(CorpCommBlog.com) -- Atlantic Monthly laments with us Baby Boomers the demise of advertising jingles, which have mostly died out since Pepsi's 1984 production with Michael Jackson established today's joined-at-the-hip marketing relationship between brands and popular music.
But how many of those campaigns can claim to have millions of loyal fans who even 43 years later know every word to Oscar Mayer’s iconic My Bologna Has A First Name? Sing it, citizen consumers:
My bologna has a first name
My bologna has a second name
I love to eat it everyday
And if you ask me what I'll saaaaaaay
Cuz Oscar Mayer has a way with B-o-l-o-g-n-a
(BadNewsHandbook.com) -- Brand and reputation. It’s a critical distinction that drives a company’s ability to minimize the impact of its next public relations crisis.
Brand is how your company talks to the world.
Reputation is how the world hears your company.
Some people say reputation and brand mean the same thing. But that’s like saying the pitch and the swing are the same because they’re part of the same baseball game.
Closely related, but very different.
Reputation risk management is a paradox. On one hand the company's reputation is its most important asset. On the other hand it is the asset most vulnerable to damage by conditions largely out of the company’s control.
A brand is a promise, but more than just deliverables. It’s what the brand’s owner needs people and institutions that matter to believe to be true.
Reputation, on the other hand, is what stakeholders and influencers actually believe. It's a mix of personal experiences and influences, all weighed against motivations that drive every decision to trust a brand, buy a product or support an idea:
The wider the gap between a company's brand and reputation, the more potentially damaging a controversy or crisis.
But the more a corporate and brand reputation jive with what stakeholders want to believe, the stronger the company’s ability to navigate and even prosper through bad markets, complex public issues and crisis events. It’s no wonder that companies with solidly good reputations have market caps of 30 to 70 percent more than their book value.
Illustration courtesy Huffington Post.
(CorpCommBlog.com) -- National Public Radio has joined the growing number of online media outlets that no longer show public comments at the bottom of news stories.
In case you’re new to this WWW thing: Many comment sections have been commandeered by small groups of mostly anonymous "trolls" who shout down and ridicule anyone with opposing opinions, often with incredibly violent imagery and hate speech. And don't get us started about punctuation.
Many news sites held on – and still do -- to comment sections in part because they create space to sell ads, without the nuisance of paying journalists for content. These days, however, social media platforms offer more civil, cost-efficient ways to facilitate public dialogue around sponsors’ interests. The result is that media sites are dropping comment sections as a well-intentioned but failed, high-maintenance vestige of a simpler Internet time.
But not all. One ticked-off supporter of comment sections is Breitbart News, the hyper-populist, anti-lefty media site whose chairman is now running Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.
Hostile partisan vitriol is what outlets like Breitbart and the anti-righty Daily Kos are selling, and they have plenty of followers (including trolls). But these aren’t products that attract mainstream advertisers and promotions. It’s commerce, not comments, that keep most online media in business.
Time Magazine underscores the problem with its cover story, “How Trolls are ruining the Internet.” Some 80% of the 93-year-old magazine's own writers said they don't cover certain topics because they fear the online response. Sometimes the attackers will track down and harass a writer's spouse, parents, even children.
Despite America’s chaotically contradictory Internet culture, it would seem that the bulk of news comment sections are heading toward extinction as new ways to engage the virtual public square become more advanced. What the Internet mob does as a result is a whole other consideration.
(CorpCommBlog.com) -- A new survey says three-fourths of corporate data theft is caused by “insider negligence” -- a nice way of saying “companies that for some reason still let employees do internal email while connected to a free wi-fi service.”
As many companies and politicians learned the hard way, hackers love stealing emails in part because of the whacky fun that ensues when made public. And cybercrooks are becoming steadily more proficient in how they leak e-plunder to mess with the victim’s reputation and operations for as long as possible.
Here's the kicker: More than 60 percent of those surveyed said they have access to company data that they shouldn’t see. "Too many employees have too much access to the company’s most valuable information," said the lead researcher. “Beyond what they need to do their jobs."
Worse still, a third of those companies don’t monitor any of the email their people are sending and receiving, including file attachments.
Change is coming. As the cybercrime epidemic continues, companies and organizations will begin compartmentalizing more information to the old “need to know” standard. How much that mitigates cyber-related reputation risk… We’ll see.
There’s more at The Wall Street Journal Risk Report.
Illustration | My Security World blog: Eight things to stop doing immediately
Influence Chronicles Blog
Field notes on the forces and sources of public truth.
Influence Chronicles blog and executive e-letter are published by SilversJacobson, a corporate reputation and crisis management firm based in Denver and Washington, D.C. Call anytime at (720) 645-1164.
To submit ideas, articles or other material for future posts, please send with name and phone number to input(at)influencechronicles.com. And it's more likely that we'll consider submitted posts if they have something to do with what our blog is about. Just sayin'.