Archivo de la categoría: DirCom

The Economist vs Reputation Institute

I thought this needs to be published in the same space because it presents some very interesting points of view regarding reputation and managment.

On the first hand, The Economist published (Schumpeter) it’s point of view on “Why companies should worry less about their reputations“. On the other, Reputation Institute answers directly with why “Companies should worry more about their reputations, not less” (the mistake was to do it in a closed group in LinkedIn).


I copy both texts here for you to be the judge and referee if you dare.

The Economist – Schumpeter

What’s in a name? Why companies should worry less about their reputations

PEOPLE have been debating reputation since the beginning of history. The Bible says that a “good name is rather to be chosen than great riches, and loving favour rather than silver and gold.” Others have dismissed reputation as insubstantial—a “shadow” in Abraham Lincoln’s phrase, or an “uncertain flame” in James Lowell’s. Shakespeare provided material for both sides: Cassio described reputation as “the immortal part of myself”, while Iago dismissed it as “an idle and most false imposition: oft got without merit, and lost without deserving.”

Today’s management-theory industry has no time for such equivocation. For its acolytes, reputation—or at least the corporate kind—is a “strategic asset” that can be “leveraged” to gain “competitive advantage”, a “safety buffer” that can be called upon to protect you against “negative news”, and a stock of “organisational equity” that can be increased by “engaging with the stakeholder community”.

On April 17th Gibson Hall—a wonderful Victorian edifice near the Bank of England—echoed not with the sound of Shakespeare (which would have suited it), but management speak. The Reputation Institute, a consultancy, revealed the results of its latest “Reptrack” Corporate Reputation Survey. And various spokespersons hammered home the importance of managing reputation. Reputation is so important these days, they said, that we live in nothing less than a “reputation economy”.

The launch of the British corporate-reputation survey was only one of a number of similar launches around the world: the Reputation Institute has offices in 30 countries. And it is only one of many consultancies that plough this particular furrow. Plenty of other organisations offer firms “holistic” advice on improving their reputations, such as Perception Partners in the United States or specialised divisions within many big consultancies. And a rapidly growing number of niche consultancies, such as ReputationDefender, give people advice on managing their reputations online. For example, they offer tips on how to push positive items up the Google ranking and neutralise negative ones.

It is easy to see why so many bosses are such eager consumers of this kind of advice. The market value of companies is increasingly determined by things you cannot touch: their brands and their intellectual capital, for example, rather than their factories or fleets of trucks. The idea of a “reputation economy” makes intuitive sense: Facebook is worth more than General Motors. At the same time, reputation is getting ever harder to manage. NGOs can turn on a company in an instant and accuse it of racism or crimes against the environment. Customers can trash its products on Twitter. Corporate giants such as Toyota and BP have seen their reputations collapse in the blink of an eye.

How successful are reputation consultancies in rendering the intangible measurable and manageable? The Reputation Institute has produced some intriguing results. Americans and Britons are more impressed with “old-economy” firms than “new-economy” ones. The three most reputable companies in America are General Mills (which sells food), Kraft Foods and Johnson & Johnson (drugs and household goods). The top three in Britain are Rolls-Royce (jet engines), Dyson (vacuum cleaners) and Alliance Boots (drugs and prawn sandwiches). In Britain the overall reputation of the corporate sector has declined since last year. In 2011 it looked as if British firms were recovering from the reputational catastrophe of the financial crisis. But outrage over bosses’ bloated pay and phone-tapping by big media companies—particularly News Corporation—have reversed that trend.

Nevertheless, there are three objections to the reputation-management industry. The first is that it conflates many different things—from the quality of a company’s products to its relationship with NGOs—into a single notion of “reputation”. It also seems to be divided between public-relations specialists (who want to put the best possible spin on the news) and corporate-social-responsibility types (who want the company to improve the world and be thanked for it).


Reputation as a by-product

The second objection is that the industry depends on a naive view of the power of reputation: that companies with positive reputations will find it easier to attract customers and survive crises. It is not hard to think of counter-examples. Tobacco companies make vast profits despite their awful reputations. Everybody bashes Ryanair for its dismal service and the Daily Mail for its mean-spirited journalism. But both firms are highly successful.

The biggest problem with the reputation industry, however, is its central conceit: that the way to deal with potential threats to your reputation is to work harder at managing your reputation. The opposite is more likely: the best strategy may be to think less about managing your reputation and concentrate more on producing the best products and services you can. BP’s expensive “beyond petroleum” branding campaign did nothing to deflect the jeers after the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Brit Insurance’s sponsorship of England’s cricket teams has won it brownie points in the short term, but may not really be the best way to build a resilient business. Many successful companies, such as Amazon, Costco, Southwest Airlines and Zappos, have been notable for their intense focus on their core businesses, not for their fancy marketing. If you do your job well, customers will say nice things about you and your products.

In his “Autobiography” John Stuart Mill argued that the best way to attain happiness is not to make happiness your “direct end”, but to fix your mind on something else. Happiness is the incidental by-product of pursuing some other worthy goal. The same can be said of reputation


Reputation Institute

Companies should worry more about their reputations, not less

I would be remiss not to react to the provocative blog published by the Schumpeter namesake columnist in The Economist this week (, in which consultancies such as Reputation Institute were criticized for distracting companies from their core activities by encouraging them to focus on improving how they manage their reputational assets.

That was an inaccurate characterization of our work. I wrote my original book ‘Reputation’ in 1996 precisely to defend the thesis that a company’s reputation is a new form of ‘cognitive asset’ whose economic value is rapidly growing and so should be recognized, measured, and actively managed on par with a company’s more tangible assets.

Then as now, those of us providing strategic advice in this space have repeatedly stated that reputation is not an end in itself. Rather, reputation is an outcome of a process that connects a company’s value proposition and business model to what it stands for in its everyday behavior and actions. Indeed, the example that the Economist provides of BP under Browne/Hayward is a very good example of how a company that tried to manage the company’s reputation as a stand-alone asset would fail precisely because the images it was trying to convey about the company was not aligned with its behavior.

If we have learned anything in the years of research and analysis done since I wrote my first academic article on this topic in 1990, it’s that every company needs institutional support from a broad stakeholder ecosystem in which it is embedded, and that no company wins support by simply engaging in advertising and PR campaigns that do not reinforce the reality of what the company is actually doing.

We have taken to describing the emerging socio-economic system around companies as a ‘reputation economy’ to capture the fact that earning support is increasingly a function, not of marketing and PR, but of direct experiences, on one hand, and of hearsay, on the other. In this reputation economy, the companies that are emerging as leaders are worrying as never before with generating positive real-time experiences on the frontlines, while simultaneously securing favorable impressions from the diffuse clouds forming around them. That is what we mean by active reputation management. The best of these companies are doing it by strategically constructing an array of initiatives designed to align their company’s vision with its capabilities and by ensuring that these initiatives address the expectations of their stakeholders.

In the short run, however, it’s true that many companies can and will prosper without directly focusing on building reputation. But these companies are also likely candidates for going awry in the long run because lax practices mean they stockpile huge risks that later prove costly to mitigate (consider, for instance, the tobacco industry’s current payouts and regulation). Lacking a solid reputation, many of these companies also fail to take advantage of the opportunities they have to outperform rivals along the way.

In Schumpeterian terms, a poor reputation invites creative destruction, whereas a strong reputation, rooted in deep-seated, trusting relationships with stakeholders, provides a powerful countervailing force to the unbridled rivalry of open competitive markets. Were he writing today, I am quite sure the original Joseph Schumpeter would have recognized reputation management as a powerful influence on the competitive dynamics of markets. To be fully competitive and value-creating, I suggest that companies and their managers need to worry more -not less- about their reputations.

Dr. Charles J. Fombrun
Founder & Chairman, Reputation Institute


Fire up!


Feliz Navidad les desea DirCom

“El diálogo debe tener sus raíces en una búsqueda sincera y recíproca de la verdad”

S.S. Benedicto XVI

Que el nacimiento de Jesús nos colme de Alegría y que la Paz del pesebre sea un ejemplo de virtud y guía, para buscar siempre la Verdad.

Muy Feliz Navidad y un próspero año 2011 lleno de bendiciones y comunicaciones para todos.

Merco en Chile

La introducción de la medición del Monitor Empresarial de Reputación Corporativa, Merco, en nuestro país debe convertirse en un aporte a la calidad de nuestras empresas e instituciones, no sólo de cara a la Reputación, sino, especialmente, a la calidad global de las mismas.

¿Qué es Merco?
Merco es una iniciativa impulsada por el consultor de empresas y catedrático de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Justo Villafañe. A través de este Monitor se pretende sistematizar la evaluación de la reputación corporativa de las instituciones.

Desde sus inicios en España, ha ido creciendo y expandiéndose a varios países. Hace poco, tuve la oportunidad de asistir al lanzamiento de Merco Chile, en el que se dieron a conocer los resultados principales de la primera medición en el país, al tiempo que se premiaron los primeros lugares en distintas categorías.

Creo que este es un gran paso. Uno enorme.

En primer lugar es un gran paso para el rubro de las comunicaciones institucionales y el rol de Director de Comunicaciones. La reputación es uno de los activos intangibles de las empresas, y de toda institución. Por ello, es de vital importancia para las compañías y organizaciones poder medir su impacto y gestionarla. Por supuesto, la competencia en comunicaciones institucionales es el elemento central para la buena gestión de la misma. En nuestro país, se discute, pero no pasa de allí. Es un buen discurso lleno de intenciones, pero no se ha reflejado en las estructuras organizacionales de las compañías, allí donde realmente puede convertirse en un componente central de la generación de valor. Por ello, debiera surgir la figura del Dircom como un nuevo elemento estratégico en las estructuras de alta dirección. Un llamado al mercado para buscar a los mejores y también para las universidades, a preparar a los mejores líderes que la empresa y todas las instituciones necesitan.

Por otr aparte, la introducción de Merco es importante porque mejorará el rendimiento de las empresas. Si se logra establecer como un barómetro confiable y (oh sorpresa) reputado, las empresas deberán recoger el guante y hacerse cargo de las demandas y aspiraciones que en éste se reflejan. La metodología de Merco guarda una gran riqueza en la diversidad de fuentes consultadas. Éste representan los públicos centrales (aunque cojea en la pata digital de la mesa de la reputación) que interesan a las instituciones, por lo que más vale que estas pongan verdadera antención, a éste y en combinación con el resto de Rankings (Hill & Knowlton Captiva, Qué Pasa, América Economía, etc).

Tarea pendiente será traducir estos elementos centrales de gestión en herramientas eficientes, también, para la pequeña y mediana empresa.

Al cierre, sólo recordar unas palabras para dejar a la reflexión: “no todo lo que brilla es datos”.

Bookmark and Share

DirCom de Gobierno I

Hemos conocido los nombres del nuevo gabinete que tendrá el Gobierno de Chile. Uno de los cargos que nos interesa discutir es el de la Secretaría General de Gobierno.

Actualmente, el cargo lo ostenta Pilar Armanet. A través del sitio web se pueden conocer la Misión y Objetivos de la repartición:


Desarrollar la vinculación entre Gobierno y ciudadanía mediante la vocería gubernamental, la asesoría y coordinación de los diferentes Ministerios y Servicios, así como a través de iniciativas y programas propios, promoviendo que la formulación y ejecución de políticas públicas incluya una comunicación transparente y accesible a los(as) ciudadanos(as), se consideren sus opiniones y se fomente la organización y participación de la ciudadanía, así como el respeto a la diversidad y la no discriminación.


  1. Desarrollar espacios de comunicación entre el gobierno y la ciudadanía de modo que se difunda y retroalimente la acción gubernamental con las demandas, opiniones y el pleno ejercicio de los derechos y obligaciones de las personas.
  2. Promover una mayor apertura de canales de participación en la generación e implementación de políticas públicas en los ministerios y servicios públicos.
  3. Contribuir al fortalecimiento de la sociedad civil y sus distintas formas de organización a través de la generación de condiciones legales, institucionales, financieras y educativas que faciliten su desarrollo, autonomía y sustentabilidad.
  4. Apoyar la ejecución de iniciativas regionales, provinciales y comunales destinadas a fomentar el pluralismo informativo y la libertad de expresión por parte de los medios de comunicación.
  5. Promover entre las instituciones públicas y las(os) actores de la sociedad civil, el respeto de la diversidad social, la interculturalidad y la no discriminación arbitraria, a través de acciones preventivas del sexismo, xenofobia y racismo.
  6. Entregar a las principales autoridades de Gobierno asesoría político-comunicacional que permita identificar necesidades estratégicas y coyunturales y orientar la toma de decisiones para apoyar coordinadamente la gestión del Ejecutivo.”

¿Son éstas las competencias que debemos esperar de la Segegob? ¿Qué perfil debe tener la persona a cargo? ¿Responde la anunciada futura Ministra, Ena Von Baer, a las necesidades del ministerio? Estas y otras preguntas deben ser de sumo interés, no sólo por la afición por la comunicación, sino por la importancia del rol de esta disciplina en el ejercicio del buen gobierno. Ya veremos qué nos depara este cambio. De todas formas, le deseamos desde ya la mejor de las suertes, el mayor de los éxitos y la gracia de la prudencia a las nuevas autoridades.

Bookmark and Share