Marketer in Chief Marketing Ethics Rehumanizing Consumerism

What if Warren Buffet is wrong about reputation?

It’s always nice to have the Oracle of Omaha give a ringing endorsement of your profession. Among many things, I consider myself a professional reputation manager. Many of you reading share that vocation. We take it on faith and intuition that reputation matters. Good ethics is good business, right? We all know what happened to Enron, right?

People like us have built our careers helping organizations manage and shape their perception in the marketplace with the understanding that – while it may be challenging to measure – those actions produce results.

But what if reputation didn’t matter?

What if corporate reputation didn’t connect with any objective measure of performance? Worse, what if it paid to be bad? Let’s set aside the existential questions for a moment (Should you be good for its own sake? Do you believe in a higher power? Do other people have the inalienable right to be treated well?). As a professional reputation manager, I am interested in a more fundamental question:

Can I measure the impact of reputation on corporate performance?

It turns out, I can. And as much as it hurts to say, reputation doesn’t seem to make a difference.

Buffet might be wrong.

I hope you’re bristling right now, wondering how I could possibly make such a stupid and thoughtless claim. Haven’t I spent the last five years writing about Rehumanizing Marketing? Haven’t I railed against abuse of power from Big Data? Wouldn’t I be the last person to suggest that being a good corporate citizen doesn’t matter to bottom line performance? This simply doesn’t make sense. Of course, reputation matters.

Part of growing as a professional (and as a person) is being honest with yourself in light of new evidence. And one of the hardest things to do is question the basic assumptions that underpin your worldview.

If you’ll let me, I’m going to ask you to follow along.

Here’s what prompted the discussion – and resulting exploration – that helped me ask myself a difficult question: The Reputation Institute recently released their list of the Top 100 organizations. Netflix topped the list this year, followed in sequence by a notable list of public and private companies. While you could question the specifics of their scoring process, the Reputation Institute is full of smart people. They have as good a process as any at ranking something as nebulous as “reputation.”

Despite that tacit endorsement, I usually ignore bullshit rankings like these. (I ignore college rankings for the same reason. They all suck.) But two recent email subject lines caught my eye:

“We live in a reputation economy.”

“Strong corporate responsibility increases purchase intent by 8.0%”

If you notice carefully, they’re making a claim that reputation links to revenue in some way. That’s a concrete claim. That’s testable. So, I tested it.

Does reputation correlate with revenue? No.

First, a few basics about what you’re looking at. The X-axis represents the Top 100 companies, by reputation rank, in descending order from left (#1) to right (#100). The Y-axis charts the change in revenue over the past three annual reporting periods. The scatter plot is the result. Here’s what you should notice:

  1. There aren’t 100 dots – Reliable data on private companies is not easily available. The analysis includes only publicly traded companies with at least three years of history.
  2. The dots don’t represent revenue, they represent change in revenue – If a better reputation leads to more revenue, and you try to compare actual dollars from Amazon and Tractor Supply Company, the former will dwarf the latter and skew your results. Changes in revenue help level the playing field.
  3. We’re measuring change over three years, not over one year – We’re also assuming that one year is too short for “reputation building” efforts. As Buffet reminds us, reputation building takes time. A lot can change in one year, but three years helps give efforts time to materialize.

If you’re curious, a few of the key statistics are:

  • Correlation: -0.040
  • Mean: 21.37% 3-year growth
  • Standard Deviation: 37.4%

If it’s been a while since you took your last statistics class, here’s what they mean:

If reputation and revenue performance were positively correlated, we would expect the fitted line to slope downward, meaning that better reputation leads to better revenue performance. Instead, we notice that the line is, basically, flat. (The -0.040 correlation confirms what is obvious just by looking.) There is no correlation between reputation and three-year trailing revenue performance. In other words, you can’t say that a better reputation (at least by the Reputation Institute’s scale) will lead to higher revenue growth.

[Fun fact: If you track one-year revenue instead of three-year revenue, the correlation is much more negative, meaning revenue performance is better the worse your reputation is.]

But it’s not just that the line is flat – the standard deviation tells you how wide the variance is. In other words, you can get wildly different results in revenue performance. It’s telling us that other factors are at play – as well as random chance – in determining those results. The wide variance and non-existent correlation suggest that reputation is not likely to be among them.

Hey, wait a second. Revenue is a trailing indicator. Reputation is about future performance.

I tend to agree, and that’s why I used three years of prior revenue data, but I see the point. While reputation doesn’t seem to correlate with past revenue, it could correlate with future revenue. Luckily, we have a way to begin to test that: Market Capitalization. In simple terms, market cap is the value of one share of stock multiplied by all shares outstanding (adjusted for weird shit finance people do.) It’s a useful measure because it tracks what market believes the value of the company will be in the future. There are lots of factors that influence valuation, but we would assume reputation would be among them.

Perhaps reputation accounts for 20% of the variability. Or 10%. Or something we can measure.

So, does it?

Does reputation correlate with market valuation? No.

Same chart as before, but this time the dots represent changes in market capitalization over the past three years. And again, the statistics:

  • Correlation: 0.064
  • Mean: 6.59% 3-year change in market capitalization
  • Standard Deviation: 52.5%

Notice anything? It’s a very similar chart. In fact, changes in market capitalization are even more variable than revenue. What’s more, if you remove the meteoric rise of value in Netflix stock (#1), the correlation turns negative.

Different metric, same conclusion: Reputation does not correlate with future value either.

After looking at two unique ways to correlate reputation with performance, I’m left scratching my head at what I could be missing.

Perhaps the dynamics of smaller companies (or individuals) are fundamentally different than larger, publicly traded organizations? Maybe, but fractal self-similarity tells us we should expect similar patterns at different scales. (I know, that’s nerdy, but that math works.)

Perhaps reputation matters in some other way: Shorter time scales, much longer time scales, only for specific products or services … or maybe reputation matters most in a recession? Maybe, but I worry we’re simply finding new ways to run the data until we find an answer we like.

Perhaps reputation matters more to the bottom line than to the top line. In other words, a good reputation might make it easier to attract and retain the best talent, hence making the company more profitable. Maybe, but profitability is notoriously difficult to compare from one organization to another (see previous note about the weird shit finance and accounting people do). I don’t think we can cherry pick.

Speaking of cherry picking, bad reputations could impact individual companies in strongly negative ways even if it doesn’t matter in general. Maybe, but that’s the foundation of statistical inference. As a manager, if I can’t predict whether a reputation will help or hurt my organization’s performance, I can’t deal with it effectively.

Perhaps reputation helps guide the “social conversation” around your brand, leading to positive feelings and a stronger intent to patronize the organization. Reputation Institute seems to think so. Maybe, but if that were true, it should show up in actual revenue. It doesn’t.

Perhaps “ranking lists” are simply ways to sell consulting services to ego driven CMOs who want their organization nearer the top of the list. Maybe, but that’s just my inner jaded Gen-Xer showing. I don’t think these lists are designed purely for profiteering, although I’m not naïve enough to think that has no bearing.

Perhaps there is some other metric I’m too stupid to see. Now there’s a better answer. Other scholars have found positive correlations, negative correlations, U-shaped correlations, and no correlations. Here’s my problem with all that: When lots of smart people look at the same thing and find wildly different results (and most often, no results), that points to a simpler answer:

Reputation doesn’t matter to objective organizational performance.

What the fuck?

I have to be honest; I expected some amount of correlation. I wanted to believe that doing the right thing meant getting the right result – perhaps not immediately, but in the end. I wanted to believe that attention on social media mattered. That taking a stand mattered. That employee ratings mattered. That companies that treated customers like data points and flouted the rule of law would get what was coming to them. That what I was researching and writing about mattered.

Actually, I think it’s time to bring back those bigger questions:

Should you be good for its own sake?

Do you believe in a higher power?

Do other people have the inalienable right to be treated well? 

To measure reputation as you would measure dollars cheapens reputation. It shackles “good in the world” to some temporal and fleeting notion of material gain. That may seem too spiritual for an email from a self-described Honey Badger, but hear me out.

If reputation doesn’t impact corporate performance, that doesn’t mean a good reputation isn’t a worthy goal, but rather that you can do good without fear of how it will impact your business performance. Patagonia wants to save the planet? Go for it! Starbucks wants to have a conversation about race? Let’s have it! Nike wants to take a stand for athletes? Just do it!

If none of these actions impact corporate performance, it actually clarifies and purifies their intentions.

Under that assumption, you can know a company believes in something because believing in that thing won’t matter to their revenue or stock prices. They’re doing it because they truly want to. (If they only care about their shareholders, that’s obvious too.) You can decide how to align your values (and your purchases) without the confusion around intentions.

[Fun note: My Jewish friends might argue the intentions are subordinate to actions. I see their point. I tend to like clarity of purpose.]

Some organizations (and some people) may look at these data and conclude that they can break the law with impunity. I like that clarity as well. We cannot rely on “public shaming” or “cancel culture” to adjust their behavior. If they broke the law, they need to be prosecuted.

I began this process with certainty: Reputation matters. During the middle of this process, I learned it did not. But in the end of this process, I discovered clarity. Organizations should do good because it’s the right thing to do.

The money doesn’t matter.


Writing Update

Many of you follow me because of the many threads of writing I’ve pursued over the past five years. Most of them, at their core, are founded in an evolving notion of ethics in the practice of marketing. In that time, I couldn’t help but wonder why corporate leaders would listen to me politely … and then continue to act in ways that were the exact opposite of that ethical foundation. That includes plenty of organizations you’ve heard of – data privacy breaches, audience exploitation, you name it. They’re all “legal” in the strict sense of the word. In my opinion, they’re unethical.

Why do they keep doing it? I suspect they’ve known for a long time what I just learned: Reputation (and the positive and negative actions and perceptions that create it) don’t make a difference in the only measures they care about.

It’s freeing, really.

Disconnecting the idea of Rehumanizing Marketing from a business perspective to an ethical (and personal) perspective allows me to sidestep the issue of revenue performance. Instead of speaking to the corporation or organization (who must, by law, care for its shareholders first and everyone else only to the extent the law requires), I can speak directly to the CMOs themselves. I can appeal to them as people – not in the way their pastor or spiritual guide might, but as a peer. We have the ability to use our positions to create change in the world, and we can tell our CEOs that the social media “noise” is just that: noise. As long we produce revenue, we’re free to pursue a bigger mission and ask a very different question:

What could you do in the world if your corporate reputation didn’t impact your company?

I think a large number of CMOs (and even CEOs) would relish that question. It’s liberating and exciting. For those who wouldn’t, I have a different idea. For those who realize reputation doesn’t matter, and then decide to push the ethical boundaries, how far can you go before you cross from ethical trouble to legal trouble? How to you break rules strategically? The market seems to reward ethical rule-breaking as “innovation” and punish legal rule-breaking with fines and restrictions (a la Uber, in both cases.)

I have some ideas I’m working through on that angle.

In other news, I’ve decided not to let the idea behind “Marketer in Chief” die on the vine. I get it that the major publishers can’t find a good home for it right now. That’s okay. I’m interested in the idea, and I don’t really care that they’re not. That said, I intend to pivot the project into a weekly interview series (me and a presidential historian) for the 45 weeks leading up to the next election in 2020. I have a few such folks interested already. I’ll create a separate blog and Twitter feed, and I intend to do some minor publicity work to make sure the political journalists know about it.

This can’t be any worse than the “public dialog” we’re going to have in the run-up to the 2020 election.

And speaking of reputation and its impact, I have two entries forthcoming in the Palgrave Encyclopedia of Public Affairs. I’ll send an update when they make it through editorial review.


Long Form Articles Marketer in Chief

Is the US president a CEO or a CMO?

Reimagining the Role of US Presidents – from Washington to Trump.

While my first book effort, Rehumanizing Marketing, makes its way through the publishing process, I’ve been hard at work on my next effort. Like many of you, I’ve been equal parts frustrated and disgusted at the level and tone of political discourse. I can’t think of many greater threats to our way of life than an inability to discuss issues constructively. But I’m not naive. Toxic dialog in the United States is as old as the republic. Read any good biography of Washington, Adams, or Jefferson, and you’ll see unmistakeable parallels with today’s bickering and back-biting.

Instead of complaining about it, I decided I’d dig in. What if we reimagined the role of the President as a CMO versus a CEO? How would that change our perception of their behavior? Their successes? Their failures? Would it give us a new set of tools and language to use in our collective discussions?

It can’t hurt. We’ve tried right/left tribalism, data-driven think tanks, and milquetoast centrism. Where’s that gotten us?

Here’s the basic premise:

A president is, first and foremost, the Chief Marketing Officer for the United States of America. This individual refines and expands the vision for the country, helps to align the value citizens receive with the taxes they pay, negotiates relationships with other countries, and communicates a message that (hopefully) moves millions of people to think and act in new ways. But most people don’t think about a president as a CMO. Yes, this person is an executive manager, a politician, and a historical figure, but when we examine the broad scope of the role, it’s more marketer than any of these other things. Marketer in Chief relates lesser-known, but still telling anecdotes about each of the 44 US presidents* with modern consumer-marketing situations, both successes and failures.

* If you’re wondering, Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms. That’s why Donald Trump is the 45th President.

Instead of a chronological approach, Marketer in Chief adopts a more intuitive and interesting thematic approach. The four sections of the book parallel the so-called Four-Ps of marketing: Product, Price, Place and Promotion.

1. Product marketing refers to the president actively working to refine and expand the vision for the country.
2. Price marketing aligns the value citizens receive with the taxes they pay.
3. Place (or Channel) marketing involves negotiating relationships with other countries.
4. Promotional marketing describes a president’s skill in communicating a message that (hopefully) moves millions of people to think and act in new ways.

I’m not finished, but if you’re interested in learning more and staying connected, be sure to sign up for updates on my website!


(And BTW, I’m having fun hacking promotional advertisements together for each of the 44 chapters…)