It was tough to be a leader in 2010….rising up above the chaos felt a little bit like a game of whack-a-mole – he who stuck his head up had a good chance of being whacked. And more than a few CEOs took to the bunker last year.

I was fortunate to have several clients in 2010 who knew that the chaos presented an opportunity for reinforcing and underscoring their reputations as leaders. By having a clear point of view, and standing for something significant, they’ve built their leadership profiles and enhanced the reputation of their organizations. Many of them have become the de facto spokespeople for their industries, and some have moved ahead to be marketshare leaders, in addition to thought leaders. Working on these programs in 2010 has been a great privilege, and it has also been great fun.

If the conversations I’ve been having in the past few weeks are any indication, in 2011 we will see a renewed emphasis on the role of leaders in supporting, enhancing and increasing their Company’s reputations. It isn’t about ego….it is about trust.

The simple fact is that we trust people….not companies. And one of the best ways to build trust is to begin having a conversation with your stakeholders, about your business, but more importantly about issues, trends and topics that are bigger than your business.

At MWW Group, we have a proprietary approach for building Leadership for people and companies that we call CEO EquityBuilder. It’s a great model…and it works. And being just a little “Type A,” I am always looking to improve and enhance it. So when I came across a piece in Harvard Business Review titled 3 Ways to Become a Thought Leader, I couldn’t click fast enough. After all, it’s Harvard Business Review.
Here is what I learned…sometimes the simplest advice is the best. And that reputation is powerful, indeed.

cwinters General Corporate Executive Visibility, Thought Leadership

A colleague sent me this piece from Mashable about their media predictions for 2011. Here is a shocker…they say social media is going to take over the world. I know a few people who are predicting the end of traditional media – that in the near future all media will be social media. I suppose that depends on your definition of social. If you are talking about new, social media-based methods of delivery of content from the big names in news – The New York Times, 60 Minutes or Time Magazine delivered via a mobile app, perused online and featuring the ability to interact via comments and sharing content with friends, I agree. But the concept that traditional, professional journalists will be entirely replaced by citizen journalists, I am not sure I am buying it.

Mashable takes their predictions in this direction with the suggestion that 2011 will spell the end of the foreign correspondent. They cite a Reuters Institute Study about the significance of local citizenry, and predict a reliance on stringers and social content, rather than the foreign correspondent based in countries, as the way we will learn about world news. One of my clearest memories upon entering this business is tuning in to Peter Jennings’ coverage of the first Gulf War on the nightly news…he is my generation’s Walter Cronkite….and it is hard to believe that human nature has changed so much that when major world events occur, we won’t want a familiar face or voice telling that story…whether on our TV, satellite radio or an iPad.

Time will tell.

cwinters General Corporate Foreign Correspondent, iPad, Mashable, Social Media

It’s been a tough year for Nike. Spokesperson problems with Tiger Woods and LeBron James. Continued investigations into labor conditions in Nike factories abroad. Competition like the new Reebok Zig. And now, a stupid legal maneuver that could spell PR disaster.

Brands are forever trying to find ways to stop the Canal Street cottage industry of counterfeiters. (You know you’ve made it when they are selling your knock offs on a street corner). I get it. But Nike has taken anti-counterfeiting to a whole new level by litigating against an individual who bought a single pair of counterfeit sneakers online. They aren’t going after the website selling counterfeit sneakers, or the supplier who sold them to the website. So this poor customer not only paid for fake sneakers, he bought himself a lawsuit, too.

And while the statute says that the intent of the purchaser isn’t relevant, success in this case for Nike is the equivalent of convicting Al Capone on tax evasion or mail fraud, rather than racketeering. Does Nike really want to discourage us from buying their sneakers? Or has their seemingly bulletproof status, weathering spokesperson issues of gargantuan proportions, given them the sort of reputational hubris that makes them an easy target for consumer activism in 2011?

No one likes when the big corporation goes after the little guy. The question is will enough little guys notice this case, and take some sort of action, to make a difference?

cwinters General Corporate Al Capone, LeBron James, Nike, Tiger Woods

Someone brought my attention to the lyrics of the newest rap Diddy by Mr. Diddy himself, “Coming Home” and it made me take pause and think about how far along the transformation trail he really has come.

We’ve known him as “Puffy”, “Puff-Daddy” and “P-Diddy;” the hip-hop mogul has worn more faces than a masquerade king. For years, he’s made headlines as an industry “bad boy,” known equally for his antics and dalliances with public officials as he is for producing chart-topping records.

Over the past several years, however, Sean Combs has been hard at work cleaning up his reputation and amassing an empire based upon marketing his most valuable asset – himself. When you consider his notoriously negative past image compared with where Mr. Combs’ reputation is today, the contrast is even more impressive. Like him or not, Combs has taken his place among the Madonnas, Michael Jacksons and Betty Whites of the world as a master of the art of reinvention.

Diddy’s turnaround is a page out the Reputational Management 101 textbook. While not perfect, he’s certainly nailed down a few of the principles of any great brand reinvention:

1. Give your brand a refresh: With one symbolic proclamation, Sean Combs announced to the world that his new moniker would be simply, “Diddy.” Gone are the references to “Puffy” and “Puff Daddy” . . . he’s taken the reigns to usher in a more elegant and understated image . . .an important first step in the rebranding process.

2. Support your claims: Along with his name change, Diddy began branching himself out (and his net worth along with it) into areas that would force the public to see him in a new and luxurious light. The face of high-end liquor, advertisements of a new cologne featuring a tuxedo-clad Diddy, epitomizing every inch of the good life, a new record label, and so much more. Slowly but surely, he was emerging as the next-generation debonair millionaire.

3. The company you keep speaks volumes: When you top the guest list of Martha Stewart’s annual soirée, you’ve transcended the classes. Whether through charities, highly respected organizations or social circles, Diddy has made it his business to hob-knob with the more, shall we say, refined crowd. As the old expression goes, “you are who your friends are,” and so successful brands align themselves with other successful brands.

According to his new song, “It’s easy to be Puff, it’s harder to be Sean . . .” and I can see how having a constant spotlight on your every action can make this true. As he puts it: “I need to get back to the place I belong.” In Diddy’s case, he’s used that spotlight instead to enhance his reputation, and by all counts certainly has a great head-start.

dlauer General Corporate Diddy, Martha Stewart

Have you been following the Four Loko story?  This caffeine powered alco-pop beverage was all the rage, until it caught the attention of regulators.  So they are changing their formula to remove the caffeine….but will the new formula be a buzz kill for the rapper-chic drink? 

BNET asked me for some advice on what Four Loko can do to keep their “cool”….check it out, and let me know if you agree.

cwinters General Corporate Four Loko

One of the most difficult decisions in a crisis situation is determining when to speak and when to stay silent.  (There are plenty of great examples of how companies communicate well during a crisis, but it’s not so easy to find ones in which silence was a good strategy. (I generally cite the recent JetBlue / Slater incident.)

Equally difficult is the question of when to stay the course on a decision, and when to pull the plug.  In short, how much bad publicity is enough to force you to change what you do or how you do it?

Recent days and weeks have been loaded with strategy switches and plug-pulling decisions.  The Kardashian Sisters decided that a branded, pre-paid debit card just wasn’t for them.   Four Loko announced it would remove the caffeine from its popular alco-pop beverages in response to public outcry about the caffeine-alcohol combination. And perhaps most notably, the public boasting of a con-man who gamed Google, the credit card companies and countless consumers, causing Google to change its ranking analytics and explain itself to the world.

So how much bad publicity is too much bad publicity? When do you cross the threshold that prompts you to change in your operations, policies or processes? The simple answer:  When the cause of the publicity, and not the publicity itself, can inflict ongoing damage your company’s reputation.

Sometimes you can ride out negative coverage of a single incident – this too will eventually pass.  But when the policy or process actually causes the negativity and will continue to do so, action is needed. If you find yourself in this situation, ask the following questions:

• Does the issue in question invite regulatory or legal intervention?
• Was it a decision made for a good reason, with the unintended consequence of disrupting, confusing or otherwise harming customers?
• Does your commitment to this one thing have the potential to damage other areas of your business?
• Is the upside too small to be worth the risk?
• Are questions about this issue leading to more fundamental questions about your business practices, management capabilities, governance, transparency or other big areas of reputational risk?
• Are your employees expressing concern about it?
• Is there a relatively easy change that can eliminate the problem while enabling the original business objective or benefit?

Answer yes to any of these questions and you should be evaluating options, including making a change.  Sometimes, seemingly good decisions have negative unintended consequences. Acting quickly, owning the problem and communicating the solution without being defensive can do more than nip a crisis in the bud; it can make you the hero, and actually increase and enhance your reputation among your stakeholders.

cwinters Crisis Communications

This week marked World Aids Day – a time when various organizations work to remind us that despite red ribbons, celebrity studded charity balls and the good work of organizations who search for cures, advocate for prevention and tend to the needs of people living with HIV, the AIDS epidemic is still very much an epidemic.

Alicia Key’s charity “Keep a Child Alive” recruited a dozen celebrities, including the immensely popular and digilicous Lady Gaga, Justin Timberlake, Usher and more who “sacrificed” their digital lives until they raised $1 million on donations. In theory, a social media pledge campaign for a million dollars should be easy to accomplish. Lady Gaga – just one of their celebrity participants – has 7 million followers, and she is asking them to text a $10 donation. Usher and others are driving people to the campaign website where you can read the last tweet and testaments of the celebrities and pledge. If a fraction of the followers of these celebrities gave $1 dollar, a million dollars would be a walk in the park.

So why would this campaign only have raised $160,000 in its first day, the time when they would have expected to raise the most. At this point, I have to question if they’ve even covered their campaign expenses to build the website and the campaign.

On paper, this is a PR person’s dream campaign. It has a great website. It is provocative. It is clever. Why isn’t it working?

Pundits are suggesting that the $10 donation minimum is too high. Or that the problem is that the celebrities are not tweeting to drum up ongoing support. That may be part of the issue. But I’d suggest it is something even more basic — celebrity endorsement is no longer a guarantee of campaign success. Celebrities sign on to too many causes, too many issues and too many endorsements for their endorsement to be meaningful. Followers don’t equal influence. Just because people digitally follow you doesn’t mean that they are willing to reach in their wallets. People love the glimpse into celebrity lives that social media provides, but it doesn’t necessarily translate into changing behavior.

So what should Keep a Child Alive do now? Certainly they can’t expect these celebrities to be digitally dead indefinitely?

One idea might be to ask these celebrities to put their money where their tweets are…and make personal donations to help drive up the kitty. Another would be to offer people who donate something more valuable to them than unlocking Ryan Seacrest from twitter limbo. (Has anyone even noticed that these celebrities aren’t tweeting?). Maybe a donation should qualify you to win a celebrity encounter. Perhaps anyone who donates via text could download a file that makes one of these celebrities their voicemail message (Hey it’s Usher, leave a message for shorty – we’re too busy fighting AIDS to answer your call.)

But they need to do something, or their campaign is going to be as digitally dead as their celebrities. And no one will even notice.

cwinters General Corporate, Social Media Alicia Keys, Celebrity Endorsements, Keep a Child Alive, Twitter

In a move that is sure to disappoint the enthusiastic and growing population of US soccer fans, the World Cup Committee has selected Qatar, rather than the US, for the 2022 games. Because who wouldn’t want to play global competitive soccer in the 110 degree summer heat of Qatar?

No doubt there will be pundits throughout the day talking about anti-American sentiment around the world. But before we dive too deeply into self flogging about why the World Cup Committee didn’t choose us and what was wrong with our proposal, it is worth considering that the selection of another bidder had little to do with The United States’ reputation, and everything to do with the World Cup’s.

The World Cup has made no secret of its desire to court the Arab world and to expand the global appeal of soccer. I’m sure that Qatar made a compelling case for the societal benefit of all of the infrastructure that would need to be developed to support the games. Not to mention that FIFA has a certain international flair to maintain – one that may not mesh with the notion of holding the World Cup in a country whose national pastime isn’t soccer.

Today, Qatar can enjoy the victory lap and reputational benefit of being selected. But they also get to shoulder the reputational risk of living up to the expectations. The logistics alone of being ready to host the athletes and the fans, not to mention keeping them safe from the crowds and healthy in a climate that is less than ideal for peak athletic performance, is no easy task.

cwinters General Corporate Anti-Americanism, FIFA, Qatar, USA, World Cup

Last week, we discussed the firestorm, fuel added by lots of cable news hype, concerning the Transportation Safety Administration’s (TSA) enhanced screening procedures which include body scans and provocative pat downs and some advice for airlines on passenger relations during the hectic holiday travel season.

While the “don’t touch my junk” video went mega-viral and reporters camped out at airports pre-Thanksgiving to the effects of calls for a day of “opting-out” screenings, civil disobedience was barely seen and chaos did not ensue. Even with some great hyperventilating by Capitol Hill’s most strident security hawks, including a call to kick the TSA out of airports, the news cycle has moved on to other matters. In the end, it appears that the episode provided just another dent in the already struggling reputation of the TSA and the nation’s Homeland Security apparatus.

TSA head John Pistole has made the rounds of Congressional hearings as well as a host of TV and print interviews explaining the new rules, apologizing for a few significant miscues by his workforce and taking his lumps. In today’s edition of USA Today, Mr. Pistole was interviewed to once again explain how he balances the risks of terrorism versus the public’s privacy rights, perceptions and sensibilities to do his job. From my perspective, the most interesting part of the article was the TSA head’s admission that he went against the advice of his public relations aides to pre-announce the new security procedures for fear of highlighting screening weaknesses that terrorists could exploit.

Though I am a frequent flyer who has not been immune to questioning TSA employees when concerned by some of their methods or inconsistencies in the process, I fully appreciate the often thankless work they do to make us feel safe at airports. In the past few weeks, I have noticed that a subtle campaign may be underway with screeners going out of their way to be more cheerful, to provide greater information and to try to make the process run smoother. Dulles Airport, usually gripped by TSA dysfunction, was downright pleasant this week and I applaud any nascent efforts at a public relations offensive.

While I understand Mr. Pistole’s very real concerns about the terrorism threat, I hope the recent course of events has provided a teachable moment and that he will make better use of the recommendations of his public relations aides in the future. Airport security is too important to have another news, social media and politico-driven circus that diminishes the public’s trust in the TSA.

rtauberman General Corporate airlines, Homeland Secuirty, John Pistole, TSA