Harris Interactive came out recently with its annual Reputation Quotient Survey and there are some interesting developments.

The top spot in 2010 went to Berkshire Hathaway but not so this year after the Sokol fiasco, which we’ve previously written about here in Return on Reputation. Now Berkshire Hathaway is down to No. 4 – not bad, all things considered, but still a precipitous drop from a previous, largely untarnished image. Who dropped off the top 10 list entirely? Coke and Microsoft…replaced by Disney and Apple. Google moved up two spots to rank No. 1.

What does all this mean for companies who care about their reputation? That it’s a fickle thing and as Warren Buffett famously said, takes an instant to evaporate. Not only that, but everyone has a say these days in what kind of company you are. Google came in first for its financial performance and workplace environment…proof positive that all stakeholders weigh in when it comes to reputation.

Investors and employees clearly gave Google a boost on the ladder in today’s 24/7 interconnected world, and that matters. Every company spends a lot of time thinking about how they communicate with Wall Street – conference calls, press releases, one-on-ones with big institutional investors. But probably not as much time focusing on the way they talk to employees and how they empower their employees to talk about the company, too. Smart companies have “ambassador” employees blogging and participating on Facebook, Twitter, etc., after implementing forward-looking social media policies that lay out the ground rules. Google it and you’ll see.

kfieweger Employee Engagement Apple, Coke, Disney, employee communication, Google, Microsoft

The Apple PR machine is on overdrive convincing the world that the team at Apple is up to the task of running the company without Steve Jobs. And they’re doing a pretty good job of it, in large part because they’ve weathered this crisis once before, and have the results to prove it. They’ve got the financial community on board, with supportive analyst quotes about the depth of management. And they even got a NYT story today with a headline that talks about Apple’s deep bench.

Yet an informal poll around the office today failed to yield a single member of our MWW Group news junkie team that could name a single member of theirs (other than Jobs) — even with all of the media attention around this news and the management team at Apple.

Has Jobs become so larger than life, that Apple just couldn’t be Apple without him? Is his “brand” too much of a good thing?

The tech sector is filled with iconic, branded leaders –Ellison, Jobs, Gates, Bezos. No first names, or companies, needed. Even in that crowd, the Jobs mystique is legendary – it’s hard to say whether the iPad, and its migration to an entire i-lifestyle, made Jobs cool again, or if it was the other way around. (Remember, he was actually ousted from Apple in the mid 1980s).

I think the question isn’t whether Jobs has been “over-branded.” Plenty of organizations have transitioned an iconic CEO – Welch at GE, Gates at Microsoft, Kelleher at Southwest Airlines – to name a few. All of these companies have retained strong, positive reputations. The question really is whether Apple has done enough to prepare for an eventual transition. Should members of their team have better name recognition outside of Wall Street, particularly since this is not Jobs’ first time taking a leave of absence for serious health issues?

It is my sincerest hope (and seemingly that of the Twitter-verse) that Jobs will return to the helm, fit as a fiddle. But even under the best of circumstances, he can’t stay forever.

To me the real question is whether Apple can “culture-ize” the Jobs mystique, so it can continue beyond his years of service, like Walt Disney. Or will it need to re-invent itself under the vision of a new leader, and become a new, equally successful Apple?

cwinters Executive Visibility Apple, CEO Succession Planning, Disney, GE, Microsoft, Southwest Airlines, Steve Jobs

I remember when the most common thing I heard about Bill Gates came from the IT guy in our office. Frustrated by a bug in the latest version edition of Windows or some other Microsoft product, he’d mutter, “Bill Gates is the devil.”

What a difference a decade makes.

Bill Gates has become our generation’s most influential and admired business person. He drove the creation of one of the world’s most successful enterprises and in doing so, he spun off legions of Microsoft millionaires who are out there, starting businesses and charitable foundations or in the case of Paul Allen, otherwise disrupting the marketplace.

This may be the most dramatic reputation 180 ever.

Needless to say, the guy has some clout. A shout-out, a nod or any sort of recognition from Gates – real or implied – is the ultimate endorsement. Just ask Sal Kahn, hedge fund guy turned Internet educator. At the Aspen Ideas Festival, Gates gave a shout-out to Kahn’s online education channel.

Almost immediately, Khan Academy’s viewership spiked to 70,000 viewers a day and is the most popular education site online. He’s gone from working in his closet for free to paying himself a six-figure salary, with money people in hot pursuit.

Like another famous Bill who started a little movement known as CGI, Gates has become more like-able and more influential in his “retirement” than he was in leading one of the most disruptive and transformative companies in America since the industrial revolution. He’s transformed philanthropy with his foundation and joined forces with Warren Buffet to challenge the uber-wealthy to give half of their fortunes away in life or at death. He’s even making nuclear power cool.

Is there anything Gates can’t do? And is there anyone more influential today?

cwinters General Corporate Aspen Ideas Festival, Bill Gates, CGI, Khan Academy, Microsoft, Warren Buffet

At what point does the reputational fallout from Mark Hurd’s resignation rain down on Hewlett-Packard’s PR advisors?

The New York Times reported today that APCO, a well-respected PR firm, advised HP’s board to get ahead of potential leaks associated with the investigation into allegations of sexual harassment by then-CEO Hurd.

The board took the advice, disclosing the unsupported allegations. Hurd resigned later that week – not due to the sexual allegations, but because he admitted to falsifying travel expense reports.

But I digress. Let’s look at APCO’s role here. APCO seemed to follow the crisis playbook – be proactive, be open and provide full disclosure. So far, so good. But if they made a mistake – and you could make a strong argument that they didn’t – perhaps it was to counsel their client to move quickly without all the facts in hand.

Now APCO’s reputation is getting bruised by a variety of media outlets, including the Times, which concluded its story today by reporting that APCO “does not have a particularly strong reputation for crisis management or technology expertise” despite advising corporate icons such as Microsoft, Intel and yes, HP, on such matters.

Ouch!

bsilver General Corporate APCO, HP, Intel, Microsoft, reputation