Do ‘reputation campaigns’ actually improve reputation?
Can changing public perception of your brand be as simple as refreshing your slogan? Crisis comms specialist Tony Jaques looks at recent financial scandals to assess how well Australian banks are handling reputation management.
No-one loves the banks. And their generally poor reputation is pretty much universal. But is the glossy reputation campaign just launched by the Bankers Association the right answer? And is the slogan ‘We’re making banking better for Australia’ believable?
Many people think that banks fully deserve their dubious image. In fact ASIC Commissioner, John Price, recently cited a UK report which found 10 of the world’s leading banks racked up fines and misconduct costs of nearly £150 billion over a period of just five years. Which is impressive, even by banking standards.
The past few months have certainly seen banks in the headlines for all the wrong reasons. NAB and CBA caught out colluding on foreign currency trading. Westpac entities accused of failing their consumers’ “best interests duty.”
ANZ and Macquarie Bank admitting cartel conduct on foreign exchange. NAB returning almost $35 million for financial advice it never delivered.
Bankwest refunding $5 million in overcharged mortgage interest. Morgan Stanley repaying $13 million after overcharging clients. CBA saying it has paid $23 million to customers for bad financial planning advice. And that’s just a very recent sample.
In addition, a new report from Australian Small Business and Family Enterprise Ombudsman, Kate Carnell, says big bank lending practices can cause “significant harm” to some small businesses.
Late last year, ANZ boss, Shayne Elliot, surprised a Parliamentary inquiry by admitting that the banks had lost touch with their customers.
“We had become too internally focused and forgotten our role in society and in the community at large,” he said. “That’s taken us down a path that’s created … bad behaviours and poor culture, and really not treated customers with the respect that they deserve.”
True, Mr Elliott, and a good start. But maybe what’s needed is improved performance and a genuine halt to bad behaviour, rather than a generic banking confidence campaign. After all, brand is what you say about yourself, while reputation is what other people say about you.
Moreover, most customers want to see better performance by their own bank, not hopeful messages from an industry organisation they’ve likely never heard of.
As respected business journalist, Adele Ferguson, says: “If change is to occur, it will require more than a few mea culpas, Senate inquiries and a series of reviews conducted by bank-funded independent experts.”
The latest Australian Bankers Association initiative is undoubtedly well designed and well executed, with great visuals and embedded videos. And it’s certainly more professional than their previous disastrous strategy to secretly pay radio broadcasters to stop saying nasty things about them.
That effort led to the notorious “cash for comment” scandal of 1999.
But will this new bank campaign achieve its purpose? Indeed, what is the real purpose? It’s possible that the actual target is not the public at all. It may in fact be aimed primarily at politicians and regulators to try and fend off increasing calls for a wide-ranging inquiry into the finance industry.
Either way they should never forget the old maxim – Most corporate advertising is like wetting yourself in a dark suit. It briefly gives you a nice warm feeling . . . but no-one notices.
Tony Jaques is the director at crisis communications company, Issues Outcomes
A question that can easily be raised regarding people working in the public-relations game is whether they would end up being paid to run “personal reputation protection campaigns” for individuals with the money.
This article highlighted the issue of reputation management in the context of companies like the major banks who have suffered many blows in relationship to their customer perception. It is becoming more important for businesses of all sizes and trades who stand for their values yet are at risk of something like an Internet-driven consumer boycott.
But what I was raising in this comment was the issue where an individual can’t “get further in life” because of bad remarks spread around their community such as being accused of associating with “the wrong crowd” or of “holding the wrong beliefs”. It is even being underscored further thanks to social media being used as a tool to “spread gossip further” and could lead to, for example, a person being fired for no just cause, or being “beaten out of town”.
User ID not verified.
It’s pretty simple. You want to be seen as a leader? Act like one. Provide the evidence to your customer that you’re trustworthy and walk the talk then they will follow you wherever you go. You can’t buy that kind of loyalty, you’ve got to earn it. So in short “Do ‘reputation campaigns’ actually improve reputation?” Yes, providing you take the time and the effort to truly earn the respect and admiration of your audience.
User ID not verified.
What every Brand can see is that they are no longer in control of ‘the conversation’ and they are not always the most influential voice, when it comes to their reputation. ‘We’re making banking better for Australia’ is a small voice in a sea of much louder voices who are driving the conversation around, fairness, transparency, colluding, overcharging…
Consumers are tired of promises and will only genuinely respond to action that they can see is working. If Banks want a better reputation then they need to drive conversation through positive action. Do some of the things consumes are asking for and they will improve your reputation for you.
If you just change your slogan and not your behaviour, it’s going to have the opposite effect where the promise does not match the experience. That’s going to make your reputation even worse.
User ID not verified.