M:I Products

MISSION:INTANGIBLE, the blog of the Intangible Asset Finance Society, offers critical comments on intangible asset, corporate reputation, and finance; supplemented by quantitative reputation metrics. Intangible assets include business processes, patents, trademarks; reputations for ethics and integrity; quality, safety, sustainability, security, and resilience; and comprise 70% of the average company's value. MISSION:INTANGIBLE is a registered trademark of the Intangible Asset Finance Society.

Read future M:I posts via RSS RSS

Target: It's back on

C. HUYGENS - Friday, January 24, 2014
What happened in last year, stays in last year. Target's data breach, as the metrics below indicate, is no longer expected to further impact stakeholder behavior.

The adverse security event did not materially permanently erode reputational value because the company has long had a solid and valuable reputation which supported it during the recent data security crisis. That value acted like a reputation line of credit, back-filling Target's reserves during an unexpected draw down. That value provided much needed resilience.

Of course, like many other safety nets, they work well once and then need to be replaced. They are rarely "rated" for two saves. Target is a company that could use reputational value insurance to help reinforce that value against the next event. As discussed back in December:

Time will tell how significant a hit the incident will be to Target's reputation and sales. Bad events don't necessarily trigger a loss of reputation, said Nir Kossovsky, chief executive of Steel City Re, a Downtown-based insurer of corporate reputational value. The impact will depend on whether customers believe the company took reasonable actions and whether they hold the hackers, rather than Target, culpable for the breach, he said.

"Bad news headlines sting, but it's only a reputation problem if people behave differently because of it," said Jonathan Salem Baskin, managing director at Consensiv, a reputation management firm in Chicago. "There's no indication that shoppers are avoiding the chain, and experts already considered Target a leader in data security, so it's unlikely it will be punished for an all-but unforeseeable event."

The reputational value profile of Target, according to Consensiv and based on Steel City Re's reputational value metrics, is shown below. The profile provides an indication of the value and riskiness of stakholder expectations in the company's controls for such reputation-related processes such as ethics, innovation, safety, sustainability, quality, and in this case, security.

In the month that passed, Target's Reputation Premium is back to its 12-month high, the Consensus Trend, CT, hasdropped back down to its low level of 0.7% among 15 companies in the peer group.

For more background on the Consensiv reputation controls, click here. To view the December 2013 reputational value league table, based on Consensiv's metrics, and available exclusively at CFO.com, click here. Last, to read more about how reputational value is linked to stakeholder expectations and enterprise value, read, Reputation Stock Price and You: Why the market rewards some companies and punishes others (Apress, 2012) (click here).

JC Penny: Pining for Hitler's teapot

C. HUYGENS - Thursday, October 03, 2013
There's bad PR, and then there is reputation-crushing reality that gets publicized. The former is noise.

This past spring, JC Penney (JCP) put a designer teapot on a billboard in Culver City, CA, and at least one viewer thought the thing looked like Adolf Hitler. The social media world lit up. The media covered the buzz. The attention didn't hurt.

The reputation-crushing news, on the other hand, is material. For JC Penny, Hitler's teapot was the good news. As far as the majority of stakeholders are concerned, it's not clear if there is any future. The reputation metrics from Steel City Re suggest that no one is expecting any change from what is a dismal reality. The Vital Signs are abysmal. Current CRR Rank (Reputation Premium) of 0.05 (percentile) among 22 companies in the Department Stores sector; current return on equity at rock bottom; and no expectation of major changes (forecast stability 100th percentile) after a flurry of hope and rise in the Current RVM Volatility (Consensus Trend) a few weeks ago, now sinking at 2.7%.

'Nuff said.

Target and Best Buy: Scoring own goal - not

Nir Kossovsky - Monday, August 09, 2010
In early July, Minneapolis-based Target Corporation (NYSE:TGT) made a $150,000 donation to a local business advocacy group, MN Forward. Six other Minnesota businesses, including Best Buy Co., Inc., (NYSE:BBY), followed suit with $100,000 gifts. MN Forward used the funds to run an ad supporting a socially conservative Republican candidate for Governor, Tom Emmer. The ad for Emmer, who faces an Aug. 10 primary, didn't mention that Emmer’s an outspoken opponent of gay marriages; rather, it focused on his opposition to taxes and spending.

The messenger apparently signaled more than the message. According to the Bloomberg Businessweek story, and what many claim is a self-inflicted reputation crisis,

gay-rights advocates saw the donation as a betrayal by Target, which has long cultivated support among gays by, for example, providing health benefits to domestic partners and sponsoring Twin Cities Pride, an annual celebration. Since the contribution became public, as required under Minnesota law, calls for a boycott and other protests have mounted on YouTube (GOOG) and Facebook. "We feel betrayed," says Jeffrey Henson of Portland, Ore., who started an anti-Target Facebook group that has almost 40,000 followers. Protesters have also stood outside Target stores with placards denouncing the company.

Target’s CEO, Gregg Steinhafel, issued three apologies since late July. The company has not commented on whether or not it will ask for the money back.

Politics aside, the question of interest to the Society is whether or not within all this noise there is a brewing crisis of reputation. According to the Society's lore, and the book, Mission: Intangible, there are three key business processes driving reputation value in the retail sector. These intangible assets are business processes that (1) promote ethical behavior, (2) deliver quality products (price is embedded in quality since it constitutes an expectation), and (3) advance sustainability. Walmart's issue with labor is an example of a reputation that is challenged in the ethical behavior department. But is a campaign contribution with an indirect link to a politically sensitive issue sufficiently material to impact reputation? And if it is so in some cases, can a company have a sufficiently resilient reputation to withstand the challenge?

Let's turn to the metrics. The Steel City Re Corporate Reputation Index does not reveal evidence of a reputation crisis arising from this event. Looking at a reputation metrics snapshot after the markets closed on the day of the rally, 5 August, neither Target nor Best Buy seem to show any material impact attributable to the political donation and the controversy arising.

Target’s reputation has been in the top slot for several months relative to the 16 peer companies in the Department Store sector. Being ranked in the 100th percentile  confers resilience, and so it is not surprising that the kerfuffle this past week, and the smoldering activity this past month, have had no apparent effect. This is confirmed by a quick peek at equity pricing. While TGT has been increasingly underperforming its peers with a -17% relative return over the trailing twelve months measured the week of the donation, and a -24% relative return on 5 August, it does not appear to be linked to the event. This past week, at the height of the protests, there was actually a small relative equity bump as TGT was underperforming the median of its peers by 25% the week before.

Yet even with a firm that may not benefit from reputation resilience, the event appears to been more smoke than fire. Best Buy’s reputation has been on a steady decline since late April when it peaked at the 76% percentile among the 124 companies in the Retailers sector. Over the past month, that decline continued with only a small step jump (drop) of two percentile points this past week. In terms of equity pricing, BBY has been underperforming its peer group for some time, but over this past week reduced that gap from -33% to -28%. In conclusion, based only on the above metrics, there appears to be no reputational consequence attributable to the political contribution.

But there is nevertheless a lesson. The event was not allowed to fester and apologies were quickly issued. As the Wall Street Journal summarizes, "The Target flap shows the potential downside for companies that want to get more involved in politics since a January Supreme Court ruling on campaign contributions. Brand-oriented companies, in particular, worry about getting embroiled in controversies that can tarnish their reputation."

Recent Comments