Marketing: The potential PR branding power of the CEO

published 2005

How many Australians are likely to view Toohey’s beer more favourably because a younger CEO Rob Murray has taken over from the now-retired Gordon Cairns? 

Will Commonwealth Bank become ‘sexier’ because Ralph Norris has replaced the very sober David Murray? Hearing Murray talk was like watching someone lay bricks. Will Norris be able to project an image more in keeping with today’s clicks?

What does Geoff Dixon’s continued gruff efforts to paint Qantas as ‘struggling to survive against the forces of evil’ do for the perception of the Qantas brand among travellers?

Do any of these three perceive that their personalities and the way they behave publicly have the potential to add - or take away - value from their brand among users of their product? 

If you believe US research, CEOs have more impact on the brand than ever before. And, as traditional advertising is increasingly struggling to achieve penetration - let alone credibility - with consumers, they are increasingly using it.

“To the degree that PR professionals can skilfully develop an aura that shows that a CEO lives the brand, that sends a very strong message,” says Suzanne Hogan of brand-strategy consultancy Lippincott Mercer whose annual survey has just been reported by Chief Executive Magazine.

In fact Chief Executive Magazine goes so far as to proffer: ‘Measuring and monitoring a brand’s health are the most important corner-office characteristics, but CEOs public personalities take the cake’.

In the US, CEOs of consumer brand companies have traditionally had more of a public profile than in Australia. There are several reasons:

• Many of the biggest brands are publicly-listed entities giving the CEO more public profile.
• The more flamboyant nature of American society and the different style of media.
• America is the home of free enterprise and those who succeed have traditionally been feted.

According to Lippincott Mercer and Chief Executive Magazine, top CEOs know that it takes more than just advertising and marketing to build a brand. 

They say the top Brand Leaders who best practiced this philosophy during 2005 were Steve Jobs (Apple Computer), Jim Donald (Starbucks), Kevin Rollins (Dell), Meg Whitman (eBay), James Ziemer (Harley Davidson), Fred Smith (FedEx), Jeff Bezos (Amazon.com) and Gary Kelly (Southwest Airlines).

All of these, to a large degree, live their company’s brand and their personality is intertwined with the brand and how it is perceived.

Linking CEOs to the brand is an extension to other research which has shown that up to 50% of a company’s reputation depends on the CEOs reputation. However, reputation is often more tied to stakeholders such as shareholders and retailers. Appealing to consumers is different.

So what is the scene in Australia? Does the behaviour of local CEOs suggest they are mindful of their potential power over the brand?

Arguably the best exponent in recent years has been Brett Godfrey of Virgin Blue. He has carefully and deliberately ensured his profile was not only in keeping with the brand - but actually led it.

Another was Guy Russo from McDonalds. He personally led the ‘salad meals’ initiative for McDonalds and in the process helped shift perceptions of the product and the chain at a critical time when the restaurant chain was under attack.

It is no coincidence that both chose PR as the prime communications tool, and were consequently supported by strong and active PR machines.

John Symonds of Aussie Loans has done well too. But his has been done primarily through the weight of conventional advertising - not that this should take anything away from his efforts.

The problem in a small country is that CEOs face conflicts trying to balance the needs of various stakeholders.

It is only in recent years that some Australian CEOs have grasped that the investment community - and their own shareholders - demand a commitment of time and effort. It almost seems that the personality and approach needed for the investment community cannot be matched with being a brand leader. 

Brett Godfrey of Virgin Blue is an example. He was brilliant at relating to the consumer. Some would argue he was a disaster relating to the investment community.

The classic case in Australia at the moment is American import Sol Trujillo as CEO of Telstra. He has chosen to attack the Government and the regulators. One wonders what impact his approach is having on the Telstra brand in the eyes of consumers.

When Trujillo arrived in Australia he was reported as saying he was disappointed that Telstra was not running a co-ordinated advertising campaign promoting the Telstra brand - and was instead promoting down product silos. If a corporate image advertising campaign was to be mounted by Telstra one wonders how successful it could be against the other ‘noise’ emanating from the CEO through the media.

Geoff Dixon of Qantas is another who has made the decision that it is in the business’s best interests to be antagonistic - and to prioritise political air rights and union brinkmanship. That choice makes it impossible for him to also be a brand leader - but in abdicating that role does that cost Qantas? Qantas still runs its patriotic image building advertisements - but are they being undermined by the behaviour of the CEO?

Arguably James Strong was much more appropriate as a brand leader - but did Qantas perform as well as a business under his reign? Again it’s a matter of choices and deciding what’s best for the business.

Should Rob Murray of Lion Nathan - who is a brand marketer by background - consciously engage in a PR strategy to link himself more with his brands? He has the image to make it work.  But would it influence drinkers?

Being a woman has clear advantages in aligning with the brand - witness St George Bank’s Gail Kelly. In New Zealand, the advent of a woman - Theresa Guttung - as CEO of Telecom has offered similar advantages. Again, both -especially NZ Telecom - have played the PR cards quite cleverly to exploit these two personalities to support the brand.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that fewer Australian CEOs personally get behind their brands compared to their American counterparts. Are they reluctant, or simply unaware of the advantages of doing so?  Or do they not believe it will work here as well as it does in the US (and elsewhere)?

Will times change? Will the advent of a younger breed of CEOs help? Will consumer fatigue with traditional advertising encourage marketing directors and brand and product managers to exhort their CEOs to become brand champions though using PR techniques in this way?

The author of this article - Grant Common - is a Sydney-based independent advisor who helps PR Manager's get the best out of their PR Department and/or PR agency.  He also blogs regularly on topics similar to this.