I got time with Kari to ask her thoughts on building a positive brand reputation.
I think that most people start thinking about their reputation after it’s been tarnished; but before you can preserve your brand’s reputation, you need to build one up, right? How would you describe what is necessary to be a proactive reputation builder?
Your brand is everything. Brand and reputation might as well be the same word. You have to have crucial conversations about what your brand is willing to do or say “no” to way ahead of time. So many brands wait until there is a question to be answered in front of them, and by then it’s too late to have a meaningful conversation. Because of time and personal relationships, hasty decisions get made and reputations could be at risk.
At DonorsChoose we were approached a lot by companies that fall into the “vice” category. Fortunately, our chief marketing officer had already walked us through an exercise on our desired brand identity. We each had to write down a brand that we most wanted to be like or felt a kinship to. It was no surprise that Disney came up as a reoccurring answer from our senior staff. So then the question became not about whether “we should partner with that company” but rather the question of “would Disney partner with this company?” It wasn’t perfect, but this exercise works 90% of the time.
So once you state your desired reputation, in your experience, how do you know what your actual reputation is, and how can organizations get better at being aware of and responding to that?
Reputation is measured in a lot of ways. People use various web metrics like SEO and social shares (not just likes), but I have also had the opportunity to be more scientific about it. With two different companies I’ve worked with a rating system net promoter score. The measure of success is not about the good things people say but rather the bad things people say. I call it “what is your neighbor saying about you behind your back.”
In the winter of 2010, negative media attention began in waves around the microfinance industry as predatory lending practices led to high suicide rates by a select few groups in India who were using the “for good” model as a “for profit” model. At the same time, the Prime Minister of Bangladesh began her own negative media campaign against one of the fathers of microfinance, Professor Muhammad Yunus.
At the time Grameen had over 60 global affiliates, and would have weekly calls (at 5 AM) with our public relations team in France to try to get a unified messaging strategy on both waves of media attention – on the sector and on the sector’s founders. We had a series of major speaking engagements planned for Yunus that would also give him a world stage to explain his viewpoint on both matters, one of which was at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
However, as Arab Spring erupted in front of our eyes in Egypt in January 2011, reporters left the conference to cover the story, and Professor Yunus was never able to leave Bangladesh (due to an injunction for arrest if he attempted to leave the country). Our team split up and went to as many events as possible to be the “voice” of movement – but with little success.
In the end, both stories were put into perspective, and we came out on the other side. While we won the media war, we lost the political battle in Bangladesh. Additionally, we learned years later that many other microfinance groups felt isolated by the wave of media attention that Grameen in particular was getting and were also looking to “us” to redeem the image of the sector as a whole.
As you can see, understanding your reputation and acting to clean it up is messy and multifaceted.
Right now inside a skincare brand you are working on both philanthropy and exploring their Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR). Often times CSR can just be a “greenwashing” of the “sins” of an organization and not core to its business. How would you describe the importance of social responsibility for an organization?
If there is a greenwashing going on in an organization, it is because that company does not have the right person planning their programs. I think the public has become very savvy and can spot inauthentic attempts to do good. Because of that, some companies are distancing themselves from using the phrase “CSR” because so many of their business counterparts are using it incorrectly.
Social responsibility is no longer a company differentiator but a company mandate to survive in the marketplace. Being a good corporate citizen is crucial to customer loyalty and employee recruitment. I’ve been reading about how many brands are trying to position themselves as socially minded to attract Millennials to work for them. I read one example of this from an Internet travel company. They were saying that by joining their team you work for the company that’s going to send someone on a trip to meet their future spouse or give rest to a daughter grieving the loss of her mother. I can’t make this stuff up. The old-timers at the company called BS on it instantly. The bottom line is don’t overdo it because everyone can see vain attempts to put lipstick on the pig.
More and more companies are feeling comfortable moving toward a shared value model. What this means is that conversation about social impact is integrated with business impact. This is seen as forward thinking and not selfish; and, honestly, there has always been room for both profit and impact, as long as you are willing to give equal weight to each.
Finally, you and I have talked about “where CSR fits” in an organizational structure (in marketing, a group that is embedded in other functions across an organization, the job of the CEO, etc.). Do you have any thoughts on how companies can think about the work of CSR structurally?
I think it really does depend on the company and the “buy-in” from the top. The best possible place is as close to the CEO as possible, and potentially under the COO. So many true CSR activities require intense restructuring of how you do business, e.g., sourcing and supply chain.
I might be biased, but this is where I feel the greatest threat to human society exists: the exploitation of people through labor. We have more slaves worldwide then we did at the height of the legalized global slave trade. Modern day slavery is set to surpass weapons and narcotics as the most profitable illicit activity in the global economy, meaning that as people continue to make money exploiting each other, the problem will continue to grow. Many companies do a lot of good (philanthropy) while unintentionally doing a lot of bad (no transparency into supply chain). I am of the mindset to concentrate on stopping the bad and then focusing on doing good. This means that CSR should sit right at the top of the organization, for its influence should be far-reaching.