listening to its customers and one that enters into a personal dialogue with you. The brand image was warm, engaged, truly caring, attentive and accessible. A company that makes complicated things simple. Boring things more fun. Dishonest things honest.

And the impossible, possible.

Now what do you suppose a group of confused, fearful and uncertain employees of this company felt when this re-branding hit the above- and below-the-line communication channels? How do you suppose their customers felt when confronted with completely disengaged and confused employees who were struggling with legacy operational issues that made it impossible to deliver on the brand promise? What do you suppose was the media coverage on these results, or the comments posted by customers and employees in online social environments?

The results were very bad indeed. The company lost employees and customers, prospects turned to alternatives, and every Euro invested in the brand campaign was largely wasted. Had this disaster taken place in the current environment, where companies can ill-afford mistakes, things would have been even worse.

Learning: Job #1 as a starting point in keeping customers is to deliver on promises. Lead with trusted actions and only then back them up with brand imagery and communications. The people you interact with as a company, especially your employees and customers, make or break many a brand’s reputation. Never make promises or create expectations they cannot live up to!

Nicolette Wuring is an internationally acclaimed and awarded Customer Advocacy thought leader, speaker, author and boardroom advisor to Fortune 500 companies. She is the founder of Customer M@nagement Services, www.customeradvocacy.biz, a strategic consulting firm dedicated to helping business conceive of increasing their economic value by creating emotional connections and trust with their employees and customers.

Financial Firms Must Break From The Pack To (Re-)Establish Trust

noreply@blogger.com (Stephanie Fierman) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 00:22:00 +0000

by Stephanie Fierman

Here at the Garage, we believe that a more measured approach to bank and investment advertising is probably a positive development.

After all, hadn’t all the ads begun to look the same? Could every company and every investment have possibly offered the best return, and the most Morningstar stars, and the biggest retirement homes in paradise? Unlikely. Outside of just a few stalwarts, such as Vanguard with its slow-and-steady point of view and Bogle-esque approach, many of the siren calls in the newspaper, on television and online had all taken on a surreal and undifferentiated patina. That’s not effective.

Now it appears that all the bulls have stampeded in the opposite direction.

Consider the list of firms advertising in one issue of The Wall Street Journal this past week, along with text pulled verbatim from their ads:

MORGAN STANLEY: “To find the smart investments today, you need to be world wise.”

MERRILL LYNCH (aka Bank of America): “Seeing clearly. Acting confidently.” “With personal insight into your goals and an understanding of the market…” “…Find a smart place for your money.”

CME GROUP: “Rise Above the Risk.” “For more than a century CME Group has provided competitive, transparent and safe markets.” “…protect customers and ensure financial integrity by guaranteeing the performance of every transaction on our exchange.”

TD AMERITRADE: “There’s never been a better time for a second opinion.”

FIDELITY: “Guaranteed income you can live with.”

GLENMEDE: “There’s no substitute for safety and stability.”

PNC: “…It’s also a way of doing business that has strength and stability at its very core.”

Safe, smart, transparent and guaranteed: these are the adjectives to which financial firms are now rushing as they adjust to our new economic circumstances. The problem is – well, it’s the same problem as before, isn’t it? If your messages are entirely undifferentiated from those of your competitors, they essentially melt into one and stakeholders become unable to distinguish one from the other.

If the Garage held a focus group tonight, and scrambled the names of the above firms and the quoted text, we would challenge any budding Trustmeister to re-match the elements correctly.

And killing an ad’s effectiveness may, in fact, be the most benign result. Worse? Just as when every firm claimed great returns – which turned out to be untrue and, in some cases, backed by unscrupulous actions – everyone now shouting about safety looks equally as unlikely and untrustworthy.

All of these brands are more and are capable of doing more: the “more” being the hard work needed to determine exactly what it is about the brand that is unique and distinguishable from the competition.*

Without doing this work, going out with a “safety” message isn’t safe at all.

* Many of the above firms may not technically be competitors, but that’s an insider’s view. To the public and the U.S. Congress, too much of the same becomes one shapeless – and dubious – perception.

A version this post was first published on http://www.stephaniefiermanmarketingdaily.com/.

Customer Service: Your lifeline in the Crisis (Nicolette Wuring)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 13:33:00 +0000

Editors Note:

General Electric’s Jeff Immelt recently noted that the global economy is not simply undergoing an economic downturn, but an emotional, social and economic reset.

Is your management team feeling panic about that? Applying the thinking developed by the trustmeisters here in the Reputation Garage can help. If Mr. Immelt is right, and we think he is, your management team will need to radically change its playbook. And not only have the rules changed, there is not yet a lot of clarity around what the new game board looks like.

Below our newest “trustmeister,” Amsterdam-based Nicolette Wuring, offers thoughts as this relates to her specialty: customer advocacy, operations and service. In a follow-up piece, Nicolette will offer tips for keeping customers in this rough and tumble environment.

------------------

As your management team works its plans to manage the current downturn, it’s worth remembering that we are all at once suffering a financial market crisis, a world economic crisis, a management crisis, an ethics/values crisis, and a crisis of changing consumer purchase and lifestyle priorities.

First and foremost this crisis is about trust, and trust is earned and lost by people. Over many years businesses became so short-term profit-focused that the managers, employees and even customers became just variables in the profit equation, traded off as assets or liabilities, not as the human beings they are. “Customer right sizing” is but one of hundreds of examples of this. In too many cases the “right” was for profits, not the customer. And the customer knew this and promptly withdrew credits on deposit from the company’s earned trust bank.

Or consider the CSR paradigm “People – Planet – Profit” that is widely promulgated here in Europe. Most corporations have not only been short performance on the planet-side, but also on the people-side. This has accelerated the profit collapse.

The BIG question for industries and companies is how to become profitable again? The answer for 2009 is that you must get much better at finding ways to keep your customers by earning their trust. Relationships develop between people, not between “corporations” and “customers.” That’s where the customer facing people in organizations enter into the equation.

A good starting point is to answer the following questions:

1) Do we have a strong level of “earned” trust among our customers?

2) Can we quantify it?

3) Do we have strong managerial and operational competency to build trust through our customer-facing operations?

4) Have we set the right goals to drive trust, and are the right metrics in place to track progress?

Customer Service, Customer Care, Customer Operations, you know, all those people who manage the trust you build in your business cannot be treated as dehumanized robots, as ‘human doings’, managed at a task level for their quantitative results. One of management’s top priorites right now is to boost their role as the window to ‘the corporation’, representing the organization. The bottom line? You must find ways to help your organization to better interact with customers as human beings. That is how you will earn trust and improve your relationships.

Her latest book Customer Advocacy: When You Care People Notice is available on Amazon.

In Toys We Trust (By Jarvis Cromwell)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 20:37:00 +0000

When my brother sent me an Amazon link to Playmobil’s Security Check Point toy I was sure this was either a joke or a phishing scheme.

Nope. It’s real. Buy it here. Cost of the toy: $62. Customer reviews: priceless.

Welcome to planet earth circa 2009. If we had to pick a symbol for the low-trust headwinds blowing a destructive chill around the globe, this might be it.

Needless to say some Amazon customers are having fun with this one, as in this example:

I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5 year-old son pointed out that the passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said "that's the worst security ever!". But it turned out to be okay, because when the passenger got on the Playmobil B757 and tried to hijack it, she was mobbed by a couple of other heroic passengers, who only sustained minor injuries in the scuffle, which were treated at the Playmobil Hospital.

Or this one:

Do they make a Playmobil GSE Mortgage Set, complete with little plastic Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae CEO's, ...and maybe little plastic Congressmen that get really rich, really fast when they are in charge of overseeing little Fannie and Freddie CEO's? ...Oh, ...and maybe an armada of little plastic attorneys to protect the little plastic Congressmen and little plastic Freddie and Fannie CEO's.

Other customers are disturbed:

“It's disturbing because the toy teaches children that fear and paranoia is normal. That it's right and correct for society to distrust its citizens the minute they buy an airline ticket…. It erodes trust between citizens, replacing it with trust in a government entity (HSA)--a government that of late has done quite a bit to suggest that it in no way deserves that trust.”

Unfortunately there is a lot to be disturbed about as a parent in today’s world. Not just the prospect of terrorism and the loss of childhood innocence, but also trust in the safety of the toys themselves. More than 20 million toys manufactured in China were recalled for lead paint and other hazards in 2007 — 138 recalls in all. 2008 was better, but there were still over 70 recalls. We note that Playmobil toys, manufactured in Europe, haven’t had any problems.

A quote from the New York Times in 2007 sums it up:

“Nobody wants to be a paranoid parent,” said Ms. Gumbinner, 39, of Brooklyn Heights, who works as a creative director for a Los Angeles advertising agency and is a co-founder of the site coolmompicks.com. “I mean, where do you draw the line between cautionary and crazy?”

Will Sponsors Throw A Life Line To Michael Phelps?

noreply@blogger.com (Stephanie Fierman) — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 00:42:00 +0000

by Stephanie Fierman

Well. Well, well, well. What can one say about the picture of Michael Phelps smoking marijuana from a bong?
Yes that’s right kids, your gold-medal idol is smoking grass. Weed. Ganja. He’s inhaled. And it looks like he’s done it before, too.

Having moms ourselves, The Garage shudders to think what Phelps’ mother may have said in reaction to the news. And if your Phelps’ reps at Octagon, you've started bailing water. Fast.

Phelps has issued a statement and apology using the “I’m young and dumb” approach and, as Fox Sports is already reporting, this event is likely to fade in the memory of the public. The question is whether sponsors will be willing to help mend his reputation as quickly.

Kid-focused McDonald’s and Kellogg’s Frosted Flakes, for example, have both counted on Phelps to project a wholesome, healthy All-American image. Maybe Phelps could just alter his pitch for McDonald’s a little bit: “Duuuude! After I smoke, I get, like, the wicked munchies. A Big Mac totally hits the spot.” Yikes.

Chances are good that Phelps’ fortunes will survive long-term if this side of him never sees daylight again. But if there's more to come – if this episode turns out to be only Strike 2 following his arrest for drunk driving in 2004 – his sponsorship potential may not recover for decades, if ever.

A version of this post was originally posted at www.stephaniefierman.com.

Tone Deafness In Financial Advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Stephanie Fierman) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:08:00 +0000

by Stephanie Fierman

If we here at the Garage haven’t said it aloud just yet, it should be a given that financial services advertising is an arena fraught with peril these days. Do you advertise at all? And, if so, what message do you communicate that won't end up sounding like a punch line? Consider for a moment that Lehman Brothers won a Best Advertising Campaign of the Year in 2007 and Bear Stearns’ tagline was “Risk Managed. Value Added.”

You can’t make this stuff up.

Here’s a Bear Stearns stress ball for sale on eBay that carries the line “Little Things. Big Impacts.” (Ha ha ha! Thank youuuu! Please remember to pay your waitresses!)

Unfortunately, Bessemer Trust appears to be playing the dark comedy angle this week.

Henry Phipps founded Bessemer over 100 years ago to manage his family’s proceeds from the sale of Carnegie Steel. Today, the firm’s website states that Bessemer manages in excess of $50B in assets for over 1,900 families, and that its “history of serving wealthy families affords us an understanding of the issues that matter to you.”

It would be safe to assume that some of those “issues” might include the scary guy in the room these days, Economic Meltdown, and his accompanying stooges, Uncertainty, Irresponsibility, Misrepresentation and Anxiety. A financial firm that chooses to advertise in this climate must reflect that it understands these realities.

So imagine my surprise when I saw Bessemer’s ad in The Wall Street Journal: a half-page ad with huge type, saying “We invest your money right along with ours. Needless to say, you benefit from some very careful thinking.”
My reaction: “They’re joking. Bessemer is an honorable and discreet company. Why would they get down in the mud with other companies that followed this same practice and lost their investors billions of dollars?” Investing your own funds is no guarantee of anything – it’s not a guarantee of wealth, intelligence, integrity or the “alignment of interest” touted in Bessemer’s ad. Lots of categories currently in the hot seat invest their own funds: venture capital firms, investment banks, mortgage companies… Enron invested its own funds alongside clients, for Pete's sake!

The ad's small type does actually call out some positive characteristics and benefits of working with Bessemer “as the credit crisis loomed.” Unfortunately, I am fairly certain that no one who saw this ad ever read that far.

Does Bessemer have an executive tuned in to the reputation and trust zeitgeist today? If not, it needs one; if so, we would suggest a bit of retuning. Contact us here at the Garage: we’ll be gentle.

A version of this post was originally published at www.stephaniefiermanmarketingdaily.com.

The Transitivity of Trust (Or Why I Don't Trust Roland Burris)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:27:00 +0000

Paul Allen

I was thinking to myself the other day that I would not trust Roland Burris as far as I could throw him (which btw is a very strange expression when you think about it – right up there with “the proof is in the pudding”). Now, it is important to note that, up until recently, I had never heard of Roland Burris. And I am probably not alone as far as that goes. And it is likely that my initial take on Burris is not well informed.

But nonetheless, I do not trust Roland Burris.

Unless you have been living on the same island as the cast of LOST, you know that Roland Burris is the Illinois Attorney General just seated in the US senate filling the post vacated by Barack Obama. Of course the big story around Burris’s appointment is his appointer – Rod Blagojevich (a.k.a. “Blago the Impeached”). Burris was the net result of Blagojevich’s “pay for preference” scandal in which he sought to personally profit through the appointment of Obama’s senate successor. “Blago” persisted in his legal right to make this appointment while being pursued for violating the Constitution of the United States in his attempt to make some personal coin off this appointment. Not a good guy at all. And remarkably stubborn in his “wrongness.” Not to mention his poor taste in hairstyles.

The good news is that Blagojevich is being impeached. And will face Federal charges. The bad news is that I still don’t trust Roland Burris. But I think I know why.

It is the “Transitivity of Trust” theory. Which I just made up. But it is based on some fairly sound mathematical principals, much of which we all learned in middle school or perhaps high school.

Do you remember the transitive property? It goes something like this:

In mathematics, a binary relation R over a set X is transitive if whenever an element a is related to an element b, and b is in turn related to an element c, then a is also related to c.

Transitivity is a key property of both partial order relations and equivalence relations.

Or more simply:

Whenever A = B and B = C, then also A = C.

So in this case, let’s say that I am “A”, and “Blago the Impeached” is “B”. I think I’ve already made the case (as has the entire media community) that Blagojevich is not a trustworthy guy. This is evidenced by his being the first governor to ever be impeached in the state if Illinois.

So A (me) does not trust B (“Blago”) at all. Who would?

Now, let’s say newly appointed senator Burris is “C”, It seems to me that Roland Burris must feel pretty good about Blagojevich and his decision to nominate him to the senate. After all, despite the controversy around Blagojevich’s rights, wrongs and general bad behavior Burris seems to have no problem accepting the nomination. Burris, in effect, trusts and supports Blagojevich. So to me that means “B=C”. In another words, Blagojevich and Burris appear to be cut from the same cloth – perhaps some kind of self-absorbing fabric.

So, if I (A) don’t trust Blagojevich (B). And (B) trusts Burris (C) (and vice versa). Then according to the “Transitivity of Trust” I (A) do not trust Burris (C). And that’s that.

It’s probably worth noting that Burris’ nomination came with the condition that it was for one term only. So even the government of the United States of America does not fully trust Roland Burris. Because of Rod Blagojevich. This transitivity thing is no joke.

The big lesson for me in this is how much a perception of trust can be influenced by the company one keeps. Trust (or lack thereof) is a very transferable notion. It can be rubbed on or off by those you choose to associate with. As a person, or institution becomes serious in it’s mission to become truly trustworthy (which means addressing image, culture, behaviors, values and transactions), the “Transitivity of Trust” becomes a very relevant phenomenon.

Aspiring Trustmeisters (folks who are committed to helping themselves and their organizations establish an trust-based operating approach) must put this phenomenon into real practice. Choose your colleagues and associates carefully. Assess their real and perceived trustworthiness. And don’t work with anyone who uses Rod Blagojevich as a reference.

Quotes That Tell the Story of Our Times

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 03:48:00 +0000

Jarvis Cromwell

Here entirely in quotes is the story of the lowest trust age in a century. (I've paraphrased in a couple of minor instances, but you get the idea.)

“Trust is like the air we breathe. When it’s present, nobody really notices. But when it’s absent, everybody notices.” -Warren Buffett

"Not so long ago companies assumed the purpose of a business is to make money. But that has proved as vacuous as saying the purpose of life is to eat…

The purpose of a business is to create and keep a customer
To do that you have to produce and deliver goods and services that people want and value
To continue to do that a company must produce revenues in excess of costs in quantities and with enough regularity to attract and hold investors
No enterprise can do this by accident or instinct, it must clarify its purposes, strategies and plans
There must be a system of rewards, audits and controls to make sure what’s intended gets properly done, and when not, quickly rectified." -Theodore Levitt

“ABN AMRO has set itself one governing objective — maximizing value for shareholders. Setting one objective allows an organization to develop a common language and standards for decision-making and ensures that all energies are focused on reaching the objective." -ABN AMRO, 2003

"Royal Bank of Scotland on Monday announced it expects to suffer a loss of up to £28bn last year. The RBS loss will be the biggest in British corporate history...Almost all their losses are in subprime mortgages in America and related to the acquisition of ABN Amro... "These are irresponsible risks taken by the bank with people’s money in the UK,” Mr. Brown said, adding that the decision to buy ABN ”was wrong”. -Excerpted from Two Reports in the Financial Times, Jan 19, 2009

“The roots of mistrust in organizations are 1) the misalignment of measurements and rewards, 2) incompetence, 3) lack of appreciation for a system, 4) untrustworthy information and 5) integrity failure." -John O. Whitney

“The theory of capitalism, going back to Adam Smith over 200 years ago, sees an alignment of interest between consumers and businesses… This theory assumes that consumers are rational in their choices, and to a large extent they are. -Robert Shiller

“This is the worst showing for Corporate America in 30 years... It is unprecedented, in fact, to see this many people with an unfavorable opinion of big business.” -Roper ASW, July 23 2002

Trust Recovery Path: The Leadership Challenge (Jarvis Cromwell)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:19:00 +0000

Back in 2007 we quoted renowned free-marketeer Milton Friedman on the pages of this blog as follows:

“There is one and only one social responsibility of business," Friedman wrote back in 1970, and that is to “engage in activities designed to increase profits.”

Friedman’s viewpoint ultimately became the guiding principal of an era: profitable self-interest would be viewed as the only reliable endgame by most businesses.

And the Friedman playbook worked for a time. The rise of the activist shareholder movement, deregulation, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the creation of the Jack Welch rules of management, financial engineering and an expanded investor tool set as applied by the hedge fund industry were all celebrated as triumphs of the free-market.

Unfortunately, as we all now know things haven't ended so well. Along the way Friedman's proscription morphed (somewhat hideously) from its original intent of pursuing activities to increase profits to the idea that profits must be pursued at all cost.

The costs were higher than anyone imagined. We read today that there is increasing consensus that there will be a 15-25% drop in the standard of living around the world (more in some especially beleaguered regions) as a result of the current crisis. Wow. And some corners are now arguing that 2008 was to capitalism what 1989 was to communism. Is this the demise of free market capitalism as we know it? Or is there a way out of this place?

The optimistic view is that our current sorry state of affairs will herald a new era of free market capitalism that fellow trustmiester Dr. Sri Raghavan has termed "True Metric" capitalism. In other words, we will begin to measure what truly matters for the health of the system. To achieve that, organizations will need to look towards metrics beyond short-term profit to measure the health of our markets and businesses.

The pessimistic view is that business leaders won't lead us in this direction. Over a year ago the futurist Andrew Zolli wrote a piece in Fast Company where he declared that the oblivious capitalist’s days are numbered. In this case Zolli cast his eye to the future and concluded that a host of global forces will force a remake of the playbook for business success. Business will profit by driving a wider social agenda and “the clinical, value-neutral capitalism of old” will fall by the wayside.

Let's face it, whichever way you slice it companies have much work to do. That work includes reducing costs and preparing financially for a long winter. But beyond the very real financial contstaints, this is a time of customer scarcity and increasing fear. Building trust must now become a central means through which companies will drive customer sales, loyalty and retention, employee engagement, productivity and, ultimately, long-term shareholder value. It is an essential metric to the survival of capitalism as we know it. Warren Buffett compared trust and confidence to the air we breath. We take it for granted until it's gone. Hopefully management teams around the world are realizing just how essential it is to our survival.

What do you think? Are the days numbered for the oblivious capitalist -- or will leadership rise to the challenge and institute a new set of performance measures to bring us back from the brink? Which companies will get it, which won't? We would like to know your views.

Fall of GM - A Visual Guide

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 01:23:00 +0000

Jarvis Cromwell

In this chart depicting both the internal and external factors responsible for the Fall of GM, 75% of the management-related factors have trust-related issues.

Unfortunately, this comes as a surprise to nobody other than GM management.

From wallstats.com

Annual Rankings for Most Trusted Companies for Privacy

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Wed, 24 Dec 2008 16:13:00 +0000

By Jarvis Cromwell

Privacy, identify theft and data breaches remain trust flash points for organizations. The latest ranking for most-trusted companies for privacy in 2008 from the Ponemon Institute and TRUSTe finds American Express eBay and IBM are the top three most trusted companies.

As the chart below indicates, Google is no longer ranked among the top 20 most trusted companies for privacy, while Apple, Facebook, and Yahoo make the list for the first time.

One of the most important findings from the survey for would-be corporate trustmeisters is the gap developing between the importance privacy holds with consumers and the lack of control they feel over their personal information.

Seventy-three percent of consumers say the protection of their personal privacy is “important” or “very important,” up from 69 percent in 2006.
Only 45% feel they have control over their personal information, down from 56% percent in 2006.

Greater transparency is available to consumers on this issue from organizations like Privacy Rights Clearinghouse, which posts an online chronological database of data breaches that would scare anybody based on the depth and breadth of the list.

Despite the current financial climate, Amex retained the top spot in this year’s list, and Nationwide and Charles Schwab all managed to retain their top 10 rankings as well.

The study asked 6,486 adult-aged US consumers which companies they thought were most trustworthy and which did the best job safeguarding personal information. A total of 706 companies were named by consumers and 211 made the final list of most trusted companies.

A Kids Restaurant Chain Risks It All (Stephanie Fierman)

noreply@blogger.com (Stephanie Fierman) — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 15:48:00 +0000

Wow, Chuck E. Cheese has a problem.

The Wall Street Journal ran a half-page story in Section A yesterday that would cause any parent to run for the hills. While CEC describes itself as a place "where a kid can be a kid" and the cover of its 2007 Annual Report boasts "The Evolution of Fun," it appears that the actual stores have become a magnet for bad behavior and danger. Police all over the U.S. have been dealing with fights, guests carrying weapons and boozed-up brawls.

When a public official describes his local Chuck E. Cheese as "something out of a Quentin Tarantino film," you know you have a serious problem. The picture at right shows the CEC in said politician's Milwaukee neighborhood - with an armed guard out front.

A simple glance at Google tells the Web 2.0 tale. Of 9 front-page search results for "Chuck E. Cheese," 5 are negative. Of 10 front-page results for "McDonalds," 0 are negative.

So where is the crisis management plan and what is the company doing about this problem? While the company's head of marketing describes the fights and problems as "atypical," the risk to a corporation is not always volume-based. Only one child or parent needs to die in one of these melees for CEC to get sued into the ether.

Not only is (a) taking aggressive action and then (b) broadly communicating your plan the "right thing to do," it ultimately protects the bottom line and shareholder value. Take the saddest, most base scenario: if the company gets sued over a child's death, it will be in far better stead with the courts - and the public - if it can show an active, consistent and good-faith effort to address this problem. Such an effort could very well include suffering a short-term revenue hit by closing the most troubled locations in the near 500-location chain. And continuing to serve alcohol in most stores is a recipe for disaster. What percentage of revenue coming from alcohol sales - at children's birthday parties - is worth a legal debacle that effectively cripples the company?

I frequently refer to the Tylenol poisonings in 1982 and J&J's decision to pull all U.S. product off the shelves even after it was determined that the company had no involvement in the tragedy. This may well be the best example in memory of a company taking the long view.

There is a range of choices CEC can take. At the lower end of the range, management needs to take action in its own backyard to resolve these issues. At the higher end, welcome Alderman Zielinski in as a valued advisor. Hold a press conference with him in Milwaukee where he ceremoniously padlocks his neighborhood location while you rightfully announce that no amount of money is worth putting people's lives in danger. Ask Zielinski to help you create a national "Having Fun Can Be Safe" campaign nationwide.

Wherever CEC lands on this spectrum, it had better act quickly. This is a case where a short-term view could be literally deadly for everyone involved.

A version of this post also appears at www.stephaniefierman.com.

Forrester Groundswell Team Reports Low Trust in Company Blogs

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 21:50:00 +0000

By Jarvis Cromwell for The Reputation Garage

Forrester has just released a report on people's trust in company blogs. The upshot? Very few place a high degree of trust in corporate blogs as an information source. Check it out HERE.

The report, authored by Josh Bernoff, who co-authored the book Groundswell, highlights a survey conducted in Q2 2008 that asked consumers how much trust they had in various information sources. As you can see from the chart below, high trust goes to folks we know. The lowest trust ranking is assigned to company blogs -- with only 16% saying they have a high degree of trust in them.

Forrester and the Groundswell team are bringing fresh insight from the front lines of the social media world to a very important issue. We've noted here in the Garage that trust in big companies (not just their blogs) reached its lowest ebb in a century in 2002 and hasn’t recovered. Dozens upon dozens of research reports and studies confirm this from every conceivable angle. That’s a big problem for business because trust is transactional – meaning that when there is a lot of trust it accelerates a transaction; and when there distrust it acts a clotting agent. This dynamic applies to any transactions that involve human interaction -- whether a blog post, a sale, a conversation, an employee review, etc

David Ogilvy’s oft-quoted line from long ago “the customer is not an idiot, the customer is your wife” holds true here. Most people don’t believe that big companies are in it for them. The Groundswell team's proscriptive advice to make corporate blogs places where companies truly listen, converse, and help their customers is dead on. As is their advice that companies stop and think before joining the “groundswell.”

These are practices worthy of any true trustmeister!

Low Trust Word of the Year Courtesy of Merriam-Webster

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:39:00 +0000

By Jarvis Cromwell for The Reputation Garage

A majority of the most-looked up words in the online Merriam-Webster dictionary once again reflect the current historically low public trust environment. In this year’s top ten the standout candidate for low-trust word of the year is “vet”, which comes in at #2.

Webster’s top ten list for 2008, based on total number of searches of their online dictionary, is as follows:

Bailout
Vet
Socialist
Maverick
Bipartisan
Trepidation
Precipice
Rogue
Misogyny
Turmoil

We doubt many people will have to look up the meaning of "bailout" in 2009.

The dictionary's list has been mirroring the low-trust environment for several years. The #1 word for 2006, “truthiness,” was popularized that year by Stephen Colbert, who defined it as “truth that comes from the gut, not books.” Webster gives truthiness an alternative meaning as “the quality of preferring concepts or facts one wishes to be true, rather than facts known to be true”.

We suspect many of us will be looking for a little more “truthiness” in 2009.

10 Low-Cost Ways to Improve Employee Engagement in the Downturn

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:59:00 +0000

By Jarvis Cromwell for The Reputation Garage

High employee engagement is money in the bank. As the graph opposite shows, companies considered the best to work for between 1998-2004 had a total stock market return of 176% versus 39% for the S&P 500.

But when it comes to engaging employees in this economic downturn, chances are you've got at least three problems. 1) Morale is at a low ebb (surveys have been tracking its decline across most large companies for a decade); 2) high levels of distrust in management limit your ability to rally the troops; and 3) even if you could figure out what to do, the current downturn leaves you with little or no money to address it.

Don’t sit around moping. You’re a manager, so act. There are a number of things you can do that don’t have to break the bank to build trust and improve morale. After all, you can't take the next hill (which is looking to be steep and well fortified) if you don't have the trust of your team. The trick is to be consistent in your approach. Here are ten tips from Forbes that would be a good start.

1) Give thanks

2) Pull them aside for a one-on-one

3) Value family time

4) Invest in their future

5) Surprise them

6) Engage them by handing out pet projects

7) Reward specific achievements

8) Get everyone involved and limit micro-management

9) Heavy up on encouraging a team approach

10) Focus more on fun and less relentlessly on cash

The learning for trustmeisters is that low levels of trust among employees hurts performance. Given the current environment, you'll need to work harder over the next year on this dimension of your job as a manager. See the complete Forbes slide show of all ten tips HERE.

A Diamond is a Cad’s Best Friend

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:17:00 +0000

By Jarvis Cromwell for The Reputation Garage

“Eternally basic is how people live.”

This holiday season, marketers aspiring to be trustmeisters should think about the quote above from the late, great Ted Bernstein of The New York Times. His point was that any scrap of information, every communication, ultimately connects back to people and their lives.

At the end of the day, it’s all about us -- NOT the product, market, basketball score, database, or holiday gift. Marketers call this an emotional connection, but somehow many have forgotten what that means.

Which brings us, strangely enough, to the next quote.

"Stay out of the doghouse this holiday season."

Always good advise, and in severe circumstances what is often required is, well, diamonds.

Luxury goods aren’t easy to sell right now. The ways in which people are thinking about leading their lives in the current setting doesn’t make one bullish on diamond sales.

And it’s more than just consumer retrenchment. As noted in my 11/30 dispatch, Faith Popcorn sees a movement of anti-over-consumerism taking hold among consumers – a “we can't afford it, so we might as well hate it” sentiment. Unfortunately, this is perfectly in sync with the low trust levels of our times.

Below is an approach that we think adeptly disarms the anti-over-consumerism backlash -- a funny viral campaign from the jewelry shop at J.C. Penny titled "Beware of the Doghouse." At 4 minutes it’s bit long, but totally worth the watch. It follows the foibles of, excuse the language, a dual-bag and uses humor to make a trust point: you live and die by your actions. Other positives in our view:

-- The message deeply relates to the audience (or at least to a few of us guys here in the Garage)

-- Great leverage of Facebook

-- Viral power (it starts a fun conversation)

-- Feels authentic

Fellow trustmeister Paul Dunay said it initiated that “damn I wish I thought of that feeling when I saw it.”

The true test of something viral is whether the recipient will “buzz it forward” to more than one person. If N > 1 it will go viral. If N = 1 or is <>

This campaign has N>1 written all over it. We hope it makes JC Penny some money this season.

Watch “Beware of the Doghouse” HERE. Enjoy.

Should You Capitalize on the Visibility Premium? (Britton Manasco)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 16:54:00 +0000

Are you personally seeking higher visibility in your field or profession?

If you answered yes, you’re not alone. More and more of us are aiming to be widely recognized. But this growing trend presents issues for employees and companies to consider.

It used to be that the desire for high visibility was largely confined to stars in the worlds of movies, sports and politics. But in our web-enabled world, those tools have been democratized, and the high visibility trade is now widely practiced. Capitalizing on the advice of folks like Tom Peters, individuals in business and the professions now build “the brand called you.”

In their book High Visibility: Transforming Your Personal and Professional Brand, Philip Kotler, Irving Rein, Michael Hamlin and Martin Stoller argue that high visibility marketing and communication has become a sophisticated industry that reaches deep into the economy. The book, which was originally written in 1997 and was re-released (and re-written) in 2006, provides a framework for understanding the drivers and enablers of visibility. The authors contend that “attaining visibility has become a highly sophisticated process” and “all kinds of people today are seeking ways to become brands.”

So why are more people seeking high visibility?

One reason is that higher visibility often translates into more money. Those who are better recognized command higher fees and salaries and other perks.

Another reason is attention. Those who are well branded in the marketplace attract more prospects (or prospective employers).

A third is trust. One won’t be widely viewed as a provider of trustworthy guidance unless one has already been elevated to a certain level of public recognition and esteem.

Finally, there is status. Tom Wolfe argues that economic expansion after World War II fostered the emergence of new “status spheres,” and encouraged status competition.

For all these reasons organizations are attracted to high visibility individuals. Corporations have paid enormous sums to attract recognized CEOs with impressive track records. Universities seek respected names as their leaders. Newly elected presidents want a certain amount of star power in their cabinets.

But there are downsides. As with Hollywood stars, high visibility can make a career, or break it. It can lift an enterprise or hamstring it. Companies that have sought “rock star” CEOs have often ended up disappointed with the results. Jim Collins, author of Good to Great, points to HP’s transitional struggle with Carla Fiorina and wonders how well Apple will perform over the longer term without Steve Jobs or Oracle without Larry Ellison or Cisco without John Chambers.

“We learned in our research that the most effective leaders never make themselves the center of attention,” wrote Collins in a Wall Street Journal editorial in 2001. “They are understated yet determined, quiet yet forceful. Most lack the liability of charisma. Indeed, the very best ones overwhelmed us not with their ego, but with their humility. They’re ambitious, to be sure, but ambitious first and foremost for their institutions, not for themselves.”

So in this new world where more rank-and-file employees are seeking to increase their personal visibility, how do you balance what’s best for the individual as “visibility aspirant” with what’s best for the enterprise as thought leader and brand? This is an increasingly important question to in today’s highly contested, trust-starved and turbulent markets.

Let me argue that as organizations seek to turn more employees into “thought leaders” in order to boost their reputation and build brand trust; they need to articulate a specific and strategically well thought out set of rules for the road. Also companies should not invest all of their visibility producing resources into just one or a few individuals. Things change. People move on. Risks may outweigh benefits when you invest all your visibility capital into one basket.

It’s better to cultivate multiple thought leaders within an organization and raise their visibility collectively. It’s also important to raise the visibility of the organization itself as a source of trustworthy and authoritative guidance.

For individuals, the visibility premium has powerful allure and can be lucrative. But will you take the necessary steps to earn this premium and build trust with your audiences? Or will your fans end up wishing upon a falling star?

I'll discuss steps for ensuring trust as you build your visibility in my next dispatch.

Britton Manasco is a contributing "trustmeister" to the Reputation Garage and founder of Manasco Marketing Partners, a firm that specialized in thought leadership strategy and execution. He also produces the blog, Illuminating the Future: How Thought Leaders Become Market Leaders.

Not a “December to Remember” for Toyota (Jarvis Cromwell)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 03:07:00 +0000

We admire many things about Toyota here in the Reputation Garage. The current Lexus “December to Remember” advertising campaign is not among them.

One spot – watch it below – is trying to be clever. But it’s so far off the mark for the tenor of the times that it comes off as tasteless and insensitive. It should be pulled.

In it a woman, pictured as her childhood self, gleefully remembers the Christmas where she got a real pony, and how jealous the little girl next door was. Savoring this moment of childhood triumph, she goes on to say that nothing could be more…perfect (cut to the woman now grown admiring her new Lexus complete with bow in driveway.

The December to Remember campaign is its ninth year and Lexus noted in 2007 that it “is as anticipated as the traditional Clydesdales or polar bear campaigns.”

That was then. Here are a few comments we found on Twitter and other communities across the net in about 60 seconds:

“This commercial has gotten me truly angry…

"Saw loathsome Lexus 'December to Remember' spot of the season. What does it take to kill them?”

“Re: Lexus 'December to Remember' spot. How to kill them? Garlic-encrusted stakes have failed. Maybe this economy will do it.”

“Toyota ought to be chastised for these commercials.”

“I would love to give a new Christmas owner of a "December to Remember" car a shot to the nose.”

Trendwatcher Faith Popcorn sees a movement of anti-over-consumerism taking hold among consumers. "It's a convenient time for this. We can't afford it, so we might as well hate it.”

Indeed, we found no positive comments about Toyota’s campaign in our brief web search. Maybe there is something good to be said about this spot. We just couldn't find it.

Our advise for Toyota whose sales fell more than 25% last month: Take heed of Paul Allen’s recent advise in his post on the performance economy HERE. This is not an environment for mistakes. Now more than ever you must make the consumer feel smart, protected, safe, heard, and connected. Your customers may buy from you. Do they feel good about it?

And recall Paul’s worst-case scenario… what if your customers just don’t like you? We can’t imagine that any incremental sales from this commercial could possibly be worth it in the long run. You can do better than this, Toyota.

Trust and the Performance Economy Part 2 (Paul Allen)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:45:00 +0000

You Must Deeply Relate to Your Markets in Today’s Performance Economy, or You're Operating Blind.
No markets….no moolah.
No trust… no markets.

Ed Note: You can find Part 1 of the series HERE.

Well-defined and trust-breeding markets matter more than ever today. Every marketer and organization must meet very specific requirements to succeed. But perhaps more importantly, every marketer and organization serves very specific people.

I remind myself regularly that markets are just lots of people who often want the same thing. And there is a lot of evidence that these people, who are your markets, are asking categorically for two specific things from you:

“Do me some good” (Investment Protection)
“If I spend money with you, is it going to be a good investment, a good value?” Customers will not give you money in today’s increasingly hyper-transparent marketplace if they believe you're not delivering the best option in a sea of alternatives. And as word-of-mouth research is discovering, your customers talk to peers about you online, offline, in every context imaginable. The operative word for marketers here is “deliver." We live in a “show me marketplace” (a term coined by the Trustmeisters here in the Reputation Garage.) In such a marketplace, you need to deal with the “do me some good” issue proactively and in advance.

“Don’t do me harm” (Reputation Protection)
The vast majority of people, unfortunately for our economy, don’t believe big companies are ‘in it for them.” The same has been true for government, the media, and others. Sorry to say it, but even your own customers are unlikely to trust that you have good intentions and their self-interest at heart. As a result, the question your customers are asking harder than ever is “if I associate with you, vote with my wallet, will it make me better off... or are there hidden downsides? What if your products and services don’t last, prove unreliable, embarrass or harm me somehow? Perhaps worse, what if I just don't like you?"

In an economy and purchase-decision environment stressed at the core, people gravitate towards like-minded organizations, who show good intentions and who help their positive self- image by validating and enhancing their point-of-view. If you end up with a reputation for doing harm, watch out! This is not an environment for mistakes. Now more than ever, products and services can't win by merely delivering features and functions, they must make the consumer feel smart, protected, safe, heard, and connected. Your customers may buy from you. Do they feel good about it? And what do they say about the experience to their friends, online or otherwise?

A useful way to think about the issues above is to view investment protection and reputation protection as a parallel universe to value creation and trust creation, which I discussed in Part 1 of this series. One is defense, the other offense. In volatile markets, it is a strategic imperative to decide when one is on offense, and when one is on defense. Downturns often mandate defensive strategies. But some luckier brands could find themselves in the right place at a bad time.

Trust Creation versus Reputation Protection is in our view a fundamental brand strategy filter to help find the right market development strategies that have mass and direction. We believe that they need to be a key part of every organization's roadmap for identifying and executing on the ideas and offerings that you hope will be embraced by your markets (the people who will give you money). It is a management-level exercise that will require taking a longer-term view of your brand, assembling and managing the right talent to build trust and focusing on direction and flawless execution.

It is only fair to note that the current Performance Economy (and like all before it) comes with its own special features - like a media-fueled depression-era mentality, the nationalization of the financial industry globally, and a lot of speculation as to exactly what economy we’re in now.

But you already know the answer to that. And can start thinking about:

1. When should your strategy emphasize offense (value creation/trust creation) vs defense (investment protection/reputation protection)?

2. Do you deliver both investment and trust protection to your customers?

3. Are you fully leveraging the cultural, behavioral, societal, and philanthropic assets of your organization?

4. Is there an institutional understanding that trust creation accelerates value creation?

Some food for thought if you’re thinking at all about this Performance Economy and how it might be navigated, or even conquered.

Paul S. Allen is the chairman of independent advertising agency Allen & Gerritsen (www.a-g.com) He is also a founding “trustmeister” of the blog The Reputation Garage.

Trust and the Performance Economy Part 1 (Paul Allen)

noreply@blogger.com (Jarvis Cromwell) — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 15:35:00 +0000

Back in the year 2000 – shortly before 9/11, way before the invasion of Iraq, and way-way before the collapse of the global credit system - a serious debate raged. The central question was a profound one.

“Which economy are we in?”
Good question. What’s everyone think?

The year 2000 was the backside of the dot.com bubble, still bloated and ready to burst. Money flowed, valuations were generous, VC-backed investments were the rage, technology was everything, more people had more than they had ever had before. Which, I guess, meant people had lots of free time to think about exactly which economy they were enjoying so much.

Pundits said we were in the midst of the Internet economy, the technology economy, the Silicon-Valley economy, the dot.com economy, the wired economy – and the big kahuna of them all – the new economy. My personal favorite is the new economy - because it made so little sense, as if the all too human drivers of economic sustainability took a permanent vacation. Plus, the moment you anoint a new economy, it starts becoming an old economy. And as we are painfully learning today, sometimes an old economy can become barely an economy at all.

“So, again, what economy is this ?
My answer is the same as it was in 2000. This is the Performance Economy.

In August of 2000, I penned an editorial column titled “The Performance Economy.” The following excerpt (forgive me for quoting myself) sums up my view:

“I am no Alan Greenspan, but markets have always rewarded performance. So why not describe the economy by what it is and always has been, the Performance Economy. No matter what descriptors we give it, the standards of economic measurement will always concern itself more with fundamental performance than today’s investment fad.”

So how do we think about this from today’s vantage point?

Clearly there are aspects to performance that remain the firmament of value creation – revenue, earnings, efficiency, quality, liquidity, capitalization, etc. These will always be a vital part of any Performance Economy. But there are components of performance that I would characterize as the firmament of trust creation – behaviors and characteristics that mitigate risk and enhance staying power during challenging (pronounced “recessionary”) economies. In times like these, trust creation might be just what the economist (pronounced “doctor”) ordered.

I am also pretty convinced that trust creation has an exponentially positive effect on value creation.

As organizations wrestle with the challenges of a volatile economy by rationalizing relative performance, there are other important performance opportunities that have the potential to help offset the downward pulls of market movements. Revenue, earnings, efficiency, quality, liquidity, capitalization will always be a highly managed part of any Performance Economy (value creation). Where many organizations fall short is in thinking about the opportunities, short and long-term, that come by focusing on managing trust creation.

Here’s a list, not in any order, of a few institutional characteristics that contribute greatly to trust creation: characteristics that help offset the unavoidable swings in value creation dictated by a volatile environment:

1. Genuine commitment to benefitting stakeholders in tangible ways
2. Qualified, accessible and accountable leadership
3. Executive decision-making that carefully weighs impacts on stakeholder interests
4. Transparent financial practices
5. Transparent, direct communications
6. Clear commitment to business ethics
7. Societal contribution for non-commercial purposes
8. Environmentally responsible operations
9. Consistency of promise relative to delivery
10. Authentic, high-touch customer engagements

Individually, or in the aggregate, the list above would enhance the real and perceived trustworthiness of any enterprise. And would help stave off customer, employee and margin erosion in times of uncertainty.

The question my fellow trustmeisters and I ask an organization is this: Do you really manage trust creation? Creating trust is an active enterprise. Either you manage it like other performance measures (such as quality) or you leave yourself open to being an also-ran in this important dimension with your stakeholders.

And that may be just the ticket for getting through some of the darker aspects of the current “performance economy.”

Paul S. Allen is the chairman of independent advertising agency Allen & Gerritsen (www.a-g.com) He is also a founding “trustmeister” of the blog The Reputation Garage.