While it may be a bit early to count one’s electoral chickens before they are hatched, it is not too early to ask what the policy goals should be for either party as we look to 2011 and beyond.  Here, the answer may lie not with domestic political pundits but with the international community.

Last year, APCO Worldwide polled the Washington-based diplomatic community to get their sense of the challenges facing the then-new Obama Administration and the new Congress. The number-one challenge the community identified was the economy. No surprise. But the second most important challenge they saw was alleviating poverty – not war, not terrorism, not even Middle East peace.

Our policy-makers would do well to note this order and to note the linkage between the two, for not every policy that does one will by default accomplish the other. Given the stakes involved, I think the diplomatic community is correct – these challenges should be our top two policy priorities in the months and years ahead.

The private sector, in comparison to other sectors, is able to move quickly and constantly innovate, drawing upon all the resources of the firm. By applying the same capitalistic models that business successfully employs in its core business operations towards solving social challenges, business can maximize profit and social impact. The key for business leaders is to strategically choose to act on issues which are linked to the future success of their business and which they are uniquely qualified to affect the outcome, and to refrain from getting involved in areas where they can’t be effective. 

Corporate philanthropy, or strategic social investment, works best when a company takes what it knows and/or does best and uses that intellectual capital, competitive advantage or expertise to address a social or environmental issue. And, as CECP members will tell you, it’s smart business to do so. According to a research report CECP issued earlier this year, 70 percent of CEOs agree that embedding social engagement into business strategy is the most important action they can take to prepare for 2020.

So, if your business and social interests are not yet aligned, it’s time to start working on it.

Commentators and practitioners in the media tend to fall into the trap of “neophilia” – an obsession with shiny, new things. We should remember when looking at emerging trends in “new” media that they often rely on some fairly old-fashioned methods. At the heart of this week’s leak of the classified documents on Afghanistan is what makes any coverage a story: a good investigative piece of journalism with plenty of colour.

Wikileaks isn’t afraid of using techniques to exploit the mainstream media either – giving embargoed access to a number of media outlets on the promise that they would only publish when everything was released online. The story was deliberately placed Sunday for Monday to maximise coverage through the rest of the week in a time-honoured tradition of PR practitioners.

The site also relies on donations and free legal support from mainstream media organisations such as Associated Press and the Los Angeles Times. Julian Assange, who founded the site in 2006, has acquired something of a loveable rebel status in the media with profile pieces building the story in the run up to its publication.

One of the elements that is new about the site is its reliance on a dispersed server network. With machines in several countries such as Sweden and Belgium, Wikileaks is able to evade prosecution – for now – thanks to laws in those countries providing greater freedom for public disclosures.

With the release of the Afghan documents, Wikileaks has its biggest story so far. But what does it plan to do next? Having decided to publish the allegations against Trafigura on a toxic dumping incident off the coast of Cote d’Ivoire and with a febrile atmosphere in the air after the BP spill, does Wikileaks now have the corporate sector in its sights?

In an effort to entice consumers, retailers are using rather creative methods to attract consumers to their stores. For instance, over the next month Microsoft* is showcasing its new hands-free video game console Kinect at a very non-traditional gaming location – Macy’s department stores. And there is absolutely no doubt that Macy’s is hoping that while the kids are playing, their parents will be shopping.

While these types of marketing tactics may be successful in the short-term, they may not establish long-lasting brand loyalty among consumers. In reality, purchase decisions are now more than ever influenced by a wide variety of factors beyond products and services – everything from a retailer’s community engagement, employment practices to its environmental programs. In short, a retailer’s reputation can have a measurable impact on consumer behavior. APCO’s Return on Reputation Indicator study of the retail industry has found that a company’s reputation plays a prominent role in improving the environment in which companies do business, from improving the policy environment, attracting and retaining high-quality employees, and especially in driving increased consumer spending and stronger loyalty among consumers.

The Return on Reputation Indicator study found that building reputation equity can have a significant impact in shaping the behavior of consumers. The study shows that an increase in the retail industry’s Reputation Index could lead to an increase in how much consumers are willing to spend, how likely they are to promote a store, and how loyal they will be to a store. For instance, with only a one-point increase in overall reputation (in the Retail Reputation Index ranging from 0-100):

• The average consumer would spend $133.05 more per year (margin of error of +/- $25.14)
• The average consumer’s loyalty to a retailer would increase by .48 percentage-points (margin of error of +/- 0.2%)
• The proportion of promoters (consumers who are likely to recommend the retailer to others) would increase by 4 percentage points (margin of error of +/- 0.002)

Not surprisingly, the study shows that consumers value the top service they receive at retail stores, and Customer Service is among the most important drivers of the retail industry’s reputation. However, the study also finds that consumers are more than shoppers, and they expect retailers to do more than just provide quality products and services. In fact, Community Engagement (building ties with local communities and cooperating with local governments to address community concerns) is the single most important driver of a retailer’s reputation for consumers. The study also shows that a retailer’s commitment to Energy Efficiency (reducing use of energy and using alternative and renewable sources of energy sources) is one of the biggest opportunities for retailers to positively move the needle on their reputation. The study also demonstrates how all 24 drivers unique to the retail sector impact the industry’s reputation.

Even as the economy improves, all signs suggest that consumers are remaining very cautious and are becoming even more discerning in  where they will spend their money. Building reputation equity can be a long-term solution to driving increased spending, brand loyalty, and share of wallet. Here’s something to think about:  If the industry were to improve its reputation by only a single point – leading to the average consumer spending $133 more per year – we could inject nearly $35 billion into the economy and the retail sector.  Let’s call it a reputation equity stimulus plan.

*APCO Client

Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 introduction of departmental select committees to the British House of Commons was meant to give backbench MPs a more meaningful role, but anyone hoping for bodies with power and influence rivalling the congressional committees of the United States will have been disappointed.

It is not that the committees were unimportant. Hearings could still lead the national news on their day. Certainly any witness could get in trouble with an over-confident yet under-prepared appearance. But ministers were not forced from office by a bruising committee session and the impact on policy was minimal.

And MPs got the message: in government Labour’s parliamentary managers struggled for years to fill their quota and to ensure those who were on the committees actually turned up.

In reality party managers saw select committees not as a means of increasing government accountability, but of exercising power and patronage. Seats on the most important committees were distributed as political rewards while the chairs of all the committees were essentially directly appointed by party chiefs. 

In this parliament, though, things will be different. A new approach to committee membership, a desire to be seen holding government to account and a chamber where no party has a majority have changed the rules of  the game.

While committee chairs were still allocated to parties, the chairs themselves were recently elected by the whole house, meaning MPs had to compete for cross-party support. Membership too has become something won through competition and not as a reward for good behaviour. With a house that includes a huge proportion of new members – a consequence of Labour’s defeat and the 2009 scandal over MPs’ expenses –  committee members will likely be both more awkward and less deferential than ever.

As before, the committees’ memberships will reflect the balance of the house as a whole, but, like the house itself, no one party will hold a majority on any committee. It is now possible for two of the three major parties to combine against the other to agree a critical report, though this may be complicated by committee chairs’ casting votes.

Mostly this will mean the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats voting together against Labour. But not always. Personalities – is the secretary of state someone that coalition partners like – could be as important as policy in determining how each committee’s politics work.

What is certain is that the committees will become thermometers for the temperature of the coalition and anyone appearing before them could find it suddenly getting very hot indeed.

APCO’s Return on Reputation Indicator, a study of the retail industry found that addressing the key issues and expectations of local community activists in an effort to improve reputation can have a significant impact in shaping the behavior of these stakeholders.  The study shows that a one-point increase in the Retail Reputation Index could lead to an additional 94,600 community activists who are speaking out in support of the industry – including supporting having a new store built in their backyard.  At the same time, a one-point increase in the Retail Reputation Index can reduce the number of critics who are actively opposing the industry by 35,400.

Our study shows that community activists are most concerned with the retail industry’s activities in their local community. To create more vocal Retail Advocates and fewer Retail Critics, the industry should address community activists’ concerns related to Land Use – mainly ensuring that stores take up less land and space.  Land Use can have a significantly greater impact in shaping reputation than all other reputation drivers.  Community activists also have high expectations for retailers to invest in the local economy, and Local Investment is among the top drivers of the retail industry’s reputation among this stakeholder group. The retail industry’s commitment to Waste and Recycling – disposing of waste properly and encouraging recycling – is the greatest opportunity for the retail industry to take an environmental leadership role among community activists.

As retailers continue to explore new and different options to foster future growth, meeting the expectations of its various stakeholders – including community activists – can have a real impact on the success of its new ventures.
 
*APCO client