How elastic is your brand’s reputation? Find out with this metric.

In my last blog post I looked at the recent Instagram Terms of Service debacle as a case study of how getting the balance wrong between satisfying your shareholders versus your other key stakeholders can lead to major reputational damage and, ultimately, lost shareholder value.
At the end I introduced the term Reputational Elasticity of Demand (RED). Anyone who’s studied economics will be familiar with the concept of price elasticity of demand — the idea that demand for some products decreases as their price rises (referred to as being elastic, with a price elasticity of demand score above 1), while for others demand is less affected, if at all (referred to as being inelastic, with a price elasticity of demand below 1).
It’s easily seen that usually non-essential goods (like expensive cameras or world cruises) have a higher elasticity than basic needs, such as food. Although I would add the caveat that elite luxury goods appear to be fairly inelastic as the kind of people who buy Bentleys and Impressionist paintings are less bothered by price increases than most buyers as their wealth stays constant enough to allow more consistent consumption of such things.
Applying this notion of demand being influenced by a factor, it’s also easily seen that a company’s reputation can have an influence on its sales. You only have to look at past examples of major PR failures to see how a reputational hit can influence revenue, profitability and sometimes the whole existence of the company. Think Ratners, Arthur Andersen and The News of the World.
More recently, we’ve seen Starbucks change its UK Corporation Tax policy after an outcry over its perfectly legal but unpopular use of international transfer charges to minimize its UK tax bill and comedian Jimmy Carr pulling out of a controversial tax avoidance scheme, again because of the public reaction when his involvement was revealed.
They clearly feel their services are reputationally elastic (Starbucks may have seen its sales fall), but other companies clearly think theirs are reputationally inelastic. Amazon and Google were also named as UK tax dodgers by the same parliamentary committee that named and shamed Starbucks, but they didn’t respond in the same way. In fact, the reaction of Google chairman Eric Schmidt was to say he was “very proud” of their tax avoidance scheme — “It’s called capitalism.” He’s clearly been taking PR lessons from Michael O’Leary of Ryanair!
So why can one company’s demand be more resilient to dents in its reputation than those of another? The simple answer is each will have their own Reputational Elasticity of Demand (RED).
So how do you measure yours and allow it to inform your future decision-making?
First you have to understand the factors which influence how elastic your RED is and how they can be measured.
I would suggest the following factors and metrics can be used in calculating your brand’s RED:

• Market share — the higher yours is, the more inelastic it’s likely to be if the barriers to switching are also high and/or your industry has low competitiveness e.g. Google in search.
• Competitiveness of your market — measured by its concentration ratio and/or Porter’s Five Forces.
• The importance of reputation in your industry — high in art auctions, universities and used car sales, lower in petrol or gas sales where the product is closer to being an identical commodity. Measured by quantitative market research.
• The importance of ethical behaviour to your key customers (an idealism score) — measured by qualitative market research.
•  Likelihood of your key customers to act on core ethical values — measured by qualitative market research.
•  Your brand’s rhetoric on the importance of ethics to your company — everyone hates a hypocrite more than an honest stonewall capitalist e.g. Starbucks and Apple versus Ryanair, banks, oil firms, arms companies. Measured by an ethical rhetoric score.
• The expectation of ethical behaviour in your industry — more so in charities, but less so in the arms industry. Measured by quantitative market research.
• Barriers to switching from your brand to a rival, including transaction costs (hassle) to do so — i.e. coffee lovers in cities can easily use another outlet, but someone in a village with only one bank will find it harder to switch. Similarly, Facebook enjoys a high barrier in terms of the time and effort it would take a user to move all their friends and content to another social network.

Depending on your industry, there may be more, but this is a basic list to start with.
So once you have your RED figure, is it elastic or inelastic? That can be worked out by measuring the RED of a number of companies like Starbucks and Google which clearly enjoy elastic or inelastic RED figures and finding which you are closest to. With enough comparisons you should be able to find the figure which represents the point of transition from reputational elasticity to inelasticity.
Once done, you would need to monitor your RED score regularly as the factors which make it up will vary over time.
So how can you use it to inform your management decision-making?
You could use an equation to do scenario analysis to weigh up the effect of the future options being considered on sales, but to do so would be make the same fundamental reputational error that Ford in America made in the 1970s with the Pinto — where management calculated the cost-benefit of recalling and fixing the fault on the car which caused fires in accidents over versus the cost of potential lawsuits. It would be a PR own goal if found out, more likely in the increasingly transparent online and socially networked world we live in.
Whatever you do, you need to take into account two factors:

• How personal the proposed unpopular conduct is to customers — e.g. Instagram seemed to be threatening to sell users own pictures, while Starbucks was not paying the Government, not us directly, and Apple’s use of Chinese workers with comparatively bad pay & work conditions to make its products seems more distant.
• How unpopular the proposed conduct is with your customers — measured by qualitative market research.

So what’s the solution? I’d say that you need to set out your ethical stall in line with your RED, communicate it clearly via your marketing communications to manage the expectations of your current and future customers and then act accordingly.
If you’re going to be a hard-nosed capitalist, say so. For example, no-one any longer acts surprised when Ryanair takes a tough legal-contractual line over an unpopular policy because they have a long and well-publicised history of being that way. So, for various reasons including the price sensitivity of their customers, their RED is clearly inelastic.
Conversely, don’t project ethical whitewash and then act otherwise, especially if your RED is highly elastic. Brands like Apple and Co-operative Bank have seen the reputational damage of failing to live up to their ethical rhetoric.
Ultimately, using your RED to influence your brand management is about using your judgement, informed by the knowledge of your brand’s RED elasticity, to make the business decisions which will help maintain a high reputation and in the medium and long-term maximise the returns and value to your shareholders.

Here’s why you need to think before you tweet & retweet

This morning’s news that actor and comedian Alan Davies is among 10,000 Twitter users facing legal action over the false Lord McAlpine allegations is the latest, but biggest, example of why you have to think before you tweet…and retweet.
One of the problems of Twitter is that users very quickly forget that they’re not only sharing their comments, and, crucially, those of anyone they retweet, with their pals but also everyone else on Twitter. So you’re pretty much publishing it to millions of people. Just like the conventional mainstream media.
The difference is they have long understood the consequences of getting their facts wrong. Apart from specialist lawyers, no-one knows the laws of libel better than journalists. It’s a key part of their training because the power to publish to millions (or even just thousands) of readers is something that has to be treated carefully.
So they understand that saying you simply repeated something someone else said isn’t a defence in law — you’re responsible for publishing it again. Aside from the Reynolds defence, you have to be able to prove anything you publish, or face the consequences.
So the old advice that you shouldn’t tweet anything that you wouldn’t say to the person’s face is reinforced by this latest example of what happens if it turns out to be untrue.
Think not naming the person will protect you? Not so. Look at Newsnight. They didn’t name Lord McAlpine, but they said enough for him to be identified by enough people for his name to start circulating.
Again, the concept of what’s known as ‘jigsaw identification’ is already well-understood by the conventional media. They already have to watch for it with cases with child victims or accused under 18 as well as rape victims — ensuring that individually and collectively they don’t give out enough details for the person to be identified by someone who might know them.
Similarly, if you keep it too obscure you could be sued by several people who could argue people might mistakenly think it was them — 10 policemen successfully sued a paper in England because it ran a story about ‘a policeman’ from a particular station.
Once upon a time to be a publisher you needed a printing press and all sorts of other expensive gubbins and so realised that you had a lot on the line if you got your facts wrong in print.
Twitter may be free and easy, but the consequences of saying or repeating something you personally have no proof for are just the same. So think before you tweet or retweet.

‘Sticking to the knitting’ and other things the local banks can teach the big boys…and other organisations

The second part of Michael Robinson’s BBC Radio 4 documentary series Fixing Broken Banking features the Cumberland Building Society and the German local bank Handelsbanken, which has branches in the UK.
Robinson’s persuasive thesis is that these comparatively small, locally-based banks have thrived while the big boys have floundered because they’ve stuck to the old-fashioned model of local, relationship-based banking. And when you listen to the programme you can hear why.
Here are some of the reasons why:

• They embrace proper relationship marketing by only accepting savings from and offering products to local people, only selling their products directly, not being driven by selling the most profitable products, quarterly targets or bonuses and by being “embedded with community”, in the words of the Cumberland’s chief executive. They demonstrated that after the floods in Cockermouth, when they were the only financial institution to contribute to the post-event flood defence fund.
  Their reward has been bad debt and repossession stats far lower than their rivals, partly because they know their customers better than simply from the data analysis tools used by the big banks.
• A key part of that is delegating decision-making to the level with the greatest knowledge of the customer, so managers aren’t just implementing top-down policies or sending data to head office decision-makers. This makes sense as the person meeting the customer will usually have far more relevant information than HQ e.g. local reputation of a business, NVCs from a customer talking about their financial situation.
• They “stick to the knitting” (in the phrase coined by Peters & Waterman in their classic In Search Of Excellence) by keeping their core business in the local banking they know (no leap off into backfiring risky sub-prime mortgages in search of continued high growth), being 98% funded from local savings (in the case of the Cumberland), staying at the scale they understand.
• They take managing their reputation seriously — by sticking to a low-risk strategy and walking their talk every day with their policies…which leads to stability and sustainable organic growth, which are, in mutually reinforcing.

Relationship marketing isn’t new or sexy, but its truths and benefits have never been more valuable in the uncertain times we all face.