New Year resolutions happen every year, but predictions generally only occur at the turn of a decade. Knowing what might happen before it actually occurs would certainly be handy.

If we could predict what might happen it would certainly give us a competitive edge.  We could be ‘one-step-ahead-of-the-game’, give us an opportunity to maximise every opportunity and put all our efforts into those things likely to generate the greatest reward – whatever we might want that to be.

Moving from the ‘noughties’ to the teen years of the 21st Century  gives us a opportunity, not only to look back on what happend between 2000 and 2009 – think iTunes, the social media explosion and wireless internet – but also to look ahead and predict what might happen during 2010 and beyond. (more…)

Tiger Woods’ admitted ‘indiscretions’ have tee’d off more than a few people recently, including his wife, Elin, his corporate sponsors, and bigwigs in the golfing world.

Sponsors Accenture, Gillette, Tag Heuer and AT&T are publicly distancing themselves from sports’ first billionaire and no doubt ruing the fact that their names are likely to be associated with the scandal for years to come. (Perhaps the so-called ‘Curse of Gillette’ works both ways?)

Woods’ family and his sponsors have a right to feel aggrieved, and seriously let down, by his actions. It’s a breach of trust on a spectacular scale. (more…)

Maori MP Hone Harawira certainly has a way with words! Not that he’ll ever be nominated for a Nobel prize for literature.

Skiving off from a taxpayer-funded official event in Europe to take his wife to Paris certainly caused a few raised eyebrows. But his expletive-ridden response to criticism about this could terminally damage the Maori Party and have a lasting, possibly adverse, affect on New Zealand politics. (more…)

Internet marketing Guru, Gihan Perera, posted an excellent piece on his blog this week called ‘There’s a right way and a wrong way to say sorry. This is the right way.’

It’s only a short piece, but definitely worth reading, as it demonstrates two critical essentials in terms of positive reputation branding.

Not only does it demonstrate how important it is to minimise reputation damage by responding swiftly when something damaging occurs, it also highlights why it’s essential you only associate with businesses and individuals you’re willing to put your reputation on the line for in any joint-venture initiatives.

Get it wrong and you could find yourself having to mop up a mess, and dealing with irate clients and customers, because of your joint-venture partner’s inappropriate actions. You may also find your reputation severely dented in the process.

A timely reminder for all of us.

Should I ‘fake it till I make it?’ is a question I’m increasingly being asked. No doubt many individuals and businesses have got ahead and been given the opportunity to prove they can, indeed, deliver on their promises by doing exactly this. For others, however, following this advice can be extremely risky and create enormous reputational damage.

High-profile careers have been ruined by the discovery of non-existent qualifications presented in CVs or resumes. Undeclared bankruptcies, convictions, and youthful indiscretions, have stopped many promotions in their tracks when they’ve been discovered.

Dictionary.com defines ‘fake’ as: ‘to conceal, trick or deceive’. A faker is defined as a ‘cheat, fraud or imposter’, something few of us would want to be known as, and someone even fewer of us want to deal with, or be associated with.

And yet the widely accepted concept of ‘faking it till you make it’ is not generally perceived as being a dishonourable thing to do. Rather, implication is that it can enhance self-confidence and credibility, and open doors that may otherwise stay firmly closed.

Well meaning advisors may say “Don’t be held back by personal fears and doubts. Fake it till you make it, and once you’re up and running you’ll be fine.”

So should you ‘fake it till you make it’? In my opinion – No. Especially if faking it means you’ll be out of your depth, and unable to meet the expectations others may have of you.

Presenting yourself in the best light possible – without lying or deceiving – is, of course, entirely appropriate. It can make you more appealing and give you a truly competitive edge.

So how can you talk-up your achievements without feeling, or being, a fraud? What’s important is ensuring the way you present yourself is honourable and not misleading.

Faking it can lead to a tangled web of lies and deceit. Being sure in yourself that you are able to deliver on the claims you make is one of the biggest confidence-boosters there is. And when you’re sure you can deliver, there’s no need to fake anything.

“… and the award for biggest Jackass goes to …. Kanye West!”

I know award ceremonies are designed to celebrate achievements, or other notable acts, but the arguments about who should have won, rather than who did win, invariably steal the limelight after the winners are named.

Kanye West’s outrageous, arrogant, outburst during Taylor Swift’s acceptance speech at the MTV video awards was a disgrace. Grabbing the microphone from Swift’s hand and humiliating and belittling her as she enjoyed her moment in sun, made sure he was in the headlines alright. (more…)

Last week’s Herald on Sunday editorial was a strong reminder that

“… perception is every bit as important as reality.”

It also demonstrated how powerful other people’s comments can be.

The ‘feel-good’ factor generated by TV3s Telethon as a fundraiser for charity KidsCan was diminished somewhat as bloggers and other commentators started digging into how much of the funds charities raise actually reaches the intended beneficiaries. A lot less than the donor probably thinks.

The revelation in July that less than 3 cents in the dollar donated to the Epilepsy Foundation allegedly went towards helping people with epilepsy at branch level created widespread debate about the ethics, and transparency, of fundraising in the not-for-profit sector.

Little wonder, then, that KidsCan found its fundraising activities, and financial accounts, in the spotlight following the Telethon just weeks later. In defending claims just 18-25 cents in the dollar are spent by the charity directly on its beneficiaries KidsCan representatives found themselves having to answer questions they’d probably rather have avoided.

Few would doubt there are costs associated with raising funds. Even when dealing directly with a charity, ie. making a direct donation, rather than donating via a third party like a specialist fundraising company, the percentage donation spent on ‘operating costs’, including salaries, marketing and promotion, can be significant.

The question is, are charities transparent in the claims they make when appealing to donors, and the financial reporting of their activities?

The vast majority are. And for many, even receiving just cents in the dollar by way of a third-party organisation working on commission or fees, is money they badly need and may be unable to raise any other way.

Unfortunately, perception is reality, and I’d hazard a guess many of those who supported the Telethon, and other charitable requests, will think twice before doing so again given the ‘cents in the dollar’ concerns raised in recent weeks.

Just a few years ago, customer feedback was usually gathered by way of focus groups and highly targeted research. Not any more. Today’s ‘iconic’ brands can get an insight into exactly what their customers are thinking within hours by checking out online chat-rooms, blogs and even mainstream media polls.

Cadbury’s plan to reduce the size of its chocolate bars, and add palm-oil, was met with widespread resistance for several reasons.

Auckland Zoo was so opposed to its inclusion in Cadbury products that it boycotted Cadbury products and removed them from sale.

What should have been a minor change to a recipe rapidly turned into what threatened to become a reputational and PR nightmare – especially for New Zealand’s ‘most trusted’ brand.

All credit to Cadbury, they responded swiftly and confirmed they would retain the ‘old’ recipe without palm-oil, noting price wouldn’t be affected.

In a New Zealand Herald article, Cadbury NZ managing director Matthew Oldham said:

“the decision to bring back the old recipe was a direct response to consumer feedback.”

He went on:

“we genuinely believed we were making the right decision, for the right reasons. But we got it wrong. Now we’re putting things right as soon as we possibly can, and hope Kiwis will forgive us.”

I think consumers probably will forgive them. The fact that they acknowledged the level of consumer concern, and acted swiftly in confirming their reversion to the existing recipe, certainly worked in their favour.

They also came out ahead in a taste-test against rival manufacturer Whittaker’s, although Whittaker’s definitely gained the upper hand in terms of positive comparative marketing.

Making sure your customers are likely to support any changes you propose is a wise move. And for that, market research is useful.

‘Perception is reality’ and ‘the customer is always right’. Two tenets Contact Energy’s board failed to consider when they tried to push through a significant pay increase for themselves whilst increasing prices by over 10% last year.

It cost them dearly. Not only did they lose around 41,000 customers and millions of dollars, they also lost a massive amount of goodwill and severely damaged their reputation. The long-term effects will be significant.

When a telemarketing company phoned me a few weeks ago trying to entice me to switch from my current energy provider to Contact I let her know I wasn’t interested for one reason only: what I considered to be the behaviour of the board in thumbing their noses at their customers and shareholders. She seemed quite surprised I was so specific. “I’ll pass that on” she said. ‘Yes, please do’ said I.

Whilst Contact was left scratching its head at the customer exodus, other energy companies that took a customer perspective clearly benefited as a result.

If each of those 41,000 customers paid, on average, $400 a year for their power, Contact would have lost over $16 million. Multiply that by, say, 4 years (before the customer’s inertia cuts in and they decide to switch providers) and could lose more than $65 million. Quite a sum to throw away.

Business editor, Liam Dann’s comments in his New Zealand Herald article hit the nail on the head:

“… managing director David Baldwin was forced to publicly concede that the losses were linked to the high-profile efforts of the board to ram through large fee increases in the face of widespread shareholder opposition. The admission is one which confirms a monumental failing of the board. It acted in its own self-interest and ultimately in a manner which was damaging to the company.”

That about sums it up! Not only did they lose immediate and longer-term revenue, the reputational damage is enormous. Indeed, another Herald report notes:

“… the fallout following last year directors’ fee shambles was the worst blow to its reputation in the company’s history.”

Lines company Vector, on the other hand, read the mood of its shareholders and customers more accurately and dropped its proposed directors’ fees increases before its meeting, winning praise – and no doubt customers – in the process.

Dann’s article concludes:

“It is about keeping up with social trends and behaviour and staying in tune with the mood of the people. After all the people, if nothing else, are the customers.”

I totally agree. Perception is reality and the customer is always right … in their opinion. Forget this at your peril. The sound of departing customers can be thunderous or silent. Either way, you may find yourself with fewer, if any, to argue with.

Perception is reality. Something Deputy Prime Minister Bill English was loudly reminded of this week.

Even though no rules had been broken, the perception that somehow he had bucked the system, and as a result, was receiving an allowance almost twice as much as any other Minister to live in his own home in Wellington, was very real.

His verbal protests around his entitlement to the allowance did nothing to enhance his case. In fact, they served to underline the apparent injustice, and inappropriateness, of it.

Andrew Laxon’s article in the New Zealand Herald summed it up in saying

“ … a Minister of Finance who led a personal crusade to make everyone tighten their belts in the recession was seen to be taking as much as he could from the public purse. The timing was particularly bad in a week when the Government, fresh from cutting night classes and training allowances for DPB mums, faced more flak for axing therapists for severely disabled children.”

After several days of protests, English conceded “I understand that this does not look good …” and said he will be paying back almost half of the allowance he’d received to fall into line with other Ministers.

“The fact is that no amount of detail will change the perception that in some way I am gaining a bigger allowance than other members of Parliament. So I have decided to deal with that perception.”

As English said ‘it doesn’t really matter what the technicalities are’. Perception is reality and reputation rules.

The allowance probably wouldn’t have generated any column inches at all had we not been in the midst of a significant recession, which illustrates the point that reputation is dynamic.

Tracking trends, and keeping abreast of the changing moods, needs, wants and fears of our clients and constituents, is essential in helping maintain a positive reputation and strong support.

Assume nothing’s changed and you may find yourself on the back-foot, or even irrelevant, as a result.