Fareed Zakaria rose quickly into the rarefied strata of the prominent public intellectual after he authored a Newsweek cover story (“Why They Hate Us”) on the 9/11 attacks. He’s an extraordinarily prolific writer, hosts a television program, and makes frequent public appearances.
As reported by The New York Times, he recently experienced a reputational crisis after several paragraphs in one of his columns for Time magazine featured several paragraphs that were almost identical to a New Yorker article.
The incident was judged a one-time event—a mistake from an over-committed writer—after several publications undertook a thorough review of his past work.
Mr. Zakaria has since cut back on engagements. It is worth emphasizing the lesson he gives us—expanding your brand across platforms offers visibility, but it is important that all material reflects your values.
The Olympics have bolstered BP’s reputation, according to Advertising Age. We previously mentioned social media’s role in repairing the energy company’s image, and now its Olympic sponsorship is helping build upon those gains. A survey by the YouGov BrandIndex shows that BP’s brand perception took a positive turn during the first week of the Olympics that was second only to Visa.
Criticism…But Also a Boon
Its sponsorship has certainly attracted criticism, but BP’s role as the Olympics’ official sustainability and carbon offsetting partner has been a significant boon. By providing biofuel blends and offsetting carbon emissions, BP has deftly countered its poor reputation for environmental responsibility. According to an ongoing study by Havas Sports & Entertainment, the Olympics have helped “build perceptions that over the past 12 months BP has been ‘Working towards a cleaner planet’ and ‘Trying to make a positive difference to society.’” Those perceptions have also been reinforced by important officials such as London Olympic Committee chairman Lord Coe, who called BP a “trusted partner,” and International Olympic Committee chairman Jacques Rogge, who told The Guardian that the company “took corrective measures and did everything they had to do.”
A “Dash of Spice”
While its headquarters is in London and it is supporting British Olympic athletes, BP has also dedicated some resources to the United States. “As the title sponsor of BP Team USA, a group of nine U.S. Olympic and Paralympic hopefuls, the company may have benefited from team member Rebecca Soni winning a gold swimming medal and NBC-TV’s laser-like focus on American athletes,” says YouGov BrandIndex’s Ted Marzilli. BP has also aired pro-USA television spots and sent eight chefs from the Gulf Coast region to London to add a “dash of spice.”
Not all Olympic sponsors have done as well as BP. McDonald’s has attempted to use its sponsorship to associate itself with health and nutrition, but between opening its largest restaurant ever at Olympic Park and the oddly worded support from London Mayor Boris Johnson, the chain has attracted disapproval not only on social media, but also from the London Assembly and Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. The fast food chain currently sits as the bottom of the MediaCom Sport Olympic Twitter Tracker due to the “perceived contradiction of the brand’s Olympic association given general health concerns.” BMW has scored a remarkable degree of exposure via the use of its miniature Mini cars in Olympic Stadium, but outrage at the fleet of 3 and 5 Series chauffeuring VIPs around London helped make the automaker the biggest loser in YouGov BrandIndex’s survey.
Extraordinary Opportunity
Just as they are for the world’s athletes, the Olympics are an extraordinary opportunity for brands. But a place on the podium isn’t guaranteed, and the risks are real. The Olympic platform can amplify criticism, highlight mistakes and contradictions, and undercut public perception and trust. As the games come to a close, it will also be interesting to see how the host’s reputation fairs. As Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman suggests, the Olympics could help usher in “Britain 2.0.”
Of course content is king, and the best, most informative videos rise to the top. But interestingly, the next two factors have nothing to do with video. The first is the title you choose and the second is the description. Create text that is accurate and search-friendly but compelling. Simply put, you want your audience to be able to find your video, and you want them to want to watch it.
Last week the New York Times’ explored the recent public relations and marketing boom among venture capital firms. In the past top firms have “operated under levels of secrecy typically reserved for Swiss banks,” Nicole Perlroth writes, but with fewer active firms, meager investor returns and increased accessibility the tables have turned in the world of venture capitalism. “Ten years ago, entrepreneurs needed some kind of insider advantage to get a meeting with a firm,” Perlroth explains. “Now the most promising entrepreneurs do careful due diligence — on Twitter, in blogs and in the media — before agreeing to take coffee with a V.C. The best entrepreneurs are courted by the venture capitalists, not the other way around.”
Successful Self-Promotion
The changes have caused an about face in venture capitalists’s attitude regarding PR and reputation management. Perlroth highlights Andreessen Horowitz, a firm whose ascent “has served as a case study in successful self-promotion.” Founded in 2009, the firm has quickly climbed the VC ranks with a bold strategy consisting not only of “aggressively marketing their expertise to the reporters and bloggers who follow start-ups,” but also “regular off-the-record dinners for reporters at the homes of Mr. Andreessen and Mr. Horowitz” and personal blogs maintained by its partners. That approach has resulted in enthusiastic coverage from the likes of Forbes, Vanity Fair, Wired and CNET, as well as a more direct reputational boon. Ben Horowitz’s blog has attracted 10 million followers, Perlroth notes, and many tech bloggers “have become protective of the firm, attacking any reports that cast Andreessen Horowitz in a negative light.”
Still a New Trend…But Growing
Other VC firms have been following suit—even stalwarts like Sequoia Capital, which Perlroth says, “sniffed at the notion when the trend began.” The firm “has a reputation for being tight-lipped about its investments,” according to the Wall Street Journal, but openly touted its role in three recent IPOs. Last year New Enterprise Associate, another veteran firm, launched a “new NEA Seed fund, aiming to boost the firm’s reputation among tech entrepreneurs.” Many firms “are bringing on PR talent for the use of portfolio companies,” according to TechCrunch, but “others are trying to use PR to boost their own images, and promote their VCs to the press.”
A Double-Edged Sword
The increasing significance of reputation and PR is a double-edged sword for venture capitalists. In the past they have cast themselves as Wizard of Oz-like masterminds, but stepping out from behind the curtain, they are learning, has both its rewards and risks. Take Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a major firm whose reputation benefited from the addition of “Queen of the Internet” Mary Meeker, an analyst noted as one of Time’s Ten Most Influential Women in Technology. More recently, though, KPCB’s image has been damaged by a sexual discrimination lawsuit by junior partner Ellen Pao. CrunchFund, the VC firm founded by former TechCrunch editor Michael Arrington, also faced complex issues when it launched. Clearly aiming to harness the popular tech blog’s brand, the firm’s reputation was immediately threatened by questions about journalistic ethics and potential conflicts of interest.
Interestingly, the new landscape that VC firms find themselves navigating has been shaped largely by the very startups that they have helped nurture. In the future they may consider not just the potential return on their investments, but also how the technologies they have funded might help build and manage their reputations.
James F. Thompson of PRNewser points out that it is actually glamour—an idealized version of reality—that Seventeen is selling to its (well, often pre-teen) audience. By abiding by its promise to offer more authenticity it will be taking a tremendous leap of faith, and the effect on sales will be a clear judge of the magazine’s decision, whichever way it goes. Is it true, as Thompson puts it, that “Inevitably the real world prevails, warts and all”?
When LinkedIn fell victim to hackers earlier this month, it wasn’t just the social networking site’s reputation that was at risk, but also the data and privacy of more than 6 million of its users. Nicole Perlroth’s New York Times article goes straight to the heart of the issue: “LinkedIn is a data company that did not protect its data.”
Such hacking attacks are nothing new—Perloth points out that Last.fm and eHarmony have also been hit this month—but LinkedIn’s attack has greater significance. On top of storing sensitive professional information and being the preferred social network among government agencies, LinkedIn is a key player in “Big Data,” a field that is rapidly growing in size, complexity, and economic importance. In March The Motley Fool ranked it at #3 on its “Top Ten Big Data Stocks.”
Trust & Reputation Key
The potential benefits of Big Data are exciting, but the LinkedIn attack shows how trust and reputation are key to realizing them. In order to collect sensitive date, companies like LinkedIn must not only assure that it will be secure, but also that they will use it responsibly. “Big data represents massive opportunities to benefit business, education, healthcare, government, manufacturing, and many other fields,” says Kord Davis, co-author of the forthcoming book Ethics of Big Data. “The risks, however, to personal privacy, the ability to manage our individual reputations and online identities, and what it might mean to lose—or gain—ownership over our personal data are just now becoming topics of discussion.”
LinkedIn is far from alone in its security issues. Big Data grows bigger each day. Facebook, in an effort to prevent breaches like LinkedIn’s, just started asking users for even more personal data: their mobile phone numbers. As more consumers become aware of how much of their lives can be found online, they are becoming more concerned with the security standards of the sites they use. And as brand loyalty expert Michael Hinshaw recently stated on his Huffington Post blog: “If we can’t trust you to manage our data—we’ll find someone who can.”
A recent New York Times article on Lawrence, Massachusetts’ quest for a better reputation offers a great example of how a concerted effort to forge a better image can have a real impact on a community.
With years of high crime and unemployment as well as lackluster education and local government, Lawrence’s image has suffered so much that Boston Magazine recently called it “the most godforsaken place in Massachusetts.” Spurred by such harsh words, a group of citizens launched We Are Lawrence, a campaign to reshape the city’s reputation. Acknowledging that they “cannot put more officers on the streets,” We Are Lawrence opted instead for “small steps that might revitalize the city, fostering pride and economic development by highlighting its robust history.”
Changing the Narrative
The campaign is only a few months old, and Lawrence’s problems won’t be easily fixed, but there have already been some signs of improvement. The Times describes how “cash mobs” are highlighting and supporting local independent businesses, and Lawrence CommunityWorks, one of the nonprofits involved in We Are Lawrence, was recently awarded state funds to build new affordable housing. The local Habitat for Humanity has also been at work on a number of projects in the city, including building one house in less than a week. “This is about changing the narrative, empowering people to celebrate and encouraging them to work together on the challenges,” Lawrence CommunityWorks’ Maggie Super Church told the Times.
In 2010, the city of Juárez, Mexico, which has been plagued by drug cartel violence, implemented a likeminded strategy with Cronicas de Heroes, an MIT-supported website that shares “stories about ordinary people committing random acts of kindness, bravery and care” in the city. While Juárez’s problems certainly haven’t disappeared, the murder rate has dropped and a new sense of community has begun to emerge. The border city is now literally “back on the map” distributed by the visitors bureau of neighboring El Paso, Texas, which had neglected to include Juárez in recent years.
Highlighting the Positive
Other cities like Branson, Missouri have enacted similar approaches aimed at restoring their damaged images. In Branson, which was devastated by a tornado in February and relies heavily on tourism, local businesses have taken to social media, combatting the ubiquitous images of destruction presented in the media with ones highlighting their rapid rebuilding efforts.
A city can’t wish its problems away, but working to incorporate more positive aspects into its image can go a long way. It has the potential not only to improve a locality’s overall reputation, but also to inspire local pride and community involvement.
With its April ratings reaching their lowest point in a decade and primetime ratings the lowest in two decades, CNN’s reputation as the best source for hard news seems to no longer be enough. But rather than adopting a reputation for partisanship like those that have helped MSNBC and Fox News attract larger audiences, the Time Warner-owned network is attempting to expand its range beyond the realm of breaking news.
CNN continues to be the first place audiences go for serious news coverage. It beat its rivals’ ratings the night of the last presidential election and saw better numbers during this year’s primaries and debates and last year’s Egypt coverage. But its ratings rise and fall with the news cycle. “It does have a great reputation and a great global brand name for the casual news viewer,” former CNN researcher Brad Adgate told TVNewser. “The news is still the star at CNN and it isn’t necessarily the star at other cable news networks.”
Expanding Into Areas Beyond Its Core Strength
The network’s recent acquisition of globetrotting chef Anthony Bourdain from the Travel Network and anchor John Berman from ABC News, as well as its decision to turn to more outside producers for its documentary programs, suggests that CNN is aiming to smooth out its ratings roller coaster by expanding into areas beyond its core strength. It clear CNN does not want to give up its reputation for hard news. In the Wall Street Journal, Time Warner executives stressed “that ratings aren’t the only measure of the channel’s value, pointing to its reach online and overseas and its status as the outlet that viewers turn to when there is big news.” Its revocation of a job offer to the Fox News producer responsible for a controversial anti-Obama video indicates that CNN won’t trade in that status for the more politically charged reputations that have worked for its competitors.
But with these moves, are they leveraging their brand, or diluting it? CNN Worldwide VP Mark Whitaker described Bourdain as “a great addition to CNN’s team as we continue to broaden our coverage of news that impacts our audience’s lifestyles,” and Politico speculates that Berman’s addition to CNN’s “Early Start” morning program “may also signal an effort to move the tone of the program away from the news desk and toward the informal, kitchen-table model that has been so successful for MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.’”
The Experts Weigh In
The New York Times’ Brian Stelter highlights the fact that CNN is still performing well financially, but he’s not alone in acknowledging that it ranking against other networks “drives public perception — and employee pride — and declines there may gradually damage CNN’s networks as a whole.” Talking to TVNewser, CNN co-founder Reese Schonfeld offers a similar perspective: “CNN is the flagship of the entire CNN brand, and if it sinks it may destroy the entire organization.” Last month Poynter.com summarized a few other takes, including that of NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, who wrote last year that “defining itself as ‘not MSNBC’ and ‘not Fox’ begs the question of what CNN actually is.”
We don’t know how successful CNN will be in expanding its programming, but building upon its existing strengths and preserving its core values clearly seems like the correct move, especially when MSNBC and Fox News are already known for slanting to the left and right. Bourdain may burnish the network’s image as a cultured, global source, and Berman will contribute to its reputation for news coverage, even if his approach is softer. Turner Broadcasting CEO Phil Kent hinted that more changes could be on the horizon, so it will be interesting to see how CNN’s reputation evolves as more faces (and programs) come and go.
Fareed Zakaria rose quickly into the rarefied strata of the prominent public intellectual after he authored a Newsweek cover story (“Why They Hate Us”) on the 9/11 attacks. He’s an extraordinarily prolific writer, hosts a television program, and makes frequent public appearances.
