APACD Service Brochure Reputation Management - Preview

R E P U TAT I O N M A N A G E M E N T P L AY I N G TO W I N I N T H E R E P U TAT I O N E CO N O M Y S E R V I C E

B R O C H U R E

CONTENTS Defining & Contextualizing the Reputation Economy

+

3

The author

Kasper Ulf Nielsen //

Reputation should be the Input to your Strategy

5

The List of Reputation Priorities

6

Who is Responsible for Reputation Management

8

Buidling the Reputation Competencies

8

Executive Partner, Executive Member of the Board // Reputation Institute Kasper Ulf Nielsen has been working with international reputation management within a range of industries for over ten years. His comments on reputation have been featured in The Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, and national radio and TV stations around the world. He has made numerous presentations at international conferences on reputation management and has published a number of articles in Corporate Reputation Review. He is also co-author of

So where should you start? 10

Introduction to Organizational Theory, published in 1999. Kasper holds an M.S. in Intercultural Management from Copenhagen Business School with

Where People struggle

13

Conclusion: The Reputation Imperative

16

MBA credits from McGill University.

This Service Brochure is part of a series published by the Asia-Pacific Association of Communication Directors (APACD). They are intended as constructive manuals that give advice on practical challenges and topics in communications.

The APACD is cross-national network for in-house communication directors, managers and spokespersons in the Asia-Pacific region. It aims to establish common quality standards and advance professional qualifications within the field by organising events such as debates, seminars and

workshops. In addition, the non-partisan Association lobbies for the profession, offers practical advice, provides useful services and information for its members, and publishes Communication Director, a quarterly magazine devoted to corporate communications and public relations.

2 

APACD Service Brochure

R E P U TAT I O N M A N A G E M E N T P L AY I N G TO W I N I N T H E R E P U TAT I O N E CO N O M Y If you are uncertain about how you should tackle reputation management for your organization, you are not alone. Among the 301 business leaders from 29 countries across 28 industries who participated in the 2014 Reputation Leaders Study, only 16% feel their organization has the full capabilities to manage reputation, and 85% report that they are still in the early stages of their reputation journey. This is natural, as reputation management is still a new business discipline, and one that demands a new set of competencies, which cut across different traditional functions and skills sets like communication, research, training, issues management, and data modeling. But the question is not IF you should do this. It’s HOW. The results outline a clear agenda with 78% of business leaders agreeing that we are living in a new world where who you are as a company is directly tied to business success. In this environment, 65% of business leaders say that reputation management is a top priority for executives and the Board of Directors. That is up from 56% in 2013, with an expectation that even more focus will be put on this topic in the years to come. As a result, that puts a lot of pressure on the corporate communication team because this is where the finger points when determining who is responsible for managing reputation.

Today, 70% of companies depend on Corporate Communication / Public Affairs to manage reputation. Unfortunately, this is where the issues begin. What does this even mean in today’s world? How can one function be responsible for “managing”

the reputation of the company across all the different stakeholders in all the markets? What are the competencies needed to actively manage perceptions across the organization? Those are the questions being asked by business leaders across the world, and that is what we are providing insights for in the 2014 Reputation Leaders Study.

Defining and Contextualizing the Reputation Economy : A New Complex Business Environment The world, and your operating environment, has become more complex. More stakeholders care about you, and they want to know who the company — and people — behind the brands are. They have access to mission-critical information about you 24/7 and can disrupt your strategy with a single click or bad review. The craziest part of this “new normal” is that you are responsible for something you don’t control! You don’t own all the different stakeholders (from employee to influencer to political to commercial), and you certainly don’t control what is being said and done by sales reps, customer call center or at the check-out counter. But who does the CEO call when they want to know where the reputation risk lies across key stakeholders in your largest markets…YOU.

3

APACD Service Brochure

Welcome to the new reality facing business leaders in charge of reputation. Input from the 301 business leaders from global companies confirm this new reality. 78% agree that the reputation economy (defined as a competitive situation where people make decisions about companies based more on who they are and what they stand for rather than focusing on what they sell) is a market-place reality. However, only 16% of respondents indicated their organization is equipped to take advantage of the opportunities it provides for differentiation, integration and growth. So what are the main issues facing leaders in implementing reputation management? The top two reasons are structural in nature: the lack of a structured process for implementing reputation management into our business planning (42%) and internal silos prevent cross-functional collaboration (17%). There is clearly a need for structure and a road map for action, but what are the elements of a reputation management structure and where do you start?

O N LY 16% OF R E S P O N DE N T S A R E EQU I P PE D T O TA K E A DVA N TA G E OF T H E R ­ E P U TA T IO N E C O N O M Y From studying the results from the 2014 Reputation Leaders Study as well as analyzing what 100 of the global members of our Reputation Leaders Network are doing, there are some key learnings that stand out: 1

Reputation is not a static outcome; instead it is valuable input for strategy development. The most advanced companies have turned around their use of stakeholder perception intelligence to be the INPUT for strategy development and not just an OUTPUT for how well you are doing.

4

APACD Service Brochure

2

R eputation management requires new competencies.

The best companies understand that securing a trusted relationship with customers and other key stakeholders happens with the people on the ground — not from the corporate communication function at headquarters. As a result, their focus is on building the competencies inside the organization and a road map to manage against.

TOP 10 Questions Asked by RI’s Reputation Leaders Network ­Membership in 2014 1 H ow do we measure the business value from improving our ­Corporate ­Reputation?

2 How can we use our reputation to drive growth in export markets?

3 How can we align our reputation, communications, and branding ­campaigns to drive growth and achieve a competitive advantage?

4 W hat are the steps to build and protect Corporate Reputation in this ­complex social media world?

5 How should we track and monitor how stakeholders perceive us?

6 How can our corporate story be used to increase stakeholder trust and support?

7 What are others doing to assure that their employees are serving as ­positive a­ mbassadors for their reputation?

8 What reputation management programs and strategies should we ­implement to best position the company for success?

9 How can we use Corporate Social Responsibility programs to drive ­measurable results?

10 Which companies are the leaders in reputation management, and

what are they doing right?

Reputation Should be the Input to Your Strategy — Not the Output The world has changed. It’s not about your reputation for reputation sake. It’s about how your key stakeholders perceive you and what they want from you in return for their trust and support that matters. The leading companies are focused on how customers, investors, regulators, and employees perceive them, and what these groups want in return from the company. Reputation leaders actively use the insights to develop and target their communication, programs, and activities to build more trusted relationships. But this requires a new way of working with reputation research. It is not just about the score. It is more about understanding what matters, where the expectations are, and what the company needs to do to deliver on those expectations. In today’s world, the idea of big data has created a lot of noise, but you do not have to be a victim of “analysis paralysis.” Instead, it can also be used in a proactive way if you have the right tools and competencies to analyze and group the data. The leading companies are applying smart research and predictive models to get clarity on what to say and do. Said another way, progressive organizations have begun to use perceptions as an input for strategy development, not exclusively as an output for reporting. In the 2014 RLS, there was an increase in the number of stakeholders that are being monitored and tracked on an ongoing basis.

10 specific stakeholders are mentioned by more than 20% of companies — with a majority now measuring Employees, Customers, Media, Regulators/Government Officials, and Investors/Shareholders.

However, a key question is now being raised by companies about how to make sure all this data works together and “speaks the same language.” In most companies, this research

Chart 1: ­Stakeholders Measured by RLS Respondents

In 2013

In 2014

Employees

73 %

83 %

Customers

75 %

75 %

Media/Journalists

48 %

61 %

Regulators/­Government Officials

24 %

56 %

Investors and S­ hareholders

37 %

56 %

Genereal Public

37 %

42 %

Suppliers

30 %

38 %

Opinion Leaders

24 %

31 %

NGO’s/Advocacy Groups

11 %

24 %

Distributors/Resellers

14 %

24 %

is not done using a common framework, which in turn limits the value from the research. Only 26% of respondents said they are using a consistent measurement framework across all stakeholders to identify reputation risks and opportunities.

This will undoubtedly be a key area of improvement for companies going forward. The first step is to identify the stakeholders where you need insights. The next step is to secure that the data you collect can be used across stakeholders to both develop the overview needed to assess reputation but also to make sure to consistent communication strategies can be developed.

Reputation is clearly seen as a driver of business success.

When asked to define the tangible benefits from a good reputation, 2014 RLS respondents pointed to four main areas:

5

APACD Service Brochure