The answer, according to new research by Burson, is $7.07 trillion globally. Or, to put it another way, twice the value of the French economy.

It arrived at this figure after assessing 66 publicly listed companies between October 2024 and October 2025, speaking with stakeholders, analysing years of social and traditional media content, collecting proprietary information as well as reviewing financial data and share price movements.

Burson found that reputation delivered, on average, 4.78% in unexpected and additional annual shareholder returns, which cannot be explained by standard financial performance metrics, such as revenues or profit margins. It has dubbed this the Reputation Return.

But not all reputations are equal: in fact, there is a 13.8 point gap between the top quartile and the bottom quartile (using a 100 point scale). The 66 companies analysed fall into one of three buckets:

• Reputation cultivation, where companies actively seek to build their reputational equity, leading to resilience through volatile periods

• Reputation stagnation, where companies are treading water and vulnerable to internal or external upsets

• Reputation erosion, where companies are constantly battling negative narratives, losing confidence of investors

In fact, the vast majority – around 60% - fall into the middle bucket, which, according to Burson indicates that they have little understanding of how to build up reputation capital, or the value that could be unlocked by moving into the cultivation arena.

The key is to view reputation as multi-faceted. Burson’s proprietary model (I’m guessing proprietary is shorthand for expensive!) has identified eight elements, or levers, that are the building blocks of reputation.

These are either performance levers – products, innovation, financial performance and creativity, or foundational levers – leadership, governance, workplace, citizenship.

It is possible to isolate each element, and then measure and track its impact on a company’s reputation. For example, a company could discover that perceptions around its corporate integrity or governance have an outsized impact on shareholder value.

Indeed, the analysis has found that while the tech sector still scores highly on product and innovation, its scores for governance, leadership and citizenship are either flat or declining.

Five years ago, a mediocre citizenship score might have been overlooked, but today as these companies become deeply embedded in society, stakeholders, such as investors and regulators, place a greater emphasis on accountability.

Interestingly, the most effective lever to operate when trying to rebuild or boost reputation is that of the workplace. It may rank lowest in terms of perceived importance among the eight levers, but it also shows a performance gap of 11.8% between the best and worst performing companies in the research. It represents, according to Burson, ‘a powerful reputational arbitrage opportunity’.

Why? Because as companies so often parrot: your people are your greatest advocates!

CORPORATE APOLOGIES

Authenticity matters

If corporates made New Year’s Resolutions…

… top of the list should be banning the phrase We apologise for the inconvenience. An inconvenience is when the supermarket lacks the key ingredient for your recipe or your local pub runs out of Whispering Angel. It is not, and nor should it ever be, an excuse for a major upheaval to customers’ lives or plans.

Travellers on the M20 approaching the Channel Tunnel on 30 December did not find comfort in the words ‘we apologise for the inconvenience’ on neon signs, as they learned en route that they faced delays of up to seven hours.

Eurostar passengers were similarly not consoled by equally anodyne messages when forced to cancel plans to celebrate the New Year in Paris. And those 30,000 homes without water in Kent and Sussex this week likely viewed it as more than an inconvenience.

It’s a phrase with no empathy for the customer’s plight.

It’s arrogant and trite.

Abby Mangold, founder of the eponymous consultancy, this week offered advice on corporate apologies on LinkedIn. Say it out loud, she recommended, as if speaking directly to the person affected. If it doesn’t sound like something you’d say face to face, it won’t land as sincere.

She also produced a handy document on how to apologise, which I reproduce here with her permission.

MEDIA RELATIONS

Changing nature of media

When I worked on the financial pages of the Daily Telegraph, the main focus was on news with a daily comment piece, authored by the City editor, and a deep dive analysis of three shares. Such gravity was counterbalanced by a diary column of amusing anecdotes, an Alex cartoon and, if we were lucky, a humorous anchor piece, usually littered with puns. Commentary and news were separate and sacrosanct.

Today, the share analysis has gone, along with the City diary, Alex and a laser focus on news. Instead, the pages are filled with opinion pieces, commentary and – I hate this phrase – thought leadership, that often blur the line between news and commentary.

And, according to the latest report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, we can expect more of the same. Faced with an anticipated 43% drop in traffic from search engines over the next three years, publishers are fighting back with more original investigations, on the ground reporting, contextual analysis and explanations, and human interest stories.

They figure that this individuality will offer a distinctive edge, even if it means cutting back on general news, and will also prove harder for AI to replicate or summarise in three bullet points.

It means they are scaling back on service journalism, such as ‘how to’ guides or product reviews, evergreen content and general news, predicting that AI chatbots will inevitably perform this function. There will also be less text-based output, with more investment in video (now a top priority) and audio formats. So, if you’re still sending press releases without a multi-media element, don’t be surprised if they get ignored.

In part this is a response to a growing feeling that traditional media has lost touch with large swathes of society, such as young people, and those less interested in news. If these readers are on YouTube or TikTok, then that’s where media outlets should build a presence - fish where the fishes are, as it were.

Similarly, the rise of the creator economy means that three quarters of publishers surveyed now plan to make their journalists behave more like creators, turning them into platform personalities or influencers, which obviously runs the risk that they will build their profiles and leave, taking their followers with them, leading to further fragmentation of the media landscape. There is another implicit risk: most of these popular creators engage in partisan commentary - how will their news rivals compete?

And finally, if you’ve noticed an increase in free puzzles or newsletters from publishers, it’s because they are keen to drive habitual use. Connections is not the New York Times’ free gift to the world - it’s the hook to keep you reading. Or staying in an attempt to get Wordle in two.

ODDS AND SODS

🌍​ The Times obituary of American businessman - the man who saved IBM - Lou Gerstner mentions a sign in his office which simply read: A desk is a dangerous place from which to view the world. Rather apposite for comms leaders, methinks.

👮‍♂️​ An interesting approach from Avon & Somerset Constabulary. When local newspaper Free Press asked about a spate of vandalism, PC Plods responded that they could not comment without crime reference numbers. What next? Sainsbury’s telling hacks to take a ticket and await their number to be called.

🙋🏻‍♀️ Lensa, an AI powered jobs platform, offers suggested answers to interview questions for those seeking roles as directors of communications.

Apparently if asked How would you handle a crisis situation that could potentially damage the company's reputation?, the appropriate response is: ‘I would immediately assess the situation, gather all relevant information, and develop a strategic communication plan to address the issue transparently and proactively, while ensuring consistent messaging across all channels.’ Piece of cake! 🍰​

🫶​ I learn that Hackney Council has informed staff that letters should not start with the terms ‘Dear sir’ or ‘Dear madam’. One suggested alternative is ‘Dear council tax payer’ which is akin to those press releases that begin ‘Dear [insert name here]’, and make recipients feel so special.