Noah and Scot’s recent blogs have highlighted the unique nature of corporate reputation: it can be an incredible asset or liability to a corporation, but one you will never find on any corporate balance sheet. Instead, the reputation of a corporation is defined in the minds of thousands of different individuals, each with a different connection to the company.

Proactive communications teams have long understood that the needs of all of these stakeholders – whether customers, shareholders, employees, or advocates – must be satisfied, and the proper information provided to each. The best teams have also realized that there is considerable overlap between stakeholder groups, and have endeavored to keep the messaging consistent across these segments. After all, each stakeholder is an individual as well: the portfolio manager who owns thousands of shares may also be a consumer of your product; the employee who handles procurement by day may be a radical blogger by night.

Balancing this dichotomy -- the commitment to maintaining a consistent message, and the requirement of personalization – is where communications teams often run into trouble.

With the current emphasis on social media, many communications teams have focused too much on the idea of targeted messaging by reaching out to bloggers or Tweeters in hopes of getting their message across. Unfortunately, this has caused a backlash against the communications profession. So many people reached to Mommy Bloggers, for example, that there were calls for a week-long boycott of PR pitches.

The overall message has changed entirely. Instead of receiving positive corporate outreach, consumers are receiving messages about aggressive PR tactics. These bloggers are most likely customers, and in all possibility shareholders or employees of the corporations who are now spamming them through PR efforts.

Communications professionals must understand that these tactics will alter the perceptions of brand in the minds of these individuals, which will ultimately influence corporate reputation. What effect will these PR tactics have on corporate reputation in the minds of these individuals?

Targeted messaging is necessary and important; but corporate communicators must never lose sight of the overall message they are conveying. Personalization and outreach to specific groups must always be balanced with overall message consistency and maintaining a positive corporate image at all levels. When communicators lose that balance, that intangible corporate reputation stops becoming an asset and becomes a serious liability.

What’s your company’s non-market approach? Is it to respond only once pressures become too great to ignore, or is it proactive and do you try to anticipate issues and stem them before they take root?

These questions are now facing Budweiser’s marketing department.

Recently the company started a promotion called Team Pride where university themed cans of Bud Light have taken the shelves near major university campuses. This has started a controversy that focuses on the issue of underage drinking.

Opposition against the promotion is growing from groups such as the Collegiate Licensing Co., University of Michigan’s lawyers, and university doctors. Marketing campaigns that touch on volatile non-market issues, such as minors and alcohol, will inevitably attract interest group pressure and wind up hurting the bottom line in the long run.

Take the 1988 example of Hallmark and their graduation cards. In time for university graduations the company printed coming-of-age greeting cards that featured alcoholic beverages on the front; coincidentally one card featured a can of Budweiser. Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) rallied against the cards, suggesting that they would promote underage drinking amongst high school grads. MADD captured media attention and ordered the cards off store shelves. Hallmark conceded.

The short-lived cards cost the company printing and delivery costs for a situation that would have easily been avoided had they been more proactive in their non-market mindset. The attack on Hallmark came from an angle that the company perhaps failed to consider – the concurrent release of the cards with high school graduation. MADD’s opposition was an unintended consequence to a message that has wide cultural acceptance when considered in the right context. Hallmark simply failed to see all the possible angles and threats.

Budweiser, on the other, has walked right into a seemingly obvious non-market threat. Even to the uniformed, the company deals with a product that has clear outside threats, which is why this particular campaign reveals Budweiser’s true marketing colors and non-market approach - act now and respond later.

In order to quell some of the opposition, Budweiser may have considered an outreach program prior to the promotion coupled with a different communications strategy. Communication with university health organizations and messaging that stressed responsible drinking would have been effective – Show Your Team Colors Responsibly, rather than Show Your True Colors.

A non-market approach that uses the “act now, respond later” approach is fine given there is preparedness for the outcomes. In Budweiser’s case they made the choice to respond to pressure once it occurred. Their only option at this point is to be responsive, which they have done by responding to requests to remove product from stores near campuses. However, that said, with the incorporation of an anticipatory non-market strategy this campaign would have been more a success.