It takes 20 years to build a reputation, and 5 minutes to ruin it

Despite extensive global television coverage, long-term exposure of around 3 weeks, and a loyal audience following; it would appear big brands are starting to have their fill of the Tour de France. Revelations earlier this year that star of the sport, Lance Armstrong, had lied, cheated, and doped his way to success, consistently throughout his career: added to a decade of similar scandals, is making sponsorship more risky than ever before and for some, it is a step too far.

Significantly, after 17 years of sponsorship, Rabobank ended its association over concerns as to whether the sport is “clean and fair”. Also, according to a new study from Cycling News and sports-marketing firm Repucom, only 7 of the top 30 sponsors were global consumer brands.  This is despite the fact the race is suggested by Repucom to provide advertising returns in the region of $5 for every dollar spent and gives access to a largely well-educated, technology-savvy audience with high levels of disposable income.

I think this news goes to show how powerful reputation and the fear of ‘guilt-by-association’ can be. It is no longer enough to just think “am I getting enough exposure?”, you need to go deeper to understand whether it is the right kind of exposure and what it says about you as a company. This is why we measure our success not only on how much coverage we have secured and where; but also how has our client been positioned against their competitors, are the right messages coming across, and are we building the right story for our client.

Protecting our clients’ reputation is a critical part of our job; having a clear understanding of the risks and rewards of each opportunity is the only way we can properly advise. With PR, as opposed to sponsorship and advertising, there is far less control over output or the messages that will come through in the final article. There is no last sign off and journalists will mainly only make corrections if there is something factually incorrect; they will not, however, make changes to articles because they have not been described in the exact way that the marketing team would like.

Bearing this in mind, to help to protect reputations and ensure that the client is positioned in the right way it is crucial to have a clear message for your company, and that all your spokespeople are ‘on-message’ when talking to the press. This does not mean speaking from a script, which is a fast-track to ensuing journalist rage, but just being clear about what the message is and ensuring that comes through in the conversation.

To ensure this, you need to put in the groundwork and really think about the resulting impact any activities could have on your reputation: who are you trying to get your message across to; what are the key take aways that you want the journalist to leave with; where will the coverage be appearing and in what context; and have you thought about the angles and how your words could be interpreted. Through taking this considered approach and planning out the attack in detail right from the start, you can exert more control over the situation and in turn provide greater protection over reputation.