From the category archives:

Names

They are all damaging some organization’s reputation, by causing "collateral reputation damage ® ".

Sarah Palin, right-wing Republican Sarah Palin is causing collateral reputation damage to Palin Wine.

bill marriott CEO of Marriott Hotels, Mormom, proposition 8 Bill Marriott is causing collateral reputation damage to The Marriott Hotels & Resorts Corporation.

John Templeton Jr., MD Proposition 8 supporter John Templeton Jr., MD, is causing collateral reputation damage to the John Templeton Foundation .

Palin, Marriott and Templeton — perhaps unintentionally yet certainly unavoidably — are all causing damage to organizations with which they are associated. These associations range from the spurious to the serious, but in each case, the associations are leading the organizations’ public stakeholders to downgrade the organizations’ reputations.

What is Collateral Reputation Damage ® ?

Collateral reputation damage is damage done to an organization’s reputation when advocacy by individuals or groups who may or may not be associated with the organization is interpreted by stakeholders as being action by the organization itself. It is collateral damage, not intentional damage, because the folks taking action don’t intend to damage the organization’s reputation. Instead, the damage occurs through"guilt by association".

Three Cases, Three pathways to damage

In all three cases:

  1. The organization and the individual share the same distinctive name.
  2. The organizations & their products have lost public support.
  3. The organizations themselves are innocent.

Although the cases of Palin, Marriott and Templeton share these three features, each one has some distinctive elements worth examining in more detail. With this post, I’ll explain the concept of collateral reputation damage and illustrate it with the simplest case, that of Sarah Palin and Palin Wine. In subsequent posts, I’ll unpack what makes the Marriott and Templeton cases so interesting. …

palin_syrah_limari Tarred by the same-name brush

The easiest way for collateral damage to occur is when the organization (or product) and an individual share the same name. This is what’s happening in the case of Palin Wines– especially with their Syrah.

There is absolutely no relationship between the organization that produces Palin Wines and the politician Sarah Palin. The association between Palin Syrah and Palin (Sarah) is clearly coincidental; everyone knows that Sarah Palin lives in Alaska, an area not known for its vineyards. And Sarah Palin is more interested in the war on terror than the preservation of terroir.

Yet, the name "Palin" conjures up a certain set of values, which get transferred from one Palin to the other, through the cognitive processes of attribute transfer. People who do not support what Palin does or what she stands for establish a negative assessment of the Palin wine. When they think of Palin Wine, they think less of it, because they associate it with a person whose actions, etc. they disagree with.

Association leads to loss of public support…

Even though only a name is shared between Palin and Palin , liberal consumers have responded negatively to the wine. Maybe they are unconsciously acting on their distaste for what the Governor advocates, maybe they are jokingly demonstrating that they can’t swallow a ‘conservative’ perspective.

Whatever it is, some liberal customers are (either jokingly or unconsciously) rejecting the Palin Wine as a way to demonstrate that they reject what it stands for in their minds. They have chosen not to order this wine in restaurants or to purchase it at wine stores, and this has lead to a steep decline in sales of Palin Wines. (It’s not clear whether right-wing wine consumers have increased their consumption of Palin Syrah.)

… Even though the organization is innocent.

Down in Chile, Viñedos Organicos Emiliana, lead by winemaker Alvaro Espinoza (the winemaker who introduced biodynamic viticulture into South America) works hard to produce their organic wines. Over at North Berkeley Imports, they "look for independent growers who… ideally farm their land naturally (often organically or biodynamically)" and who share their vision.

Even though their organizations have no relationship at all to Sarah Palin or to right-wing politics, these organizations are being penalized. Their reputations have been damaged, through no fault of their own.

And the irony is

Both the winemaker and wine importer are organizations that are committed to values that many liberals (the same folks dismissing the wine) would otherwise embrace.

If you're interested in this issue, please subscribe to my RSS feed. Or, use the blue box (upper right) to get an emailed update. Join the conversation below...

{ 0 comments }

Special Halloween Edition

imposter kids in masks authentic fake organizations astroturfing In the spirit of Halloween, a time of costumes, treats and tricks, I’m inspired to start a list of ways that organizations dress themselves up so that they appear to be what they are not. Some of these terms and concepts are familiar. Some terms I’ve invented (4, 5, 6) and two need better names (7 & 8).

1. Astroturfing: Pretending to be a grassroots organization when you are not, so that the organization looks like an authentic representation of citizens’ or consumers’ self-defined interests.. Examples include the Center for Consumer Freedom and Working Families for Wal-Mart .

2. Good-coating : Claiming that your products or services are socially-responsible or benefit society, when they don’t. A deceptive or misleading use of cause marketing.

imposter inauthentic organization fake 3. Greenwashing : Misleading the public about the organization’s environmental practices or history, and/or misleading the public about the environmental benefits of your organization’s product or service. Similarly, the term green sheen describes when organizations attempt to appear that they are adopting practices beneficial to the environment.

4. Potemkins : Presenting your organization as being larger, more impressive, more positive etc. than it is (often through communication practices such as online presence, business address, promotional materials, etc.) The intent of the organization’s presentation not to convey truth but instead to misleadingly impress outsiders.

imposter hedgehog fake organization greenwashing good-coating 5. Reputation squatting ®: When a smaller or newer organization takes on some or all of the name of an older, larger and well-known organization that also has a positive reputation, when there is no relationship between the organizations. The intent is to free-ride on the benefits of the famous organization’s reputation. Examples include: Princeton Ski Shops, Princeton Driving School, and the Princeton Review college-preparation business . None of these organizations has any connection to Princeton University, but they all benefit from the positive halo of the Princeton name. An accidental example of negative reputation-squatting? Palin Syrah.

6. Trojan Horses: When the organization takes a name and a public profile designed to appeal to a certain values set, which covers its actual intentional antagonism to that value set. Examples include the American Pregnancy Association , TeenBrakes, and Care Net. A special type of Trojan Horse is the GONGO.

imposter Moai stone reputation squatting Potemkin Greenwash astroturfing GONGO: Government-organized (GO) non-governmental organizations (+NGOs ) created by a government or by government officials, their relatives and friends, that support the government, often by using money intended for the civil society. [note: These are such an absurd contradiction that they'd be funny, if they were not so destructive of the concept of government for the people.]

imposter penguin fake organization Gongo reputation squatting greenwash greenwashing 7. "We just made it up, and we like it": When an organization creates a fake name, fake history, fake founders, fake heritage, etc. (often for marketing proposes) and then adopts this to help define the organization. Examples include Thornberg & Forester, Gilly Hicks, and The Heartland Foods Corporation.

8. Values Portfolio Contradiction: When an organization uses tactics that contradict their values, such as when PETA uses sexism & misogyny to promote animal rights.

More Kinds of Faking? What should be added to this list? Any good examples, or new types? Give us some good ideas, and I’ll send you some Snickers bars.

Happy Halloween!

{ 0 comments }

Fake Names for Authentic Organizations? Thornberg & Forester

July 3, 2008

Is this organization being authentic by giving itself
a fake name?

photofrom digitalcontnentproducer.com

There’s a funny little news tidbit in Sunday’s New York Times Business section, right below Tommy Hilfiger’s engagement announcement (as if that’s business news?). It’s a paragraph about a design & communications firm, Thornberg & [...]

Read the full article →

Honey is really bee vomit: Why we should label “NonProfit” Organizations “For-Purpose” Organizations

March 28, 2008

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
Would this advice make any sense if, instead, it was:
"You catch more flies with bee vomit than vinegar"?

Heck no. That’s why it makes a difference when organizations have positive, attractive, and descriptive names.
Names matter
Names convey identity. They can be crafted to [...]

Read the full article →

Authentic Organizational Partnerships: Co-Branding and The Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center

March 27, 2008

(photo from TheConsumerist)
In an earlier post we considered how the new name of the Abercrombie & Fitch Trauma Center might affect the Center’s employees. Here, let’s consider why a partnership between Abercrombie & Fitch and the Columbus Children’s Hospital is inauthentic. And, let’s consider what criteria should be used to evaluate whether a partnership would [...]

Read the full article →