As we move into the New Year, who will be 2012’s biggest winners and losers in the reputation game?  Here are a few on my “watch list”:

1. Tim Tebow – College and professional sports have had a rough year, and we are looking for some new heroes.  Enter Tim Tebow – athletic uber-achiever, seemingly authentic advocate for faith, Tim Tebow has the stuff that heroes are made of…so much so that he was voted the most desirable celebrity neighbor in a recent poll.  Is this sustainable?   Or is he a one hit wonder?
2. President Obama – this one is self explanatory – people don’t think of our President as the CEO, but he is the CEO of America, Inc.  As Washington’s gridlock continues and the Republican nominees become more of a known quantity, will President Obama be the reputation winner?
3. Target – still a beloved brand for its budget-chic sensibility, Target is a reputation at a crossroads.  Last year brought negative attention for support of anti LGBT candidates to the red bulls eye, and a series of workplace issues threatens the store where the First Lady loves to shop.
4. Johnson & Johnson – The iconic trusted “baby company” is taking a lot of punches due to a series of recalls.  How long before that reputation goodwill bank runs out?
5. Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook – The young billionaire took a few punches with release of The Social Network, punched back with a mega-donation to the Newark Schools.  If Facebook IPOs in 2012, all eyes will be on this company.
6. London and the 2012 Olympic Committee – an event of this magnitude is a make or break proposition.  But no pressure…
7. Sears & Kmart – my personal view is that the Kmart acquisition gave Sears a big black eye.  After weak holiday sales, they announced this week that they are shutting stores.
8. North Korea and Kim Jong Un – will a new supreme leader change the nation’s reputation, and its economy?
9. Meg Whitman and HP – distractions in leadership and strategy shifts put HP on the reputation roller coaster at a time when it was still reeling from the scandalous resignation of Mark Hurd.  Whitman seems to be bringing focus back to HP – and this may be the year they get their reputation mojo back.
10. Warren Buffet – 2010 was the year of asking billionaire’s to give away their wealth.  2011 brought the Buffet “tax me please” message to Washington.  What will the Oracle of Omaha do in 2012?

cwinters General Corporate Barack Obama, Facebook, HP, Johnson & Johnson, Meg Whitman, Tim Tebow

The latest political drama to hit cinemas is The Ides of March (based on a play based on truth) adapted for the screen by the ever-relevant George Clooney and starring the newly ubiquitous Ryan Gosling, as the “country’s greatest media mind” behind the campaign of a presidential candidate (played by Clooney).

The film’s themes are provocative for those of us in the business of PR, as they reflect many ingredients of effective reputation management:  one part media relations, one part crisis, and a helping of ethics on the side. In the film, Gosling’s character is a media relations superstar, tasked with maintaining the high profile reputation of a potential future president, yet grappling with a possible sacrifice of values.

No one would argue that reputation management can be a sneaky game especially in politics, but these days, flaws are harder to sweep under the rug. On the other side of the silver screen, everyone from corporations to students are realizing that it’s not just the media at the helm of their reputations – it’s social media. We know the examples: Nestle ran into trouble, as did Urban Outfitters. The political world is almost too obvious, with the downfalls of Anthony Weiner and Chris Lee as examples.  Hollywood itself isn’t exempt – what’s the most buzzed-about topic related to the affair rumors facing Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore? Tweeting habits.

Though the film doesn’t address social media specifically, it recognizes the power of public relations on an individual and broader level, presenting a compelling narrative on ethics and the role of reputation and media. It does a particularly good job of examining the lengths that those in the highest echelons of politics go to in order to maintain that critical, yet fragile, sphere of influence.

But today, the approach by many lately has been the opposite of the underhandedness in Ides – it is openness over exclusivity, transparency over bureaucracy. Whether in Hollywood or in Washington, we’re all learning hard and fast that the person with just about as much power as that scrappy reporter from the Times, might just be your Facebook friend.

fhamid General Corporate Facebook, Ides of March, Nestle, Twitter, Urban Outfitters

This week I attended the Sabre Awards, where MWW Group was named Midsize Agency of the Year. It was a great night to celebrate success, applaud the work of our industry and catch up with colleagues and friends. But in the shadow of that celebration, where Burson-Marsteller was recognized as the North American Agency of the Year, the Facebook scandal was brewing – a scandal which ultimately cost Burson a flagship client.

No doubt there will be plenty of commentary about this issue – painting either Facebook or Burson (or both) as the big bad wolf. But it is our industry, and the PR profession, with the most to lose as that dreaded “spin doctor” label emerges once again.

Working to advance a client’s point-of-view is a legitimate assignment. Ditto for raising issues about privacy or other critical issues of importance. So how can we do this without finding ourselves on the receiving end of reputational dings?

At MWW Group, we believe that trust + relevance = action….and while it appears that this campaign was designed considering the relevance of privacy issues, and perhaps taking advantage of the fact that Google is currently on its heels – failure to focus on the trust part of the equation yielded action that was very different than expected.

Three learnings for all of us:

1. Our clients are the story – we never want to be the story. Trying to be too stealthy makes people more interested in who is behind the issue than the issue itself. Veiled finger pointing creates suspicion. Even if your client won’t give an on the record interview – approaching a reporter anonymously begs to be “outed.”

2. If you are Goliath, it’s hard to be David – and when two giants do battle, expect both to walk away bloody.

3. Never put something in an e-mail you wouldn’t want to see in print.

Trust + Relevance….it’s not an either-or equation.

cwinters MWW Group, Public Relations Burson-Marsteller, Facebook, Google, SABRE Awards, The Holmes Report

Corporate sponsorship isn’t just for stadiums and celebrity charity events anymore as The Wall Street Journal details in its aptly titled article, “Here, Tweeting is a Class Requirement.”

The piece discusses how several consumer products companies – including Sprint, Levi Strauss and Fox Sports Net – are sponsoring college and graduate classes in return for fresh thinking about their online marketing efforts.

This concept is a definite win-win for everyone involved. The students, charged with developing and executing social media and PR campaigns on behalf of the sponsors, get a chance to learn first-hand about the goals and objectives of these marquee brands, while the companies get fresh ideas from Generation Y on how to leverage social media vehicles like Facebook and Twitter to engage with target audiences.

Presumably, the companies benefit from the insights of a generation who has grown up with the Internet and for whom social networking is a vital part of their daily lives. Students get a break from lectures and term papers while serving as valuable brand ambassadors, who will likely develop into loyal customers.

And while corporate challenges have been integrated into b-school curriculum for years, these examples take corporate sponsorship to a new level and show how integral online initiatives have become for marketers and communications pros alike.

And perhaps, even more importantly, the partnerships present the leaders of tomorrow with tangible, real world experience to build their resumes.

skenney Social Media Facebook, Fox Sports Net, Generation Y, Levi Strauss, Sprint, Twitter

Remember when AOL was the “IT Boy” of technology and corporate America?

Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks were sighing as they heard the AOL version of the Intel jingle – a chirpy pronouncement that You’ve Got Mail. We all watched the “finishing” bar as we loaded ourselves onto the World Wide Web.

AOL was a game changer….they were our source for online news and information, Our e-mail carrier. Our shopping portal. Our Internet North Star.

Then came Google. CNN.com. Amazon.com. Facebook. Twitter.

Like an ex who hasn’t gotten the hint, AOL has trailed behind tech’s new “cool kids” looking for an opportunity to get back into the group. They haven’t gone away, but they haven’t been all that relevant, either.

AOL’s newest bet is on news, with the planned acquisition of the Huffington Post.

Despite lots of celebratory quotes to the contrary, I think AOL and HuffPo make strange bedfellows. The AOL business has been in decline for a decade, in large part because it doesn’t provide anything that is unique or presents a real POV. It aggregates the same content you can find just about everywhere else.

HuffPo, on the contrary, is largely known for its political clout and leanings of Ms. Huffington, and as a platform where citizen journalists can make an impact. It’s like the Amazon.com of content. There is a lot of stuff, but you can tailor it for you.

No doubt this deal will be great for the wallets of the original HuffPo founders and investors. But what about HuffPo’s reputation (and Ms. Huffington’s – known for her clear political POV and voice, which she acknowledges will not be part of her AOL platform/role.) The question of the day – will HuffPo help AOL get its groove back, or will HuffPo’s reputation take a hit as it becomes AOL-ized?

cwinters General Corporate AOL, Arianna Huffington, Facebook, Google, Huffington Post, Internet, Twitter

MWW Group recently bought back its independence from IPG….a move that we believe will enable us to preserve our entrepreneurial culture and take advantage of a lot of changes in our businesses. We will continue to be led by our CEO and founder, Michael Kempner…which has gotten me thinking about the power of founders on an organization and its reputation.

Few would argue that founders care more than the average bear about their Company, its employees, its customers and its future. Transition of leadership from a founder can often cause angst in the marketplace – from Steve Jobs’ illness to the rather public ousting of Seventh Generation’s founder.

Which leads to an interesting case…Google. Larry Schmidt, who oversaw the Google IPO and navigated the early skepticism around search and ad models, is passing the reigns back to one of its founders, Larry Page. Continued day-to-day engagement of the founders is making lots of stakeholders feel comfortable and confident, and many point out that Schmidt has been mentoring Page to prepare him for the top job. All sounds good. Except for one thing – Larry Page has never been a CEO before, much less a public company CEO. Or the CEO of a Company facing competitive pressure like it’s never seen before – from giants like Facebook and Apple.

It is an interesting contrast that questions abound about whether acting CEO Tim Cook has the vision to lead Apple forward if Jobs doesn’t return, while Schmidt prepares to become “schmoozer in chief” claiming that adult supervision is no longer required at Google. (Not sure those would have been my recommended choice of words!)

Seems the “founder” currency is very powerful indeed.

cwinters Executive Visibility Apple, Facebook, Google, MWW Group, Seventh Generation

I’ve been reading about this new site for anonymous online references, honestly.com, which bills itself as “truth in reputation.” They claim to be the anti-LinkedIn, with LinkedIn described as “PR” and Honestly.com described as “journalism.”

At the risk of being diverted by the backhanded reference to PR – my profession of choice – I would beg to differ. References, by their very nature, are rooted in the context of the reference. How long ago did you work with the candidate? In what capacity? What was the nature of your relationship (i.e., supervisor, subordinate, or peer?)? That context is key – and any reference, whether glowing, or lackluster, is only useful within that context.

There had been great discussion and debate about the role of social media in evaluating prospective employees, or service providers. For example, interviewees know that their Facebook profile is fair game, and should choose their postings carefully. But the notion of an online site for “unvarnished” reviews of people isn’t a useful tool – it is the digital version of a junior high slam book, or a way to get friends to pump up your reputation, without having to be accountable for that review and recommendation.

There is great danger in hiding behind electronic tools in the workplace. People say things via e-mail they would never say to a colleague in person. But even in that case, they still need to “own” what they’ve said. A productive conversation about a potential employee is a candid one – it highlights the person’s strengths, and gives guidance on how to support the person’s career development and performance relative to their weaknesses. Let’s face it, we all have weaknesses, and guidance on how to manage an individual effectively is something I welcome. What’s more, it tells me that the reference giver is as vested in the candidate’s success as I am. That speaks volumes for the reputation of the candidate, and the person providing the reference.

A person’s professional reputation is built over time, one project, one interaction and one position at a time. Abraham Lincoln said, “Character is the tree, reputation is the shadow.” Reviews on honestly.com are not likely to show you the tree or its shadow. They are more like shadow puppets – where it looks like a hawk or a bunny rabbit, but it’s really just someone’s hands.

cwinters General Corporate Facebook, Honestly.com, LinkedIn, References

My mother is a breast cancer survivor, two times over. I love seeing NFL players wearing pink. I cheer for advocacy programs that encourage women to get mammograms. And like everyone, I hope that my daughter’s generation will not have to fear breast cancer like the prior generations of women. I’d love my two-year-old niece to never see a pink ribbon, because we don’t need them anymore.

Tara Parker Pope’s piece about Pink Ribbon fatigue struck a chord. She argues that while these campaigns have raised millions of dollars, and worked wonders for awareness – sparking copycat ribbons in every color for every cause – we are nowhere in the actual fight against breast cancer.

Are we at the beginning of a pink ribbon backlash? As marketers queue up for the privilege of going pink, will they soon be subjected to criticism of “pink-washing” their products, without making a difference in the actual cause? We already know that all pink is not created equal. We also know that the new Facebook campaign about where women “like it” (referring to where they leave their handbags) is causing some to ask the relevance question.

What does any of this have to do with the practice of public relations, and reputation?

A lot. For a cause program to be effective it needs to be relevant (to the business and to the target audiences), authentic and ownable. And it shouldn’t be something that requires issues management contingency planning.

Many brands find it tempting to jump on the pink bandwagon. Most would consider it safe…I would have before today. (Not ownable, but that is another blog for another day).

It is important to remember that cause marketing needs to be equal parts cause and marketing, meaning good for all involved. The pink issue also raises an important distinction between advocacy and action. Certainly, those two things work together. But awareness is an important first step. But is it an end game? Or is the real end game engaging people and motivating them to act (beyond just buying the product). How do we change behavior? Change outcomes?

A great cause program is mutually beneficial…to the cause, and to the brand. So it’s great to sell pink blenders, blankets and ball gowns. It is even better to do so, while advancing cures.

cwinters General Corporate Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Facebook, NFL, Pink Ribbon

Point to the AP for one of the better headlines I’ve seen recently: “Feds investigate baby bottom complaints”

Now, I’m going to do my best to avoid being too cheeky (1) throughout this post, but I can’t guarantee I have that sort of discipline.

Unfortunately for Procter & Gamble, maker of Pampers, not all is smooth (2) in baby butt land. The article is about the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its investigation to get to the bottom (3) of complaints of “babies and toddlers suffering severe and persistent diaper rashes and blisters that resemble chemical burns” due to a new “Dry Max” diaper Pampers introduced.

Evidently, this whole thing, as many brands are finding out the hard way, got going on Facebook, and found its way into the mainstream media. Both upset parents and Pampers seem to be utilizing the tools available to make their respective cases. When I checked while writing this, the Facebook page serving as the hub of activity – Pampers bring back the OLD CRUISERS/SWADDLERS – had 6,424 fans. Also on the page – the damning evidence! Photos! I would not recommend looking at them though.

Pampers has dismissed these rash (4) claims as it “aimed to contain a public relations threat to its biggest diaper innovation in 25 years,” says Reuters. The company claims, and executives have stated online, that these rumors are false, and they have turned over all safety data to the CPSC.

As we’ve explored on this blog before, parents are a group you do not want to mess with. So, P&G cannot simply ignore it. And it isn’t. P&G is engaging its concerned consumers where they are gathering online.

A lot of self-proclaimed experts, as one quoted by Reuters does, might advocate contrition. But P&G is sticking (rightly, I think) to its guns. The company thinks the facts are on its side – that there is no evidence behind the claims, either presented by others or in its own research. Unfortunately, facts don’t always win the day, and Pampers might do well to at least be open to exploring the issue a bit more rather than making a goofy claim about this being nothing more than some kind of diaper conspiracy among a handful of upset parents.

While this movement against Dry Max might not affect sales or otherwise cause longer-term brand damage, all it takes is a few consumers at a time switching to Huggies.

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

msacks Crisis Communications, General Corporate, Social Media crisis management, Facebook, P&G, Pampers