Reputation Gurus

Business Week’s cover story entitled “What Price Reputation” (July 9, 2007 edition) is an interesting and important read for anyone in the reputation management business.  There are many points of the article that resonate with us: 

1) There’s a new science of reputation management;

2) Savvy companies now realize a need for a more sophisticated understanding of the power of perception;

3) The trick is to decide which factors are most important to a company’s image — and those factors will differ vastly for each company;

4) Experts (including those at GCI) are out there to help Corporate Communications departments look at their reputations and “re-engineer” or build them.

In fact, it’s a fascinating time to be in this business, and we’re pleased to be working with companies like Darden and Dell in this arena.

However, there are a few important points of this article that we need to comment on … While it’s tempting to sell the idea of corporate reputation as a stock price boost, that’s only one part of the story.  Yes, a sterling reputation has tangible impact on the valuation of a company — anyone who works in this industry knows that, and it’s nice to see it recognized in an important publication like Business Week. 

But, corporate reputation should be looked at holistically, not just through the lense of market valuation.  Stock price is critically important, but a positive corporate reputation also allows companies “license to operate” in communities, to weather issues and crises better than others, and to attract the brightest and best employees, among other, less tangible benefits. 

Thus, truly savvy companies start their reputation “re-engineering” by researching many different stakeholders — including securities analysts, industry analysts, community leaders, industry leaders, customers, the general public, employees, critic groups, and even senior management of the company itself. 

By gaining a 360 degree view of a company’s reputation, we can then truly identify the expectations of that company and the gaps in those expectations, as well as the issues that are most important to them.