do accounting firms really want an ‘image’?

it’s a hollow view.

by bruce w. marcus
professional services marketing 3.0

some years ago, in a remarkably successful marketing move, a graphic designer specializing in logos, letterheads and the like came up with the concept of the corporate image. a brilliant concept, but more mirage than image.

now one of the most successful operations in the marketing business, this company has managed to persuade its clients that corporate image is the key to corporate success. image, it seems, is the magic elixir. at many thousands of dollars a dose.

more for 卡塔尔世界杯常规比赛时间 pro members:  what accounting firms need to learn from personal financial planning specialists  •  the delicate art of positioning your firm in the mind of the prospect   •   who’s better at marketing? • lawyers or cpas? • even a random disaster can be controlled with risk management • managing risk in client relations • your clients love you? what if you’re wrong? • 

in fact, the word “image” itself has taken on a life of its own — a tribute to the triumph of virtual reality. but maybe it’s time, now, to lose the word. the image of image is long since tarnished, and well beyond burnishing.

words have a remarkable ability to conjure up visions beyond their literal definitions. some words do marvelous things to the mind. chimera. poignant. vistas — landscapes — spring forth at the mention of words such as these. but the word “image,” as it’s used today, projects an infernal and involuted picture of things manipulated, unreal and untrue.

image was first popularized, some years ago, by the father of modern public relations, the late, estimable edward l. bernays, and was meant to convey the pervasive perception of a company or a person. the image of the telephone company as a vast corporate universe that encompasses us all, and touches every one of us inevitably, yet maternally (ma bell). the image of ibm as cool, efficient, firmly aggressive and ubiquitous in the workplace. the image of nixon the devil and of kennedy the saint.

what a marvelously convenient word. a company doesn’t have a reputation anymore, it has an image. the perception of a company by the people who know it, do business with it, know about it, is an image. as if vast, complex organizations that touch the lives of many people are so devoid of facets or subtleties that they can be encapsulated by one simplistic perception. as if all of the bad or inconsequential can be submerged beneath the good and useful to make more people want to do more business with the company.

how wonderful to ponder the notion that one need not do good work, or make good products, or provide good service — one need only manipulate symbols to project a favorable image. by communicating selectively, the image purveyors seem to be saying, the public may be made to perceive the company as a personality, beyond the evaluation in the marketplace of the quality of the company’s goods and services.

and anybody who believes that would believe that pornography is love.

a few years ago, at the beginning of the era when people mindlessly seized upon the term as a kind of shorthand for perception and reputation, eastern airlines spent a considerable sum to brighten its corporate image. a new logo was designed, with a distinctive color. it was corporate image based on instant recognition. but the clearly identifiable image readily focused on rude personnel, dreadful service and dreary food, planes that were always late, and constant overbooking. the symbols projected one thing. the realities shouted another. and beyond the lingering memory of its logo, where is eastern airlines today?

consider, too, the image of arthur andersen as a classic accounting firm, with a reputation for integrity, probity and independence. and where is it today?

the truth is that, in this context, there is no such thing as image. there is reputation, which can sometimes be manufactured. but reputation is fragile. it can be destroyed and blown away by the simplest element of unfavorable performance. the reputation of a company sustains only when it’s built on facts, and then it isn’t fragile. the pervasive perception of a company is built on performance, and sustains only when the performance is consistent. nor is there ever, for a company, a single perception. the dynamics of business are too rapid and multifarious for that. is the perception of a company the same to the shareholder when the dividends are increased as it is to the customer who feels that he’s been given poor quality for high prices?

there is perception, which can be manipulated briefly. barnum tried it with a sign in his menagerie that read, “this way to the egress.” when his customers found themselves outside the exit door, they took it in ill humor.

the inherent danger in the word “image” is that so long as we believe there really is such a concept, and we work toward enhancing it, we absolve ourselves of the need to nurture reputation and perception by improving reality. in fact, the acoustics of the marketplace are too good, and the truth is inevitably heard — loud and clear. better to labor to improve the truth than to polish the image.

and so the world would be better off if we were to lose the word “image.” the perception of it is too crass, its reputation too shoddy. it keeps us from better and more useful things.

related: the three degrees of risk • four essential habits for building client trust • the nine hallmarks of a marketing culture • the four cornerstones to building a marketing culture • getting the client is only half the battle • practice development: it’s not rocket science • nine fundamentals for a healthy marketing culture in an accounting firm •

bruce w. marcus is a pioneer in professional services marketing and coauthor of “client at the core.” this is adapted from his new book, “professional services marketing 3.0,” available for purchase here.

copyright. used by permission.

posted on january 23, 2013