I've always been curious about how things work in the world of C-Suite executives and board of directors. Just when do they make the decision that XYZ, who is the face of the brand, have stayed too long in the game to matter anymore?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014241278873238935045785552617019600…
Today, Men's Wearhouse fired its founder and the face of its brand. Now MW is only a $2 billion company by market cap and even in a forum like WSO shouldn't really garner that prestige frontpage status. However, this is a guy that built his company from scratch, and is the face of the franchise in every meaning in the dictionary. And it's not like the company has been doing poorly in recent years. It's found a niche within itself and performed admirably (granted I'd never be caught in any MW attire).
What I really want to hear from you monkeys: is there any way to value the importance of a single man? Some may say Apple is surviving just fine without Steve Jobs.
Who are some of the other top faces of their respective companies out there? And to what extent would the board suffer any consequences if it canned them?
On top of my head (and mini power ranking with absolutely no methodology whatsoever, because who doesn't love power rankings)
1. Oprah
2. Martha Stewart
3. Elon Musk?
4. Larry and Sergei
5. Zuck?
6. Mark Cuban
MJ
John Mcafee is, perhaps not-so-ironically, still the face of Mcafee. Also related:
Zuck for sure. Take Cuban completely off the list. The rest are good. The question is really just, if this guy goes away, do people still trust our brand and see it the same way? Then again, people would have thought (and in my opinion they correctly thought) that Steve Jobs's death would kill the Apple brand in some ways. I argue that it did - it effectively called into question Apple's innovation, as SJ was always seen as THE guy when it came to new product development (even though we know that to be false, it was the perception). Bill Gates could die tomorrow and MSFT would be the same, so I don't see that one in the same light. There's plenty of arguments to be made in a ton of different industries... to a lesser extent Elsa Peretti's departure from Tiffany would be a painful blow to the brand but nowhere near crippling, so that's another to consider. But as far as people who ARE the brand and ARE the company... I don't think you can be any more accurate than Oprah and Martha... Richard Branson and Virgin from a purely brand awareness standpoint maybe... but that company would be just fine without him (and is).
Why not Donald Trump?
What about Trump? I don't know how much his company would suffer without him, but he is certainly represents his brand.
Also Jeff Bezos may not have the name recognition of some CEOs, but he was ranked #1 living CEO by Harvard Business Review. Bazos also was the Time 1999 Person of the Year, and he was the Fortune 2012 Businessperson of the Year.
Mr. Trump gets between $5 -10 MM upfront fee from lending his name to a RE development, plus a share of the earnings down the line. Hard to pass his name in real estate. I think somebody calculated his brand name to be worth upwards of $ 8 Bn (or $14 Bn ?) -that was however, before 2008-.
I know this is unrelated to the topic but the "#1 living CEO" thing made me think... I think it's a very close battle between Mike Pearson and Mark Donegan for best CEO in the world right now. Honorable mentions include Will Oberton, Carol Meyrowitz, Al Mulally, and Amancio Ortega
You guys hear this? That's BlackHat's portfolio in a nutshell. What are y'all waiting for? This post is worth its weight in gold!
Musk no doubt.
I know this thread is about C-level ish, but endorsed athletes create tremendous value as well and can make or break a brand. Look at Nike and Jordan. They took a big gamble in the 80s and now have one of the most identifiable brands in the world with Jordan. Also, Tiger made Nike golf relevant, Beckham took Adidas to the next level, and lastly, (not athletes), but Reebok almost became relevant again to younger demographics by signing Swizz Beatz, Tyga, and Rick Ross. If any of the above athletes left their respective endorsers, those brands would take HUGE hits.
Rick Ross was booted by Reebok, and they've taken a hit in marketing to urban teens as a result.
Michael Jordan or Michael Jackson?
To me, the best examples are those where the average customer buys specifically because of the person at the top. So, for me, guys like Bill Gates or Larry/Sergei don't qualify. Oprah and Martha Stewart are the best examples I could think of.
With that in mind, guys like David Einhorn certainly qualify. How many people would stay invested with Greenlight if he left? Contrast that to how many people would stop using Facebook if Zuck left?
I think you could add celebrity chefs to that list as well (guys like Mario Battali).
Adding basically one-man operations defeats the purpose a bit, no? That's kind of like saying if Dr. Phil died nobody would watch Dr. Phil anymore. I'd totally agree that the Google guys don't count at all though.
Certainly, nobody does business with the major investment or commercial banks based on who is heading the firm.
PS -- Dr. Phil is still around? WTF?
The true question is what happens when Warren Buffet dies? Does BRK automatically go to a P/B of 1 or lower?
At quae quia laborum dolores perspiciatis recusandae iusto. Ut est aut hic eos illum et voluptatem ut. Iste maxime harum ex est. Tenetur impedit eligendi eligendi aut quibusdam ut ipsa.
Architecto dicta eum facilis quisquam est. Possimus quidem est ipsa illum. Veritatis ex repellat occaecati quaerat enim vel sequi.
Nihil dolor consequatur fugiat nostrum ex quas amet. Nulla officiis in quia hic ea. Ex vel et odit nihil omnis.
Odio reprehenderit omnis laudantium. Voluptatem aut velit cupiditate velit. Quos ipsa ratione culpa maxime rerum.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...