Monthly Archives: January 2019

Jan 30

Shattering Glassdoor’s Reputation

Posted on by

Achieving five stars on Glassdoor for an organization is the equivalent of a restaurant receiving 3 stars from Michelin Guide.

But based on an explosive Wall Street Journal expose, all that glitters at Glassdoor is most certainly NOT gold.

Here’s Peppercomm Partner Deb Brown’s POV. Personally, I’d give it 4.5 stars:

What happens when your entire business model is questioned? That’s what happened to Glassdoor recently when the Wall Street Journal published an investigative report titled, “How Companies Secretly Boost Their Glassdoor Ratings.” That title has to hurt, especially when on its website, Glassdoor states, “Built on the foundation of increasing workplace transparency…”

Employers flood the ranking site with 5-star postings requested from enthusiastic staffers, leading to unusual spikes, a WSJ investigation found.

To be fair to Glassdoor, employees who are upset at their former or current employer are probably more likely to post negative reviews than content employees posting positive reviews. And when “all” employees are encouraged to write reviews, are they all truthful or feel pressured in any way to write glowing reviews, even though they are anonymous?

Glassdoor does have policies in place and monitors reviews. But, that’s obviously not enough and its reputation is at risk. How can the public trust Glassdoor when looking for a job? How can companies that have accurate ratings compete for talent if their competitors are secretly boosting their ratings?

Glassdoor needs to immediately address this issue. It needs to admit fault, put stricter policies in place and explain how it will enforce them. If Glassdoor is revising its policies, then it needs to create a campaign articulating these critical changes in order to regain trust. The company should use an outside firm to help them develop this and communicate it. The CEO should proactively do interviews, be transparent about what needs to change, and how these new changes will be enforced. The company should also reach out to its most important clients to show it is committed to these changes.

If these claims are true, CEO Robert Holman needs to hold an all-hands meeting with his employees.

In addition, Glassdoor knew this investigative report was coming out since a spokesperson was quoted. The company should have made sure it was completely prepared. If it was prepared, I didn’t see evidence.

And, one has to wonder how Glassdoor employees would rate their employer after reading this story. This reputational issue is both external and internal. If he hasn’t done so yet, CEO Robert Holman needs to hold an all-hands meeting with his employees.

The bottom line is the company is built on the foundation of increasing workplace transparency. Glassdoor can’t ignore the article and must be transparent in how to fix this issue to safeguard – and rebuild – its reputation.

Otherwise, a competitor will see an open door…if it hasn’t already.

Jan 16

It’s a close shave

Posted on by

No matter how one analyzes Gillette’s controversial new campaign “Is this the best a man can get?” it’s fraught with uncertainties. And it most certainly has further divided an already divided country.

Truly the best a man can get?

First, though, a tip of the hat (or razor) to Gillette’s management for having the courage to double down on its purpose and values. But have they? Or is the campaign a mere ploy or stunt as some detractors claim whose only goal is to drive sales?

I think there are several factors to weigh when analyzing the Gillette campaign:

1) Is alienating a significant percentage of the male shaving market worth the risk of taking a stand and saying the right thing? We asked that very question of 50 CCOs and CMOs we interviewed in a joint research study with the Institute for Public Relations.

One CCO, who managed a global manufacturing company’s marketing spend, echoed the comments of most when he stated, “No matter what you say you WILL alienate a percentage of your stakeholders. I’d much prefer to go on record and double down on our purpose in the wake of a societal crisis than remain silent.”

2) Consistency: Nike’s outstanding campaign featuring Colin Kaepernick won countless awards and witnessed a serious uptick in sales. But, as bold as it was, Nike’s campaign was consistent with its track record (pun intended) of partnering with controversial, outspoken athletes. As a result, the campaign was authentic to the core. Gillette has no such track record and, as the WashPo article indicates, has long profiled macho men in previous campaigns. So, there’s no sense of continuity in my mind. The campaign was a complete 180 for the brand. I think that’s why, when the dust settles, Nike’s post-Kaepernick sales increase will far surpass that of Gillette’s.

3) There but for the grace of god go I. Suppose, just suppose, that Gillette management should be accused of a #MeToo scandal of their own?

That scenario played out in the months following BP’s launch of its “Beyond Petroleum” campaign, extolling their multiple contributions to the environment. Sure enough, a few months later, BP found itself at the epicenter of the Gulf oil spill disaster (and became the butt of endless late night talk show host jokes).

When they said, “think outside the barrel,” I don’t think they meant the Gulf Coast.

I do hope that, in Gillette’s case, HR has done its due diligence to ensure there aren’t any 15 or 20-year-old harassment claims against the current executive team. If such an event were to unfold, it would be beyond catastrophic and underscores the risks a brand takes when it creates it own societal crisis by taking a stand on a societal crisis.

We live in a brave new world littered with myriad societal minefields ranging from illegal immigration and mass school shootings to environmental roll-backs and, yes, #MeToo scandals.

Taking a stand in the immediate aftermath of a societal crisis is the right thing for a purpose-driven organization to do.

It remains to be seen if Gillette’s gamble to create a crisis within a crisis will play out the way they hope.

 

 

Jan 09

What Businesses Should Do Before Taking a Stand on Social Issues

Posted on by

It wasn’t very long ago when staying quiet and avoiding controversy were the tried-and-true PR rules for businesses. But the consumer-company relationship is quickly evolving, along with people’s expectations of companies.

A recent study by Clutch shows that 71% of people expect companies to take a stance on social movements.

Because this expectation is so new, many businesses struggle with what to say and when, always being aware of the risks involved.

Best case scenario? They speak out and their stance resonates with the majority of their consumers, resulting in higher revenue, an elevated brand, and greater awareness for the issue.

Worst case scenario? They speak out and their stance alienates consumers to the point of revenue loss and tarnishes their brand.

Staying silent isn’t safe either. Silence might keep the company out of controversary, but if it’s regarding an issue relevant to the company’s brand, it could hurt the company later on.

“It can be a huge competitive disadvantage to stay silent in the midst of a crisis,” said Steve Cody, CEO of Peppercomm.

This, of course, presents an infinite new list of challenges for businesses to navigate in how and when they’ll respond to social issues.

Here are 3 things businesses should do when deciding whether to respond to a social movement.

Know Your Purpose

 Having a clearly defined corporate purpose can help you navigate this new, challenging landscape.

“Your corporate purpose is your North Star for deciding whether to respond to social movements,” Cody said.

Cody said that having a clearly-defined corporate purpose is a company’s best protection against the unexpected.

“If you know your company, you’ll be better able to determine what to say, what not to say, and what you want to comment on,” Cody said. “It will also help you make sure you’re delivering on that corporate purpose to all of your stakeholders.”

Having a well-defined corporate purpose is key, but how should a company do this?

Involve as Many People as Possible

It is good practice to include as many people as possible in the process of defining (or redefining) your corporate purpose.

“This could be everyone from the receptionist, right up to the CEO,” Cody said. “You also want to check with the key stakeholders to make sure they believe in the values you’re considering including in the purpose.”

This process is often not a quick one. Sometimes, it can take companies years to make sure they define a purpose that is inclusive of every culture represented by its employees and holds true to the promises they make in their marketing campaigns.

This on be easier for smaller companies and very complicated for larger, global companies.

However, companies will find that it pays off to invest the time and resources to making sure their corporate purpose is well-defined and inclusive of those that represent its brand.

Predetermine Which Issues Are Relevant to Your Brand

Nike features Colin Kaepernick in its’ “Just Do It” 30th anniversary campaign. Negative reaction to was predictably swift but in just three days, Nike products began to fly off shelves, leading to a 31 percent increase in sales.

While social crises and issues are often unpredictable, there are things companies can do so they aren’t completely caught off guard when a situation occurs, like identifying in advance which issues are relevant to their brand.

By deciding ahead of time which issues are relevant to your brand and will warrant a response, your company can outline a strategy and draft potential responses.

Knowing which issues are relevant to your brand will also help you determine which are not relevant and warrants silence.

Some company CEOs also rely on the power of precedence, in addition to having a well-defined corporate purpose.

If an event or issue isn’t directly related to the brand’s purpose and if the company doesn’t have a history of commenting on similar issues, usually the company is in the clear to remain silent.

Dedicate Time to Defining Your Corporate Purpose

Silence is no longer always the best PR policy as more people expect companies to find their voice and respond to today’s social issues.

Businesses can mitigate the risks associated with taking stances on social movements and issues by clearly defining their corporate purpose and identifying which social issues and movements align with their brand’s values.

Jan 04

“Success has a thousand fathers while failure is an orphan.”

Posted on by

While it’s a day late and a dollar short, I’m pleased to share this infographic with you.

Created in partnership with BrandFoundations, our longtime strategic marketing partner, the list below analyzed the best and worst managed societal crises of the past year

Note: We define a societal crisis as anything ranging from a mass school shooting and the Southern border chaos to trade wars and environmental rollouts. We’ve also included #MeToo crises and self-inflicted wounds. Traditional crises such as product recalls, financial malfeasance and price fixing were not included in the analysis.

As you will see from the infographic, we chose to grade the organizations based on three criteria:

– Speed: How quickly did the organization take a stand on a societal crisis that either aligned with, or was the polar opposite of, their values?

– Strength: Was the stand taken by the organization unequivocal, or could it be interpreted in different ways by different stakeholders?

– Purpose: Did the statement double down on the organization’s stated higher purpose?

Hope you enjoy the graphic. Would love to hear your POV on our POV.