RF#（10)-247899898

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265064675

What the Media Is Really Telling You about Your Brand

Article  in  MIT Sloan Management Review · March 2008

CITATIONS

6 READS

350

2 authors, including:

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Dynamic capabilities, marketing, technology and performance View project

Grahame Dowling

University of Technology Sydney

83 PUBLICATIONS   11,084 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Grahame Dowling on 19 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

What the Media Is Really Telling You About Your Brand

S P R I N G 2 0 0 8 V O L . 4 9 N O . 3

R E P R I N T N U M B E R 4 9 3 1 1

Grahame Dowling and Warren Weeks

Please note that gray areas reflect artwork that has been intentionally removed. The substantive content of the ar- ticle appears as originally published.

28 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SPRING 2008

M A N A G I N G R E P U T A T I O N

What the Media Is Really Telling You About Your Brand

A n important but often overlooked aspect of executive leadership is the creation of a

good corporate reputation and the use of this asset to enhance organizational per-

formance. There is accumulating evidence that a company’s reputation influences

both its operational and financial performance.1 Because corporate reputations reside in

the heads of people rather than as tangible assets, one of the key factors determining the

various reputations of a company is the coverage it receives in the media.2 The power of the

media comes from its reach and prominence, its role in certifying some companies as le-

gitimate and important players in the market and people’s beliefs that it has superior access

to information and expertise in evaluating companies. In this way, what the media says has

a real impact on the business fortunes of companies.

Over time, media coverage defines what is important for people to believe about com-

panies and what aspects of their character and performance should be used to evaluate

them. These parameters form the basis of a company’s reputation presented by the media.

However, the sheer volume of media information circulating about so many companies

makes it difficult to summarize this coverage and present a meaningful profile of an orga-

nization’s media reputation. To help with this task, a corporate ratings industry has emerged

that produces public scorecards of business performance. More than 50 different scorecards

of corporate reputations are published in print media around the world.3 Many companies

track the overall tone of their media coverage, but relatively few analyze the basis of the

coverage to inform executives about the drivers of their company’s media reputation. More

typically, executives simply accept the factors used in corporate scorecards as the key aspects

of their reputation profile. The ratings agencies that compile scorecards also select a set of

peer companies for evaluation. More often than not, these are a disparate collection of well-

known companies rather than a set of industry competitors. Thus, it is not surprising that

many executives consider scorecard rankings of corporate reputation to be little more than

beauty contests.

To help overcome the frustration of many senior managers with reputation rankings,

this article outlines two related techniques for assessing media coverage: (1) profiling the

media communication about a company’s actions and its products and services, which

enables executives to gain a clear understanding of their organization’s media image (what

is said) and reputation (whether this is good or bad) and (2) the use of a more descriptive

type of language in explaining the various facets of an organization’s media reputation

profile, which can inform remedial action in a way that the opinion poll-style reputation

ranking systems cannot. (See “About the Research,” p. 30.)

Grahame Dowling is professor of marketing in the Australian School of Business at the University of New South Wales and the Australian representative of the Reputation Institute. Warren Weeks is the CEO of Cubit Media Research Pty. Ltd. They can be reached at [email protected].

By unpacking

the idea of a good

or bad reputation

into a profile of

what the media says

about their company,

executives and public

relations managers

can understand and

then influence their

corporate reputation —

and with it, their

company’s real

performance.

Grahame Dowling

and Warren Weeks

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

SPRING 2008 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 29

What You Measure Matters At the heart of any measure of performance are some assump-

tions about exactly what is being measured. For example, what

does it mean to be one of America’s most admired companies?

According to Fortune magazine, which has produced such a mea-

sure since 1984, it means that the company scored well on eight

attributes ranging from financial soundness to management

quality to community and environmental friendliness.4 These are

the principal drivers of admiration in this widely publicized rat-

ing. A more critical assumption, however, is that admiration is a

key factor that both financial analysts and senior executives use

to evaluate a company — because these are the two groups that

Fortune polls for their opinions.

A reputation scorecard measure requires that someone de-

velop a list of attributes for people to rate. This list is usually

based on a review of published research

(for the most admired companies list,

theories about admiration, respect and

reputation) and intuition (whatever

else the researchers think is important).

There is also the aggregation method

— that is, how the individual scores

will be combined. In the Fortune ex-

ample, they are simply added up, which

gives equal weight to each attribute.

Because the media are eager to pub-

lish and support lists of best and worst

companies, these scorecards will per-

sist. Journalists like to use scorecards as

corroborating evidence for their stories

about corporate performance. Aca-

demics also have found these measures

of reputation useful in their search for

relationships between different aspects

of reputation (such as corporate social

responsibility) and performance (such

as the quality of stakeholder relation-

ships). However, because of the way

that most scorecard rankings are de-

signed, they have limited value for

executives wishing to understand how

a particular issue might affect their

company’s reputation among different

groups. This limitation is most acute in

times of crisis, at new product intro-

ductions and during major changes in

strategy. Nonetheless, scorecards are

useful for measuring the overall senti-

ment of a crowd of independent people

who hold their own private opinions.

When a company falls in these polls, it is often a sign of im-

pending reputation trouble.

There is, however, a very different way to measure admiration

and corporate reputation: by listening to how people and jour-

nalists talk about a company and examining the specific words

and phrases they use to describe and evaluate it. For example,

U.S. citizens have characterized their strongest brands with such

phrases as “taint-free reputation,” “instantly recognizable,” “cares

about its reputation and customers” and “satisfactory experience

reinforced by advertising.”5 Descriptions such as these can be

analyzed to reveal the themes and contradictions in what people

say. Because the attributes people use are the ones that have real

meaning to them, the number of times an attribute is used in

media articles to describe a company will be a good guide to its

relative importance. Some of these attributes will fit nicely with

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

30 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SPRING 2008 SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

current academic and managerial theories, but others will be new

and therefore more insightful. For example, the last phrase above

suggests that the role of advertising for a strong brand is to rein-

force the brand experience rather than try to create it.

The shift in attention from a prescribed set of rating criteria

to unscripted journalists’ perceptions (or beliefs) and evalua-

tions allows media coverage to be interpreted in a way that is

useful to line managers and those in the executive suite. It

changes the topic of corporate reputation from “nice to know”

(“We scored 73 out of a possible 100 and were ranked third best

in our industry.”) to “need to know” (“On six out of eight attri-

butes used to profile our company, we were equal to or better

than our major competitors, but on the other two we need to

make substantial improvement.”).

The first report offers a somewhat mysterious single-number

summary of performance. The second report demands an expla-

nation of which attributes were good and bad. In this way, it is

much more discussable and accessible for scrutiny. To illustrate

this point, consider the breakouts of three scorecard scores. (See

“Similar Corporate Reputations but Different Profiles.”) While

the three companies shown (A, B and C) get the same total score

and would be tied in a corporate reputation ranking, they each

have a very different profile of scores. Therefore, the management

actions taken by the three companies should differ.

Profiling a company’s reputation in this way is like looking

at its DNA sequence. This is a far more insightful method for

diagnosing reputation risks and highlighting opportunities to

exploit a good reputation than simply tracking scorecard totals.

A company’s poor performance in one area can completely

overshadow excellence in other areas.6 For example, research in

Australia has shown that if a company is thought to mistreat its

key stakeholders — namely, its employees and its customers

—the company will have difficulty being taken seriously for the

good things it is doing.7

How You Report What Is Measured Really Matters Media profiling affords executives information they can use to

assess the impact of reports on their company’s reputation and

develop an effective response. Consider a stylized company pro-

file derived from Cubit Media Research Pty. Ltd.’s analysis of

media articles about a range of Australasian companies.

“Media salience” shows the prominence of a company’s media

image, while “media tone” and “coverage break-

out” outline different aspects of company

reputation.8 This media profile is like the actual

image of the company reflected back to manag-

ers in a mirror. Because the media image is

seldom identical to the ideal self-image of the

company, it can inform a useful debate about

what needs to change. Executives can explore

contradictions between what the company says

about itself in external communications (the “we

say” or “ad speak” of the company) and what is

being reported to various stakeholders (what the

media says or “street speak” about the company).

Managers also can compare the relative amount

and tone of coverage about their company versus

peers or competitors.

Media profiling typically examines compa-

nies across eight major message themes.9 These

macrothemes range from a company’s business

model, which is usually described in terms of

“hard numbers” such as profit figures and mar-

ket share, to its social model, which is often

written about in terms of corporate behaviors

such as social responsibility actions. Each mes-

sage macrotheme is made up of many

microthemes, such as profit and stock trends

compared to expectations. Message themes are

measured by counting the number of favorable

and unfavorable comments made about a com-

M A N A G I N G R E P U T A T I O N

Over the last decade, Cubit Media Research Pty. Ltd. has carried out hundreds of

print media profiling assignments for Australian companies and global organi-

zations operating in the Asia-Pacific region. These media profiles often entail

comparisons with competitors. A typical assignment will involve recording vari-

ous types of information, such as media outlet, journalist, placement of the copy

in the publication, the tone of the message and its thematic content. The figures

shown in this article are a stylized version of the major findings of the message

themes encountered in the course of this work. Message themes are chosen to

capture both business and social aspects of a company’s activities.

The following method is used to profile a company’s media image

and reputation:

� Each client lists either media outlets for scrutiny or several search terms

and audiences for which the media search activity is to be conducted.

� Source material appearing in the media during the period of investiga-

tion is purchased from a commercial source such as Factiva or LexisNexis.

� A set of target message themes is identified in conjunction with the client.

� Each piece of copy is read by both advanced pattern-matching software

and trained content analysts. Words and phrases are identified as belong-

ing to sets of message themes and are meta-tagged accordingly. All data

are then stored in a specially designed data file.

� Advanced software, overseen by skilled analysts, then carries out a mes-

sage-matching activity to identify four types of message themes: “hit,”

where the client’s desired messages surface in the media; “positive miss,”

where another favorable message cuts through; “negative miss,” in which

an unfavorable comment about the client appears; and “contradiction,”

where a media message directly opposes the client’s desired message.

About the Research

SPRING 2008 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 31SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

pany over a period of time in specific media outlets and/or by

particular journalists.

Media profiling documents how significantly companies may

vary in the amount of coverage they receive. Analysis shows

whether a company is “alive” in the media or “under the radar.”

Furthermore, the relative prominence of various message themes

reflects whether a company is viewed in multidimensional terms or

defined by relatively few themes. (See “Media Salience,” p. 32.) The

positive or negative tenor of media coverage is best determined by

plotting the distribution (rather than a net score) of comments

both across a peer set of companies and across message themes.

(See “Overall Media Tone” and “Coverage Breakout,” p. 33.)

To illustrate these insights, consider a story about Apple Inc.

recently published in BusinessWeek, titled “A Bruise or Two on

Apple’s Reputation.”10 The article contains several elements: ■ BusinessWeek story line. “Is the company’s stellar service

keeping up with its hypergrowth? Some customers don’t think so.” ■ Journalists’ themes. As Apple’s new products (iPod and

iPhone) become more successful, they are being purchased by

customers who are less devoted to Apple and who are often less

tech-savvy. “The vitriol of complaints on some Apple-related

blogs and Web sites…is approaching that usually reserved for

cable TV.” Positive endorsement from a longtime customer, nega-

tive endorsements from two new customers accompanied by

their forlorn photos. ■ Apple’s position. Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s COO, claims that

an array of internal metrics shows service has never been better. ■ Contradictions. Cook versus the two new customers and

the blogs. Cook versus an academic expert who endorses the

claim that as the customer base becomes more diverse, it becomes

harder to satisfy. ■ Comparisons. “Even small cracks in a pristine reputation …

can be a sign of larger problems. Just ask Dell.” Table of customer

satisfaction scores from an independent research firm shows Apple

down (79% from 83%), Hewlett-Packard up (76% from 75%),

Gateway up (75% from 73%) and Dell down (74% from 78%).

The rich content of this three-page article is lost if it is classi-

fied as either a mostly positive or mostly negative piece. However,

if the article is examined through a multifocal lens, several topics

become apparent: strategic issues (market expansion), industry

problems (all competitors have customer satisfaction scores

around 75%), and product and service issues (new multifunction

products make it harder for customers and company service rep-

resentatives to get these products to work). There is also conflict

— Apple’s COO contradicting the journalists’ evidence.

One of the key advantages of media profiling for company

management is that it visually shows several aspects of corporate

reputation at a glance: salience of media coverage, strengths and

weaknesses of company performance affecting reputation and

media confusion. For example:

■ Like all major companies, Apple has a public relations group

tasked with creating a positive image for their company. However,

as the BusinessWeek article demonstrates, building media salience

often comes at the cost of having journalists set the tone and

themes of the company’s profile. ■ When media message themes are largely negative, this can

signal real trouble with a company’s products or services. Negative

messages can be direct (such as reporting an outright decline in

service quality) or indirect (such as noting how the popularity of

Apple’s new products is causing a strain on customer service). ■ Media coverage affects multiple stakeholders. The Business-

Week article is a classic “you say” versus “we say” account that

requires a careful response from both Apple’s PR and human re-

sources groups — the former for external stakeholders, the latter

for internal stakeholders. Employees are bound to notice this arti-

cle, and it will raise concerns about the company’s ability to deliver

the service expected by customers. Thus, the article calls for a clear

response from COO Timothy Cook to employees about the facts

in the article (such as why there is a difference of opinion) and

what Apple intends to do about service delivery. Responses must be

tailored to the specific concerns of different parties.

Using Media Profiling to Inform Executive Decision Making Media profiling immediately creates a discussion that informs

management action. It does this by unpacking each macro-

theme (such as Apple’s service quality) into the microthemes

that a journalist uses to discuss it (for example, the more diverse

Corporate reputation scorecards are popular with the media

but limited in what they reveal about companies. Companies

that receive the same total scores and average scores can

nonetheless have very different profiles when the higher or

lower scores on individual attributes are taken into account.

Managers should be aware of the profiles of their companies’

scorecard results so that they can respond appropriately.

Similar Corporate Reputations but Different Profiles

Score

0

4

6

8

10

2

Company A Company B Company C

Attribute A

Attribute B

Attribute C

Attribute D8

7

5

4

6 6 6 6

10

3

7

4

Total = 24 Average = 6

Total = 24 Average = 6

Total = 24 Average = 6

32 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SPRING 2008 SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

Apple’s customers become, the harder they are to serve). Focus-

ing on microthemes quickly moves the discussion beyond

simple statements like “We have a good (or bad) reputation” to

more complex and meaningful statements such as “Although

our products are regarded as good, our reputation for service,

while generally good among our long-term customers, is prob-

lematic with our new customers.” This change of language is

important because people seldom unconditionally like or dis-

like a company (or a person).

A more expansive language about corporate reputation also

makes it easier for executives and PR people to link a company’s

media profile to its broader “reputation story” that speaks about

mission, morality and modes of operation.11 This linkage can

have two related positive effects. The first is that a corporate story

based on key reputation attributes helps to personalize and soften

what can seem a faceless and impersonal firm. In this way, the

company can trade on the fact that it has a reputation for being

good at specific things. For example, 3M Co. for decades has been

supporting its reputation for innovation with the corporate

brand slogan “Innovation” (recently updated as “the Spirit of In-

novation”) and numerous stories within the company about its

innovative endeavors (such as the invention of the Post-it Note).

In effect, reputation stories put the various facets of media cover-

age in the “Coverage Breakout” chart into perspective. The second

positive outcome of a story-based explanation of reputation is

that this is often more interesting to journalists and their audi-

ences than any array of facts and figures. The power of storytelling

in a corporate setting has been well established.12 Thus, there is a

greater likelihood that companies can gain the attention of jour-

nalists and keep them “on message.”

Managers assessing media profiles will find it useful to cali-

brate their company against some relevant benchmarks. In many

industries, there are accepted behaviors and standards of perfor-

mance that define what is called the organizational field.13 For

example, in consumer electronics, new products are a regular

feature, and many business journalists focus their attention first

on whether the company has a steady stream of these and then,

when a new product is launched, on its likely success and impact

on financial performance. Within this discussion, new-product

microthemes such as new features, quality, relative advantage,

target customers, competitors and price are discussed. In con-

trast, articles in the “weekend media” tend to focus more on a

product’s “lifestyle effects” on people. In another example, our

research has found that in beverage industries, prominent mes-

sage themes are product quality, value and the social impact of

products. In telecommunications, the focus is often on the com-

pany’s strategy and the quality and value of the service offered.

Another relevant benchmark for many companies is the risk

profile of the media coverage. A company that is receiving very

negative or very mixed (positive and negative) coverage across a

number of message macrothemes may be heading for trouble. In

the field of word-of-mouth or viral marketing, it is thought that

negative commentary is often more damaging than the boost

provided by positive commentary — a point made by the au-

thors of the BusinessWeek story on Apple noted earlier. Another

signal of trouble is negative media commentary about key stake-

holder groups. For example, stories about disgruntled customers

or disaffected employees can infect other customers and em-

ployees by challenging some of their positive beliefs about the

company. And, as noted earlier, when people think that a com-

pany treats these two groups poorly, they tend to discount its

good deeds in other areas.14

Sometimes media discussions will not reflect the desired mar-

ket position for a company or its products. For example, a

technology company that we studied promoted the functionally

oriented, innovative features of its product, but journalists fo-

cused on the product’s styling. This is an instance of particular

journalists using their own mental models of what is important

for success in an industry to frame their discussions. When manag-

ers understand these mental models, it not only helps them counter

uninformed media coverage, it also enables them to interpret how

their company is performing relative to these industry-defining

attributes. And because the media shape the environment in

which a company’s advertising is evaluated, communication

themes that run counter to, or are simply independent of, those

M A N A G I N G R E P U T A T I O N

The prominence of a company’s media image can be charted

across different themes and vis-à-vis the media images of its

competitors. The relative prominence of various message

themes shows which receive the most coverage in the media.

Some companies are represented in the media by relatively

few themes; others receive multidimensional coverage.

Media Salience

Our Company

Major Competitor

Other Competitors

L e

v e

l o

f M

e d

ia C

o v e

ra g

e

Business Model Themes

En vi

ro nm

en t

Fi na

nc ia

l

Pe rf or

m an

ce

St ra

te g y

an d

G ov

er na

nc e

In d us

tr y

an d T

re nd

s

Re g ul

at or

y

Is su

es

Pr od

uc ts

an d S

er vi

ce s

St ak

eh ol

d er

s

C om

m un

it y

Social Model Themes

SPRING 2008 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW 33SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

used by journalists can reduce the impact of this advertising.15

When journalists focus on strategy and governance, one mes-

sage microtheme that has proven troublesome for many

companies is the profile of the CEO. In some countries, charis-

matic leadership is a positive theme, while in others it is tainted

with celebrity. In either case, when high-profile leaders are called

to account by journalists, the CEO’s reputation in the eyes of key

stakeholder groups — especially employees — can be damaged.

To check these potential effects will require corroboration with

other stakeholder-based measures, such as the trust and engage-

ment of employees and loyalty of customers.

When companies in an industry are profiled together, it is easy

to see the “agenda” that journalists are pursuing reflected in the

dominant message themes. It is also easy to see the salient com-

panies that stand above their competitors. The media play a

powerful role here; who they select for attention and what they

say puts these companies’ reputations in play. For example,

because of intense and sustained media focus, many people

around the world instantly associate corporate misbehavior with

Enron Corp., which crashed so spectacularly in 2001. Enron is

certainly not the only corporate wrongdoer, but it is one of the

most famous because of its media coverage.

After creating media profiles for their companies, how should

managers respond to various scenarios?

First, seek to protect and enhance the company’s good mes-

sage themes. These strengths can be leveraged by linking them to

other important message macrothemes. One way to accomplish

this is to show how the good themes complement other impor-

tant messages within the context of the company’s overall

reputation story. For example, General Electric Co., long known

for its strong emphasis on profit, has not had a good reputation

for its environmental awareness. Now, however, the company’s

current “ecomagination” story, publicized as “innovation for sus-

tainability,” is challenging people to reevaluate their opinion of

the company with respect to its “green” footprint. By setting spe-

cific financial targets for the company’s more environmentally

friendly products, GE is linking its already strong “profit story” to

its emerging “environment story.” This attempt to create leverage

effects also fulfils an important PR need: filling a communication

vacuum that invites journalists to criticize the company or en-

courages the public to believe that the company isn’t doing

anything on environmental issues.

Second, address negative message themes head-on. Three

courses of action can be considered for negative message macro-

themes. One is to fix the problem that is causing the negative

press. What needs to be changed most likely will be revealed by

one or more microthemes written about in the press. If the prob-

lem can’t be fixed straight away, then plan what needs to be done

and communicate this to employees and the media. If a negative

message theme is the result of a misconception, seek to correct

The tone of a company’s media coverage can be

compared with that of its competitors. This comparison

can guide managers in their media strategy: whether

to emphasize certain aspects of the company to journalists,

for instance, or to attempt to stay “below the radar”

in media coverage.

Overall Media Tone

Positive Coverage

Neutral Coverage

Negative Coverage

L e

v e

l o

f M

e d

ia C

o v e

ra g

e

W or

st C

om p an

y

in G

ro upO

ur

Co m

pa ny M

aj or

C om

p et

it or O

th er

C om

p et

it or

s

B es

t C om

p an

y

in G

ro up

The tone of a company’s media coverage can be charted

across a range of subject themes. By examining the volume

of media coverage and its positive or negative quality,

managers can pinpoint problem areas and strong suits.

Managers also can compare their company’s media strat-

egy with actual media coverage.

Coverage Breakout

M e

d ia

C o

v e

ra g

e

Business Model Themes

En vi

ro nm

en t

Fi na

nc ia

l

Pe rf or

m an

ce

St ra

te g y

an d

G ov

er na

nc e

In d us

tr y

an d T

re nd

s

Re g ul

at or

y

Is su

es

Pr od

uc ts

an d S

er vi

ce s

St ak

eh ol

d er

s

C om

m un

it y

Social Model Themes

Percent Positive

Percent Negative

SLOANREVIEW.MIT.EDU

this by providing new information to the media, perhaps briefing

selected journalists. Only as a last resort should executives con-

sider arguing against the negative message. Communications

professionals recommend denial only when managers are com-

pletely sure that they are in the right and that they are being

unfairly treated.16

For mixed message themes, seek to understand both sides of

the story. When media coverage has both positive and negative

attributes, it suggests either mixed messaging by the company or

differing schools of media thought about an issue. An example is

positive financial performance that is presented as weaker than

expected. Although a company seeks to promote positive themes,

executives must first fully understand negative aspects. These will

be found in the differing sets of message microthemes appearing

in the media. Scrutiny of these will reveal whether the issue is a

journalist’s contradiction of the company or inconsistent mes-

sages running in parallel. When some media message themes are

largely positive and others neutral, leverage effects of company

activities may not be operative. For example, if a company’s sub-

stantial environmental efforts are not reflected in a coverage

breakout analysis, it suggests that the efforts are not supporting

the company’s products and services.17

Consider whether a missing message theme is really impor-

tant. For example, does an absence of media attention about a

company’s environmental activities really matter to a company’s

critical stakeholders? While corporate social responsibility is cur-

rently a topic of interest to many in the media, it is often not of

similar interest to consumers unless they can see how it directly

improves a company’s products and services.18

In summary, from an organizational perspective, it is not pos-

sible to understand the commercial world and a company’s part

in it without knowing what the media is leading people to think

about the company and its competitors. One important way to

focus this inquiry is to profile the media reputations of the indus-

try participants. To get the most value from this scrutiny, it is

necessary to unpack the idea of a good or bad reputation into a

media profile of what is said about the company by the editorial

opinion-shapers — arguably the most influential force in busi-

ness communication. Media profiles of macro- and microthemes

typically show that a company has a better reputation for some

things than others. To benefit from this insight requires the use of

a more complex language among managers about reputation,

which can then motivate a discussion that directly informs man-

agement action.

REFERENCES

1. For an overview of how corporate reputation influences operational performance, see G.R. Dowling, “How Good Corporate Reputations Create Corporate Value,” Corporate Reputation Review 9, no. 2 (2006): 134-143; and for an example of how good reputations influ-

ence financial performance, see P.W. Roberts and G.R. Dowling, “Corporate Reputation and Sustained Superior Financial Perfor- mance,” Strategic Management Journal 23 (2002): 1077-1093.

2. S. Lewis, “Measuring Corporate Reputation,” Corporate Communica- tions 6, no. 1 (2001): 31-35; S.L. Wartick, “The Relationship Between Intense Media Exposure and Change in Corporate Reputation,” Busi- ness & Society 31 (June 1992): 33-49; C.J. Fombrun and C.B.M. van Riel, “Fame & Fortune” (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Edu- cation, 2004); T. Wry, D.L. Deephouse and G. McNamara, “Substantive and Evaluative Media Reputations Among and Within Cognitive Strate- gic Groups,” Corporate Reputation Review 9, no. 4 (2006): 225-242; R.G. Eccles, S.C. Newquist and R. Schatz, “Reputation and Its Risks,” Harvard Business Review 85, no. 2 (February 2007): 104-114.

3. Reputation Institute, “List of Lists: A Compilation of International Corporate Ratings,” fall 2007, www.reputationinstitute.com.

4. Fortune magazine’s evaluation for its “Most Admired Companies” list is based on scores concerning eight corporate attributes: asset use, community and environmental friendliness, ability to develop and keep key people, financial soundness, degree of innovativeness, in- vestment value, management quality and product quality. The people who rate the companies are financial analysts, senior executives and outside directors of Fortune 1000 companies (other than their own).

5. J. Berg, J. Matthews and C. O’Hare, “Measuring Brand Health to Im- prove Top-Line Growth,” MIT Sloan Management Review 49, no.1 (fall 2007): 61-68.

6. Lewis, “Corporate Reputation.”

7. D. Porritt, “The Reputational Failure of Financial Success: The ‘Bot- tom Line Backlash’ Effect,” Corporate Reputation Review 8, no. 3 (October 2005): 198-213.

8. An alternate method of analyzing media coverage is counting media stories and assessing whether the coverage was essentially positive or negative. See Eccles, Newquist and Schatz, “Reputation.”

9. While message themes can vary depending on the particular cir- cumstances facing the company, the typical themes are those shown in “Media Salience.”

10. L. Lee and P. Burrows, “A Bruise or Two on Apple’s Reputation,” BusinessWeek, Oct. 22, 2007, 81-83.

11. G.R. Dowling, “Corporate Reputation Stories,” California Manage- ment Review 49, no. 1 (2006): 82-100.

12. S. Denning, “The Leader’s Guide to Storytelling” (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005).

13. L. Wedlin, “The Role of Rankings in Codifying a Business School Template: Classifications, Diffusion and Mediated Isomorphism in Or- ganizational Fields,” European Management Review 4 (2007): 24-39.

14. Another early warning signal of reputation trouble is when employ- ees dislike the companies they work for. Employee “engagement” surveys often are used to calibrate these effects.

15. A. Ries and L. Ries, “The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR” (New York: HarperBusiness, 2002).

16. J.R. Rossiter and S. Bellman, “Marketing Communications: Theory and Practice” (Frenchs Forest, New South Wales, Australia: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2005).

17. General Electric’s “ecomagination” communication campaign is an example of a program designed to foster leverage effects.

18. T.M. Devinney, P. Auger, G. Eckhardt and T. Birtchnell, “The Other CSR,” Stanford Social Innovation Review (fall 2006): 30-37.

Reprint 49311. Copyright © Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2008. All rights reserved.

34 MIT SLOAN MANAGEMENT REVIEW SPRING 2008

M A N A G I N G R E P U T A T I O N

PDFs ■ Reprints ■ Permission to Copy ■ Back Issues

Electronic copies of MIT Sloan Management Review articles as well as traditional reprints and back issues can be purchased on our Web site: sloanreview.mit.edu or you may order through our Business Service Center (9 a.m.-5 p.m. ET) at the phone numbers listed below.

To reproduce or transmit one or more MIT Sloan Management Review articles by electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying or archiving in any information storage or retrieval system) requires written permission. To request permission, use our Web site (sloanreview.mit.edu), call or e-mail:

Toll-free in U.S. and Canada: 877-727-7170 International: 617-253-7170 Fax: 617-258-9739 e-mail: [email protected]

MIT Sloan Management Review 77 Massachusetts Ave., E60-100 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 e-mail: [email protected]

View publication statsView publication stats