Advertising agency founder David Ogilvy once defined a brand as the intangible sum of attributes, such as name, packaging, price, history, and reputation. However, with a $2 trillion dollar mess still looming from the 2008 financial crisis, “Main Street” rage bubbling over financial bailouts of large institutions and minimal credit supplied by financial firms (despite interest rates at all time lows), there is much for financial companies to do in terms of brand repair.

In the United States, the finance industry still supplies a significant portion of gross domestic product. With so many people employed by the finance industry, and the importance of credit to an economic system, it is certainly in the industry’s best interest to restore consumer trust. Enclosed are two steps (there may be more) towards this effort.

Realize Perceived Shortcuts Are Rarely Shortcuts

A wise teacher once counseled that “anything worth doing is worth doing right.” This is a lesson that the finance industry has continually failed to learn. James Surowiecki from The New Yorker points out in “Back Office Blues” that banks have created another PR mess that could have been easily avoided. He says, “(Banks) have foreclosed on homes without having the proper documentation and (instead) relied on unqualified people to sign affidavits attesting to things they didn’t know. In a few cases, they seem to have actually tossed people who didn’t have mortgages out of their homes.” And now, Surowiecki notes, “As a result, federal regulators and attorney generals in all 50 states are now investigating.”

The costs saved by employing minimally qualified personnel to daily sign thousands of foreclosure documents will likely be dwarfed by litigation costs and an eventual settlement that could range in the billions. Surowiecki continues, “Banks have preferred to do things on the cheap, which is an open invitation to trouble, including fraud.” Indeed, cutting corners to save a buck, in most instances ends up costing two.

Consider Health Before Wealth

In a letter to the editor of the Financial Times, dated Nov. 9, 2010, twenty professors from prominent universities, such as Stanford, MIT, and Berkeley, openly criticized regulatory reform passed by most advanced economies. “Banks high leverage and the resulting fragility and systemic risk contributed to the near collapse of the financial system,” they wrote. The authors suggest that higher capital requirements—or a buffer against volatile markets—are in order to ensure a healthier banking system, rather than focusing on “high returns for banks’ shareholders and managers, with taxpayers picking up the losses and economies suffering the fall-out.”

A healthy banking system is still one that takes risks, but also has an appropriate capital buffer for turbulent times. Holding a sufficient capital buffer makes it less likely the financial system will need another taxpayer bailout. Ultimately, better risk management strategies will help renew trust in the banking system.

When asked about qualifications needed to obtain credit, JP Morgan famously replied, “The first thing (needed) is character … Because a man I do not trust could not get money from me on all the bonds in Christendom.” What suggestions do you have for the finance industry to restore its reputation?

Related: Reputation Management—Not Needed Until It’s Needed

By now you’ve likely heard of Bernard L. Madoff. This hedge fund operator is accused of the largest corporate fraud in United States history, to the tune of $50 billion dollars lost. In a SEC complaint, Mr. Madoff–a former NASDAQ chairman–is accused of a “stunning fraud of epic proportions” by essentially running a Ponzi scheme where new investor money was used to cover losses and pay-out returns to previous investors.

While there were plenty of warning signs along the way such as steady returns during tumultuous times and allegations of manipulation from other brokers, investors continued to pour money into Madoff’s funds.

Madoff used interesting schemes to dupe high net worth investors, many of which preyed on basic human needs of social connection and esteem.

According to a Wall Street Journal article, Madoff cloaked his investments in a “mysterious allure and sense of exclusivity.” Simply getting into the club–if you will–gave investors bragging rights, a sense of belonging, and enabled them to feel they had access to something special.

In fact, according to the same WSJ article, once an investor was “in”, it would be considered an insult to ask deep questions about the fund for fear of being thrown out. “When you are in an exclusive private club,” the article notes, “you don’t go rummaging around the kitchen to make sure the health code is being followed.”

Adding insult to injury, many of Madoff’s customers came from good old “word of mouth” connections where new clients were referred by other wealthy families, political leaders, and charity organizers.

Mark Penn, writes in a recent Wall Street Journal article, that Madoff, “sold himself to people on the basis of brand, and he got access to more marks by using the smart, rich and famous to introduce him to more of the smart, rich and famous.”

Madoff’s fund wasn’t built on advertising. It wasn’t built on direct marketing tactics. It was built on leveraging customer trust, exclusivity, and word of mouth recommendations.

Many otherwise very intelligent people failed to ask questions of Mr. Madoff as they invested millions of hard earned dollars.
While red flags popped up on occasion, as long as “the returns” kept coming most investors operated from a “don’t ask, don’t tell” perspective. Investors, referred by other people they trusted, wanted to gain access to this exclusive hedge fund so badly that they in effect checked their brain at the door.

Don Peppers and Martha Rogers often talk the importance of building customer trust to improve revenues and profitability. In an article, “Trust Stakes Its Claim“, they say, “Although trust is the welcome consequence of any successful customer relationship, it is not something to take for granted. Building trust is an investment in the future of your customers. You have no more important asset; you have no more important strategy.”

While many companies have altruistic motives for building customer trust, Madoff did the opposite–using customer trust to defraud. He leveraged his political, social and faith (Judaism) network to ensure a steady flow of recommendations (and investors). And people blindly trusted him with their millions.

Surely, this is an egregious example of fraud, and hopefully an outlier. That said, as economic times get tougher and scam artists abound, it is probably fair to ask more questions, perform due diligence on personal and corporate investments, and check the assumptions that underpin our decision making.

Should we stop trusting altogether? That’s not a very practical strategy. We live in communities, we need to participate. That said when it comes to recommendations– whatever their source–we should at least pause and think about the motivations for those recommendations. Opaque is out, transparency is in.

Questions:
* Should recommendations–from companies, friends, relatives, etc be trusted? Under what circumstances?
* Many of Madoff’s investors were “swayed by the gut” and ignored the warning signs. What analytical techniques could have sniffed out this fraud?
* With cases of fraud and deception abounding, what practices can companies use to establish and maintain customer trust?
* Have you taken a break from thinking in a significant area of your personal life or business? Who is watching your hen house?