"Brand CEOs": The Case of Martha Stewart
CEO as a Brand Cont....
<< PreviousAnalysts observedMSOdistancing itself fromits founderMartha Stewart, and its rebranding initiatives,when it launched a newmagazine, Everyday Food, in January 2003, downplaying her role. The magazine had her name in small print, with no photograph of her's on the cover. A TV show Pet Keeping was also started without Martha's image. Also, it was reported thatMSO was trying to change the name of its flagship magazine Martha Stewart Living to Everyday Living. Another publication called Organizing Good Things, without Martha branding, is being tested. Nevertheless, it was felt that an attempt to distanceMSO fromMartha should be executed with greater care and balance. She being a strong personal brand, too much distancing would be as dangerous as a lack of it, during such a crisis.
|
However, there are some experts who are optimistic about MSO's future. Commenting on howcustomers would react to a split between the 'real'Martha andMartha Stewart's brand image, Christopher Byron, the author of an unauthorized biography of Martha Stewart, noted that it was Martha Stewart’s message that appealed to people, who "were not likely to be dissuaded from it when they find that it bears no relationship to the real Martha Stewart."21 Nonetheless, Martha being a strong personal brand, that got through the three 'C' test22 - clarity, consistency, and constancy - should thrive during economic downturns, and "remain a standard bearer of style whether or not she goes to prison."23 Experts noted that a company that gained an institutional identity is less vulnerable to a crisis when its CEO has a personal problem, than a company that depends on the CEO's charismatic persona. "Leaderswho are charismatic can destabilize a corporation in dangerous ways."24 Jim Collins, a management expert and a best-selling author pointed out the danger of 'celebrity CEOs', and indicated the need for 'Level 5' leaders who are humble and modest. However, Martha Stewart states, "I am a hard working CEO of a very successful company. Celebrity comes fromsomething else."25 |
|
In the wake of increasing corporate scandals in the early 21st century, the Martha Stewart
episode raised once again the question of corporate ethics and government regulation in
an increasingly capitalistic, rather liberalizing economy. While some prescribed more
government intervention and stringent punishment for dishonest executives, others believed
that government intervention alone would not substitute for what Adam Smith called
"temperance, decency, modesty and moderation" in the behaviour of corporate executives.
Andrew S. Grove, Chairman, Intel Corp., urged for addressing the real problems in
corporations "without demonizing and demoralizing the managers whose entrepreneurial
energy is needed"26 to drive the economy. "I hope that themarket comes upwith a solution,"
said Wharton Professor David Larcker, "so that one doesn’t have to be legislated."27 However, in order to lead themarkets in the future, companies find it imperative to think and
work hard on ethics and corporate social responsibility, and to have measures to prevent
scandals instead of reacting to them after they came out into the open.
With Martha Stewart's case, the corporate world was alerted once again, when the age-old
precept echoed from the oblivion…
Thou shalt not lie. Amen.
22]Arruda William, "The Three C's of Personal Branding", www.brandchannel.com
23]"Martha's conviction could hurt Kmart", www.suntimes.com, March 10th 2004
24]Khurana Rakesh, "The Curse of the Superstar CEO", Harvard Business Review, September 2002
25]www.ceogo.com/CHARISMA/index.html
26Grove Andrew S., "CEOs are the scapegoats of the corporate scandal", www.siliconvalley.com, July 18th 2002
27]Maughan Greg, "Prof discusses history of scandals in business", www.dailypennsylvanian.com, April 10th 2003
