What can you do with an old brand?

Even new media companies face that dilemma in Twenty Ten – AOL and MySpace, for example. Struggling to stay relevant, both companies are searching for a leg up in the brand wars.

AOL and MySpace both have a similar challenge – recovering from being the eclipsed top dog in their sectors. It’s too easy for many critics to say their time has passed, but with some smart acquisitions, sharpened brand management and a serious socially-responsible corporate outreach program, they could each recapture market share and relevancy.

Generally this involves buying or merging with an up-and-coming company first, and then setting out to freshen the brand with a high-visibility communications/PR project, preferably of the CSR persuasion. Both of those companies could take acquisition lessons from Xerox, which just merged on February 5th with the IT giant ACS. ACS is a terrific growth story, a global company with a 21st-Century business model and reputation for being well-managed and fast-moving. With one fell swoop Xerox made itself newly relevant and cutting-edge, and I’m sure their branding and CSR programs will follow.

Xerox is a known and trusted brand that defines the duplication and printing business – but their name and their image needed a new infusion of immediacy and impact, and ACS gave that to them. AOL and MySpace could do the same with one smart acquisition — and they’re probably looking as we speak.

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

dlangness CSR, General Corporate, Sustainability, Uncategorized AOL, CSR, MySpace, reputation

Tiger Woods’ Thanksgiving weekend car crash spawned a cottage industry for the media. The tabloids have reported breathlessly 24/7 about his alleged extra-marital exploits, the participants (both outed and self promoted) and a possible stay at a rehab facility. Cable and national TV news programs have to various extents joined the tabloid fray or just reported on the tabloid reports. The business/financial media have covered Tiger’s myriad sponsors and their varying reactions to his debacle as well as the financial impact on him, his sponsors and the golf industry.

Now comes Tiger’s first public pronouncement on the dalliances that have gripped the nation (ABC News ran the news as their lead story last night in front on the release of Americans held in Haiti, the one-year anniversary of the stimulus and the US gold medal haul in Vancouver). Tiger and his people, who already have a nice record of pr/crisis communications missteps since late November, have dictated that his appearance in front of a group of hand-picked friends, colleagues and close associates will include only a short statement in front of one camera with no reporters or Q&A.

The logistics and choreography of this event should be a primer for celebrities/sports stars as well as corporations/executives on how not to respond to a reputational crisis. Corporations and sports stars who deal with crises successfully have learned that the best way to move forward and begin reputational repairs is to address the situation quickly and factually, to be transparent and to engage the questions of the media and the public. To do otherwise only perpetuates the crisis, allowing others to fill the void with their own answers, competitors to seize on the opportunities that are afforded and reputations to remain denigrated.

The executives at Toyota (who made numerous communications missteps but are slowly figuring things out) and former baseball star and now avowed steroid user Mark McGwire (who after years in the wilderness is making his way back) are just two recent examples of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to crisis communications and reputation. Tiger is arguably the greatest golfer of all-time but is terms of crisis communication and repairing the reputation he worked so hard to build he is nothing more than a weekend duffer.

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

rtauberman Crisis Communications Crisis, reputation, Tiger Woods

My favorite corporate message these days comes out of Ann Arbor, Michigan, where Domino’s Pizza calls home. Don’t get me wrong – I rarely eat the stuff, although back in the day I could go toe-to-toe with a large pie (Canadian bacon, green pepper, extra cheese) at the drop of a hat.

I’m intrigued by Domino’s determined attempt to re-establish its image as a quality quick-serve restaurant that lives up to its corporate promise – delivering a quality product in 30 minutes or less. They seem to be doing okay on the 30-minute promise, barring a couple of expensive lawsuits back in the 1990s. But the quality product part… well, not so much.

In 2009, consumers participating in a series of focus groups totally trashed Domino’s pies. Common complaints – the crust tastes like “cardboard,” the sauce is just “ketchup,” and so on. In response to this harsh criticism, the company launched an aggressive campaign called The Pizza Turnaround designed to re-claim the consumer’s hearts, minds, taste buds and wallets.

The logistics and complexity of The Pizza Turnaround resemble the invasion of Normandy, except in the pizza industry. There are multiple points of engagement: TV and print advertising, in-store signage, a huge web presence, Twitter feeds, YouTube videos, Facebook pages and even Domino’s Championship Gear celebrating the company’s epic win over Papa John’s in a recent taste-off.

So is Domino’s delivering (pun intended) on the Pizza Turnaround? It sure seems that way. The folks at Pizza Throwdown liked the new recipes. So did the gang at Slice (“America’s Favorite Pizza Weblog!”). Even Stephen Colbert jumped on the bandwagon.

But to me, the most fascinating piece of this has to do with Domino’s corporate reputation. By building its loud, but engaging advertising campaign and the other elements of The Pizza Turnaround on the idea that, “you told us we suck and we’re doing something about it,” the company is sending some powerful messages to consumers. We listen. We heard you. We acted based on your feedback. Your opinions are as important as your dollars. We care. One Web pundit called it “reverse engineering reputation management.”

So was the pizza really so bad that the company had to start over? Not likely, since their annual revenues clock in north of $3 billion. But that’s not the point, is it? This is all about image, perception and reputation, and Domino’s has baked together a potent recipe that resonates well with the public.

In many respects, corporate reputation is a function of public perception and I’d wager that the public perception today about Domino’s is very positive. It’s the kind of enviable position that any corporation would love to be in these days.

Bob Silver can be reached at bsilver@mww.com.

bsilver General Corporate advertising, Domino's, reputation

We need a robust scientific community exploring and determining and discovering. But science costs money. And corporations, which often rely on science for validation of things like product safety, environmental impact, or efficacy, have it.

For corporations involved in things that require scientific testing, don’t we expect them to do that testing, to engage outside experts to reach conclusions? I think we, society, do. Their reputation is tied up in it. But still we roll our eyes when we see some science that confirms facts in favor of the company that funded it. When it seems self-serving, we are incredulous.

Writes John Tierney in the New York Times: “Too often, corporate conflict-of-interest accusations have been used as smear tactics to silence scientists who ended up being correct.”

Science is at once a most revered and most reviled field, and corporate reliance on it cuts both ways.

There is in fact little proof, though there are some extreme, isolated examples, that the scientific community has been compromised by virulent corporate funding. Many might even argue science has flourished because it is so well-funded by corporations and other organizations, including government.

But it remains a communications and reputation challenge for corporations to convince its audience that the science it sponsors is honest.

From a message standpoint, “corporate” science is generally referred to in one of two ways. If you are against what the corporate-funded science purports to prove, you call it “junk science.” If you are for what the science shows, you say “Look, don’t take my word for it, this is independently conducted science.”

Actually, the same framework applies, if say, an advocacy group puts out science that delegitimizes a corporation’s particular claim.

It’s an easy narrative trap to fall into. But perhaps, for corporations, the best way to win the battle – and make no mistake, the media loves a science dust-up – is to demonstrate how they maintained a proper distance from the process and allowed for scientific integrity. In this age of transparency, the burden of proof rests with them.

We should care if corporate money funds science and I’m not saying there is never a conflict that the public should be made aware of. The trick is for corporations to show that the conflict is only perceived, not actual.

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

msacks General Corporate reputation, science, scientific testing

Saturday’s Business Day section of the New York Times offered an interesting juxtaposition of perspective for anyone who was paying attention. Page B4 featured a continuation of a story on Toyota’s belated apology to customers for the recall of vehicles announced January 21st due to some brake issues and on page B5, a column entitled “An Attempt to Revive the Lost Art of Apology, “ by Alina Tugend. I noticed the latter item when I turned the page of the newspaper while wondering why the CEO of Toyota waited nine days from the day of announcing the recall to apologize and why he did it from Davos as opposed to returning to his company to sort out an issue which is clearly devastating to sales.

It’s understandable that companies do not like to communicate with customers when things go wrong until they feel that have the complete story and can answer the question “what will you do to fix the problem.” It may even be legal counsel that is discouraging a public apology or communications.

But, the equity gained by saying “I’m sorry this happened” first, and then communicating as information and solutions are found, is profound. The need for an apology has even been noted in reviews of malpractice litigation where plaintiffs frequently report that all they wanted was for the doctor to say “I’m sorry.”

The power and value of an apology is clearly pointed out by Professor Jonathan R. Cohen, a law professor at the University of Florida, in Ms. Tugend’s piece. “Saying I’m sorry, or asking forgiveness permits you to have a future relationship,” he said.

While the apology finally came from Toyota’s Akio Toyoda, one has to wonder if it came too late to allow a future relationship with affected customers as they look to take advantage of the trade-in incentives being offered to owners of the recalled Toyota vehicles by competitors such as Chrysler, GM and Hyundai.

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

awadler Crisis Communications apologies, reputation, Toyota

Last week’s stunning Supreme Court decision that will now allow corporations and labor unions to spend an unlimited amount on election campaigns has sent shock waves across the political landscape with some lauding the sanctity of the First Amendment and others predicting the downfall of democracy as we know it. The case brought together an unusual coalition of the right (Chamber of Commerce) and left (ACLU) in support of scuttling McCain-Feingold. Opinions on what this will mean for the 2010 elections and beyond span a broad spectrum as Members of Congress and the Obama Administration are already debating legislative initiatives to take on the ruling.

As politicians and the pundit corps look ahead breathlessly to a new electoral dynamic, corporations need to closely review the decision and do a thorough analysis of how best to proceed. The American public is very upset and while Washington is getting the brunt of the blame, corporations are not far beyond in terms of negative sentiment. Banks, health insurers, big energy and others who are seen as the likely beneficiaries of the new spending freedom have seen their reputations battered in America’s widespread pushback against large institutions. From the Tea Party movement to the Move Your Money campaign to increased shareholder lawsuits and proxy challenges, the public is in a fighting mood.

Thus corporate boards and executives will need to proceed cautiously and judge how increased political contributions and activism will impact all of their stakeholders. Though the shackles are now off, the spotlight on corporate involvement in campaigns will be brighter. Profligate spending on election campaigns will be a focus for the media and online communities. Protecting corporate reputation, promoting the interests of shareholders and addressing consumer/public sentiment will all need to be weighed when companies make the decision to exercise the new rights bestowed on them by the Supreme Court.

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

rtauberman General Corporate campaign finance, corporate boards, reputation, Supreme Court

I just finished reading an article about the Taliban’s PR campaign to improve its image. Now if you guessed that I was reading it in The Onion – one of my favorite places for ironic, sarcastic humor – that would make total sense. But this story actually appeared in the NYT.

My colleague Mike Sacks recently wrote about his beef with corporate apologies. And if you follow this blog, you already know mine: people who talk about public relations or communications as a solution for bad policy. The idea that the Taliban needs a PR campaign to “improve its image” is a perfect, albeit extreme, case in point. The Taliban doesn’t have a PR problem. They are the problem.

The article goes on to point out that the Taliban has issued a new code of conduct that prohibits, among other things:

• Beheadings without an investigation
• Burning down schools
• Suicide bombing of civilians

Now, I am a real believer that journalism should be balanced, and that everyone deserves a voice. But are we really having a serious discussion about the Taliban’s image and the resulting PR campaign? In the NYT?

What’s next? A positioning session to differentiate the Taliban from terrorism?

A Code of Conduct is just a piece of paper if it doesn’t live and breathe with its members, and if it isn’t reflected in the actions and decisions of the individuals. And PR isn’t a solution for bad policy, decisions or actions.

In the words of Forrest Gump, “And that’s all I have to say about that.”

Carreen Winters can be reached at cwinters@mww.com.

cwinters General Corporate code of conduct, policy, reputation