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.

 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.

Building brand resilience can mitigate the time and cost of trying to recoup – restore reputation – brand valuation following the viral materialization of reputational risks..

It’s inopportune and can be very messy to try to try to build + defend business – brand while defending – combatting nefarious reputation risks.

Differentiating the ‘mission essential’ intangible assets in play – at risk is important and pivotal. Mission essential intangible assets are brand-business specific assets which contribute to – have a direct bearing on valuation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability, etc.

It’s important to recognize that business – brand attractivity, et al, is largely dependent on the right forms, contexts, and/or applications of intangible (non-physical) assets, being introduced, at the right time, in the right way, at the right cost, i.e.,

• intellectual capital (knowledge and knowhow)
• structural capital (processes and procedures)
• relationship capital (alliances and associations).

Specific contributions of intangible assets (to valuation, revenue generation, etc.) emerge from businesses awareness of and ability to repeatedly effect…

1. which forms-contexts of intangible assets should be developed.
2. when, where, and how same should be introduced-applied, and
3. how same are treated, e.g., preferably as proprietary, with relevant safeguards, and risk mitigation in place.

At kpstrat.com I describe 15 types-categories of intangible assets (with explanations and examples) for readers to examine and test.

Consistent practice (application) of these principles is obliged to be recognized as necessary preludes to…

1. build, monitor, and sustain sufficient resilience, durability, and sustainability.
2. translate to business, brand, and operating culture valuation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability.

 Readers are reminded that today, and for the foreseeable future, most businesses, irrespective of sector, size, sales, stage of development, etc., in increasingly intangible assets intensive and dependent…

• 70 – 80+% of most business’s valuation, competitiveness, revenue generation capacity, and sustainability lie in – emerge directly from intangible (non-physical) assets, most of which are developed internally, held proprietarily, embed in operating culture, and convey – characterize reputation and standing. Intangibles | Brookings – Unseen Wealth: Report of the Brookings Task Force on Intangibles on JSTOR – Intangible Assets: Computers and Organizational Capital | Brookings

In an effort to seek some affirmation of the perspectives and strategies conveyed herein, i.e., I reviewed multiple sources outside conventions of business operation and economics.

A particularly beneficial and relevant (non-business) resource I found has to do with Sustainability Principles and Practice – 3rd Edition – Margaret Robert (routledge.com).

While Robertson’s work focuses on ‘sustainability science and practice for the environment’, there are numerous cross-over applications – relevancy to (private sector) business and brand resilience, durability, and sustainability, which are revealing.

Stepping outside convention to examine issues of sustainability and resilience affirmed the views expressed @ this blog, that…

• business – organization resilience and sustainability planning, strategy, and practice are (fiduciary-level) obligations, and
• differentiating the ‘intangible assets in play – at risk are essential elements to strategy effectiveness.

Specifically, business leaders, management teams, boards, and investors, are obliged to treat business – brand reputations, et al, as being capable of durability, resilience, and sustainability for indeterminate periods.

• Such recognition paves the way for ‘mission essential’ intangible assets to become consistent – sustainable contributors, as intended to (business) valuation, reputation, competitiveness, and revenue generation capability.

The principles associated with this approach and its strategies are straight-forward and doable. Neither are disqualify-ingly costly, time consuming, disruptive, nor momentum stifling to a business.

These principles of resilience – sustainability translate to…

1. enduring and durable, i.e., the ability to persist, continue, maintain, support, and contribute over long periods without (significant) interruption, e.g., the ability to endure without failing.
2. identifying long term goals and examining strategies for achieving those goals, and assessing (products, outcomes) using measurable indicators.
3. acknowledging change and risk (in business) are conditions and circumstances which should be expected and have become relatively routine.
4. recognizing that a business – brand can exist in various states of stability over long periods of time, providing each are…

• aligned with time-effort-resources to create adjustable – adaptive capacities that lead to,
• positioned to respond – react to (a.) projected and/or sudden brand – organization-wide shocks, disturbances, risk(s) that can nefariously and asymmetrically materialize @ keystroke speeds.

Readers can find numerous posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog that describe that ‘contributory role methodology’ the valuation of intangible assets.

Posts @ Business Intangible Asset Blog kpstrat.com 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 Building Brand Resilience: The Role of Intangible Assets first appeared on kpstrat.

This post focuses on reputational risks incurred by businesses and/or leadership rising from nefariously inclined – performative shouters, shouts, and shouting that include bludgeoning claims of conspiratorial induced motives, associations, alliances, coverups, and/or revelations of illicit behavior.

Every business leader whom I am familiar, does not want ‘the noise’ to define them or the business, brand, products, services, and mission they represent.

Objectives for this series of posts about business reputation risk (a.) awareness, (b.) mitigation, (c.) actionable clarity to the shouters, shouts, and shouting, and (d.) treat business – brand reputation as ‘mission essential’ assets which are intangible (non-physical). Home – kpstrat

There are more indicators and more examples, today, (duh), that more businesses leaders, management teams, boards, and investors (across sectors) are paying more attention to their reputational risk exposures, e.g., who, what, when, where, how, and why.

Business leaders attaching more importance to reputation risks percolates along a continuum of the abruptness and speed which shouters’ shouting…

1. can emerge asymmetrically, publicly, and virally.
2. is nefariously – maliciously applied in conveying their
3. introduces fear, uncertainty, and/or doubt (FUD factors).
4. receptivity of supporters.
5. is treated in the ‘media industry’. (Shannahan)
6. effects a business, a brand, a transaction, and/or a leader, beyond an expected denial.

There are numerous resources readers can reliably use to guide-frame a business’s reaction – response to external reputation risks. BLOG LINK

Two consistently insightful resources for reputation risk awareness, mitigation, response, and reaction strategies is research and work of…

• James Shanahan (Dean, Media School, Indiana University – Bloomington) for domestic perspectives about conspiracy theories, James Shanahan: People: The Media School (indiana.edu)
• Ian Bremmer, President, Eurasia Group, for international perspectives.Eurasia Group | Ian Bremmer

The various ways Shanahan integrates (a.) examples of conspiracy theories (current and historical) implications, (b.) social – economic reactions, (c.) origins – evolution, and (d.) social-psychological products of ‘conspiracy theory’ receptivity, is useful for…

1. framing – guiding ‘conspiratorial laced’ reputation risks.
2. lessening business vulnerability and potential criticality (should reputation risks materialize.
3. elevating durability, resilience, and a business’s ability to recoup – recover with their ‘mission essential’ intangible assets reasonably intact.

The uncompromising tone many shouters frequently apply frequently include gamut of inventively spurious affronts, and inuendo. Same of which may be ideological, political, social, sexual, religious, etc. They are designed to appeal to, align with, and perhaps advance followers-supporters existing suspicions, doubts, and uncertainties, and even fears. When this occurs, it is challenging for business leader reactions – responses to remain dignified and mannered.

This is one way which the resources noted in this post can be useful, e.g., offering means to…

1. observe various types of conspiracy theories, be they political – ideological, pseudo-science, paranormal investigations, or about UFOs.
2. examine communication controversies that have developed around the emergence and impact of the COVID-19 virus.
3. consider the nature of collectively held truths in a world where many viewpoints and beliefs are demonstrably inaccurate.
4. inspect media industry sectors which have risen to cater to audiences interested in these ideas.
5. posit whether there are potential media models that can deal with increasing belief in falsehoods.

A respectful reminder, we are obliged to recognize that (business – personal) reputations are culminations of perceptions, beliefs, and opinions, views, and interpretations acquired – held by customers, users, stakeholders, investors, and employees, etc.

• Reputations of people – businesses though, remain fairly-abstract constructs. That is, reputations are non-physical and intangible, not physical, tangible, or fixed.
• Consequently, most people are inclined to assess – measure reputations using qualitative (not quantitative) scales, e.g., ranges of good to bad, etc.

For these reasons, I discourage business leaders from being quick to dismiss or minimize reputational risks as mere inconvenient distractions because today same can be delivered audaciously and asymmetrically at the will, timing, and scheming of others and interpreted in accordance with pre-disposed assurance of broad audience receptivity.

As ethically repugnant as some nefariously shouted reputation risks can be to business leaders, management teams, operating cultures, boards, and investors, et al…we are (fiduciarily) obliged to consider that lurking within the shouting, may be ‘kernels of legitimacy’.

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 Business Reputational Risks…A Different Perspective II… first appeared on kpstrat.