Let's not get carried away. Huygens can not possibly do justice to a review on reputation in a year which almost $6.3tn (12.1%) was erased from global stock markets as the eurozone financial called into question the future of the world’s largest currency bloc, according to the Financial Times (Dec 30, Wigglesworth). Instead, Huygens offers a tale of two intellectual property strategies, and an example of reputational resilience.

TIVO and Rambus are two firms that have been fighting IP infringement battles for many years. At the end of 2011, TIVO finds itself experiencing one of the greatest reputational jumps over the trailing twelve months while Rambus story has a less than happy ending, so far.

Among the 28 companies in the Electronics/Appliances sector, Tivo's reputation metrics, according to the Steel City Re Corporate Reputation Index, rose from the 3rd to the 84th percentile. Its most recent EWMA reputational volatility was 74% after a very volatile year, and while its volatility continues to trend downwards, its trailing twelve week reputational velocity and vector are at 8 and 11 percent, respectively. All good signs consistent with the fact that it has outperformed the median of its peer group by 37%.


Among the 98 companies in the Semiconductor sector, Rambus dropped from the 89th percentile to the 4th percentile. After a volatile year, its exponentially weighted moving average volatility is down most recently to 30% while its vector and velocity continue to trend negative at -36 and -9% respectively. Not surprisingly, Rambus is underperforming the median of its peer group by 39%.

Last, the Coca Cola Company distinguished itself this year by exhibiting among the lowest levels of reputational metric volatility. Among its 14 peers in the Soft Drink Producers & Bottlers group, it showed no change on any metric. It outperformed the median of its peer group by 7.67%.

The first lesson among many this past year comes from the last case: in a highly volatile market, reputational stability has value. Things do go better with Coke.

This note explores whether a proposed transaction by a $75B beverage company, Pepsi Inc. (NYSE:PEP), is motivated by costs savings, brand enhancement, or reputation protection. Seeing no perceptible movement in the reputation index of either the company or its arch rival, we conclude that notwithstanding which of the three was the initial trigger, the greatest value may be in reputation risk management.

On 20 April 2009, Pepsi proposed buying the outstanding shares it does not own in its two largest bottlers, Pepsi Bottling Group (PBG.N) and PepsiAmericas (PAS.N), in a $6 billion cash and stock deal. Many in the financial press suggested it was a cost-cutting initiative. Jon Baskin, a marketing iconoclast, a keynote speaker at the Society’s 2008 annual conference, and the author of the book, “Branding OnlyWorks on Cattle,” opined that the move represented brilliant, strategic branding. In Jon’s words:

Think about it. New packages and formulations, available at new and different locations, priced and supported in novel ways...all thanks to a holistic approach to the brand, vs. some archaic top-down application that sees it only as image and words. It's these actions, and real investments, that will build sustainable, long-term brand growth.

Cost savings and long-term brand growth are both good things, reflect well on management and enhance reputation. So, with two weeks having now elapsed during which the market has had an opportunity to digest the news, and while the deal is still in the negotiation phase (the bottlers rejected it on Monday), we called on the Steel City Re corporate reputation index to see what impact the news has had on the reputations of Pepsi and its arch rival, The Coca Cola Company (NYSE:KO).

As shown in the charts below, the short answer is “not much.” Pepsi tops the fifteen-member Soft drink sector; Coke is in the 92nd percentile. Volatility is nil. In fact, in the midst of the most tumultuous market since the great depression, these two iconic firms emerge with nearly identical profiles comprising exceedingly stable reputation metrics. With Pepsi and Coke’s market caps at $75B and $100B respectively, are they too big to budge?






Big, yes, but not too big to trip and fall. As we see it, both pay exquisite managerial attention to their reputations. Ethics, quality, safety, security and sustainability are all watchwords. Innovation is alive and well. So the competition between these two is analogous to that of two chess grandmasters. They see all, know all, and understand the implications of every move and its derivatives. The game, therefore, is waiting for one or the other to make a mistake. It is a game where risk management is the winning play. And given the relative values of the physical assets and intangible assets at the two companies, reputation loss arising from a business partner where visibility and control are weaker – supply chain headline risk, if you will – is one of the major risks we believe needs to be managed.

So let us put our own spin on Pepsi’s announced acquisition: from an intangible asset finance management perspective, it is a prudent move to manage reputation risk arising from a third party. While it may not increase Pepsi’s brand value or enhance its reputation, it may prevent the sort of reputation loss that destroyed nearly 14% of Coke’s value 10 years ago.

Dear Reader,

Beginning this week and with surprising regularity, the Society will post a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the intangible asset management implications of a current news story involving a publicly traded company. These analyses will draw on IA index data published by Steel City Re. Periodically, the Society will also post announcements to supplement the monthly news alerts, the quarterly newsletter, and the bimonthly publication in IAM magazine.

As always, the Society welcomes your comments and feedback.

Nir Kossovsky
Executive Secretary