Tag Archives: reputation management

Reputation Case Study, , , , , , , , , , , ,
Whole Foods interior

Whole Foods’ distinct—and even radical—approach to reputation management has been key to its success. Will that approach continue to work? We revisited our original case study about Whole Foods and analyzed the company’s online presence.

In January 2013, the Harvard Business Review Press published “Conscious Capitalism: Liberating the Heroic Spirit of Business,” a book examining Whole Foods founder John Mackey’s philosophy and the central role it has played in the grocery chain’s distinct reputation and success.  Business management expert Steve Denning also explores the implications of that philosophy in an in-depth Forbes article, but in practice it has involved a very active and innovative approach to reputation management.

While the organic food market continues to grow, Whole Foods has faced reduced earnings and threats from new competition. But the company has succeeded in creating a powerful reputation, and a strong online presence that reflects a large and loyal customer base. The foundations it has laid through effective reputation management, both online and off-, should see it through this difficult period.

Building a unique brand

The central component of Whole Foods’ reputation has been its professed commitment to a “higher purpose.” That is reflected in factors ranging from the company’s longstanding “Declaration of Interdependence” to its ban on unsustainable seafood. One early and important way the company established its reputation was by providing customers with “information and narrative, along with the food.” “It told stories about where the food came from, putting up displays by the seafood counter with photographs and descriptions of the real fishermen who had caught it all,” Nick Paumgarten wrote in his 2010 New Yorker  profile of Mackey. Paumgarten also cited the company’s decentralized management structure as a “key contributor to Whole Foods’ success, and to its reputation and self-image as a progressive business,” pointing out that the “high degree of autonomy” of regional divisions and individual stores has fostered “creativity and a sense of ownership.”

The manner in which Whole Foods maintains its core ideals throughout its operations helps explain its strong reputation. 

The challenges of managing a distinct reputation

But Whole Foods’ approach is not without its critics. Last February Daily Beast writer Michael Schulson scoffed at Whole Foods’ marketing and image in Whole Foods: America’s Temple of Pseudoscience.

In the New Yorker  profile, CEO of dairy company Stonyfield Gary Hirshberg described Mackey as Whole Food’s “greatest asset but also, at times, its greatest challenge.” Mackey’s perspective, principles and personality have been the source of the Whole Foods’ guiding philosophy. But a core challenge for the company—and for Mackey—has been adapting and maintaining its reputation. In 2007 an FTC investigation revealed that Mackey had anonymously attacked a competitor in online financial forums prior to Whole Foods’ offer to buy the company. That led to a realization, Mackey told Nick Paumgarten: “If I wanted to continue to do Whole Foods, there couldn’t be any part of my life that was secretive or hidden or that I’d be embarrassed [about] if people found out about it.”

Radical transparency has served whole foods well

Such radical transparency has generally served Whole Foods well, though there are exceptions, such as Mackey’s 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed criticizing health care reform, which triggered a social media-fueled boycott. The response to that op-ed may have inspired Mackey to more closely examine the expectations that accompany his business’ progressive reputation. According to a Wall Street Journal article from last February, Whole Foods “doesn’t want to be known as the pricey grocery store for well-heeled, organic-food sophisticates.” So it implemented a “price perception” strategy to counter that reputation.

The outcry didn’t, however, move Mackey to recant his opinion on health care. “So many politicians and CEOs get to be sort of boring, because they end up suppressing any individuality to conform to some phony, inauthentic way of being,” he observed in Paumgarten’s profile. “I’d rather be myself.” Whole Foods posted a response statement on Facebook two days after the publication of the Op-Ed. The response qualified Mackey’s opinions in certain ways, but more importantly, it invited readers to post their opinions on the issue—an excellent example of Whole Foods’ effective use of online reputation management. With it, the company provided the forum for the discussion, while moving its focus from Mackey to the basic issue.

Surviving the storm

How will Whole Foods—and its reputation—weather this period of increased competition?

The financial community, for one, is not sure: CNNMoney assistant managing editor Paul R. La Monica recently described Whole Foods’ stock valuation as “rotting away.” Other analysts do not see increased competition from established brands like Walmart as a major threat: “Though increased competition could force Whole Foods to lower its prices … it is probably a stretch to assume that the upscale clientele normally found at an average Whole Foods store is suddenly going to flock to what is widely recognized as one of the sketchiest big-box retail stores in the country,” writes states Ethan A. Huff in Natural News.

Customer’s commitment to the brand reflected on social media

But what about Whole Foods’ customers? You can sense their commitment to the brand by visiting Whole Foods’ pages on Facebook (1.5 million likes); Twitter (3.72 million followers), Instagram (200,000 followers), Pinterest (191,564 followers) and Google + (60,000+ followers). As with any company’s social media platforms, you can glean insight its business from the nature of customer complaints as well as how they are handled. Nonetheless, one should assume that the most aggressive rants have probably been moved to some digital planet far away, however justified they may be.

Much is reported about the reputations of companies, but to get a balanced sense of consumer sentiment, clear your browser’s history, Google “Whole Foods” and skim the first five pages of results. Then run a comparison check of its competitors – and check out the quality and content of their social media platforms. This is an excellent way to gauge management style and how consumers regard a company.

It is clear that Whole Foods has succeeded in managing its reputation with its consumers, and that its image as a leader in the organic food market remains on firm foundations. As long as it has that strong reputation — its most valuable asset — the company will survive.

 
 
Crisis Management, , , , , , , , , , ,
CEOs and Online Reputation Risks

“It seems that just about every day a chief executive, politician or other prominent figure is apologizing for something,” Aaron Sorkin observed in a Dealbook post announcing his new “Apology Watch” coverage and hashtag, which we mentioned a couple weeks ago. This “personal and public exploration of the authentic apology,” as Sorkin’s collaborator Dov Seidman describes it, will be a fascinating project to follow. They’ve decided to focus on the “apologizing,” but that’s only half of the equation. The other half is the “something” that made an apology necessary.

Behind the stream of apologies that Sorkin references are statements and actions that expose some CEOs and other leaders as out of touch with the opinions—and feelings—of the people their companies target as consumers. Tweeting about venture capitalist Tom Perkins’ much-criticized Wall Street Journal letter, economist Justin Wolfers describes this problem as the “rich-dude bubble.”

Perkins, a Silicon Valley pioneer who commissioned the world’s largest private sailing yacht and authored a romance novel titled Sex and the Single Zillionaire, has continued to defend his letter, but that’s a perilous position for many other leaders.

The human element

Take AOL CEO Tim Armstrong, for example. In linking changes in AOL’s 401(k) plan to the health care costs of “two AOL-ers that had distressed babies,” Armstrong focused on the bottom line while overlooking the important human element, which was later described in detail by Deanna Fei, one of the babies’ mothers. And last year Armstrong faced extensive criticism for firing an employee during a conference call while around 1,000 others listened. Sorkin’s “Apology Watch” analysis found the CEO’s most recent apology to be sincere. His article’s concluded with a quote from Fei. “I think it’s legitimate and necessary to have a public discussion about health care expenditures, but this has to be done with sensitivity and mindfulness of the human lives at stake,” she said.

Echoing Sorkin, Bloomberg.com’s Jeff Green says Armstrong “is on a long list of corporate bosses who put their trust in an apology to contain fallout from an embarrassing public statement.” Green offers a list of similarly problematic episodes. They included AIG CEO Robert Menmosche “equating congressional criticism of the insurer’s bonuses during the financial crisis with lynchings in the Deep South.”And Google’s Eric Schmidt, who suggested “that people who worried Google Street view was invading their privacy by taking pictures of their homes should ‘just move.’” Fortune’s Claire Zillman observes that business executives seem to be replacing politicians as “the ones who seem to be truly disconnected from everyday Americans,” citing astronomical executive pay and how wealth can distort one’s outlook as the likely cause.

Fallout

“If the CEO is getting mostly negative publicity, it is very hard to get positive coverage on the organization as a whole,” according to a study by the Institute for Public Relations. Given that connection, today’s CEOs may be well advised to cultivate an outlook that addresses the values and concerns of the broader public. In stark contrast to Tom Perkins, for instance, venture capitalist and early Amazon investor Nick Hanauer has advocated for raising the minimum wage. And, in Zillman’s Fortune article, Harry Kraemer, clinical professor of management and strategy at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, offers some practical advice for staying grounded: “You better have a few people—a spouse, best friend, or sibling—who won’t let you forget who you really are and where you came from.”

 
 
Online reputation management, , , , ,
The Many Uses of Online Reputation Management

Online reputation management (ORM) is commonly thought of as the way to remove negative commentary. But it is far more than that. This list provides many examples of how and why online reputation management is utilized. It also includes examples of some of the crises we have responded to with ORM:

– To create a strong online presence that acts as a protective barrier against third-party content, including anonymous and defamatory content.

– To remove home addresses, ages and related personal information from online databases, which often continuously scour the Internet to populate themselves.

– To replace old, unflattering photographs or caricatures and doctored images with new photographs. When the old images are cached or can’t be removed for some other reason, we minimize their prominence in searches.

– To ensure that factual, credible reference material is readily available online, minimizing the chance that fraudulent information will impact a brand.

– To provide insurance that your story is told by you and not by former partners or other biased parties.

– To rebrand Millennials when they enter the professional arena and Boomers when they reinvent themselves.

– To establish a reputation within a particular area of expertise on multiple online platforms.

– To create an online legacy for a VIP who is preparing for retirement or to exit a company or organization.

– To pair content with the most up-to-date SEO strategies to maximize its impact—keeping in mind that the quality of the content is the most important factor Google and most other major search engines now consider.

– To monitor social media and online forums for red flags signaling potential on- and off-line threats against high-profile individuals.

– To ensure up-to-date and accurate information dominates search results for an organization or individual’s name.

These are examples of some of the crises Reputation Communications has successfully mitigated using online reputation management:

– Emails and internal company documents were leaked and published online by inside sources.

– Online defamation campaigns—against both an organization and its key executives—organized by anonymous operators.

– Impersonation of prominent executives on social media and other online platforms.

– Long-resolved controversies were still commanding prominent placement in searches of an organization’s name.

 
 
Online reputation management, , , , ,

Reputation management has always been a concern for prominent brands and individuals, but interest in ORM is much broader. As just predicted in The New Digital Age, most everyone with a significant online presence will find themselves at some point using one of its professionals.

Industry insiders anticipate that one of the first ORM firms, will soon go public. Other ORM firms have attracted $15 million in venture capital: investors are pouring into the field. There are increasing articles about ORM.

Companies ranging from PR agencies, reputation management companies and social media consultancies to law firms are acquiring or partnering with startups in this fast-growing sector. Others are rushing their own ORM services to market. What does this mean for consumers?

A Profitable Industry, Attracting Explosive Growth

All this excitement has encouraged a distorted view of what ORM really is. It is not simply deleting negative information and flooding the Internet with positive information. Unlike reputation management, ORM is less about controlling image perception than about managing something that is far harder to control: all the publicly accessible online information about an organization or individual. That encompasses blogs and message boards as well as the most established media platforms. And unlike public relations it is not about controlling the flow of information—a goal the Internet has made unattainable. Good ORM is about authenticity and facts.

ORM and Efforts to Hide Negative Online Content

ORM began with attempts to hide, suppress, erase, and otherwise miraculously remove negative information from the Internet. Whether with letters to webmasters or through the creation of multitudes of dummy sites, great effort led to sometimes questionable, “black hat” results. With the refinement of search engine algorithms and the tremendous growth in Internet usage, those simple strategies have become even less effective. Online information can’t be controlled. It needs to be managed.

The open nature of the Internet makes that management more essential as well as more difficult. Companies need to watch for leaks from well-placed employees in addition to negative consumer comments. Since anonymous and unregulated they may as easily come from a competitor as a frustrated consumer. The way information endures on the Internet presents special problems for individuals—it has been argued that every time an old piece of information appears in search results it has been republished. So individuals need to be aware of job and company descriptions from early in their career and excerpts from speeches that could be taken out of context. Outdated information is actually a bigger problem for people that don’t maintain an online presence.

ORM Will Become Niche-Based

Some ORM firms still provide the older strategies. But most have developed an approach that integrates public relations, SEO, and multimedia publishing. Different customers have different needs. As the marketplace becomes more familiar with ORM we predict that we’ll see the industry online become niche-based, with providers specializing in specific areas of expertise corresponding to a type of customer. Separate suites of services are already being offered to companies and individuals.  But the needs of a recent college grad entering the workforce (or even a teenager entering college), with his or her Facebook-and Twitter-saturated online profile, differ considerably from those of doctors and dentists, who may be most concerned with patient comments on consumer review sites such as Yelp. A dentist in private practice, for instance, might be best served by an ORM practitioner who is familiar with the medical industry and is able to engage reviewers in online dialogues.

CEO’s, VIPS Need Specialized Services

The same is true for managing the online identity of CEO’s, VIPS and well-established professionals and industry leaders, which is what we specialize in. Not only is there an enormous amount of information about them online, they already have the LinkedIn, Wikipedia and other profiles that are essential aspects of the ORM toolkit. Managing that type of online image requires a different approach.  High net worth individuals require different skills: they too are usually the subject of considerable online content, which must be managed while maintaining the maximum amount of privacy for security reasons.

These are just some examples of the many different types of consumers who are already using professional online reputation management services. Clearly, the future for the ORM industry is bright. To ensure it remains that way, we must establish a benchmark of ethics, build trustworthy resources to educate and assist consumers and be proactive in shaping a best-practices culture to ensure they are well-served.

 
 
Online reputation management, , ,

Your answers to the following questions will determine whether you need to update your online image. That is the first step forward in expanding, correcting, repairing it…or simply establishing a more comprehensive one.

How much of the content in the first three pages of a Google search of your name includes positive, neutral and negative information and visuals?

What is the context and source of that content?

How up to date, accurate and authentic is it?

How credible are the sources?

Is the prominence of this content the result of benign neglect? Or is the content the result of a well-managed and organized campaign?

How significant are the platforms the content is on: is it a top 10 platform such as YouTube or Wikipedia, or a personal blog with a small audience?

These are questions to use when evaluating you or your organization’s online presence and its impact on your reputation:

Do you have a strong presence online, one that presents a factual, accurate and current image of your strengths? Do you have a monthly or quarterly plan to update and expand it?

Does your current brand identity reflect the direction of your professional, personal and philanthropic trajectory?

Are your photograph, website, blog, biography and related materials still relevant? Do they deliver a consistent message? If not, is this an appropriate time to rebrand?

For businesses whose international presence has increased significantly in non-English speaking countries, is it now necessary to create translated versions of website(s) and marketing materials?

Are your head shots and other photographs online over two years old?

If you are listed or referenced in Wikipedia, is the entry or reference up to date and accurate?

Is your privacy compromised, meaning is your personal address, age and family members’ names published in several public databases?

 

 
 
Online reputation management,

A common case of mistaken identity is when someone else that shares your name has a strong online presence.

No matter who it is that shares your name, it can create problems when you are trying to build a strong online identity.  It can be especially damaging if your namesake has a bad reputation. Even if one’s namesake hasn’t done anything particularly embarrassing or scandalous, mistaken identity can still be a significant issue.

Being Mistaken for Others Can Harm Your Online Reputation

As Kelli B. Grant recently wrote in her Wall Street Journal article “Meet Your Digital Doppelgänger,” such confusion “can inadvertently parachute people into their namesake’s lives, exposing them to everything from love notes to carpool reminders to sensitive business documents.” Being mistaken for or associated with high-profile figure can also have a drastic effect on your online image. Having a particularly unique name can often help one avoid such confusion, but that’s not always the case.

Google is the New Resume in Town

Mistaken identity can be especially costly for those seeking a new job. As Richard N. Bolles writes in his book What Color Is Your Parachute?, “There is a new resume in town, and it’s called Google.” In a survey conducted by ExecuNet, 90% of executive recruiters confirmed that “they type a candidate name into an online search engine to find more information beyond what is on the executive’s résumé.”

A recent Forbes article by Chris Forman offers some helpful tips. “Rather than taking the blame for others’ mistakes, look for ways to differentiate yourself,” writes Forman, whose specific recommendations include using a distinct professional title like “Chris Andrews, CPA” and “a unique URL with your name for your social media accounts.”

Even if you don’t share a name with someone else, distinguishing and fortifying your online reputation is a smart and valuable move.

 
 
Online reputation management, , ,

In its early days—the mid-1990s—online reputation management (ORM) focused on repairing malicious content: anonymous, negative online commentary posted on Internet forums and in the comments sections accompanying blogs and media platforms.

Today it is easier to remove such information. But not always. When that is the case, it can be displaced from one page to the next, and many more, through a combination of strategies. As a result, ORM is often described as “pushing down” or “suppressing” negative content.)

Taking Ownership of Your Digital Profile is Essential Today

With the much larger role the Internet has assumed in our lives and industry, ORM now encompasses taking ownership of your digital footprint—all of the publicly available information about you and your organization online that you have control over, either directly or indirectly. That includes claiming your name on all key social media platforms, whether you use them or not. The goal is to own as much of that digital real estate as you can…especially on the first page of a Google search in your name.

Online reputation management lessens the prominence of and counterbalances negative and false content. It also ensures an accurate and powerful image of you is presented online (ideally, in the top results of a Google search of your name). Done effectively, online reputation management is a proactive tool that reinforces your credibility and influence in supporting the issues important to you. Bottom line: the more control you have over your name online, the less the world does.

If you want to take an active role in determining how others perceive you—rather than leaving it up to others— online reputation management is a must. Our article, The Essentials: Online Reputation Management FAQs, provides an in-depth overview of what you need to know.

 
 
Reputation Case Study, , , , , , , , , , ,

A new book published by Harvard Business Review highlights how Whole Foods founder John Mackey’s philosophy has played a central role in the grocery chain’s distinct reputation and success.

Whole Foods’ “higher purpose” is reflected in everything from its longstanding “Declaration of Interdependence” to its recent ban on unsustainable seafood. One key way the company established its distinct reputation was by providing customers with “information and narrative, along with the food.” “It told stories about where the food came from, putting up displays by the seafood counter with photographs and descriptions of the real fishermen who had caught it all,” Nick Paumgarten wrote in a 2010 New Yorker profile of Mackey. Paumgarten also cites the company’s decentralized management structure as a “key contributor to Whole Foods’ success, and to its reputation and self-image as a progressive business,” and that the “high degree of autonomy” of regional divisions and individual stores has fostered “creativity and a sense of ownership.” Some stores, for example, have added bars serving craft beer and local wine, while the company’s Portland, Maine location sells live lobsters. Whole Foods’ strong reputation springs from the fact that its core ideals are reflected throughout its operations.

Mackey’s unique perspective, principles and personality have been the source of the Whole Foods’ guiding philosophy, but, as the CEO of dairy company Stonyfield Gary Hirshberg told Paumgarten, Mackey is “management’s greatest asset but also, at times, its greatest challenge.” In 2007 an FTC investigation revealed that he had anonymously attacked a competitor in online financial forums prior to Whole Foods’ offer to buy the company. That led to a realization, Mackey told Paumgarten: “If I wanted to continue to do Whole Foods, there couldn’t be any part of my life that was secretive or hidden or that I’d be embarrassed [about] if people found out about it.” Such radical transparency has generally served Whole Foods well, though there are exceptions, such as Mackey’s 2009 Wall Street Journal op-ed on health care reform, which triggered a social media-fueled boycott.

That response may have inspired Mackey to more closely examine the expectations that accompany his business’ reputation. According to a Wall Street Journal article from last February, Whole Foods “doesn’t want to be known as the pricey grocery store for well-heeled, organic-food sophisticates” and has implemented a “price perception” strategy to counter that reputation. The outcry didn’t, however, move Mackey to recant his opinion on health care. “So many politicians and C.E.O.s get to be sort of boring, because they end up suppressing any individuality to conform to some phony, inauthentic way of being,” he observed in Paumgarten’s profile. “I’d rather be myself.”