Managing brand reputation in the age of Twitter Honesty and authenticity in social media are powerful means of enhancing

brand reputation, even at times of crisis The biggest test of a company's effectiveness in social media is at moments of crisis, such as BP's Deepwater Horizon platform disaster. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images "Over the last 18 months we've invested heavily in social media", says Nik Pearson, manager of media relations for Toyota and Lexus in the UK. "We see it as a strong, cost-effective method for conversing directly with the customer."

Toyota listens for mentions of its brand or vehicles in online conversations, and also interacts with customers. "There are people sitting here waiting for those conversations," says Pearson, adding that "if they have a question, we get the answer directly from the person responsible in the business."

Jez Frampton, Global CEO of brand value agency Interbrand, says social media marketing is now critically important. "There is lots of evidence which shows that you're more likely to be persuaded into an opinion when you're discussing it with a friend or someone who is perceived to be independent. People talk about what cars they are going to buy, what food they are going to eat, shows they've seen, and they trust the opinions of those they know rather than the words of an advertiser or a journalist. What used to be word of mouth has become the chatter of social media. This is massively influential."

What people talk about is hard to control though. What can businesses do to protect and enhance brand reputation in these public conversations? Frampton says there are three segments to brand communication today.

"Think of two overlapping circles, one of which is the world of the business and the other one the world of the customer or the consumer. One segment the business can clearly control, which is its own communications, press releases, advertising, what they say at events and so on. Then at the other side is an area which is completely under the control of the customer which is the world of blogs, social media and the like. There is a section in the middle of those two circles where effectively company and customer can work together. The successful company today has to work across those three areas, and you have to accept that in some parts of the conversation you are not invited."

Brands that try to influence the conversation by posing as customers play a dangerous game, says Frampton. "If you try and pretend to be one of them you get found out pretty quickly. The backlash to doing that is likely to be much bigger than if you hadn't got involved in the first place and had just done a good job listening," he says.

Doling out free gadgets or holidays to bloggers in the expectation of good reviews can also backfire. "People who are perceived to be super users or opinion leaders in market places have to be careful to protect their reputation, their brand, within the blogosphere. It's not in the interests of people to take freebies and write good reviews, because if the reviews prove to be not accurate than they lose their following."

The biggest test of a company's effectiveness in social media is at moments of crisis. Examples include retailers found to be selling undeclared horse meat in beef products in January 2013, BP's involvement in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, and the tragedy in April when a sub-standard clothing factory collapsed in Bangladesh claiming over a thousand lives. Companies including Primark, Matalan and Bonmarch were found to supply clothes made there. At such times, "you cannot avoid getting involved in the discussion," says Frampton. "You have to be clear and honest about your involvement, because if you aren't you get found out quickly. Then what you need to do is be very clear about what your point of view is, what you're going to do about it and how you're going to help. That has to be connected back to your vision of the company and your brand."

It is no use distancing yourself by blaming sub-contractors, he says. "Our contract both moral, spiritual and real is with the company that you're buying from. So by saying this isn't us, it's someone else, nobody is fooled by that any more, and it makes it look like you have no control over your own business."

The responsibility for action in a crisis runs across the whole business, including the CEO to show leadership, social media specialists to engage with social groups, and corporate communications to talk to the media. Frampton suggests "cross-business working parties who are in a position to handle crises as they come along".

What can Toyota do when there is a panic about a safety issue, such as there was in 2009-11 when the company had to recall some of its vehicles after reports of unintended acceleration. "All manufacturers have recalls," Pearson reminds us, "it's a fairly common occurrence. What we've started to see in social media is that we can actually play out messages from our customers saying it's great that Toyota are on the front foot about this and fixing it right first time. We can get instantaneous feedback about the consumer's feelings about this, it's not just reliant on what the mainstream media are saying."

Authenticity is key, says Pearson, which is why you cannot successfully outsource social media interaction to an agency. "If we'd approached it through outsourced agency work, or had some kind of automated system, it wouldn't be as authentic and that's the central concept behind good social media."

An Executive View of the Difference Between Brand and Reputation REPORTS & PUBLICATIONS

An Executive View of the Difference Between Brand and Reputation (Download PDF) by Peter Zandan, Ph.D. Global Vice Chairman, Hill + Knowlton Strategies and Michael Lustina, Ph.D., US Director of Research, Hill+Knowlton Strategies This white paper explains the distinction between Brand and Reputation and provides an approach for how companies can properly measure and strengthen both aspects to build equity with key stakeholders. Brand is about me; Reputation is about us. OVERVIEW The concepts of Brand and Reputation are core to corporate communications, yet the terms are frequently confused and often used inaccurately, which can create serious problems in todays business environment. We believe a more precise, data-driven approach to defining and measuring Brand and Reputation will not only help organizations measure their performance more reliably and identify problems and solutions earlier, it will also materially strengthen corporate messaging and impact the bottom line. To these ends, Hill+Knowlton Strategies performed a deep, quantitative analysis on more than 150,000 recent interviews on corporate Brand and Reputation in order to arrive at robust, data-driven definitions of Brand and Reputation and explore the interaction between the two concepts. The findings are both instructive and actionable. The data demonstrate that although often used interchangeably, Brand and Reputation are indeed separate constructs, and they speak to separate (though sometimes overlapping) audiences about different issues. Despite their differences, though, Brand and Reputation tend to be strongly correlated, meaning that both tend to move in the same direction. When we look at crises, too, both Brand and Reputation often drop sharply afterwards, even if the companys Brand elements its products and services explicitly did not cause the crisis. In other words, at inflection points the marketplace does not always draw the same distinctions between Brand and Reputation that the data see over a longer time-frame. In our view, this means that while both Brand and Reputation are important at all times, their relative value can change dramatically with circumstances, which we see as evidence for an aggressive and proactive approach to managing both. DEFINING BRAND AND REPUTATION

Hill+Knowlton Strategies performed a series of factor analyses on seven years worth of surveys on the subject of corporate Brand and Reputation, across industries and among widely different audiences, including the public, companies customers, and their employees. The Brand and Reputation attributes for businesses in the surveys changed as the subjects and industries changed, though all covered a wide range of contact points for instance, retail customers were asked about shopping conditions and sustainability, hospital patients about quality of care and community outreach, etc. Exhaustive analyses of different industries, companies, and stakeholder groups examined tens of thousands of ratings of companies. For each company in each industry, the analysis produced two buckets of related attributes that, we found, corresponded to Brand and Reputation. In some cases, certain attributes can affect both Brand and Reputation, but in this study we limited the analysis to two factors for the sake of clarity. Generally speaking, the Brand bucket of attributes spoke to companies products and services things like shopping experience, expertise, and value. In other words, these attributes address the selfdirected question Whats in it for me? The Reputation attributes, though, address corporate action, culture, and policy in the context of the public square things like integrity, citizenship, and community building. These attributes address more the socially-directed question, Whats in it forus? We then looked at the underlying themes in each of the two groups and created data-driven definitions of Brand and Reputation that matched up with those themes. Those definitions are: A BRAND is the sum of perceptions, held primarily by a companys current and potential customers or clients, about a companys specific product, service, or line of products or services. REPUTATION is the sum of perceptions about a companys corporate actions held by the public in the areas where the company operates. BRAND AND REPUTATION IN THE MARKETPLACE We found that changes in Brand and Reputation are often highly correlated (with correlation scores ranging from 60% to 90%), meaning that perceptions of both tend to move in the same direction. This is especially true among important but non-specialist audiences such as the Public and Influentials[1]. It may seem like a paradox: on the one hand, the data say there is a clear distinction between Brand and Reputation; on the other hand, key audiences can at times appear less than discriminating between the two. The underlying reality, in our view, is that Brand and Reputation are both critical, but their relative value can and does fluctuate sometimes dramatically depending on circumstances. In good times, for example, a strong Brand can almost act as a substitute for Reputation. When all financial and customer-centric performance measures are going well when a companys Brand is thriving the Public or Client audiences may well know or care less about Reputation measures such as community engagement, job creation, or philanthropy. They may also assume that if Apple, for instance, makes great iPhones, then they are also likely making good Reputation choices. While we see some evidence that this aura effect may help strong Brands to boost a companys Reputation

measures, the hypothetical aura almost surely does not work backwards, from a strong Reputation into Brand community engagement alone will not make consumers buy a companys laptop. The data consistently implies that Reputation matters most when crises hit, and our data show that in those cases both Brand and Reputation often drop sharply at the same time. Audiences with more intimate knowledge of a firm may experience a less severe drop in both Brand and Reputation than External Audiences.

Take the case of the oil company BP. There was a moment during the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oilspill crisis in the Gulf of Mexico when public polling showed BPs favorability dropping sharply in the U.S., and at that point American consumers (an External Audience) might well have preferred to buy gasoline from Exxon or Sunoco or Lukoil if given a choice. All indications were that BPs gas was exactly the same both before and after the spill but BPs Reputation was suddenly very different and its Brand suffered along with it. MEASURING BRAND AND REPUTATION

In order to manage Brand and Reputation properly, companies first need a straightforward, repeatable strategy for measuring each. Consistent measurement has several clear benefits: Stronger, more effective communications through increased precision Better management through a more accurate picture of performance Higher efficiency through more equity per messaging dollar spent

In our experience, the best way to measure Brand and Reputation is to begin by identifying the 10 to 12 most relevant Reputation and Brand attributes often a helpful process in itself and then to use that list to survey all relevant stakeholder groups about those attributes, consistently and over as long a time span as possible. Casting a wide net when thinking about stakeholders is a good idea, as contrasting perception changes among stakeholder groups can be especially illuminating. To take one example, in highly regulated industries such as energy or insurance, a change in Reputation among legislators, as a stakeholder group, can tell us something important even if Brand measurements among the public are improving. Across hundreds of studies, we have seen the best results from a four-step process: 1. Identify key attributes for Brand(s) e.g. value, shopping experience, expertise, client/patient results 2. Identify key attributes for Reputation e.g. community engagement, sustainability, job creation 3. Identify key stakeholders e.g. current and potential customers or clients, investors, legislators, suppliers, opinion leaders, general public 4. Survey stakeholders regularly over time quarterly key-attribute surveys are optimal for most audiences. Monitoring differences in attribute ratings over time allows firms to pinpoint potential threats to Brand and Reputation. In a stable environment, less frequent monitoring may

suffice while more frequent monitoring is recommended after any crisis on Brand or Reputation fronts. After baseline research or any major internal or external event, we recommend reviewing the attributes monitored to ensure the list provides complete coverage. It will also ensure any themes that are emerging in the qualitative portions of the monitoring are included. MANAGING BRAND AND REPUTATION

Managing Brand and Reputation entails a complex series of choices about priorities and tactics. Clearly seeing and accurately measuring the distinction between Brand and Reputation can help put that decision-making process on a much firmer footing. We often see companies focus the majority of their communications resources on Brand building because, they argue, without strong products and services without strong Brand(s) a company has nothing at all. Its certainly both a fair and reasonable argument, but over a longer time horizon that strategy probably makes the most sense for smaller or less-mature companies. Going all-in on Brand might work for a lean start-up, for instance, where resources are scarce and the firms survival is literally at stake every day until it gains a foothold in the market. Once a company is more established and has a valuable Brand or Brands to protect, however, we see evidence that Reputation can serve at the very least as a valuable hedge against Brand erosion, and especially so in a crisis situation. We also see evidence that in a crisis, Reputation suffers more than Brand and takes longer to recover, suggesting that for established companies, Reputation equity is just as important to aggressively build and maintain as Brand equity is. On the tactical side, there is a school of communications wisdom that recommends putting Brand messages on television and Reputation messages on and in primarily media-elite publications and programming such as the American Sunday morning talk shows, The Economist, or Caijing. Our analysis suggests that this approach is not necessarily wrong, though it may be incomplete. If the goal of tactics is to put the right messages in front of the right audiences, then only consistent and accurate Brand and Reputation measurement can best determine how to match up message and audience. Our definition of Reputation, for instance, says the proper audience for Reputation messages is the Public. In that case, those messages need to go wherever the Public is paying attention, even primetime television or popular magazines. Similarly, our definition says that Brand messages should be geared toward consumers and potential consumers; it follows that a Brand might in certain cases benefit from the sort of media-elite treatment often reserved for corporate apologies. Tactically, then, we see evidence that limiting channels to the standard choices may well also limit results. CONCLUSION There seems to be general agreement that Reputation is growing rapidly in importance, along with, and perhaps because of, the thriving Internet culture. However we see less agreement about exactly when Reputation is important sometimes, all the time, or only after a crisis? Our analysis tells us that the relative values of Brand and Reputation can and do fluctuate among important audiences, so that one helpful way to think about Reputation is as Brand support in good times and Brand insurance in case of catastrophe.

To conclude, then, the big-picture theme we see emerging from seven years and more than 150,000 interviews worth of data is that especially for large and established companies proactively building and maintaining Reputation equity is as important as building and maintaining their Brands.

BRAND REPUTATION MANAGEMENT Brand Reputation Management is concerned with creating a positive online presence as every company relies on search engines to provide information to potential customers about their strengths and why they should be selected over their competitors. A healthy online reputation creates these expectations and our process helps organisations understand how they create value. Increasingly, however, more and more companies' brands and reputations are falling prey to negative information, stories or press that can seriously affect their online reputations. Often this negative material is published by a former employee with a grievance, an unreasonable customer or an unscrupulous business rival, but sometimes it can simply be the result of a misunderstanding between a company and its customer.

The consequences of being targeted in such a way are often profound, as these negative influences affect a company's brand and financial health by dissuading potential customers, future employees and, in some cases, business partners from associating with the company.

As experienced brand reputation management and consultants, we ensure issues involving a company's online reputation, such as inaccurate and misleading press, are resolved quickly and cost-effectively by utilising solutions that last over the long term. Any company whose brand has been devalued and damaged by negative publicity will eventually lose revenue so, if these consequences are to be reversed, then it is imperative that steps are taken to restore the companys online reputation. Brand Reputation Management has the expertise to not only restore your companys healthy online image but to keep it that way. By combining brand management techniques with our speciallydeveloped search engine formulae, we ensure that we develop, protect and strengthen your company's online reputation by identifying and relaying your "brand voice" on the search engines and social networks.

The priceless benefits of this unique and effective expertise start at $750/month. If you would like a quotation or more information regarding our services, please contact us by sending us details via our request form.