Perhaps no company, even including the harangued money center banks, will be happier to see 2009 end than AT&T. In December, Consumer Reports ranked the company last in cellular customer satisfaction, capping a year where dropped call issues for the iPhone achieved folklore status among the online community and even generated an SNL skit. To further exacerbate things, AT&T’s executives and media representatives have repeatedly pointed to excessive data use by iPhone owners as a key to the problem. Yet this was just one of a host of AT&T miscues that showed a tin ear for public opinion with audiences from consumers to investors.

Early in December, AT&T dropped a lawsuit it had filed against Verizon over ads touting the coverage areas of the providers’ respective networks. AT&T took offense with Verizon’s snarky ‘There’s a Map for That’ commercials which purported to show that AT&T’s nationwide coverage paled in comparison to Verizon. AT&T’s response was to run to the courthouse and cry foul, beseeching a judge to have the Verizon ads pulled. The judge refused and AT&T retreated, dropping its lawsuit and engendering another round of scathing commentary from the online community and many traditional media. See the take of the Atlantic’s Dan Indivigilio: http://business.theatlantic.com/2009/12/att_drops_verizon_map_ad_lawsuit.php

The stunning cap to the ignoble year for AT&T came this past weekend when a number of blogs announced that the iPhone was unavailable for purchase by New Yorkers through the company’s website. According to the reports, users with a NYC zip code were told to choose another phone.

Customer service reps acknowledged the situation with scant explanation and AT&T issued a brief statement after the weekend saying that “we periodically modify our promotion and distribution channels” without further explanation of the NYC incident.

This flurry of negative stories about AT&T, many self-inflicted and others with the flames fanned by tepid, terse and generally off-note responses, has many from the tech community to Wall Street asking what AT&T is doing, what it was thinking and how it can repair the damage in 2010. The questions include the future of its relationship with Apple and, just as concerning, its long-term relationship with the consumers who use its wireless services. The New Year provides a fitting time for AT&T to start anew, to effectively address the missteps of 2009 and to put in place an effective program that helps it think and act more strategically as a company and a communicator. The company’s business and reputation may depend on it.

Richard Tauberman can be reached at rtauberman@mww.com.

admin General Corporate Corporate Reputation, Reputation Management

It is the time of year again to celebrate with friends and family. It is also the time of year where innumerable communications experts posit bold predictions for 2010 that will likely be wrong but hey, no one will remember by this time next year.

It is in this spirit – often wrong, never in doubt – that I give some of my predictions for the reputation management world, in no particular order:

• A company will experience an explosive social media crisis it was totally ill-equipped to respond to, which will then make mainstream news headlines. Social media experts will deride said company for its incompetence and “not getting it” in a characteristically haughty tone.

• Corporate responsibility will play a bigger role in the way stakeholders think about corporate reputation. We are going to see less and less “green” and more and more focus on holistic sustainability. In fact, the smartest companies won’t use the word “green” at all.

• CEOs will communicate more openly, and more often, with employees, understanding that their support and belief in the mission is critical in what will still be a difficult year. It’s the right thing to do, of course, and will also translate into reputational benefits. Happy (relatively) and appreciated troops bolster strong reputation.

• We are going to see a lot of CEO burn out – lots of CEOs stepping down, no doubt exhausted and frustrated. Some of the transitions to successors will be, communications-wise, well-executed. Most will be bumpy, likely because the outgoing honcho is, well, exhausted and frustrated and might not be as willing to put the best face on things. A big name brand or two will get dinged for a poorly handled transition.

• Real, true measurement will be a differentiator for reputation managers. Those that know how to prove value and ROI beyond “impressions” will be sought after. Marketing budgets will still be tight – those that produce reputational evidence get a bigger slice of the pie.

• People will still hate Goldman Sachs. That’s not a solvable problem in 2010 for GS – that reputational rehab is more like a 2011 or 2012 possibility.

• A major national media outlet will find a successful formula for making money off its online content.

Maybe I’ll circle back to this at the end of next year and see how I did. I think I left them vague enough I can claim prescience somehow.

Happy New Year and thanks for reading Return on Reputation.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

admin General Corporate CEO transitions, Reputation Management, Social Media

The Cleveland Clinic is typically ranked number one on the US News and World Report’s rankings of hospitals for heart surgery. Its physicians are world renowned and, when its reputation was slightly tarnished in 2005-2006 for potential conflict of interest related to physicians on its roster accepting honoraria from industry, they were the first to disclose such relationships and argue for greater transparency. Its experts are consulted by Washington policymakers and its researchers are at the front lines of cutting edge science.

The Cleveland Clinic is, without a doubt, a sterling example of an organization that has taken great pains with its reputation and, as such, stands out from its peers as a model for excellence in reputation management – never mind, excellence in healthcare.

That’s why it was especially disappointing to see the incredibly “of the pack” and mundane reputation advertising the Cleveland Clinic chose to run in the “Lives They Lived” issue of the New York Times Magazine. Pastel backgrounds reveal simple statements that position the Cleveland Clinic as offering electronic health records ahead of their time, laparoscopic surgery with teeny incisions and statements about the fact that lots of other physicians refer patients to them.

So? The same could be said for many hospitals. In fact, I thought the Cleveland Clinic was above all that…the advertising felt more like what I would expect from my community hospital than from a world class research and teaching institution at the front lines of setting policy.

The advertising doesn’t do the institution justice. In fact, it diminishes what I know about the institution and its reputation. It almost feels as if the hospital doesn’t trust its own place in the world and as such, it tells us the same things we expect to hear from everyone else in their space.

It’s a tough time for hospitals – no question. But, if you have the academic excellence, experience, physician roster and yes…reputation of a Cleveland Clinic, you might be best off leaving well enough alone.

Ame Wadler can be reached at awadler@mww.com.

admin General Corporate advertisisng, Reputation Management

When dealing with a crisis, the best-case scenario is that no one ever hears about. That takes some real savvy and some seriously mercy from the crisis gods. But equally impressive, the company with the hottest, most buzzed-about toy for the holidays was able to put an end to a crisis assailing the toy’s safety just a few weeks before Christmas with little notice and no discernable damage.

A BusinessWeek story last week recounted the behind-the-scenes action of how Cepia, maker of the Zhu Zhu Hamster (what happened to Legos?), mitigated an issue that if handled less swiftly could have exploded into something much more devastating if not terminal for the company.

I won’t detail the play-by-play in the article, but a quick synopsis: A consumer product safety group claimed that the hamsters were unsafe. As it turned out, the safety group did not apply the same and arguably more rigorous methodologies that the federal government does for product testing. Cepia fired back with its own safety analysis conducted by independent testing organizations, proving the product safety. The government, after review, came down on the side of Cepia. The safety group retracted its claim and vowed to reform its testing. The issue that started on Friday was over by Monday.

Some of the key elements for this successful outcome, besides of course having the government on Cepia’s side, were decisiveness and swiftness. Sometimes, you have to make a quick call on what to do and what message to articulate. Then, you go do it. That’s what Cepia did. Prolonged meetings in stuffy board rooms trying to play out every scenario quickly reach a point of diminishing returns. It makes a lot of executives uncomfortable, but in some crises, you exist in a miasma of uncertainty. The best leaders (and crisis managers) can cope with that uncertainty, like it or not, and do the best they can with the information available.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Crisis Communications Crisis Communication

I have resisted and will continue resisting joining the Greek chorus of PR pros who have seized this moment to condemn Tiger Woods not just for his current, uh, troubles, but for the way in which he has dealt with the media and public. Lots of bromides about “controlling the story” and other such pieces of doctrinaire advice that, while certainly applicable in some situations, have little bearing on this specific situation.

I have my thoughts on how Woods should handle this going forward and try to repair his reputation, but I’m more interested in the corporate angle – his sponsors. Fortune, also interested, asks the question: “Will his sponsors stick around?” In the days following his, uh, accident, there has been a real dearth of Tiger Woods as pitchman. His commercials have been yanked from the airwaves.

And though some sponsors, like Nike and Accenture, have offered public support and seem willing to stick with him, Fortune suggests that “observers on deathwatch” are just waiting to see how much the sponsors can endure – with revelation after revelation – before cutting ties.

What does a brand have to gain reputation-wise from sticking by a now, if not reviled, then at least tarnished, athlete? Particularly one that attracted such sponsorships in part because of his good guy image? Well, part of it has to be a bet – a bet that after some time, Woods can begin to repair his image and return to some shade of former glory (and marketability). It might be cynical, but being awesome at sports helps overcome a lot.

The article points out two other considerations for sponsors: If they let Woods go now, competitors might want him, and; they might try to renegotiate his contracts, getting him for cheaper now in light of his, uh, situation.

All are reasonably sound rationale for not dumping him overboard just yet. But like most things reputation, there is a risk. Stick by him too long, and offer too much support if things continue to unravel, and it begins to look like you just haven’t noticed. Or worse, it begins to look to your stakeholders like you care little about their values.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks Executive Visibility, Social Media, Uncategorized Crisis Communications, Reputation Management

Yesterday marked the opening of one of the most historic conferences in modern history – COP-15, the Copenhagen Climate Change Convention.  One hundred and ninety-two nations are in attendance – the largest total of nations ever attending any meeting in the world.  And it looks increasingly likely – what with President Obama’s schedule change to allow him to attend during the final negotiations, and top leadership from China and India promising to be there – that a global agreement on limiting carbon will emerge.

Norway’s Environment Minister had a particularly trenchant quote this morning:  The negotiations at COP-15, he said, “are the most difficult talks ever embarked upon by humanity.”   Whoa.

If the talks fail and no agreement emerges, the problem won’t go away, however – it will just make the delay in dealing with worldwide CO2 emissions and the actions needed to reduce them more painful in the long term.  The inevitable conclusion?  Climate change is real – the science is pretty unanimous at this point — and global efforts to mitigate the problem will eventually be implemented.

So this juncture in the world’s history, like most big watershed moments, will undoubtedly have a particularly powerful impact on the reputations of organizations all over the planet.

That’s why we are urging our clients, green and light green and any other color, to put their reputational stake in the ground around climate.  It is the one overarching litmus test of environmental responsibility, because it encompasses every green topic and subject.  Climate change is the first truly global environmental crisis humanity has had to deal with collectively, which means that companies and NGOs who are first to the conversation will reap the reputational rewards in the minds of their publics.  And since young people the world over increasingly self-identify as environmentally-minded, CSR and green programs have become mandatory for future-minded organizations,

Just a few examples:  The centerpiece of COP-15, in the middle of the lake in front of the Tycho Brahe Observatory in the center of Copenhagen, is a remarkable debut art installation called Carbon Cubes.  Designed to show us all, for the first time, what the volume of a metric ton of invisible carbon looks like, the Cube is 27 feet on each side, about the size of a three-story house.  The Cube represents what each person in the Western world emits: a ton of carbon every 2-3 weeks.  Google and YouTube, along with Millennium Arts and a host of other organizations including the United Nations and MWW, have supported the building of the Cube, with the goal of touring it around the world to illustrate the magnitude of the problem – and to represent, in real-time video projected on the Cube – some of the solutions.  This massive symbol of all of our human contributions to climate change makes such a tremendous impact because it’s a stark representation of the task in front of all of us.

Another remarkable exhibit is blooming in Copenhagen, too — Ghost Forest is a huge, haunting installation by artist Angela Palmer that raises public awareness of the connections between deforestation and climate change.  Originally exhibited in Trafalgar Square in London and underwritten by Deutsche Bank, the installation features ten massive rainforest tree stumps taken from a regulated, commercially logged tropical rainforest in Ghana.  These huge stumps, arranged in a circle and looking like the felled giants they truly are, have a potent presence.  Once alive and creating oxygen for the entire world to breathe, they now lie mutely and even accusingly on their sides, the true expression of the term deadwood.

When you see the Carbon Cube or the Ghost Forest at COP-15 or in another venue eventually, you will not forget them – they are both remarkably potent symbols of climate change and what our world is doing, or not doing, about it.  And of course you and everyone else who sees them will indelibly remember the forward-looking, smart sponsors of these exhibits, too.

David Langness can be reached at dlangness@mww.com.

dlangness CSR, Sustainability CSR, Sustainability

Risk-taking is an undervalued asset in today’s business environment. Even as shattered investor confidence, reduced consumer spending and ever-declining employee morale have all forced executives to take pause and reassess their approach to business, innovation remains a hallmark of a strong reputation.

But, has the fragile environment created “helicopter” managers, in the vein of helicopter parents? Leaders who will swoop in to protect a team from its own potential failure before letting risk turn to innovation? It’s true. Innovation often does come with some risk but the greater risk to an organization is having its staff bubble-wrapped to the point where creativity is stifled. A significant part of fostering a culture of innovation is to develop a method for enabling calculated risk. Just as you wouldn’t allow a child to cross a street for the first time on their own, you can partner employees on projects with those who have taken risks before and know how to look both ways before crossing.

Similarly, an employee who embarks on a project without knowing the potential scenarios that could lead to failure, are as ill-prepared as a teenager who drives without ever having a driving lesson. A helicopter parent will save the child from harm by never letting them behind the wheel of the car – but the child will never learn to drive. A helicopter manager will protect the company from harm, but by never letting a risky project get off the ground may impede the company’s growth.
Following are a few tips to foster an environment that grows through calculated risk:

• Reward smart failure. So maybe a project failed but, it failed because it was stopped before it could do irreparable harm OR it did no harm but it was the right project at the wrong time. Celebrate the inspiration and hard work while using the failure as a teaching moment for the organization, all the while praising the project leader for taking the risk for what they hoped would be the benefit of the company.

• Communicate success. When a risk was taken and success achieved, celebrate. But don’t just pop the champagne cork, talk about why it succeeded, the research that led to its success and the efforts taken to ensure success…again, a teachable moment.

• Create an innovation lab…an environment in which Ideas can be floated and nurtured. Sometimes ideas can’t take root because the owner of the idea doesn’t know how to bring it to fruition. Creating a place where seeds can be planted and sown will help to bring ideas to life. This can be an actual innovation lab OR a place to idea jam on a corporate intranet site.

• Avoid the inclination to helicopter in to protect. Instead, be a parachute, a means to a soft-landing through guidance, reality checking and resource sharing.

Ame Wadler can be reached at awadler@mww.com

awadler Employee Engagement employee communication

It’s a common refrain now for reputation managers to say that good corporate responsibility programs need to be authentic, not an egregiously overt marketing play, and make Good Business Sense. This is the stuff – when smartly communicated – of strong and enduring reputations.

Further than that, good CR demands a holistic view of the community – local, national, or global – in which a company operates.

So it’s nice when a company proves that notion. A story in Fortune about Best Buy, written by respected corporate citizenship and sustainability reporter Marc Gunther, explores how the retailer is turning itself into a leader in corporate responsibility. Not just because it’s a feel-good activity, but because it makes strategic sense.

Two salient passages from the story simply explain Best Buy’s push into sustainability and CR:

• “Employees wanted to know what Best Buy was doing to become more environmentally sustainable. Some customers — not most, but enough to matter — said they preferred to do business with retailers that cared about their community.”

• “Best Buy, as a result, has decided that being a good corporate citizen makes business sense.”

The article goes on to detail all that Best Buy is doing – making investments in responsible companies, organizing employee networks for growth and opportunity, offering electronic take-backs in stores and auditing foreign factories for carbon emission and fair labor practices. They are considering all audiences, internal and external.

What seems, as written, to be such strong commitment makes me think a little about the evolution of corporate responsibility. With CR, the business imperative seems to be evolving not so much incrementally but in big waves.

Allow an abridged and unscientific history:

For a while, “strategic philanthropy” was the totality of social commitment. Companies should simply write checks to charities and that is enough. Plus, giving out those oversized novelty checks made for good photo opps (and still do).

But in the early part of this decade, there was an overwhelming push to “be green.” Any claim about being green, no matter how specious, was endorsed by an excited media happy to cover a new business trend, only creating more companies that wanted to bask in glowing media attention.

Then, the inevitable backlash. The media began demanding proof that the claims were more than hollow marketing brochures (some of which were likely not even printed on recycled paper) designed to dupe the consumer. “Greenwashing” was the battle cry and companies were exposed left and right for distorting the truth.

But that greenwashing hunt seems to be dying down. Companies – some, not all – got smarter about what they should and should not claim, and are realizing there is pressure to be more than “green” though environmental responsibility is still a critical part of the mix.

Companies that want to be better citizens – now existing in an era of extreme suspicion in the wake of stunning scandals and staggering greed – are focusing on fair labor practices, commitment to employees, increased support in local communities, and more transparency with consumers and other stakeholders.

There are those that say it isn’t up to corporations to solve societal problems; that by focusing on simply making money and creating jobs they are fulfilling their responsibility. And to an extent I agree. But that mindset doesn’t build a sterling reputation or earn the trust of the public.

Mike Sacks can be reached at msacks@mww.com.

msacks CSR, Employee Engagement, Sustainability Corporate Reputation, CSR, Sustainability