Over-promising and under-delivering is one of the biggest reputation-damagers there is.

If the breach of promise is relatively minor, most of us will forgive an organisation and give it a second, or even third, chance to deliver and meet our expectations.

However, when promises continue to be broken, and serious doubts are raised about a company’s ability to deliver – in any way – our willingness to trust that company plummets.

New Zealand’s largest telco company, Telecom, is in serious trouble in terms of reputation branding.

Its much-vaunted ‘available (almost) anywhere’ television ads used to launch the XT Network has come back to haunt them with significant network outages that have affected hundreds of thousands of customers.

This isn’t a minor blip. The fourth major outage this week has resulted in the resignation of Telecom’s most senior executive responsible for the network’s design and implementation. (more…)

Do you worry about your online reputation? It seems many of us don’t – but we should.

Research carried out by Microsoft recently highlighted just how powerful the internet can be in terms of affecting how job-seekers, companies and consumers are perceived.

Stark findings from the study of 2,500 consumers, HR managers and recruitment professionals in the US, UK, Germany and France include:

• 63% of consumers surveyed are concerned that online reputation might affect their personal and/or professional life, yet less than half even consider their reputations when they post online content.
• Fewer than 15% of consumers in any of the countries surveyed believe that information found online would have an impact on their getting a job and yet
• 70% of surveyed HR professionals in US, and 41% in the UK, have rejected a candidate based on online reputation information, however, on the up-side:
• 86% of HR professionals (and at least two thirds of those in the UK and Germany) stated that a positive online reputation influences the candidate’s application to some extent with almost half stating that it does so to a great extent.

The take-out of all this? Reputation rules. It opens doors or slams them shut. If you’re concerned about an online reputation that may be less than flattering Microsoft’s ‘Protect your online reputation’ guidelines provide sound advice, including: (more…)

Much like the Kryptonite bike lock debacle back in 2005, the Sons of Maxwell ‘United breaks guitars’ video  continues to be picked up on the web and damage United’s reputation.

When the airline damaged a $3,500 Taylor guitar and refused to accept liability, or provide any kind of compensation, Dave Carroll hit back where it hurt – right at their reputation.

According to a Mashable blog post written just after the video was posted in August last year, the video accrued around 3.2 million views and 14,000 comments less than 10 days after it was uploaded.

Today the clip’s been viewed more than 7.5 million times and continues to circulate on the internet in a practical demonstration of word-of-mouth becoming word-of-mouse.

(more…)

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…)

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.

If you’ve ever been irritated, or frustrated, by someone using words and phrases that make things harder to understand, rather than easier, you’re not alone.

Research shows more than 40 percent of New Zealanders don’t have reading, writing, speaking and listening skills necessary to understand many written documents used in workplaces. Yet, many of us continue to use words that confuse when we write and speak, losing both goodwill, and possible business, in the process.

You might feel comfortable using the words ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ instead of ‘for’ and ‘against’, but are you sure the person you’re communicating with is as familiar and comfortable with them as you?

Or how about ‘bi-annual’? If you mean ‘twice a year’ why not say that?

Making someone feel belittled or confused does nothing to enhance your reputation. In fact, it may well earn you a reputation for being superior, arrogant and a show-off. Using obfuscatory (confusing) words our customers and supporters don’t immediately understand isn’t impressive – it’s dumb.

So how can you enhance your reputation as a communicator and keep people ‘with you’ and tuned-in, rather than turned off and tuned-out?

Confuse and you’ll lose. Communicate in a way that builds rapport and makes people feel good about the interaction, and your reputation for being a gifted communicator will be assured.

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.