“I believe in getting into hot water; it keeps you clean.”

– G.K. Chesterton

Sometimes it’s good for brands to get into trouble — that is, for customers, and the public generally, to begin to question if a brand is what it says it is. In fact, I would argue that the more sudden and urgent the brand crisis, the better it is for the brand.

Whole Foods Market is a good example of a brand in crisis that has used its troubles as a wake-up call to shore up its reputation. When Whole Foods was forced to recall beef from its shelves in August in an E. coli outbreak, customers suddenly wondered whether its quality standards were really that much higher than other big-box grocers. It hasn’t helped that food prices have been going up across the board and the economy is in a shambles. In many consumers’ minds, Whole Foods had become “Whole Wallet.”

Since the beef crisis, Whole Foods has been working hard to prove that it is different — and not necessarily as expensive as everyone thinks. The retailer has blogged about the crisis, issued comparison shopping challenges, and reinforced its quality claims.

What if there hadn’t been a brand crisis for Whole Foods? What if the retailer had simply continued to charge high prices, had gradually lost its quality distinction in its customers’ minds, and little by little its growth slowed until, over a period of years, it began to lose market share?

Compared to this fate — which has befallen too many brands to count — a crisis that gets a company’s management moving sounds pretty good, doesn’t it?

I’ve managed my share of brand crises over the years, and with few exceptions, they’ve ended up being good for the companies involved.

As the Wall Street Journal’s Jerry Seib opined today in reference to our current economic troubles and the opportunity they present for President-elect Obama:

The thing about a crisis — and crisis doesn’t seem too strong a word for the economic mess right now — is that it creates a sense of urgency. Actions that once appeared optional suddenly seem essential. Moves that might have been made at a leisurely pace are desired instantly.

The same benefit is true for brands — particularly at Fortune 1000 companies, where the bureaucracy levels can rival those of Congress.

“A brand for a company is like a reputation for a person.”

– Jeff Bezos

Branding is all about personification — giving human traits to things that aren’t human.

If you think about it, Nike, or Disney, or the company where you work are no more than a stack of papers filed by a lawyer somewhere. They are legal entities created specifically so that their activities are considered separate from those of the people who formed them (for liability, tax and other reasons.)

But a stack of legal papers can’t make decisions, or have a personality, or do anything but sit there. And we’ve established that the corporation is distinct from the people who created it or who run it; they can leave the company at any time. The only thing that really holds a corporation together is its shareholders — and they’re here today and gone tomorrow as well.

So really, there’s no there there — is there?

Well, yes and no.

Brands Create Continuity

You see, whenever a shareholder sells his or her stock in a company, the buyer has certain expectations of continuity. And the people the shareholders entrust to run the company are expected to maintain (and increase) the company’s value by meeting these expectations — not only in terms of sheer dollars and cents, but by having a predictable business model that shareholders can count on for the long term.

And that’s where branding comes in. Branding communicates the continuity of a company’s business model — to shareholders, to customers, to employees. It says, “This is the kind of person we are — if we were actually a person.”

So Disney is family-oriented, fun, magical. Nike is outdoorsy, rugged, adventurous. And so on and so on. To the extent a company’s products, advertising and other projections of itself support these traits, the brand has continuity — which over time, can become a company’s most valuable asset.

In this sense, it is like your reputation or mine.

Corporations as Wannabe Humans

But there’s a point at which branding is not the same as reputation. At a certain point, we must face the fact that while people actually are human, corporations are merely wannabes. This has all sorts of implications for PR — and specifically, for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) programs.

I help companies with their brands for a living. I think one reason I’m good at it is that I don’t blow sunshine up people’s behinds. So here’s the deal:

Corporations are not human. And that’s a good thing, because if they were human, they would be sociopaths. This isn’t a cheap shot. A sociopath is a person who is interested only in their personal needs and desires. By definition, corporations are designed expressly to serve the interests of their shareholders — and only those interests.

ROI of CSR

Yes, CSR programs can do good. The thing to keep in mind is, these programs only exist to the extent shareholders can be convinced that the spending will ultimately boost the bottom line — like any other marketing expenditure. It’s the equivalent of doing something good so someone will see you doing it.

People are smart enough to know when someone is doing good for the right reasons — and they value these efforts far more than they value the efforts of those who do it for appearances’ sake (like corporate brands).

So what does this mean in terms of dollars? Let’s say you’re a large corporation that spends $50 million annually on CSR. Now, let’s say the public only values your spending about half as much as they do that of a grassroots organization whose motives are considered pure. Well, that means you’re spending $50 million to buy $25 million worth of good will.

Maybe you’re Exxon, and considering your reputation, this still sounds like a pretty good deal to you. Or maybe there are other places to better spend your money.

All of which is to say that a brand for a company is like a reputation for a person — except when it’s not. To keep your bearings, and hold on to your soul, in today’s corporate world, it’s important to know the difference.

Image source

Recently, as we were flipping through Playboy for the articles, we happened upon a reader survey that asked which of five fantasy-inducing women’s professions was the sexiest. The results:

1. Cheerleader (42 percent)
2. Nurse (20)
3. French maid (15)
4. Stewardess (12)
5. Woman cop (10)

It occurred to us that this sexual stereotyping — perpetuated by scantily clad women at Halloween parties annually — is a form of branding. It affects what both men and women think of these professions. In fact, it almost certainly impacts who enters these careers, the pay scale, job satisfaction, and on and on.

Our question is, on balance, are these stereotypes a plus or minus for these five professions?

CHEERLEADER

Adult women don’t step into a cheerleader’s uniform unless they want to be viewed in a sexual context — at least not since Tex Schramm reinvented the profession in 1972.

As Camille Paglia writes, “In my youth, the blond cheerleader occupied the glittering apex of the high-school social pyramid. It seemed that feminism might sweep her away, but no, she went professional in a big way with the Dallas Cowboys at their 1970s, Roger Staubach-era height … Only retrograde Dworkinite prudes could fail to see that the cheerleader’s sassy physicality is itself a product of modern women’s liberation …

“[T]he boob-shimmying, tail-wagging, crotch-baring cheerleader doing her jumps and splits is a prime example of what I call pagan exhibitionism, a sacred, life-affirming, sensual principle that Judeo-Christianity has never been able to bury. Her vibrating, multicolored pompoms are the spring flowers of the goddess, breeze-blown promises of eternal fertility (see Botticelli’s “Primavera”). Like manic dandelions, they tickle and they flail, whipping up the masses into Dionysian enthousiasmos, a frenzied state of can-do ecstasy that ignites the team to victory.”

Hear, hear.

Stereotype Impact Index: POSITIVE

NURSE

This is actually a very serious issue for the Center for Nursing Advocacy, which believes that “linking sexual images so closely to the profession of nursing — to even the fantasy idea that working nurses are sexually available to patients … continue[s] to discourage practicing and potential nurses, foster sexual violence in the workplace, and contribute to a general atmosphere of disrespect. Desexualizing the nursing image is a key part of building the strength the profession needs to overcome the current shortage, which threatens lives worldwide, and to meet the challenges of 21st Century health care …

“Naughty nurse and other stereotypical images add to the chronic underfunding of nursing research, education and clinical practice. This is because health care decision makers–many of whom are sadly uninformed about what nursing really is–are less likely to devote scarce resources to a profession that has become so degraded in the public consciousness.”

OK — maybe the Center for Nursing Advocacy is a little hardcore (sorry, poor choice of words.) But they do make some good points.

Stereotype Impact Index: NEGATIVE

FRENCH MAID

Since we only come across French maids at Dallas Halloween parties, we’ll throw in au pairs and exchange students as an extension of the French maid brand. And in the U.S., at least, the stereotypes may contribute to the dangers facing young women coming here from abroad, which are documented on the Committee for Safety of Foreign Exchange Students’ Web site.

Stereotype Impact Index: NEGATIVE

STEWARDESS

Of course, the problems here start with the job title itself; it’s “flight attendant” now. As Wikipedia explains, “Particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, the airlines [advertised] the attractiveness and friendliness of their “stewardesses.” National Airlines used pictures of attractive stewardesses with captions like “I’m Kristin. Fly me.” Another airline, Braniff Airways, had them changing clothes during the flight, wearing one garment while greeting passengers and another for serving meals. In advertisements, this practice was called the “air strip,” and was advertised with suggestive music. A policy of at least one airline required that only unmarried women could be flight attendants, and airlines often fired attendants that were deemed too old or unattractive.”

By the 80s, this go-go era of the “sexy stewardess” had come to a close, as the NLRB and flight attendant unions brought an end to age limits, size limits, and limitations on marriage and pregnancy. Last year, Hooters Air — an ambitious attempt to revive the days of the sexy stewardess – announced its defeat.

So really, all that’s left of this once harmful stereotype is the lingering perception that flight attendants are fun-loving and attractive. Since most attendants entering the profession remain young, single and looking for adventure, such associations aren’t necessarily a bad thing.

Stereotype Impact Index: NEUTRAL

WOMAN COP

The “sexy lady cop” stereotype is a little different from the rest; the others play off roles men associate — or at least used to associate — with women, such as (1) cheering us on, (2) caring for us when we’re sick, (3) cleaning the house, and (4) bringing us very small bags of peanuts. The lady cop stereotype, by contrast, plays to men’s submissive side.

But it’s certainly a hassle that real women cops don’t need. Alone among the professions we’re discussing here, law enforcement is male-dominated; women have fought for years to earn equal treatment and respect. As one recent study concludes, “Women police officers continue to face career barriers in the form of discrimination, negative stereotyping and sexual harassment.”

Stereotype Impact Index: NEGATIVE

(This is a re-post, rejiggered for Halloween. Pics from — where else? — Costume World, Nyteez and Adult Costume Shop.)

Technorati tags: Nurses, Cheerleaders, Stewardesses, French Maids, Women Cops, Playboy, Stereotypes

Damn, we’re good. Here’s this week’s New York Times story.

And here’s our exclusive report from Oct. 5.

Maybe Dubya and the Surge just need better branding.