Brand trust is unique. It’s the only brand experience that both companies and customers can take to the bank.

Well said.

Should companies identify themselves in social networks using brand names or employee names?

What do you think? Feel free to add a comment and explain why.

3. an operator that leaves unchanged the element on which it operates; “the identity under numerical multiplication is 1″ [syn: identity element, identity operator] (From http://definr.com/identity)

Continuing to stretch this metaphor as far as it will be stretched, an identity operator can be a metaphor for a representative of an organization who acts in a way that is consistent with the corporate brand and thereby helps preserve  the company’s reputation.

These are the people you want to have working for you, right? These are the people who — no matter what part of the business they work in — understand that everything they do has an impact on their customers and how their company is perceived.

Every employee is a brand ambassador.

2. collective aspect of the set of characteristics by which a thing is recognizable or known (From http://definr.com/identity)

According to the Glossary of Marketing Communications Terminology, corporate reputation is “a complex mix of characteristics, such as ethos, identity and image, that go to make up a company’s public personality. Corporate reputation hinges on investor confidence, unlike brand reputation which is contingent on customer confidence and reflected in sales.”

The complexity of reputation is fascinating, and I think the idea of reputation management is, in many ways, purely aspirational. The elements that contribute to a reputation have so many stakeholders in an organization that it’s impossible to consistently and effectively manage every facet of all interactions at all times.

Also, I’m not convinced that investor confidence is the sole driver of corporate reputation. Take a company like  R. J. Reynolds, for example. At the time of this writing, their stock isn’t soaring, but $47 a share isn’t too shabby for a company that’s hated by millions. (Need another example? How about Exxon?) Are we supposed to believe that R. J. Reynolds has a good reputation because their stock is performing adequately? I’m not buying that.

But I digress. The key point here is that reputation is a complex mix of characteristics. By contrast, brand is: “The set of physical attributes of a product or service, together with the beliefs and expectations surrounding it – a unique combination which the name or logo of the product or service should evoke in the mind of the audience. Product identification by word, name, symbol, design, or a combination of these.”

Whichever definition you prefer as better representing the gestalt of the impressions an organization makes on is various audiences through all the ways that it touches them, reputation or brand, it’s equally true that our feelings about an organization are shaped by a multitude of factors.

The collective aspect of corporate reputation (and brand) is in the hands of every employee, regardless of job title or function. It’s not  just about stock performance or unit sales. It obviously includes the tone and quality of customer service and support, the face of retail merchandising, or the impact of manufacturing on a local community.

Corporate reputation is too complex for any individual or professional team too manage. Arguably, it’s too complex for most corporations to manage. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t worth trying….