Michael D. Moberly is a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator. This post is one of 1,200+ published at the Business Intangible Asset Blog. Thanks for reading…

 The reputation of a business, an institution, a leader, and/or a cause, etc., in which there appear to be a designed (motivated – incentivized) effort to humiliate, emasculate, and/or decimate, can be interpreted today as an attempt to assassinate.

Reputational risks today, are sometimes akin to ‘reputation assassinations’ in which commentary is ambitiously and single-mindedly aimed at a particular business, institution, leader, practice, behavior, and/or action, sometimes irrespective of reality or truth.

Today, business – leader reputations and most all of what they do and/or have done, can be exposed (becomes vulnerable) to various interpretations or formulas for foul play, i.e., assassination.

I do not use the word ‘assassination’ speciously, rather, I believe, aptly, as it characterizes the asymmetric nature and keystroke speed which reputation risks can materialize, often as nefariously intended, and to escalate.

Throughout my decades of engagements with business leaders, management teams, boards, IP counsel, security professionals, investors, and audiences, it’s evident that many, despite their successes, experiences, and expertise, are variously unversed in and/or unconvinced that reputation risk safeguards and mitigation strategies are contributary, necessary, effective, or fiduciarily obliged.

I am hard pressed to describe any business by sector, size, products, services, revenues, maturation, standing, locale, or stage of innovation, etc., in which their valuation, attractivity, competitiveness, revenue generation capability, and operating culture, etc., is unaffected by their reputation.

In numerous instances, the concept of ‘brand’ seems to have supplanted and/or superseded ‘reputation’ as the primary context to describe notions, thoughts, perceptions, or conceptions held for a product, service, leader, or concept.

Today, reputational risk(s) can materialize asymmetrically, at the will and timing of others, for an array of motives and/or incentives to effect businesses and leaders’ reputations at keystroke speeds.

Disturbingly, commentary in either of its forms of messaging (platforms, venues), can be structured and directed to effect reputation, whether revealing, provocative, argumentative, thought-provoking, or deceptively conspirative.

As such, language – commentary can inspire likes-shares and produce cascading (viral) effects which ripple throughout an enterprise, its mission, leadership, operating culture, stakeholders, and supply – revenue chains for interpretation, influence, and perhaps reaction.

It’s central to my professional role, felt obligations, and contributions as a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator to describe key universalities to business reputation, ala products, services, leadership, valuation, competitiveness, etc. Reputations…

• are intangible – non-physical (preferably) assets which distinguish and differentiate as desirable – attractive (sought after) preferences.

• can emerge from – be rooted in personal experiences, observations, study, and/or external (influential) sources which one is receptive.

• are variously comprised of perceptions, opinions, sentiments, notions, impressions, thoughts, feelings, perspectives, attitudes, and/or beliefs which one may be receptive – finds attractive.
• often reflect how and why one frames, understands, and responds to particular- circumstances, felt needs, demands, or an operating culture.
• can become undesirable detractions, which undermine, adversely affect, and/or detract from perception of desirability, and come to serve as business – leadership liabilities to be avoided.
• can be assessable, quantifiable, and measurable insofar as revealing how-ways reputation contributes to a business, an institution, its products, services, and operating culture’ e.g., valuation, competitiveness, revenue generation capability, durability, sustainability, and attractivity.

Business – leader specific reputational risks which materialize can vary in significance to, effects on, but are almost always tests of (business-organization-brand) resilience (durability, elasticity).

Business – leader responses – reactions to reputational risks are usually designed to stabilize perceptions of capability, durability, sustainability to/for stakeholders.

Reputation risks may also materialize nefariously with intentions to produce captivating doubts and/or mesmerizing questions to destabilize, undermine, and/or offset economic – competitive initiatives undertaken elsewhere.

It’s worth noting that most business – leadership reputation risks used to be influenced – driven primarily by incentivized forms of greed and/or notoriety, e.g., hits, clicks, likes, and shares, etc.

I encourage leaders, boards, stakeholders, and investors (across sectors) to regard all reputational risks which materialize, and threats thereof, can be indicators of something other than business as usual.

Arguably today, additional reputational risks appear motivated – influenced by ideology and/or are conspirative, e.g., presenting pieces to a secret and nefarious puzzle (which bears little or no basis in fact or reality and can be readily fact checked and disputed).

Of course, business leaders are obliged to recognize that receptivity to and fascination with fermenting misinformation – disinformation is no longer merely a cottage industry.

 Unfortunately, vulnerabilities, probabilities, and criticalities associated with the materialization of reputational risks are often (still) framed in conventional risk management contexts insofar as assessing – portraying probable (durations) of impairments and cost of rebuilds.

I respectfully encourage business leaders, et al, and investors, to consider that seldom are convention-laden perspectives and/or past practices, standing alone, sufficient to deter, mitigate, offset, or recuperate from hard-hitting and escalating reputation risks.

Especially, when social media prowess conveys – celebrates a seemingly infinite receptivity to learning how, why, and when others and/or their work are suddenly and perhaps satisfyingly impugned. In some instances, one’s receptivity may include ideological, social, and/or economic – competitive advantage gratification.

Readers are invited to examine ‘Safeguarding Intangible Assets’ a book I authored at https://kpstrat.com/books/ 

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various business economic – operational realities. Business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors report benefiting from these posts, e.g., mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges which produce reputational risks, are obligations with little room or time for equivocation or error.

The Business Intangible Asset Blog was created in 2006 and now includes 1200+ topic-specific- long form posts. Posts are intended to provide readers with unique and reliable insights on current matters related to – affecting business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly (not AI). Posts are intended to draw readers attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation obligations necessary today for business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are also invited to explore other posts, along with books and papers available @ ‘Home – kpstrat