I mentioned in a post a couple of weeks back that I was slightly unsure of how to approach the presentation on reputation I was due to give at the Public Affairs Action Day.
In short, we all know reputation matters in Public Affairs, but there are multiple potential scenarios at play: some PA professionals struggle with reputational issues yet only have a PA remit, others can do more far-reaching reputation management beyond Brussels, while others have an excellent commercial reputation which they need to “translate” for a Brussels audience. And within each scenario, there are many nuances: trade association vs. company, for instance.
I ended up focusing on principles and ideas applicable across the board, but shied away from real “reputation management” seen as an exercise beyond mere communications. I also presented a few findings from Fleishman-Hillard’s imminent Authenticity Gap study, which compares how industries are expected to perform vs. how they actually do perform across nine drivers of reputation. Any questions, fire away.
Steffen Moller 
I like the brand effecting the policy slide.. Very true. Something I always known but never quantified The more lobbyist wake up to the fact that policy is a brand/product as well and not special because it’s policy, the better communications Brussels will have i.e. the incentive will change from high level needlessly complex white papers to digestible info. Where these studies mostly done with polling and focus groups?
Hi Chandler, I don’t know about the policy brand research, it’s not ours. The Authenticity Gap research is though, done through focus groups consisting of “expert consumers” i.e. people who know the sectors very well, as their views are deemed to be the best predictors of future reputation.