Karan Chadda

August 15, 2012

How much is a company’s reputation worth?

Always a tricky question and one that no one has ever really nailed down. Is it a percentage (or even all) of the intangibles in its stock price? Is it an approximation of the value of sales associated with people who purchase your goods mainly because they perceive you to be good or ethical? Or is it the amount of money a company is willing to forgo for reputational reasons?

If the answer is the latter, then a small number of banks value their reputations in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The FT reports that a number of banks have ceased offering products that speculate in agricultural markets, citing reputation issues as the reason. With food prices rising in response to this year’s lower yields, many organisations have campaigned against financial speculation in food and other commodity markets. It seems that some banks have listened. This is in spite of the fact that the IMF and other international bodies have concluded that speculation in these markets is not driving up prices.

An executive at one German bank is quoted as saying that they will “be much more sensitive in future about [their] product range.”

Does this signal a shift in attitudes to reputation in the financial services industry? Perhaps. More importantly, it does help demonstrate, although not define, the very real monetary value of reputation.

This piece was originally posted here on CommsTalk.

July 29, 2012

Don’t fence me in

Footballers and politicians have all done their best to keep race and multiculturalism in the news. I don’t seek to provide commentary on what this means about the state of our country or our society, my issue is this: at a time when people move across the globe more than ever before, when we’re hosting the largest event in the world, when our capital is one of the most diverse places on earth, those with the loudest voices are still obsessed by, and trading in, blocks.

Let’s start with footballers. If John Terry’s trial showed us anything it was how common obscene language, of all kinds, is on the football pitch. Rio Ferdinand, however, took it one step further by throwing the term choc ice via Twitter in the direction of Ashley Cole. Choc ice was a new but instantly recognisable term to me. Growing up in West London in the 90s, the preferred equivalent among Indians was coconut. Both items have the desirable structure of being dark on the outside and white on the inside.

If Coconut was the term shot at those deemed as not Indian enough, there were equivalent terms for people deemed too Indian as well. Quite often those who were thought to be too traditional were referred to as pendus (based on the word pendu which technically means villager but more commonly means simpleton in Punjabi). So, you could be too Indian or not Indian enough.

If that’s an example of how some people from ethnic minorities try and force others to fit a certain mould, then there are plenty of examples from outside ethnic minorities too. Aidan Burley, Conservative MP for Cannock Chase, was so worked up by what he perceived to be left-leaning bias during the open ceremony of the London Olympics, that he tweeted the following:

Right in the middle of his tweet he agitates against leftie multi-cultural crap. Now, many people would think it unwise for an MP to tweet something like that. Bearing in mind this MP in particular has already had his political career dented because he went on a stag do where guests dressed as Nazis, it was a particularly poor choice.

The most disappointing part of Mr Burley’s tweet is that he equates multi-culturalism with the Left. I hope he sent a note to his Conservative colleagues with this little bit of insight. I’m sure Conservative Party Co-Chairman, Baroness Warsi, would love to know that she’s accidentally joined the wrong party. That she actually should be a leftie. No doubt Burley’s fellow West Midlands Conservative MP, Nadhim Zahawi, would be keen to learn more about exactly where he fits on the political spectrum.

Burley is no different from those who throw around terms like choc ice. They attempt to peg people into a specific box using simple generalisations based on race. They see the world in a particular way and seek to fit everything and everyone into little boxes that neatly fit their view. It’s lazy, but also damaging. It perpetuates the politics of race. It seeks to define what people of a particular skin colour ought to be like and make them that way. It’s racist, it’s wrong and, thankfully, the world isn’t how they perceive it to be.

UPDATE: This post was cross-posted HERE on the Liberal Conspiracy blog. Please do join in the debate on this issue over there.

July 29, 2012

Olympic Cycling – men’s road race

The Olympic cycling road race is one of the open access events. Starting from The Mall in London, the men’s race weaves through South West London into Surrey, passing through Royal Parks, whizzing by historic palaces, looping up iconic hills and then winging its way by Thames Ditton, where I stood to catch a glimpse of the action and cheer on Team GB.

Doing their bit to help Team GB, local children put up signs on the railings.

They also chalked messages on the tarmac to cheer on their heroes.

A local Inn pulled together some passable grub.

There was a real party atmosphere, with Union Jacks fluttering.

The Police outriders heralded the arrival of the cyclists to much cheering from the crowd.

Then the leaders appeared. The crowd screamed and yelled, whistled and clapped.

The noise built as the leaders sped by.

Then the first of the heroes from Team GB appeared and the crowd erupted. Flags were waved and the screams immense, the British riders sat strongly at the front of the chasing pack.

The bulk of the pack followed. Riders from all over the world, proudly representing their countries, peddling for all they were worth, their grit etched in faces. All were cheered through.

The crowd began to thin when the fleet of support cars zoomed down the road.

But a hardy few hung around to cheer through some of the riders who had fallen behind. This cyclist from Argentina was one of the last to come through, but despite being toward the back it was clear he was putting in an Olympian effort and was cheered through by those who remained.

Alas, we know this race ended in disappointment for Team GB. However, it was an amazing day for the crowd and I’d recommend heading down to the women’s road race today (29 July).

July 25, 2012

Selling inspiration

Quite often I have conversations where I’m left defending the role of advertising, or more specifically, selling. In general, people don’t like being sold to. That’s a fact and there’s no getting away from it. People love to buy things though, so selling can’t be all bad. The key point, in my view, is that there’s a difference between selling something and selling at someone.

Nike’s Olympics-ad-that’s-not-an-Olympics-ad is a case in point. Title ‘Find Your Greatness’, it’s not selling trainers or t-shirts. There’s no plug for the latest football or bit of kit that can make you faster. Instead, it focuses on the achievements of amateur athletes. It lauds the effort and achievement of those outside the elite. It’s inspiring stuff and, crucially, it’s also selling.

It’s selling an idea, it’s saying that all sporting endeavours should be lauded. It’s saying that Nike applauds your sporting achievements. It inspires you to get out there and participate. In the process of all that participation, they’ll sell some more trainers and FuelBands, they’ll probably sell a lot of t-shirts too. It’s selling without selling at you.

July 24, 2012

Commercial disclosure

The Guardian is asking a very important question (in social media terms, at least) today: Is it ethical to pay bloggers to tweet? Sunny Hundal and Helen Lewis have taken opposing positions (Hundal for, Lewis against). The Guardian’s question relates to Sky News’s payments to bloggers in exchange for said bloggers tweeting about its Murnaghan Sunday morning political discussion show. Applied more broadly, the question is a good one. So, is it ethical to pay bloggers to tweet?

Fortunately, this question ties in nicely with a discussion we’ve been having on CommsTalk about the ASA’s recent rulings about Twitter promotions. The central point, whether it’s about promoting trainers, chocolate bars, hair cuts or TV shows, is that undisclosed commercial promotions can be at best misleading and, in some instances, damage trust. When they do damage trust, they do so not just in the celebrities and commentators, but also in Twitter itself.

One of the best things about Twitter is its authenticity. Tweets have a sense of direct communication. They connect us with others – friends, businesses, celebrities, causes, etc. – in a very direct way. The conversation is instant and there’s a sense that it’s open and honest. It would be a pity if distrust started to seep in, in the way it has with other media. All the UK’s national newspapers are seen to favour one agenda or another. The BBC, generally respected for its quality and its balance, is shot at from all sides of the political spectrum for supporting “the other side”.

Of course, Twitter doesn’t create the content of tweets, so it’s less likely to succumb to the charge of bias. However, if people begin to become wary of tweets, fearing some alternative agenda and speculating at the commercial motives behind the tweets, then Twitter will become a less nice and less trusting place. It would be a pity if that were to happen simply because of a lack of commercial disclosure.

This piece was originally posted here on CommsTalk.