It’s that time of year again..when we recap the biggest PR blunders of the year, the biggest crisis of the year, the best PR campaign of the year. I’ve even got a few of those on tap for this blog in the next few weeks. (Stay tuned!).

As a self-processed “Student of the CEO” – I’ve often written about the value of the CEO in building trust for a Company or brand, and more importantly, making or keeping that brand or Company relevant. In its simplest form, the notion of CEO as a reputation driver is predicated on the presumption that the CEO’s actions are additive.

But what happens when the CEO doesn’t help your cause? Typically, that conjures up images of a CEO in handcuffs, or professing ignorance about what transpired at his company. This David Pogue piece from yesterday’s New York Times makes a great case about questionable decisions by CEOs leading to reputational damage…Netflix, Cisco, HP are his examples. Where a CEO’s singular focus on a particular constituency, at the expense of all others, causes reputational damage, not only to the CEO (some end up losing their jobs), but to their Company or brand.

Leadership requires balancing the needs of multiple stakeholders in all decision making. And while you can’t make all of them happy all of the time (sometimes their needs are diametrically opposed), you can communicate big decisions in a way that includes and addresses each stakeholder. We call it the Total Stakeholder Approach.

In the post OWS world, it is clear that ignoring even one of your stakeholder groups is ill advised….will the leaders of 2012 learn from these CEOs’ blunders….or do more of the same?

cwinters Public Relations CEOs, Corporate Brand, David Pogue, Executive Visibility

dragonball evolution dvd

A family vacation last week enabled me to catch up on my reading, including Fortune’s list of Most Admired Companies.  Billed as “the definitive report card on corporate reputations,” it’s only right we discuss it here. 

It’s always interesting to see which companies move up, fall down or appear for the first time, and attempt to interpret the root causes of changing positions.  In recent years I’ve noticed the “intangible” categories increasingly impacting positions on the list.  This year that impact appears even greater. 

An old business maxim dictated that influencers focused 80% of their attention on “the business”: asset utilization, competitiveness, financial performance, etc., and the other 20% was for those ‘softer’ activities – thought leadership, corporate responsibility, brand development.  This year’s list shows that the ratio is more like 60/40, at least in terms of the elements we consider to be part and parcel of a strong reputation.  In some cases the ratio seems closer to 50/50.  In other words, influencers now give quite a bit of weight to things beyond the balance sheet, particularly when balance sheets are in disarray amidst today’s recession. 

I’m not suggesting companies should abandon focus on the bottom line in favor of the intangibles.  What I am suggesting is that companies are realizing that marketing the intangibles of reputation can in some cases be just as critical to long-term success.  Take Apple, which comes in at the top spot as the Most Admired Company. Apple ranked lower in categories like “Global Competitiveness” and “Long Term Investment” but did very well in the likes of “Innovation” and “People Management.”  Of course, part of Apple’s reputation comes from that of Steve Jobs – the very name is synonymous with innovation – and the brand awareness generated from its iPod publicity machine doesn’t hurt. 

Numerous other companies saw a jump up the rankings on the strength of intangibles like social responsibility, increasingly an aspect of a company’s personality scrutinized by consumers, customers, investors, and shareholders alike.

The trick to a potent reputation (and doing well on Most Admired rankings) is striking the right balance between the tangible and intangible…and between investor relations and reputation management.  There is no magic formula or ratio, but determining what is important to each of a company’s constituencies is a good place to start.

msacks General Corporate Corporate Brand, Corporate Reputation

In late-2007 I participated on a panel at E&Y’s annual clean tech conference.  As it closed we made predictions on the future of “green” as a marketing concept and business driver.  My prediction was that “green” will fade from vogue and be replaced by the broader platform of “sustainability.”

Yes, environmental responsibility is vital, but so too is social and economic responsibility.  A reduced carbon footprint doesn’t absolve corporations that avail themselves of child labor or deceive investors.  And, from a marketing perspective, “green” is limiting whereas “sustainability” delivers scale by binding together good works across the corporation.  As the regulatory environment evolves and standards are established, “green” will lose its effectiveness in the marketplace.

Clearly, I didn’t spark a revolution with my pearls of wisdom.  There wasn’t a mad rush to de-green advertising and marketing campaigns…at least not that I noticed.  Was nobody listening?  Could I have been wrong?  Perhaps if “sustainability” looked better on T-shirts…

This morning I was pleased to see an Environmental Leader editorial by John Rooks, president of THE SOAP Group, called More on the Color of Sustainability.  Rooks and Adam Werbach, Global CEO of Saatchi & Saatchi S, have a running debate on the value of colors to social movements – think the Green Party or the Orange Revolution – and where we go from “green.”  Rooks wrote:

When Adam writes that we need to move beyond Green, he is right. But moving it to Blue is only a temporary fix – a branding and design project, an opportunity to differentiate it for a while; an academic exercise for branding geeks like me.

The beneficial business movement does need to shake free of Green – yes.  Shaking into a new color is one possible strategy. But dropping the concept of color altogether and making sustainability ubiquitous – therefore invisible – might be even cooler.

Movements are hegemonic forces of swelling ground and visceral rally cries and the color assumes the cause (not the other way). And they can all be derailed through propaganda.  So, Ok, I give, I give.  Make it Blue.  I really don’t care what color it is.  But as long as it is painted veneer, it can be counterfeited.  Get ready for a new trend of bluewashing.

Seems to me that companies thinking now about what they’ll do after the “green” revolution…and then taking an active role in shaping the vocabulary of the next revolution – sustainability…will be the winners in the long run.

msacks Sustainability Corporate Brand, Green, Sustainability