Jan
Jobs’s absence a branding dilemma
Andrew Berthoff
News of Steve Jobs’s leave-of-absence from Apple is a blow to the company, but it needn’t have been such a massive challenge. It’s never a good idea to have a single person, no matter how tempting it might be to do so, to embody a company.
Since 1997, Jobs has done a tremendous job of turning around Apple, which had been on the brink of becoming a non-factor. Steve Jobs was a link with the company’s pioneering past, and indeed he returned Apple’s original pioneering spirit to the organization.
I loved how everything at Apple under his watch is the latest-and-greatest, how changes to the company’s product-line are among the most exciting in the industry, but that Jobs himself remained familiar: same haircut, same glasses, same scruffy beard, same 501 Levis. To Apple shareholders and fans he offers terrific continuity in a blitz of constant change.
Steve Jobs has become a part of the Apple brand-psyche. Obviously, there are a dozens of important people at Apple, but one never seems to hear from them. Even the Pope trots out cardinals and bishops to do most of his talking. And now, Steve Wozniak, the long-gone original co-founder of Apple, is even being used to reassure folks. That’s not a good situation.
It’s tempting for companies with a strong and alluring leader to want him/her to do all the talking in public. Often, the CEO misguidedly decrees that only he/she should handle interviews and speaking engagements. But it’s inadvisable for a company to limit the public face of the organization as it evolves as a business.
A business that knots its brand with only one person inevitably invites problems when there’s a problem with that person.
Interesting comment and I agree that the PR implications of a one-faced company are severe. And now the question of compliance seems to be in play, since potentially fudging Jobs’ condition may be considered material to Apple’s stock. A board of directors should always make sure that ego doesn’t come before common sense.