Agri-industry is becoming the new Big Oil.  Today, ag companies are targets of growing public criticism.  Tomorrow, they may be called to testify before Congress.  Rising global demand for both food and biofuels has increased commodity costs.  And now, like oil companies, agri-businesses are being vilified.

To avoid the reputational taint of Big Oil, agri-companies need to get involved in discussions of food profiteering.  Oil producers ignored consumer complaints till they were dragged into Congressional hearings.  To avoid a similar fate, agri-businesses need to show that they are not creating the so-called food “crisis.”  This means they need to do something extremely unusual for B-to-B companies - they must communicate aggressively and quickly.

Despite the hard lessons learned from Marshall Field name change, Sam Zell, head of the cash-stretched Tribune Company that also owns the Chicago Cubs, is trying to rename another Chicago icon—Wrigley Field. Zell has offered to sell Wrigley Field naming rights for the right price. Fans were shocked and preservationists perturbed.

Wrigley is now listed as one of Illinois’ top endangered places. The Chicago Sun-Times held a video contest to allow fans to vent their dissatisfaction and many protested at Wrigley Field on Opening Day.

In both these cases, the names represent more than a baseball franchise or department store. For over 100 years, they represented memories, experiences, and dreams—and the two brands have inspired immense loyalty and endless hope through a depression, wars and even a terrorist attack.

GCI Group believes that Change Rules, but we also realize that change may not be the best course if it alienates customers or fans, and diminishes the equity of a brand or the consumer experience. So, what’s in a name? It depends…so take stock before you go a changin’!

But as Pinkberry learned recently, one has to be careful about what one claims. As reported in the New York Times, a class-action lawsuit charged Pinkberry with deceptive advertising that inproperly claimed it was “all natural” and mis-classified the product as “frozen-yogurt.” Clearly, these claims were meant to distinguish the company from competitors. 

Pinkberry recently settled the case for $750,000 that will go to Los Angeles hunger and children’s charities and the promise that ingredients will be listed.  While people like the taste, the “all natural” claim suggests the product is better for you and has fewer calories.

It does make one wonder, though, if the stain of scandal will prompt consumers to second guess their purchase of premium products in a slowing economy. Will there be a meltdown in the frozen yogurt market? It may take time to see if this year’s fro-yo craze will stay hot after the weather gets cool. And if the new generation of yogurt chains have learned how to market frozen yogurt that can stand the test of time…and competition.

Red Bull now runs the risk of hurting its own reputation.  Why?  The company that created the energy drink category looks like it is bullying competitors.  And, if that message is delivered by your friendly, neighborhood bartender, you’re pretty likely to believe it. 

Simply “being in the right” may not be enough to win in the court of public opinion if a company doesn’t aggressively manage its communications.  Red Bull must protect itself with consumers.  Failure to do so will harm its reputation and, likely, threaten sales.

Though unreported, a common thread in the downturn has been that many American companies have compromised their reputations. As the graphic here shows, a corporate brand or reputation is the product of customer interactions on eight factors – ranging from financial performance to product quality.

This means companies need to pay attention to how they are perceived overall. Unfortunately, some executives spent the last few years defining their companies’ reputations on the strength of financial performance alone.

When a brand is narrowly defined, risk increases because stakeholders have fewer factors on which to judge the brand. Failure to deliver on a brand’s more focused promise means that stakeholders lose faith or trust in the brand. Companies that defined themselves primarily on the basis of financial performance disappointed when they failed to meet financial expectations.

The tendency during challenging economic times is to trim spending on all “non-crucial” activities. But, companies must be careful in assessing what is really crucial. I’d argue that the corporate reputation or brand is at least as important – and valuable – as a few quarters’ performance.

I don’t know about Facebook and its skis, but there are some interesting elements to this story that would have been shocking even just a year ago.

First, it’s shocking that Facebook thought they could get away with this type of advertising program, and that they didn’t provide enough of a notice to allow users to opt-out.  In the UK, any type of direct-mail or direct-email campaign must allow consumers the opportunity to opt-out by law.  This is a refreshing change for an American living overseas.

Second, it’s shocking that Facebook … despite its apology and changes it has made to the system … still will not provide a universal opt-out option.  It seems as if the company still thinks that it has cracked the code of a viable online business model and won’t let go.  But, I predict that this will change in the near future.

Finally, perhaps the most shocking part of all — and, it’s really not all that shocking today, although it still surprises me — are the comments that Facebook users made about the system.  Outraged Facebook users largely commented on how Facebook created “private” space to share experiences … and therefore, expressed a sense of violation that Facebook sold personal information … This just smacks in the face of common sense. 

Private?  Facebook?  Since when was anything online really private?  Yet, even early 30-somethings insist that Facebook has violated their privacy … as if their privacy wasn’t already violated by putting their deepest, darkest secrets online for thousands to read.

Journalists cover controversy and scandal, and sometimes one has to wonder just who cares that Lindsay Lohan ran a red traffic light or that a senior executive at a publicly traded company had an extra-marital affair with a famous journalist.  Case in point … some of yesterday’s (and this morning’s) news in the US focused on the allegation that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton forgot to tip the waitress at a restaurant in Iowa.

Regardless of your political leanings, this is simply not news.  Of course, Hillary should have tipped her waitress, but one can imagine how that might be an oversight when you’re running for president.

And, that’s why I say, “Hooray for Anita Esterday.”  Anita is that waitress who got stiffed by Hillary.  She’s a waitress at the Maid-Rite diner in Iowa.  And here’s how she responded to the media questions about her lack of tip:  “There’s kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now — there’s better things in this world to be thinking about than who served Hillary Clinton at Maid-Rite and who got a tip and who didn’t get a tip.”

Amen.

I have to secretly cheer for the idea of journalists banding together to fight off an unwanted owner (one wonders what Wall Street Journal journalists might have accomplished if they did something similar when Dow Jones was up for sale), but I also wonder how much impact it really will have.  After all, this is a time of dwindling newspaper circulations.  If Les Echos doesn’t print, and nobody minds because newspaper circulation is getting smaller each day, then what does that say for need for Les Echos?

I have to wonder, though, what the long-term fall-out will be of letting such high profile CEOs go, particularly in the wake of poor financial earnings.  With shareholders demanding the ouster of CEOs based on one or two bad quarters, who in their right mind would want that job? 

 One wonders who’s next to go …