My Say @ RMA

RMA CEO was recently invited to speak at Singapore Shipping Association-Helix Media seminar on 19 April 2012.  John spoke on the Reputational Challenges facing the Maritime and Shipping Industry.

I was fascinated to see that leading business strategy thinkers are beginning to think of reputation as a driver of strategy and and just a consequent.

A talk on Monday morning by Nicolaj Smiggelkow, the Don M. Knott Professor at the Wharton School, listed corporate reputation as a force which drives strategy. Just to put this in context, the #1 force which might disrupt markets and require a strategic shift were #1 supply of natural resources (short supply) and #2 speed of globalization (slowing?).  #3 was trust in large corporations.

Traditionally, we tend to think of communication as a handmaiden to philosophy.  In the business world this means communication (which is used to foster a good corporate reputation) is the execution side of strategy.  We cannot effectively meet our strategic goals if stakeholders do not understand what we are trying to do and why.  Professor Smiggelkow’s talk, however, brings this thinking full circle to list reputation and trust as forces shaping strategy.

Allow me to write aloud, if you will, as I begin to think through this idea and Porter’s 5 forces.  If strategy’s purpose is to in some advantageous way to my company diminish the forces of buyers suppliers, new entrants, substitutes, and rivals…then reputation should (we academics need research to support assertions) impact this dynamic.

• Does reputation impact the willingness to pay?  Perhaps Apple is a good example of people willing to pay and discouraging the customer’s willingness to pay for Nokia or Microsoft phones.
• Will switching costs increase, in social terms, for leaving Apple.  The cool crowd has iPad and iPhone.
• Will your ability to acquire capital be improved improve (costs go down) with a good reputation?
• Do companies suffer unequal access to distribution if you have a poor?
• Do companies experience a less restrictive regulatory environment with a better reputation?
• Does the likelihood of retaliation increase or decrease with a better reputation (my gut reaction is–both).

These are just a few of the immediate ideas that come to mind.  From my vantage point, I hold the perception that we do not typically think about reputation in these terms.  we are largely, as practitioners and academics, held to the handmaiden perspective.

Someone could build a decade-long research agenda around these questions above. I am also thinking we could ask equally interesting questions about how crowdsourcing serves as a force reshaping the environment and thus corporate strategies

By Prof Michael Netzley, SMU

By Toby Ingram

Some of my associates swear by it. Others swear at it. Is it necessary to have a LinkedIn profile  to be taken seriously in business? Is it about reputation in the strictest sense? If that’s the case, power to the people behind it.

Now, I’m not saying it’s useless, before you start flaming. I’m saying I don’t know
Let’s consider the case for the defence.

Are you looking for a job? More specifically, are you looking for an upwards (or sideways) career move? If yes, accepted wisdom and the cold numbers – over 150 million users claimed – indicate you’d better have your profile up and running. At least if you fit the correct white collar template.

Furthermore, if you want to use a site (or two, or three) and you’re thinking about which, you’re probably still best off with LinkedIn. Most reports suggest recruiters use it far more often and readily than Twitter or Facebook. However, a lot of analysts suggest the ‘pure’ social networking sites will start to see far more attention from recruiters this year. Not surprising really, at least not to those of us who aren’t trapped in the 1970s and live by the fatally flawed doctrine of “It’s business, it’s not personal.” Really, what apart from immediate family (and perhaps a few other exceptions we won’t mention!) could be more personal than business?

If you’re a professional recruiter yourself, or just an employer looking for a suitable hire, the same necessity would seem to apply. In fact, if you’re looking to hire, it seems you are the equivalent of a female user on any Internet dating website (they’re what, 90% male?): you are one of the elite, you have your pick from the clamouring hordes.

In mid-February, a story appeared on the Bloomberg news site about a man who has built a virtual autobiography on his profile (200 interests listed, including salad-bar design). Tyler Goldman, founder and chief executive of pop culture digi-publisher BuzzMedia (in California, where else?), reckons whatever you’re doing on LinkedIn, and however much time you’re spending, you’re still probably not making the best of it. According to him, 97% of users employ LinkedIn solely as a “static reference” or recruiting tool. He however enthuses far more about its capacity for “group functionality” and “crowdsourcing”. This fits with the opinion of one of my closest associates, who extolled to me the virtues of joining – or wangling an invitation to join – network groups in order to deliver, effectively, the same content as you would in a mass e-mailing (press release, sales promo, invitation to a function, etc), and not have either a) something over 25% end up in Spam filters, or b) your message overlooked and accidentally deleted among the hundreds of irrelevant emails your contacts receive every day. Those who belong to network groups on LinkedIn are holding up their hands to say, “Yes! We want to have information and alerts from other people in this group. We have things in common. We are relevant to each other.” Such messages are far less likely to be flagged as Spam by corporate servers, and much less likely to be overlooked or ignored once they pop into Inboxes. Basically, when you shoot, your target is exactly what you want it to be, and you stand a much higher chance of hitting it. Well, that’s what my associate says anyway.

And the case against?

A lot of people I’ve spoken to say they have a profile because everyone says they should have one and because all those people have one. They don’t actually use it, they just have it. A digital ornament, if you will. (This goes back to my point above about making something necessary which actually has no inherent necessity.)

Next? Well, something close to 20% of all users have a sales or sales related function. You know what that means, don’t you? Yep. A marketplace, full of sellers crying their wares. Well, okay, to an extent.

It’s also male-dominated (unlike Twitter). More than 60% of users are men. Maybe that’s not a point in the case against, now I think of it. But it feels like it should be, right ladies?!

Speaking of ladies, a friend of mine has had nothing but grim Facebook-esque experiences of being stalked by ex-boyfriends. Perhaps she’s just unlucky. That would make interesting statistical research, wouldn’t it? So, Mr. Anonymous LinkedIn User, how much time on average do you spend on job-hunting, and how much on cyber-stalking old flames?

Oh yes, and let’s bear in mind where we are. We’re in Asia. Something close to 70% of LinkedIn’s considerable revenue last year was generated in the USA. About half those 150 million users are in North America. How about here? It’s around 15%, maybe a bit less. When you consider a high proportion of users (over 30%) are in the high-tech and finance sectors, this is probably quite good if you’re in Singapore or Hong Kong, for example, but doesn’t it increase competition in an already ridiculously competitive market, rather than take the pressure off?

So you tell me, please. What good is it? That’s not a rhetorical question. I really want to hear your views, your thoughts, and yes – your personal experiences.

* For the full story: http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/a-linkedin-master-class-from-buzzmedias-tyler-goldman-02172012.html

By P N Balji

Chinese evening newspaper Lianhe Wanbao broke the story on CPIB’s probe of two top-ranking government officials. …

It was a memorable and bold moment in Singapore journalism. Earlier this week, a dogged reporter’s patience and persistence combined with a brave editor’s decision to throw caution to the wind ended in an exclusive that brought back memories of the good old days of old-fashioned reporting — and put the government in an embarrassing spot.

The Chinese evening newspaper, Lianhe Wanbao, went ahead with a report on the corruption investigations into the activities of two top public service officers — Singapore Civil Defence Force chief Peter Lim Sin Pang and Central Narcotics Bureau chief Ng Boon Gay — without a government confirmation. It named names and gave details, like the involvement of a woman in the scandal, knowing fully well that there was a chance — a very small chance, maybe — that it could get some important details wrong.

When the government statement came — on the same day but after the paper had published the report — the news had already caught fire with the on-line world hammering out posts and reports and raising pointed issues that ranged from transparency to arrogance.

The most damaging statement, unintended though it was, came from the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau. In response to media queries, it said that the narcotics man was arrested on Dec 19 and the civil defence boss on Jan 4, many days before the government put out its statement on Jan 24.

It was too long a lapse and was made worse by the rapid-fire news cycle punishing even those who take a couple of  hours to come out with its side of the story.

Why this long delay?

In response to a query by The Straits Times, the government said the investigations are continuing and “it is only  fair that we accord the officers assisting with investigations a fair hearing in accordance with the civil service disciplinary process and the law.”

It is understandable that you want to give those involved, especially when the investigations are still on-going, a good shot at fair play. That occasion passed when the two were arrested. That was the moment when officialdom should have bitten the bullet and said: The tipping point has been reached.  And we have to go public with the story.

But it remained silent until the unlikeliest of sources — the traditional media, fed by a regular diet of press releases and official speeches — put the story in the public domain.

The end result: A government caught with its back against the wall and in a reactive mode.

High pay and low corruption

When the Parliamentary debate on political salaries took place from Jan 16 to 18, the one critical point that never came up was that of a clean Cabinet and civil service. The silence on this issue was understandable because corruption in high places in government is extremely rare. But this new development, where two very senior public service officials were under investigation for “serious personal misconduct”, could have been brought up and could have added a new dimension to the debate.

The salary-corruption link is important. High pay was one way to discourage officials from wanting to have their palms greased. Lee Kuan Yew highlighted that point when he pushed vigorously for top salaries. No reasonable-minded Singaporean would have expected a corrupt-free public service, even with high pay; those who want to get round the laws will always find loopholes to exploit.

But you can make sure that corruption cases are as rare as possible. And that corrupt officials, once exposed, will face the full brunt of the law.

Even ministers have not been spared. Former National Development Minister Teh Cheang Wan, who was praised by Lee Kuan Yew a number of times, chose to end his life when he faced the heat of an unyielding group of anti-corruption officers way back in the 1980s.

Making the CPIB report directly to the PMO gives them the latitude and freedom to investigate even the high and mighty without too many encumbrances.

All these could have made the Parliamentary debate more meaningful and relevant. But an opportunity to explain the historical backdrop and context to Singapore’s war on corruption was lost.

The ruling party kept silent; so did the Opposition. I am more inclined to sympathise with the members of the Opposition because there was no way for them to have information on the latest investigations.

Lessons not learnt

Since GE 2011, the government seems to be on its backfoot with communication blunders becoming a regular occurrence. From the Mas Selamat case (official statement was issued four hours after the terrorist escaped from the Internal Security Department’s detention centre) to the wrong signatures on YOG appreciation certificates (Minister Vivian Balakrishnan said that it was an embarrassment but not a disaster) to the PAP’s electoral defeat in Aljunied (Lee Kuan Yew warned residents that they will repent if Opposition won), it is clear  that the government has yet to get a handle on how to communicate effectively in a new world.

That is really strange. This is not a stupid government, it has done a lot of good things for its people, it is respected overseas and its model of governance is highly sought after.

Yet, one of the basic attributes of a smart government — squaring with its citizens and carrying them along — seems to be missing.

P N Balji has more than 35 years experience as a journalist. He is now a media consultant.

Obsolescence in technology is fast keeping pace with that of women’s fashion! What’s in today, is almost out tomorrow! But it’s these devices that are now keeping us in touch with the world, with colleagues, with friends and with loved ones.

We live in the age of where information is pushed to us. We have no choice and we have to decide, or filter out, what to read and what not to read.

Websites, emails, blogsites, group sites, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo Messenger …. these are just the tip of the plethora of information push sites that is fast gluing itself to our daily lives …. and that of our children too.

So, can we we really trust social media sites as the gospel truth of information?

I guess the answers is yes, and also no.

The lack of censorship, in fact almost no censorship, leaves untruths hanging out there in cyberspace. I guess in any media controlled environment the social media is the source information that the authorities don’t want you to read or see or hear.

However, as receivers and readers of social media content, we must temper what we get with other mainstream sources of information to arrive at a better understanding of the real truths of information.

Like it or not, social media is here to stay and to grow on us. We need to adjust to this growing technology in the communications landscape and harness it to positive use.

Herbert Teo,
Associate Director
RMA

One of my favourite videos is a talk by Simon Sinek: How Great Leaders Inspire Action. His message is very simple, really. To persuade others, you have to give them a reason i.e. you just have to tell them ‘why’.

You are probably familiar with this scenario: you are enjoying a quiet afternoon at home when you hear the doorbell ring. You open the door, and see a beaming salesperson, who starts to inform you about the wonderful product he is selling. At this point, most of us would attempt to shut the door.

If however, you happened to be an extremely patient person. You would first allow him to finish his exceptionally detailed description of the product, and then still shut the door.

Therein lies the problem.

Whenever we try to market something, we usually get too caught up with the item that we forget to mention why we chose to sell it. Why not another product? The reasons may be obvious to us, but we need to make it explicit to the customer. Otherwise, even a truly fascinating product can lose its marketable value if we simply expound on the product’s attributes. That method is simply not going to convince a disinterested customer.

Instead, start with the ‘why’ and then gradually expand into the ‘how’ and finally the ‘what’.

Why did we create this product? How did we do it? What is this product?

Simon Sinek gave an example of how Apple Inc communicates:
“Everything we do, we believe in challenging the status quo. We believe in thinking differently. The way we challenge the status quo is by making our products beautifully designed, simple to use and user friendly. We just happen to make great computers. Want to buy one?”

Now you are totally ready to buy a computer. Because people don’t buy what you do; they buy why you do it.

The exact same thing applies for all forms of corporate communication – press releases print advertisements, social media etc. You start by telling your stakeholders who you are and what you believe in, then explain how your values drive your actions, and finally voila! You launch your message. This is why brand identity and brand values are so crucial; you need them to sell your product.

Here are some advertisements taken from Hewlett-Packard, IBM and Apple Inc corporate websites. Their campaigns are clearly distinctive and it is obvious which is targeting the ‘why’, ‘how’ and ‘what’.

Now, there are companies who sell products and there are companies who sell
themselves. People remember successful companies by their brands and what they
represent, not by their products! Think of Harley-Davidson, and you envision ‘freedom to lead your life your style’; The Body Shop and you imagine ‘Sustainable beauty, Nature’s way’.

So scratch your original marketing plan, turn everything inside out and start from
your company’s core, the ‘why’. Let customers buy your products because they
are inspired to, because your brand values resonates within. Inspire Action.

By
Krisa Qiu
Recipient of RMA Best Corporate Communication Student Award for Organizational
Communication YA 2010 – 2011.

T.I.N.A.  =  There is No Alternative.  It is a scenario that scenario planners (notably from Shell) have coined to describe Singapore’s unique place in the world.

The reasoning goes like this: given Singapore’s size, limited population and lack of resources, there are genuine limits to the alternatives or options one can arrive at when looking at public policies and governance of this small city state.

For example, given its physical land size, there is no question that property prices will rise over time, save during sporadic periods of economic downturn or war.  Therefore land being a scarce commodity will always command a premium.  Every land officer handling the latest property auction for development knows this.  Another example is defence and national service. Given the limited geography and manpower, it is no wonder that the principal investments of Singapore’s military are in a modern and powerful air-force with the latest technology.

Now the T.I.N.A. scenario plays out like this – it doesn’t matter who or which party is in power in Singapore.  Rational analysis leads the party in power (or any leader) to come to the same policy conclusions.  There might be differences in tone and implementation of the policy.  But the policy conclusion will essentially be starkly similar.

Thus if one were totally honest, no political party will or can convincingly argue against an open door policy for attracting talent to Singapore.  There might be disagreements to the pace and speed of this open door but with the local population unable or unwilling to boost its birth rates, there is really only one stark choice.

Coupled with this lack of options is a sound and credible reputation that the PAP government has, for doing three things right – it is corruption free, it delivers on its promises and above all, never shies from doing the necessary however painful or unpopular it may be.  This reputation has earned the thrust of the majority of Singaporeans  and an international reputation enabling Singapore to punch way above its size.

Enter the Piped Piper of Hougang.  Mr Low Thia Kiang’s brilliance is not in the fact that he is eloquent or charismatic.  It is that the tune he plays is one that synchs or connects with an increasingly younger and more widely exposed electorate.  Like the original musician from Hamlyn, this Hougang piped piper’s appeal is that he is a bit of an underdog.  Not of the elite scholar class, not from the establishment and certainly not without political acumen.

Mr Low’s great achievement is that he has been persuaded most Singaporeans that his thesis is essentially correct – that Singapore’s political development has come to a point where an effective, organised and credible opposition is needed.  His music has managed to draw in worthy and good quality candidates like top legal eagle Chen Show Mao to join his cause.  The recent wins in Ajunied GRC appears to vindicate the point that the growing tide of opposition is the ‘new normal.’

It remains to be seen if the new political landscape will have any impact on TINA’s imprint on public policy.  Some argue that TINA should gradually evolve to TIIA – to one that states “there is always an alternative.”

That is for future analysts to discuss.  What is perhaps more instructive and the real purpose of this article, is to argue that a new language and a new grammar is needed for public policy.  Communications – both corporate and governmental-  has had to evolve and change to reflect the new dynamics of a global world, now more connected and instantaneous.

In the same vein, the delivery and communications of public policy must necessarily change to adopt a new grammar and syntax – the language of a “Show Me World” – where engagement and trust are important pre-requisites to begin conversations.  In a Show Me World, we do not decide, announce and defend (D-A-D).  Instead we seek to dialogue, decide and deliver.  This new language and grammar has its seeds in social media but more importantly, in the basic mindset that ideas must be narrated and articulated in a more subtle and sophisticated fashion than before.

TINA may still prevail when making policy in this little city that is Singapore.  But the manner and tone will be greatly different, if we are to move forward.

By John Lim

I am honored by RMA to share this first blog post during my tenth year in Asia.  Thinking about the communication challenges facing us as we prepare for 2012 are very different than those I learned about back in 2002.  So what better time to revisit a question I asked in my third-ever blog post:

What are the communication challenges in Asia?

From a reputational perspective, the first answer is easy.

#1. Digital media and the networked ecosystem.  Perhaps nothing has changed the corporate communication and reputational landscape as has social media.  Today nearly every stakeholder carries in a purse or pocket a high quality digital device capable of sharing opinions, uploading videos, or sharing images at a moment’s notice.  The importance these technologies play in building community and movements has been subject to much debate since the Arab Spring.  While I do not wish to drag us through that debate once again, I do feel one thing is certain.

Companies today are now immersed, in part because of these technologies, in a complex web of interconnected constituents who know what everyone else is saying about your organization.  The reputational consequences are profound.

#2.  Emerging economies, fragmented markets, and capitalism.  Many of the countries with ASEAN and the surrounding region (e.g., China and India) are emerging economies.  They are moving from relatively centralized control to either state capitalism or open-market systems (or some hybrid between).  Governments are becoming more open to foreign investment (less protective), media are becoming more independent and investigative, technology is bringing in rapid change and rapid exchanges of information, and companies are competing regionally if not globally.

However, one size does not fit all.  Asia’s economic landscape is one of highly fragmented markets.  Some markets practice state capitalism while others lean toward open markets.  Cultures and languages are diverse.  Regulatory environments differ.  Despite talk of working toward one Asian market, the simple truth is that from a  communicator’s perspective these markets are often fragmented and quite different.

The operating environment as described her represents a profound change for communicators and reputation managers.  The increased importance of Asian markets to the global economy brings with it this web of interconnected stakeholders (described above) who are watching more closely than ever before.

#3. Are we prepared?  Burson-Marsteller’s Asia Pacific President and CEO, has asked this question in a recent Holmes Report article.  As Asia’s economies and businesses continue to rise in importance, increasingly we see more communication campaigns being run from this side of the globe.  This change is happening at a time when we widely discuss communication talent and bemoan the shortage of local executives who have been fully prepared to lead the global initiatives.

Helping to create such a talent pool, universities such as my employer (SMU) are creating postgraduate business degrees to prepare communicators for the world of executive decision making and global business.  While a great start, I feel university degrees are only a start.

As the people responsible for communicating with stakeholders and protecting the corporate reputation, how well are we preparing our own team for the demands of global business?  How many people on your team can read a financial statement and understand the ratios?  How well do we understand markets and our competition, allowing us to have that much coveted seat at the table?

If we do not help build such a talent pipeline, who will?

I have watched our operating environment change rapidly over the past ten years.  We need to deal effectively with the demands of digital channels, must work across diverse and fragmented markets, and develop our future leaders in a way that, most likely, we were never prepared.

For me, I cannot think of more interesting and demanding challenges to get me out of bed each morning.

By Michael Netzley, PhD