Thursday, November 5, 2009

Who Owns Reputation Management?

I was at a meeting in NY today sponsored by Echo Research. Because the meeting was primarily for communicators, it focused on issues related to reputation from the communications perspective. The argument was that communications should "own" reputation management within companies because it is the most suited discipline to do so. The rationale is that given social media, relationship management--a supposed PR expertise--is critical; and that communications looks at more stakeholders than any function other than the CEO.

I agree with the perspective that public relations is better suited to relationship management than is marketing and that it is a function with concern for many constituents. Still, I have problems with the concept of ownership of something as important to an organization as reputation. The equivalent would be to say that the CFO owns finances. He/she is the primary steward, but everyone in the organization owns responsibility for financial management.

Communications should be the catylst for reputation management, if they have the skill set to do so. However, this skill set needs to be more than a constant urging for social responsibility and "doing things right".

The leaders of reputation management will be those who first-and-foremost understand that the primary interest of a CEO is to build value for the organization. Reputation management does that, but I am not at all sure most communicators or most marketers understand what is meant by that. Communications often sees value as "doing good". Somehow these good things are supposed to translate into behavioral intent. Sometimes they do and sometimes they don't. Marketers suffer from wanting everything to have transactional monetary value--relationships take too long.

A blending of the two is what is needed. Reputation management leaders need to help the organization focus on those things that distinguish the organization in the eyes of key stakeholders to build value. When they do that they will be given the "keys to the kingdom" by the CEO.

Often the communications teams are focused on stakeholders other than those who make money for the company. One often hears "that might be good for customers and investors, but what will regulators or NGOs say?" These are good questions, but reputation is most imporatant with stakeholders who matter, not with those who don't.
Every organization has three key stakeholders who contribute to the company's financial success: employees, customers and investors. Other stakeholders can help or impede success and must be managed appropriately. So reputation management is really about making the company distinguised for the key stakeholders and good enough so that the organization is supported or not impeded in its objectives and activities.

It's time that marketing, communications, investor affairs and HR got together and understood that they are in this together and that common goals need to be worked on. Others need to be brought into the mix, but until the organization can work consistently toward common objectives and behaviors with its key stakeholders, reputation management will not work. CEOs shouldn't care who the catylst is for this. It just needs to happen and the leader is the person who "gets it".

6 comments:

buy diamonds said...

One other option you could consider along with the instructional videos is a question and answer video where a person asks a number a number of questions about product (feature questions and issue questions) and an expert answers the questions (demonstrating if necessary)
ceo reputation management

Elliot Schreiber said...

thanks. Good thought.

Boyd said...

Fine post . . . I have forwarded it to the students in my reputation management class at Ryerson University.

I do question, though, what I think is your underestimation of the role of government and regulators in ensuring financial health of organizations.

You say a company "has three key stakeholders who contribute to the company's financial success: employees, customers and investors." Market interference by governments can inhibit financial success. But, perhaps I only feel that way because I live in Canada:)

Elliot Schreiber said...

Boyd,

Having lived in Canada for many years--I am in Oakville, ON as I write, I understand the issue you raise. I do believe that government is a stakeholder, but of the 2nd order--that is, it can impede and assist progress, but does not contribute directly to the success of the company, unless of course, the company is involved in sales to the government, and then we are talking about a customer relationship.

Elliot Schreiber said...

Boyd,

I reread your post and I may not have fully understood your point. In Canada and other countries where there is more government involvement in business that we typically see in the US, the government can play a larger role in influencing the success of the company. For example, the government is the single payer for pharmaceuticals and needs to be treated as a channel partner.

George Garza said...

All the contents you provide in post is too good and useful . I will keep it in mind, thanks for sharing the information keep updating, looking forward for more posts. Thanks for sharing.
Good business reputation