Business’s reputation (standing, status, name, character, operating culture) are powerful, valuable, influential, sustainable intangible (non-physical) assets. They are obliged to be and certainly warrant safeguarding and mitigating the materialization of arrays of risk which can undermine – devalue either at keystroke speed.

As a longtime business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator, it’s still routine to ‘see and hear’ business leaders (innovators, management teams, boards, and investors) perceptions of risk remain largely focused on and directed to business’s tangible (physical) assets.

A few decades earlier most business operations and economics (across sectors) were indeed reliant – dependent on (proprietarily developing, or buying, and applying) specific tangible-physical assets, e.g., equipment, machinery, systems to create, process, manufacture-assemble and otherwise prepare products or services for distribution, sale, and application.

Today, and for the foreseeable future however, variations of the opposite clearly permeate and dominate most businesses, i.e., their startup, development, maturation, operations, economics, competitiveness, revenue generation capabilities, resiliency, and sustainability.

While there 15 recognized types – categories of intangible assets, see What Are Intangible Assets? – kpstrat I bring attention to and focus on 3, i.e., various forms, contexts, and applications of unique and business specific…

1. intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow)
2. structural capital (processes, procedures)
3. relationship capital (alliances, rapport, liaison, associations), and the
   • proprietary content embedded in issued intellectual property, particularly patents and trade secrets.

That is, across business sectors, irrespective of size, sales, stages, services, locations, products and development – maturation of each, most-more are (increasingly – irreversibly) intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

That intensity, dependency, and reliance is (fiduciarily) obliged to be recognized, differentiated, safeguarded, and risks mitigated because of their ‘mission essentiality’.

Doing otherwise is seldom, if ever, a prudent practice, tactic, or strategy. Especially when 80+/-% of most business’s competitiveness, revenue generation capability, and valuation, etc., lie in – derive from intangibles.

To be sure, some business leaders (innovators, management teams, boards, and investors) may periodically ‘dodge, or outrun momentum stifling bullets of reputational risk.’

Reacting, responding to the often ‘public shouters, shouts, and shouting messaging that produce unparalleled risk to businesses intangible assets, especially reputation, now come with little room or time for equivocation or error.

More specifically, business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible comprise and contribute to 80+% of most business’s differentiation, valuation, competitive standing, and durability and sustainability.  And each can and routinely does (individually, collectively, and/or collaboratively) drive revenue generation capabilities and sustainably characterize a businesses operating culture.

Business leaders, innovators, entrepreneurs, management teams, boards, and investors are (fiduciarily) obliged to develop – hold familiarity with business things intangible.

This includes recognizing, differentiating, assessing, measuring, enhancing, and sustaining which, when, where, how, and why particular forms, contexts, and applications of intangible assets contribute economically and competitively to ‘mission’.

Importantly and practically, business leaders’ familiarity with business things intangible is obliged to include…

• developing – applying the right sets of intangible assets, at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost.
• safeguarding – mitigating risk to proprietary features of each.
• how’s and why’s for differentiating particular-business things intangible as ‘mission essential’.

Recognizing – factoring ways which familiarity with and consistently acting on each are now strategic obligations/imperatives for conceiving, starting, building, developing, and sustaining a commercially viable and sustainable business.

For evidence and sources to the above, readers are respectfully encouraged to peruse ‘topic categories’ at Business Intangible Asset Blog.

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

 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.

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.

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.

The post How Business Leadership Perceives Reputational Risks Today, Really Matters… first appeared on kpstrat.

As a longtime business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator, I still find numerous perceptions of and approaches to addressing business risks by leaders, management teams, boards, and investors fall short.

That is, many intuitive perceptions of risk and methods for risk avoidance, mitigation, and recovery were born in earlier eras in which businesses were largely dependent on creating, buying, holding, and applying physical – tangible assets.

Equipment, machines, structures, and means to acquire materials, manufacture, and transport products are readily observable, touchable, discernable, manufacturable, countable, monitorable, and trackable from raw material to end user throughout value-supply chains.

Accordingly, business leaders’ projections for and differentiation – mitigation of, and insuring against risk, were largely rooted in experiential gauging (best guesstimates) of the vulnerability, probability, criticality, and recoverability of tangible – physical assets which a business held, used, and relied.

Such perceptions and characterizations of business risk, primarily to businesses tangible-physical assets, translated (over years) as standards and/or benchmarks across sectors which conveyed little, if any recognition – appreciation for the growing presence and reliance on the expanding intensity and value-ability of business things intangible.

Unfortunately, many perceptions about business risk as well as recognition, strategic planning and decision-making relative to avoidance, mitigation, and recovery remain rooted perspectives and concepts wherein businesses relied – depended almost wholly on tangible – physical types of assets.

The ‘mission essentiality’ that business leaders, management teams, innovators, R&D administrators, and investors adjust perceptions about where, when, which, how, why risks emerge and materialize, now asymmetrically at key stroke speeds

Lamentably, seldom do I find conventionally framed perceptions of and approaches for mitigating risks to business’s tangible-physical assets (largely developed in previous eras) necessarily, or sufficiently inclusive of present-day asymmetric risks, deliverable at the will and timing of ideological, political, and/or economic ‘others’ seeking some variation of advantage.

Through the ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ which I founded and author, and other direct means, the intent is to respectfully bring present-day experiential-based clarity and attention to these economic and competitive advantage realities…

• developing and sustainably operating most/more businesses irrespective of sector, size, stage of development, maturation, location, products, services, and/or R&D dependency,
• 80+/-% of their brand valuation, reputation, operating culture, competitiveness, revenue generation capability, and the resilience, and sustainability of each are (increasingly, irreversibly, and measurably) intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

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

The post How Business Perceptions of Risk Matter and Why ‘Updates’ Are Necessary… first appeared on kpstrat.

Over two decades of serving businesses, management teams, R&D entrepreneurial ventures, and investors in the unique capacity of business intangible asset strategist – risk mitigator, seldom do I arrive for discussions with parties holding familiarity – practicing strategies specific to the intangible assets they have likely developed, hold as proprietary, and consistently use and rely.

Today, and for the foreseeable future, most businesses irrespective of sector, size, sales, stage of development/maturation, location, products or services, are increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

The distinguishable appeal of businesses brand, product, service, reputation, and operating culture, etc., which convert to valuation, revenue generation capability, and sustainability, etc., depend – derive from developing and introducing the right sets of intangible assets, at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost.

To date, my research, writing, publishing, and engagements have focus primarily on those assets ‘mission essentiality’. That is, I respectfully demonstrate perspectives to distinguish – measure the contributory roles and value adds of business specific intangibles, i.e., if, how, when, and where.

This permits me to legitimately distinguish business’s mission essential intangible assets as primarily originating – existing in various forms, contexts, and applications of unique…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, knowhow).
• structural capital (processes, procedures).
• relationship capital (alliances, partnerships, coalitions)

The distinguishable contributions of either form of intangible asset (above) make (individually, collectively, collaboratively) to a business’s valuation, revenue generation capability, competitiveness, and reputation-brand, are increasingly vulnerable to arrays of at will risks and intimidating shouts, shouting, and shouters.  “Business Reputation Assassinations…”

For businesses (nationally – internationally) which my work and interests have granted familiarity and insight, the sudden materialization and various ways and venues/platforms which business adversities, malicious accusations, and/or revelations of suspected misdeeds, indiscretions, and/or ethical lapses are publicly translated at keystroke speeds can stifle momentum, demoralize operating cultures, undermine R&D initiatives, weaken valuation, and suppress appeal of products, services, and brands. “Business Operating Cultures Are Intangible Asset Intensive…”

Leaders whose experiences to contend some variation of the following…

• adverse effects of risks insofar as undermining ‘mission essential’ intangible assets are likely to be short-lived and wholly recoverable, and/or,
• affected intangibles can be readily and effectively replicated if-when necessary to permit a rapid recovery, are encouraged to read further.

Respectfully, readers need not look far to recognize contentions and strategies based on either, warrant reconsideration.

Today, the asymmetric origins, features, rationales, and tracks which risks-threats-intimidations-inuendo can emerge, be translated, expressed, and reiterated at the will and timing of others via platforms and venues of preference, is obliged to be reflected in distinguishable techniques and strategies designed to avoid, defend, as well as mitigate (vulnerability-probability-criticality) of risks materializing to impact businesses ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

 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

The post Risks to ‘Mission Essential’ Intangible Assets Held By Businesses… first appeared on kpstrat.

My research, writing, research, speaking, teaching, and publishing over many years remains focused on matters related to and benefits derived from effectively utilizing, safeguarding, and mitigating risk to business things intangible and issued IP.

With special emphasis on various forms, contexts, and applications of intangible assets distinguished as mission enhancing and/or mission essential, e.g., measurably contribute to revenue generation, and valuation of a business, products, brands, services, standing, and/or competitiveness.

This includes (especially unique and/or proprietary forms and use of) intellectual capital (knowledge, know-how), structural capital (processes, procedures) and relationship capital (associations, alliances, collaborations).

Safeguarding – mitigating risk to business things intangible includes providing guidance for business leaders, R&D administrators, and investors to sustain control, use, and ownership of mission enhancing – mission essential intellectual, structural, and relationship capital which are considered proprietary, e.g., R&D applications and/or issued IP (intellectual property).

Rationale for my work is reinforced by repeated findings of well-regarded research which conclude that successful business development, operation, and economics are increasingly intangible-asset intensive, dependent, and reliant.

This translates to 70-80+/-% of most businesses competitiveness, revenue generation capability, valuation, and sustainability (irrespective of sector, size, or stage of development) are driven by and rely-depend on the right intangible assets being developed and introduced at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost.

My work (publishing papers, speaking engagements, Blog, and books) also incorporate assessing and mitigating business – brand vulnerability-probability-criticality to reputational risks, misappropriation, economic espionage, and arrays of circumstances and/or nefarious acts which can…

• favorably or adversely effect attractivity, competitiveness, monetization, valuation, revenue generation capability, and investor attractivity, etc., to intangible assets which underlie a particular-product, brand, service, innovation, or reputation.

My writing – publishing reflects business’s necessary interest in and fiduciary obligations to advantageously use, monetize, safeguard, and mitigate risk to business things intangible which are mission and/or transaction essential.

Circumstantial insights as conveyed here, combined with sector specific perspectives are near obligatory preludes to advancing – sustaining (good, better, best) positions to…

• develop-introduce advantageous strategies and practices to reflect intangible asset intensity, dependency, and
• advance – sustain revenue generation capability, competitiveness, valuation, and resilience.
• stimulate – advance operating culture satisfaction, momentum, and standing.
• recognize – mitigate risks to essential intangible assets in play.

Insights, capabilities, and proficiencies gleaned from my work, writing, and speaking (and like-minded colleagues) allow me to legitimately characterize my role and contributions as ‘business intangible asset strategy and risk mitigation’.

There should be no hesitation today to consider business things intangible designated as essential to business development, mission, and/or a transaction are (fiduciarily) obliged to be treated proprietarily.

That is, safeguarded and risks mitigated to reflect the unique way (how, where, when, why) they contribute to business (product, service) attractivity, competitiveness, valuation, and revenue generation capability.

 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

The post Why It’s Important to Safeguard – Mitigate Risk to Business Things Intangible…? first appeared on kpstrat.

 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

The post Business Reputation Assassinations… first appeared on kpstrat.

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.

In this instance, differentiating, safeguarding, and mitigating risk to reputations as constituting valuable and mission essential intangible assets necessary for innovation development and investment.

When examining the reputation of a business – institution as it relates to products, services, innovations, capabilities, and/or operating cultures, all are obliged to acknowledge that reputation, while often characterized as being sensed, perceived, and measurable, remains a relatively abstract (subjective, speculative, and notional) concept.

Reputations generally reflect what is perceived, interpreted, translated, and reasonably expected, i.e., actions, behaviors, attitudes) displayed within an operating culture. This approach would recognize a component of reputation is ‘public interfaces’ internally – externally, e.g., work groups, customers, clients, investors, and suppliers.

Some researchers and leaders contend there are…

• universal and projectable ingredients, features, and components to good, better, best (business) reputations.
• fortes that reflect sector distinctions, offerings, missions, objectives, locales, and/or stages of development, etc.

It’s reasonable to believe that many of us would find it challenging to engage a random group of similarly experienced individuals and arrive at a universally agreeable and practical definition of reputation.

That’s because business – institution reputations are largely and variously comprised of perceptions which include awareness, feelings, beliefs, experiences, sentiments, opinions, judgements, effects, and sometimes principles.

Perceptions, may not necessarily, nor consistently translate to truths, evidences, actual experiences, or facts however. Instead, reputations may hold what Johnson refers to as ‘intrinsic worth’.

Intrinsic worth – value is a measure of what an asset, ala reputation, is worth (in this instance) as a distinguishable intangible (non-physical) asset, standing alone.

More specifically, intrinsic value – worth may be seen as the value of, or interest in something, which in turn translates as the value which that thing has…

• in itself.
• for its own sake.
• due to its basic nature or character, or,
• based on its expected future cash flow, risk, and growth potential, but,
• not because of its connection with other things.

Let us agree (preferably, stipulate) the reputation of a business, institution, its leadership, and operating culture, and its products, services, innovations, capabilities are…

• essential and valuable intangible (no-physical) assets which warrant recognition, monitoring, safeguards, and risk mitigation.
• subject to various instincts, impulses, and influences which can include present day variations of ‘word-of-mouth’ as well as
  • commercialized, misinformed, and/or deceptive resources, portrayals, appeals, and incentives, may now
  • render personal/professional experience, knowledge, due diligence seem less obligatory or compulsory.

The reputation associated with a business, institution, its leadership and operating culture, as well as its products, services, innovations, capabilities, preferably, serve – contribute as attractive and measurable differentiators to/for business competitiveness, quality, content-subject matter familiarity, operating culture, revenue generation capability, which are both durable and sustainable.

Therefore, reputations are obliged to be recognized as (potentially, distinctively) valuable, monitorable, and measurable intangible assets which they are.

All are obliged to be prudent in our respective expectations – projections that reputation is, can, and will reliably remain durable, attractive, and sustainable, competitive, valuable, and intact.

Absent objective – relevant monitoring, safeguards in place and specific risk deterrents, preventions, and mitigations, such favorable conditions are obliged to not be presumed nor tested.

Instead, reputation risk vulnerabilities, probabilities, and criticalities in today’s contexts, should be welcomed and considered.

Advantageously thinking business innovators, developers, leaders, management teams, boards, and investors are fiduciarily obliged to ensure reputation development, durability, resilience, and sustainability are routinely considered due diligence.

More on these and related topics-issues are forthcoming!

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

The post Safeguarding Business Reputation… first appeared on kpstrat.

Ensuring the reputation of investment essential intangible assets is reliable, resilient, sustainable, and unchallengeable, is central to venture capital investment strategy and outcomes.

This includes startups, early-stage companies, corporate-university collaborations, and/or incubator initiatives whose reputations attract venture capital while be even more intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant (for developing innovations irrespective of sector or stage of (R&D) maturation.

Importantly then, this post describes how – why the above are fundamental to…

• pursuing a timely, insightful, replicable, efficient, and competitively advantageous facets to venture capital due diligence practice that unfortunately, are often misunderstood and/or overlooked.
• differentiating, assessing, and sustaining same and their various contributory roles, value adds that effect investment strategies and outcomes.

Familiarity with these early-stage company development, operation, and economic realities, i.e., dependence-reliance on business things intangible, etc., can lead to more objective – strategic assessments of ‘reputation attraction’.

That’s because they include factors such as startups’ operating culture and leadership, intangible asset and IP safeguards, risk mitigation, and challenges which can affect projections of and strategies to ensure innovation standing, competitiveness, revenue generation capability, valuation, and sustainability converge.

The objective is to contribute to – deliver desired investment strategies and outcomes in manageable time frames with less vulnerability, probability, and criticality to the materialization of unforeseen risk or momentum stifling challenges.

It’s important to recognize that each ‘investment reputation’ lies in and emerges from unique forms, contexts, collaborations, and applications of the right sets (forms, contexts, applications) of intangible assets developed, introduced, and applied at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost. e.g.,

• intellectual capital, e.g., knowledge, knowhow (IC)
• structural capital, e.g., processes, procedures (SC) and
• relationship capital, e.g., associations, alliances, interactions (RC).

The successful and investable development of early-stage innovation, and rationales-strategies for favorable outcomes, are inextricably dependent on business things intangible aid VC communities to distinguish investment decisions and strategies by

• differentiating, unraveling, assessing, monitoring, safeguarding, and mitigating risk to the ‘reputational standing’ of invested intangible assets.

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

The post Does Your Venture Capital Due Diligence Include ‘Reputation’ of Essential Intangible Assets? first appeared on kpstrat.

The reputation of a business, its products, services, and operating culture are intangible (non-physical) assets.

A business’s reputation can be a valuable, admirable, durable, and sustainable asset that measurably contributes to competitiveness, valuation, and revenue generation capability.

A business’s reputation can also become a liability if unrecognized, overlooked, and unmanaged. In these instances, liability translates as, among other things, (a.) burden and/or challenge that (b.) narrows attractivity and utility, to (c.) moderate valuation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability.

Definitions of reputation variously include perceptions, beliefs, and opinions acquired and held about someone or something. Reputations attach to people, products, services, brands, operating cultures, and new initiatives or ventures.

Reputation influence people to think a certain way about a business, e.g., its operating culture, products, and/or services.

Reputation comes from the Latin word reputationem, which means “consideration.” It’s how people consider, or label others and businesses, usually in contexts of or along a continuum of good or bad. ACQUIRE A REPUTATION – Cambridge English Dictionary

As a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator, perceptions held about a business (ala the public and stakeholders, et al) can influence throughout a value chain to reach suppliers, customers, employees, investors, and communities, etc.

Its’ important for readers to note also that reputation doesn’t necessarily translate to respect. That’s because reputation is mostly (if not entirely) external. Whereas respect can be internal and external simultaneously. Building Your Reputation (shrm.org)

 Of course, there are various factors which can influence – connote a business’s (public) reputation. For example, some ‘reputation influencing factors’ are single events, some are circumstantial, while others are experiential.

An unfortunate (present-day) commonality is reputation risks (harms) can materialize at the will and timing of nefarious shouts, shouting, and shouters all-of-which can cascade (virally) at keystroke speeds to adversely affect business standing and reputation for indeterminate periods of time.

Not infrequently, business reputation risks are emerge with precipitators, a particular triggering event and/or accusatory shouting, ala revelations of associations (inadvertent, coincidental, or intentional).

Well-managed and monitored reputations translate (broadly) to trust, credibility, customer loyalty, and serve to attract-retain top talent, among many other things. The Critical Role Of Reputation Management (forbes.com) Positive reputations also lend itself to (building-sustaining) unique and likely proprietary forms, contexts, and applications of…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, know how)
• structural capital (processes, procedures)
• relationship capital (associations, alliances)

Business reputation safeguards and risk mitigation are not the sole domain of Fortune 1000’s. The focus of this intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator and The Business Intangible Asset Blog is SME’s and SMM’s, i.e., small-medium enterprises, startups, and small-medium multinationals. Unarguably, reputation risk holds relevance business across sectors and stages of (business) development.

For every business I have encountered, their reputation translates as foundations to-for (their) competitiveness, revenue generation capability, durability, sustainability, and valuation.

This economic – operational reality translates to 70 – 80+% of most business’s valuation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability, etc., lie in – derive directly from intangible (non-physical) assets. Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

Business leaders and management teams admitted in a Conference Board study, that ownership and responsibility for addressing reputational risks are often fragmented and seldom coordinated within a company and sometimes they’re assumed across a wide range of management teams and/or business unit managers. Reputation Risk: A Corporate Governance Perspective (conference-board.org)

There remain debates about developing – arriving at good-better-best strategies – practices to characterize and address present-day reputational risks, i.e., as…

• a separate and distinct category of risk management, or
• merely additional – occasional adverse effects of operational incidents in which certain risks or threats can materialize.

With respect to (conventional) reputation risk, there remain two areas in which relatively little practical (applied) research has evolved, i.e., (1.) who is responsible, and (2.) who should take ownership for a company’s reputational risk?

The latter includes ‘reputation risk’ monitoring, stewardship, oversight and executing best practices to address – mitigate vulnerability, probability, and criticality if/when such risks materialize.

Today, I encourage all to consider reputational risks as (fiduciary-level) obligations in the context of ‘good company governance’.  Stone v. Ritter (911 A.2d 362) (Del. 2006)

In this context boards and management teams are obliged to pursue and reach consensus regarding (a.) definitions of reputation risk, (b.) the relevance of reputation(s) to a business, and (c.) recognize that reputation is a dynamic and valuable intangible asset which can be undermined and devalued at keystroke speeds.  (Adapted by Michael D. Moberly from a report produced by The Conference Boards titled ‘Reputation Risk: A Corporate Governance Perspective’)

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various ‘risk realities’. Each warrant attention of business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors. Mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges produced by 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 1100+ topic specific posts. Each is intended to provide readers, ala business leaders, management teams, R&D administrators, boards, and investors, etc., with reliable insights on most matters related to business things intangible.

 Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly and are intended to draw attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

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

The post Business Reputations Can Be Assets, or Liabilities… first appeared on kpstrat.

This post is about business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors’ (fiduciary) obligations to differentiate, safeguard, monitor, and mitigate risk to their ‘mission essential’ intangible assets, e.g., reputation and brand.

That’s because, if – when particular-risks materialize, they routinely do so (a.) asymmetrically, (b.) at the will and timing of others, and (c.) include warnings, threats, fears, uncertainties, and/or doubts (WT-FUD factors). Routinely, they are directed to a business’s leadership, mission, reputation, alliances, products, or services.

The undermining effects which such assertions can potently cascade @ keystroke speeds throughout the targets’ value chain. This obliges self-protective responses to try to steady and clarify reputation, mission, competitiveness, valuation, and revenue generation.

This post counters – mitigates such risks by encouraging leaders, et al, to acknowledge that businesses, across sectors, irrespective of size, stage, sales, location, products, or services, are increasingly and irreversibly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant,

That is, reputation, brand, image, goodwill, and standing are intangible assets largely conveyed publicly by – through operating culture and marketing campaigns.

This business economic – operational reality translates to 70 – 80+% of most business’s valuation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability, etc., lie in – derive directly from intangible (non-physical) assets. Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings)

Intangible assets are embedded with various forms, contexts, and applications of unique and often proprietary…

• intellectual capital (knowledge, know how),
• structural capital (processes, procedures)
• relationship capital (marketing, associations, alliances), and
• IP (issued intellectual property, i.e., patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets).

For business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors the paragraphs above are obliged to be interpreted as…reputation, image, perception, goodwill, and a resilient and sustainable operating culture, etc. are inextricably linked. That is, they are influenced by and embedded with various intangible assets, as described above.

Hence, the importance attached to developing the right sets – collaborations of intangible assets, introducing-applying same at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost should not be understated. And, safeguarding – mitigating risk to same, should always be considered ‘mission essential’.

Safeguarding – mitigating risk to any business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets is important. For example, those unique intangibles which have been developed internally, held and applied proprietarily, and relied for business – brand differentiation and valuation, etc., should be interpreted, accordingly.

That is, intangible assets differentiated – designated as ‘mission essential’, should not be treated via conventional practices or procedures. In other words, they should not be treated as if they…

1. are tangible (physical, fixed) assets.
2. hold only limited time-durations of contribution and valuation.
3. are receptive to contingency or convergence practices of risk mitigation and management.

Contingency approaches to addressing business risk are inclined to be focused on the probability, and perhaps less on nuanced – current vulnerabilities and criticalities of risk materialization perceived to occur singularly, in (a.) relative isolation, and (b.) with obvious – known preludes, circumstances, conditions, or adversities, etc.

• for example, tornadic weather event, wherein, there are ample experience and mechanisms for public alerts, warnings, and real time doppler radar tracking, and projecting course, timing, and damage effects, etc.
• unfortunately, tornadic (touch down) events can emerge rapidly and present few risk avoidance options, aside from contingencies of when – where for people to take shelter.
• tornadic activity can quickly subside, followed by hoping there is no loss of life, attending to the injured, retrieving personal possessions, assessing damage to property, and interacting with insurance entities.
• often holding heartfelt beliefs-perspectives that the event was ‘once in a lifetime’ and comes no probability of repeat. Hence, an often times emphasis on contingencies for ‘one off’ events, as destructively tragic and irreversible as they may be.

Convergence approaches to addressing business risk are inclined to be rooted in presumptions – conventions wherein there is little, if any differentiation of-to-for risk materialization.

That is, the causes of risk, and thus, avoidance, mitigation, and management are considered, comparable, and therefore may not warrant presumed time, cost, and/or disruption to differentiate for business things intangible. Such perspectives are inclined to allow most-all risks to be treated similarly, ala convergence.

These analyses of contingency and convergence approaches rise from 20+ years of experience + research + publishing as a business intangible asset strategist and risk mitigator across sectors, and reflect…

• how – why some business leaders – management teams remain inclined to conceive, frame, execute, and describe what is expected from risk avoidance, mitigation, and management practices, which are likely to fall short.

Instead, business leaders, management teams, and boards (collectively), and investors (exceptionally) are (fiduciarily) obliged to recognize that risk to reputation, and other ‘mission essential’ intangible assets, once materialized, can…

• produce uniquely confusing circumstances while cascading, not tactically or locally, but strategically throughout a business’ value, supply, and user chains.

This is why this blog draws attention to and places emphasis on differentiating, safeguarding, and mitigating risk to business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Thus, less attachment to conventions which may include pre-conceived, standardized, indistinguishable perspective about risk to intangible vs tangible assets. And, their vulnerability to, the probability, and criticality, should risk materialize

More attention to intangibles which measurably contribute to competitiveness, valuation, reputation, operating culture, revenue generation, and sustainability, And, favorably effect brands, products, and services.  Therefore, they should be reasonably resilient and recoupable (remain intact) if/when particular – shouts, shouters, and/or shouting ‘come a calling’.

Special insights regarding business risk, and contingency – convergence theories for risk mitigation, were gleaned from the fine work and research of Dr. Brian Klaas, Professor in Global Politics at University College London. Dr. Klaas’ work include numerous books which I encourage all to consider. https://www.google.com/search?q=fluke+chance+chaos+and+why+everything+we+do+matters+by+brian+klaas&sca

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various ‘risk realities’. Each warrant attention of business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors. Mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges produced by 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 1100+ topic specific posts. Each is intended to provide readers, ala business leaders, management teams, R&D administrators, boards, and investors, etc., with reliable insights on most matters related to business things intangible.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are developed – written solely by Mr. Moberly and are intended to draw attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

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

The post It Matters If Business’s Safeguard Intangible Assets…  first appeared on kpstrat.

There remains a lot of guesswork, subjectivity, and weary conventions, standards, and practices regarding brand – reputation valuation and the consequences of reputation risk, and the repair costs.

We are obliged to recognize that brand and/or reputation, of, to, or for an individual or a business, are intangible (non-physical) assets. As assets, (not liabilities) both reputation and brand contribute to business, et al, attractivity, differentiation, valuation, and revenue generation potential.

Professor Ashlee Humphreys, a professor of consumer sentiment at Northwestern University was called as a witness by E. Jean Carroll’s lawyers, as an expert on (reputation) damages.

Professor Humphreys calculations included…

• how many people saw those (defamatory) statements, and
• how much the jury ought to award Carroll in compensation (for defamation), and
• estimates of the cost of a ‘reputation repair campaign’ for E. Jean Carroll.

Humphreys…

1. was contracted to (a.) analyze the reach of Donald Trump’s defamatory statements, and (b.) assess the damage to Carroll’s reputation.
2. had created a (hypothetical) reputation-repair campaign (process) designed to…

• • change the minds of the nearly 25 million people that she estimated were likely to have been receptive to Donald Trump’s (defamatory) comments about E. Jean Carroll.

3. described the (probable) viewership of tweets, articles, TV broadcasts, and other media, regarding Mr. Trump’s (two) denials reached up to 104.1 million people, which she considered to be an…

• • undercount because her examination did not capture media organizations that paraphrased Trump’s denial of the rape and disparagement of Carroll as a liar.

4. testified that (a.) the attitudes at issue here are strongly held, (b.) 30% of the readership in-particular Elle, where Carroll was a longtime advice columnist, is politically conservative, (c.) it didn’t help that Mr. Trump continued to disparage Carroll in the years since his initial (defamatory) statements, including at a press conference in New York Wednesday the day after the trial, (d.) in general, repeated claims only strengthen people’s attitudes when they come from a trusted source.
5. suggested for E. Jean Carroll, a reputation repair campaign would essentially amount to an advertising campaign across different media platforms that would try to persuade them to believe Carroll and suggested Carroll could place messages with influencers trusted among Trump’s audience, like Joe Rogan and Candace Owens, and pay for advertisements to appear multiple times.

As readers know, Mr. Trump (the defendant’s) self-declarations of brand – reputation valuation are frequently conveyed publicly and variously contested legally.

This is one, among several reasons why Professor Humphreys calculations are particularly important today. Because conventional methods and/or standards for treating (assessing – measuring) reputation – brand valuation as the intangible assets they are, fall short of what’s necessary today as more businesses become increasingly intangible asset intensive, dependent, and reliant. https://kpstrat.com/business-reputational-risksa-different-perspective-ii/

Humphreys also testified…

• her analysis estimates of Mr. Trump’s 2019 (defamatory) statements garnered somewhere between 85.8 million and 104.1 million impressions from social media, television, and online stories.
• that’s probably a low estimate, Humphreys said, because she didn’t factor in certain data sources like Facebook, Reddit, or local news outlets.
• that the damage of Mr. Trump’s (defamatory) statements at issue – in this case “was severe to her [Carroll’s] reputation as a journalist, and the costs to repair same are considerable.”
• that someone in those audiences would need to see corrective messaging as many as 7 times to change their minds,
• it could cost up to $12.1 million to implement a campaign that could change the “strongly held” attitudes of people who likely believed Mr. Trump’s (defamatory) statements.

Because of the political valence, Humphries suggested, as measured by the number which brand – reputation can potentially, (a.) displace, or (b.) combine with, relative to, (c.) Mr. Trump’s denials, it’s understandably challenging to (presume) people’s minds will change,

Should we accept Humphreys analysis, which I do, business leaders, management teams, boards, investors, and operating cultures, etc., are obliged to…

1. recognize reputation safeguards, risk mitigation, and monitoring are necessary.
2. consider how long it would take to re-build a ‘reputation and its contributory roles to not only a business’s valuation, but also to its competitiveness and revenue generation capability, etc., relative to the,
3. understand the asymmetric nature and keystroke speed which reputations – brands can be intentionally – nefariously targeted, undermined, damaged, and irrevocably destroyed.

In these contexts, we are obliged to reflect on recent statements by some airline executives about ‘errors in the design, manufacture, and assembly (quality control – oversight, etc.) of Boeing’s 737 Max aircraft…

• relative to the very dramatic public ‘risks’ same pose to passengers, are adversely affecting airline brands – reputations.

This is likely another example of brand – reputation risk reach and how same is now being understood and framed by business leaders, as well as buyers – users (and/or victims) of branded products and services which hold particular risks.

That is, a business’s brand, reputation, and its operating cultures which underlie both are indeed ‘mission essential’ components and should be treated accordingly.

It’s possible, a similar portrait will emerge with-regard to (a.) valuation of particular-Trump branded properties and (b.) calculations of Mr. Trump’s wealth, e.g., property valuation fluctuation may be reflected via allegations – sanctions of (criminal – civil) impropriety associated with or materializing from those properties and translate as liabilities.

An authentic quote on such matters is attributed to Warren Buffett, who reportedly said, “it takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it, if you think about that, you will do things differently”. (Aug 9, 2020)

Readers can find numerous posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog that describe my ‘contributory role methodology’ for the valuation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog present various ‘risk realities’ that warrant attention of business leaders, entrepreneurs, R&D administrators, management teams, boards, and investors across sectors. Mitigating (reacting, responding to) the often ‘public – viral’ risks and challenges produced by 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 1100+ topic specific posts intended to provide readers, ala business leaders, management teams, R&D administrators, boards, and investors, etc., with reliable insights to the application, valuation, competitiveness, revenue generation, and sustainability contributions of intangible assets.

Posts at Business Intangible Asset Blog are intended to draw attention to the development, application, management, safeguards, and risk mitigation of business’s ‘mission essential’ intangible assets.

Readers are respectfully invited to explore other – similar posts, along with books, pamphlets, and papers available @ ‘Business Intangible Asset Blog’ and kpstrat.com.

The post Brand – Reputation Risk & Repair Costs… first appeared on kpstrat.