- Appco Group Services
- Reputation management for Hotels – ‘Home away from Home’
- Reputation Management Online Through Right Response!
- Kingfisher Airlines gullibility banking on SBI
- Pfizer pill recall – botched up reputation in wrong pack
- Twitter to lose its reputation as a free speech platform?
- IIPM worried about Google Suggest, why is it so?
- Reputation Management Tip for 2012: Brands need to tap into social media search!
- Facebook Timeline and Reputation Management
- Apple Siri gender bias or glitch?
Bank Reputations
Goldman’s Recognises the Importance of Reputation
May 10, 2010 | 
Author Since the 2008 Credit crunch, Goldman Sachs has, perhaps more than any other investment bank, acquired a reputation for “slick” business practices. They have been accused of controlling government, of putting their interests before those of their clients and for being, well, just too powerful.
During most of that time, it seems as though Goldman senior staff have been pretty much impervious to the outside world’s opinion. They have continued to describe themselves as both ethical and clear in the business choices that they make and have made. They have described their role during the credit crunch and specifically during the failure of AIG group as being appropriate.
All of that seems to have changed following their recent prosecution which had finally provided Goldman critics with a specific incidence on which to hang their hunch of Goldman complicity in just about everything bad that has happened in the last 10 years! Finally, here was the smoking gun that critics needed to prove that Goldman had known that mortgages derivatives were going to lose value at the same time as they were selling them to their clients. Surely, critics point out, this is a clear example of bank putting its private interests before those of its clients.
Goldman CEO Blankstein seems to be now recognising that there is a “disconnect” between internal and external narratives of the bank. Friday 7th May 2010 he declared, “that there is a disconnect between how we as a firm view ourselves and how the broader public perceives our role and activities in the market”.A disconnect that needs to be addressed. He also acknowledges that Goldman needs to listen more carefully to external perspectives and learn from them
What Goldman needs is both a Reputation Management programme and an organisation culture shift that acknowledges that what people say about you is every bit as important as what you say or think about yourself. Which will be more important and more difficult?
More than most financial institutions, Goldman Sachs has a very powerful internal culture of excellence and “right”. These are the supermen of capitalism and they know it. They are the brightest and the best. They have the pick of the graduates and the pick of their competitors. These are individuals who have rarely made mistakes. The Goldman decision to create an ethics and standards committee may not be an admission of guilt, but it is a recognition that Goldman behaviour has been opaque. The decision could go either way in terms of effectiveness. The decision to not include working Goldman executives is probably seen as a way of ensuring that the committee is not tainted by internal views, but my sense is that this could turn out to be a mistake as the committee operates at the edge of Goldman working consciousness: the workers do one thing whilst the committee provides a great and the good window dressing for the firm. What is important about Blankstein’s decision is that it put behaviour change at the heart of the firm’s reputation management strategy and recognises that managing reputation is strategic and requires often difficult decisions about what you can and cannot do in business. Goldman, traditionally, has followed the money. Maybe now they will put burnishing their reputation first.
Breaking Views is of the same opinion: Goldman needs to ensure that the standards committee is not seen as an “empty PR exercise”.
Posted in Bank Reputations, Company Reputation, Reputation Management | 
Tags: Goldman Sachs | 
No Comments »
Get rid off negative comments
Most businesses want their websites to show up on the first page of search engines. How good is it if your website appears on the first page of Google or Yahoo? You search for your company/product name and to your surprise you find one or more listings on top. You have been waiting for this, but then the sudden change in weather on search engines is astonishing. Have a closer look, do you see anything unusual? Well it could be those negative comments about your products doing the rounds and inviting so many visitors and obviously putting your website on top. If it is so, you are in big trouble.
One negative comment is enough to frighten away many likely customers. How genuine these reviews or complaints are is not the question, but it is about the impact. Your company’s reputation is at stake besides loss of revenue in millions.
Reputation management has become a crucial tool, but then very few companies go for this service to counter negative propaganda waged against their firms. Airlines, banks, hotels are the most vulnerable and are always at the receiving end, by disgruntled customers or envying competitors. By being ignorant of reputation management these firms end up sorting issues through litigation, which is twice as expensive and time consuming as compared to hiring reputation managers.
In such situations, our suggestion is to ‘nip it in the bud’- suppress the negative comments and bring up the positive ones. It is all about customizing a strategy to corner negative comments and design a campaign to keep positive reviews of your company above others.
Safeguarding your business from on-line damages and ensuring its smooth run is tantamount to running a business itself. New and small companies need to understand how vulnerable they are and how important reputation management services are for their business.
Posted in Bad Press, Bank Reputations, Company Reputation, Hotel Reputation, Negative Forums, Reputation Management, Reputation News | Tags: Bad Press, best reputation management company, brand reputation, business reputation, negative content, Online Reputation, removing negative comments from forums | No Comments »
Financial Reputations
There’s something very odd about the world that financiers live in. Unlike the rest of us they don’t seem to really care what everybody else thinks about them. Take the question of bonuses; uniquely they feel that whatever they do or have done, they deserve a bonus. Take Lloyds Bank of Scotland boss Daniels who’s decision to merge the two banks must be one of the most catastrophic destruction of shareholder value hasn’t stopped him from being offered an eight hundred thousand bonus for “integration” of the two banks. Wasn’t that his job anyway?
Only last year Richard Snook, senior economist at the Centre for Economics and Business Research, said: ‘It is just not politically feasible that any British clearing bank is going to pay out large bonuses.’ That’s what he thought and many people think now (December 2009) but bankers feel very differently and see them as their due.
In reputation management terms, the financial world seems to have very little to manage their reputation properly. The furious commentary from the public and the seeming lack of strategy from banks and their communications agencies is puzzling.
The bonuses will almost certainly lead to more political flak and more political oversight in the longer term. The banks may be able to afford lobbyists, but they certainly have very few friends.
Posted in Bank Reputations, Company Reputation, Reputation Management | Tags: Eric Daniels, Lloyds HBOS | No Comments »
Mr Kyle, thanks for telling us the truth
How low can Lloyds Go?
Poor Lloyds HBOS. They are the banking equivalent of Gordon Brown: whatever they do makes them look like either stupid or dishonest. The latest economies of truth feature the revelation that HBOS had received substantial amounts of state aid before their takeover by Lloyds Bank. Shareholders are asking why they were not told this “material” information at the time of the takeover. Whatever the bank says, shareholders won’t be happy as the transaction must be one of the largest destroyers of shareholder value in business history.
Of course, Lloyds is denying any worngdoing. Is there a course these people go on to teach them how to deny everything.
This comes a week after Lloyds HBOS denied any further relationship with the “best of banker of his generation” Peter Cummings who was seen entering their headquarters last week. If they are not doing anything with him, why was he entering the building?
Banks have stooped to new lows when it comes to thinking through their reputation management. They still don’t get it when it comes to transparency and sentiment.
The problem for LloydsHBOS is that management reputation is entirely destroyed but as ever, management don’t see it that way and continue to plough on. The Armada anyone?
Obama – Pure Genius!
Two days ago, Obama was reeling from the loss of Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat to a Republican in what has been a staunch Democrat seat since before time; one speech and he is back on track. His proposals on bank reform will be universally popular simply because, just everybody hates Wall Street. Commentators were suggesting that these proposals are no done deal as they have to pass Congress, but it is hard to see any members of that august institution standing up for the banks. Let’s not forget the epithet attached to Goldman Sachs: a vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.
Two days ago, Obama suggested that he had been too focused on policy and not enough on connecting with voters. Wrong, he was too focused on the wrong policies. Voters have been aching for some substantive reform of financial institutions since they first bailed them out and then watched aghast as they declared massive profits and equally huge bonuses. Talk about making yourself a target! Bank reputation managers have done a woeful job of presenting Wall Street institutions as contrite and capable of self control. As the Economist remarked a few months ago it is not pretty seeing a whole sector committing political suicide.
For Obama, mired in Healthcare reform which has become increasingly partisan and confusing, resolving financial services reform is both long hanging fruit and popular with the electorate. Here is something that everybody agrees needs to be done. It could be argued that the administration’s failure to act on financial services was the problem all along. Voters felt that banks had not felt the pain like the rest of country and it even looked as though Obama and his “wonk” regime wasn’t going to do anything about it. Timothy Geithner hardly came across as compelling.
The challenge for Obama is whether he can really push this through. His mandate was change and yet that change has become bogged down in increasingly partisan squabbles. Can he build cross-party support for his plans. Using Paul Volcker was a clever touch: he clearly knows his finance, he has been a stern critic of policy and Wall Street and yet he is no liberal softy. Here is the man who solves the inflation problem in the 1980s.
Obama has chosen his battleground well: now he just needs victory.