Bailout Brands: Fixing A Tarnished Image

AIG, American Express, Chrysler, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, General Motors, and so many more storied brands received billions of dollars in public monies as a life-line for short-term survival.

According to media reports, many Americans (including customers of these brands) are chagrined or worse by this use of tax dollars. And the management of brands that accepted public monies–having survived the specter of short-term demise–is now undoubtedly worried about the long-term damage to their brand reputations. Auto sales data already shows consumer favor swinging toward Ford, a brand that did not take bailout money, and away from Chrysler and GM, brands that did. We will see if the same holds true for financial services brands.

What should these bailout brands do now to win back the goodwill and potential customer revenue that was lost when they accepted federal money? (Beyond quickly repaying the taxpayers with interest, of course!) The key will be actively and strategically managing brand perceptions.

For one, I think these bailout brands need to demonstrate publicly that they’ve in fact learned from this event. The situation is similar to when a celebrity missteps. Any PR consultant worth their fee will advise them to accept responsibility and, more importantly, share what they’ve learned from the experience. What seems to be working for Michael Vick should work for Citigroup and GM. In the case of the bailout brands, it probably also means describing the policy changes that were made as a result of their predicament.

Next, management must be changed. Consumers and customers of these bailout brands will not be persuaded to forgive these companies if they see the same executives, or the same ilk of executives, managing these companies post bailout. The fastest way to signal a sea change is through a new captain and executive team.

Bailout brands must realize they live under a different set of expectations post bailout. They must be better than their competition. They must do more. They must reach out more to consumers and customers and do more for them than the competition. Better products. Better service. Better attitude. Better citizenry. And, probably, better prices. Bottom line, bailout brands must be more “above board” than their competitors because they are under more scrutiny than their competition. Obviously, they should not pay large bonuses to the executives who were responsible for causing the brand to need a bailout in the first place.

Trust and brand reputation can be lost quickly, but it takes years to rebuild them. But by realizing what it will take and proactively pursuing that course with dedication and much energy, the time a bailout brand will need to regain their former reputation will be minimized.

Related posts