Posts Tagged ‘reputation management’

Doing the right thing in reputation management

Friday, May 20th, 2011

This is going to be one of those “rant on a soapbox” blogs because, as a runner, this week’s topic is very close to my heart.  A recent finish line fiasco at the Mississauga Marathon struck me as a really bad case of “not getting it” when it comes to brand and reputation management – or simply doing the right thing. In an earlier post on this topic, entitled “Corporate mea culpa at its best“, I commented that companies and brands that take accountability and apologize for mistakes publicly earn the greatest respect from their customers and are most likely to have the happiest and most loyal customers.  In many ways, it’s also one of the basics in crisis management/communications, and there certainly is a crisis brewing around this based on what I’m hearing and seeing in the running community!

In a nutshell, what happened in the Mississauga Marathon is that the two lead runners – at least one of which was on track to break the course record – were led off-course by the lead cyclist (whose job is to know the course and guide the runners to stay on-course) and then subsequently disqualified, even though it wasn’t their fault. Some might argue that it’s the runner’s responsibility to know the course, but when you’re the lead runner(s) you’re focusing on the lead cyclist to guide you…correctly. Not only was “winning” at stake, but prize money associated with placing – and prize money for breaking the course record. (And of course the principle of the matter.) The easy fix?

  1. an admission of error and accountability on the part of the organizers (and the lead cyclist who led these runners astray)
  2. making things right by splitting the prize money pool amongst the “winners”, including those who were disqualified

The race organizers have been slow to react, if at all, which is even more surprising given all the controversy in Toronto over competing marathons which are cannibalizing each other and vying for participants (this year’s Mississauga Marathon saw its numbers down to 10,000 from 14,000 last year because it was run the same day as the GoodLife Fitness Toronto Marathon, which had moved from the Fall where it was competing with another Toronto marathon, the Scotiabank Waterfront Toronto Marathon). You’d think that given this scenario, the Mississauga Marathon organizers would be particularly keen to do the right thing and protect their brand – their reputation – and thereby attract participants (especially since it’s the newer of the two).

Interestingly, we’re not talking about huge sums of money because the prize pool was $1,750 for the top 3 finishers, with an additional $2,500 for breaking the record, totalling just over $4,000. The right thing to do, since it wasn’t the fault of the runners (but the race organizers), would be to take the total prize pool and divvy it up between the top 4 (or even 5) finishers so that everyone is happy – and many runners seem to agree. It’s the principle, if anything, and surely the race can afford it as there were over 10,000 racers. But the organizers just don’t seem to get it. Maybe they just have their principles wrong? But they also have a brand to protect…have they forgotten about that? Being very short-sighted (or stubborn), and focusing on the wrong principles could come back to haunt them. Where’s Mayor Hazel McCallion in all of this, as it’s her “Mississauga” brand we’re talking about?!?

Perhaps without a major named sponsor there was less pressure to protect the brand by doing the right thing?  It will certainly be interesting to see if the running community – which is quite vocal – will vote with their feet next year, and choose a marathon other than the Mississauga Marathon, meaning participant numbers will drop even further. One thing’s for sure, elite runners may think twice about which marathon they run – or don’t run – next year!

What do you think? Did race organizers do the right thing – by the runners and the race (the brand)? Will the Mississauga Marathon – and its brand – suffer in the long run?

Corporate social responsibility takes a new twist

Friday, March 18th, 2011

Whether or not you’re a hockey fan, it’s almost impossible to not be noticing the uproar surrounding the latest NHL “head shot” injury, and violence in hockey in general.  What I find most fascinating about the current situation is that sponsors are taking a stand and flexing their muscle, in the spirit of corporate social responsibility.  Now that’s a new, and welcome, twist on corporate social responsibility!  While it’s a shame that it has come to this, kudos to Air Canada and other sponsors such as Tim Hortons Inc. and BCE Inc. for lobbying the NHL, and in the case of Air Canada, threatening to withdraw its sponsorship dollars.  

While the arrogant and dismissive response by Gary Bettman indicates he doesn’t believe that this loss of sponsor dollars would harm the NHL, it’s also a signal that he sees the sponsorship as a one-sided affair – with only the NHL calling the shots.  Does he not realize that the sponsorship arrangement any company enters into is a two-way street, which means that sponsors do matter – that they do in fact have a say, a “vote”.   As someone who’s negotiated her share of sponsorships/advertising deals, the “fit” has to be there for it to work.  The sponsorship has to align with a company’s core values and what it stands for, whether it’s positioned as corporate social responsibility or not.  Right now, clearly NHL hockey – and specifically how the game is played (because it has gotten so dangerous with head shot injuries, whether intentional or not) – isn’t seen as the right fit for some companies.  I don’t blame them not wanting to have their brands associated with this kind of “violence” or image. 

In the bigger picture, someone has to take a stand.  Players?  Owners?  Sponsors?  Advertisers?  Ticket holders?  TV Viewers?  Fans in general?  Arguably corporate social responsibility doesn’t only apply to sponsors…it should also apply to the players and their union, the owners (and GMs), the fans, and the league itself.   Air Canada took the first step, but so far it doesn’t seem like it was enough.  Will they ultimately pull the plug?  I guess time will tell.  What I do know is that right now I think of Air Canada in a much more positive light – good for them for taking a stand, whether it works in the end or not.    

What do you think about NHL sponsors taking a stand against violence in hockey under the guise of corporate social responsibility?  If anything, you have to admit it’s a pretty clever angle to play to get heard and have a positive impact amidst all the noise!

Why employee communications matters in brand building

Friday, March 26th, 2010

I’ve always believed in the sheer power of “living the brand” internally, which is where effective employee communications can play such a powerful role.  Recently I asked my communications colleagues on LinkedIn what they thought the role of employee communications was in the context of brand-building.  My belief is that companies often overlook the role that employee communications plays.  The feedback from my colleagues was pretty much supported my thinking – that internal audiences are absolutely critical when building a brand. 

I’m going to go out on a limb and say that employees are in fact an organization’s most important asset.  Some may disagree and say it’s the brand, but what they forget is the critical role that employees play as part of the brand.  A brand is really about a promise or an experience, meaning the essence of the brand needs to live in everything the company does.  Employees have a huge role to play in this because how they represent the company impacts the brand’s reputation.  And that means employees, and the role of employee communications, is absolutely critical to brand success, and therefore business success. 

No matter how good a job you do at building your brand in the marketplace, it will all fall apart if your employees are not engaged and part of that brand – without them you have no brand.  So what does that mean?  That employees should be the first audience factored into communications, especially in times of crisis when it’s particularly important to engage them first – out of respect for them (since it’s likely consistent with a core value all organizations have, or should have), and because they can help (or hurt) you.  Employees can be one of your biggest points of leverage, if you engage them properly, at any time, crisis or otherwise.  Recognize and act on this, and you set yourself up for success.  Ignore it and you may set yourself up for failure.  

In building your brand you need employee buy-in, so it’s not about talking at them, it’s about engaging them and giving them the opportunity to provide input and be a source of important feedback about the brand.  This gives employees ownership, and also creates alignment with the brand/values.  In good organizations this then fosters accountability for living up to the brand, and in times of crisis, for supporting and defending the brand and reputation. 

In many ways, a company shows its true colors in the way it communicates with its employees.  Does it communicate much with employees?  What does it communicate about?  Is it transparent and authentic in its employee communications?  Is it honest and believable?  And, are its communications with employees straightforward and tangible, avoiding the common pitfalls of talking in jargon and the infamous “management speak”, which will turn employees off and potentially create cynics or “haters”, not the ambassadors or “evangelists” you really want to have on board.  

You have a real opportunity to enable your employees as brand ambassadors if you engage them and make them feel part of the brand, and then arm them with the right information to portray your business (and brand) in the proper light.  Think about it, how can you deliver or stand up for something you don’t buy into?  This should convince any organization that the engagement of employees right from the outset is important for both clearly understanding and communicating brand values. 

Here’s something else to think about.  Your employees also go home at night, socialize with friends, and interact with others who may have an opinion about or interest in your brand.  Don’t ever underestimate the power of a cocktail party conversation or a seemingly innocent interaction an employee may have “on their own time”.  You want to have them promoting your brand and exuding your brand values at every opportunity.  As an added bonus, by having internal buy-in to your brand values you will also have an easier time retaining your best people and recruiting individuals who will also share and promote your brand values going forward.  What else can you ask for? 

If this hasn’t convinced you of the importance of employee communications in brand building, and why employee communications matters, I’m not sure what will! 

P.S.  The same thinking applies for not-for-profits with respect to their very important volunteer base, who are in essence an extension of the employee base and therefore key ambassadors for the organization.