Branding and Reputation

              Jimmy Johns is a very recognizable sandwich chain that has a distinct marketing strategy. The company has branded itself as a fast food chain in a very literal sense – the stores are known for their speedy service in-store and through delivery. They also brand themselves as slightly off-kilter through their menus and store decorations. There are funny, off-beat phrases and jokes in everything, like a sign that says “free smells” and including jokes on their menu item descriptions. While many would say Jimmy Johns is very similar to other sub shops as far as their actual food goes, they set themselves apart through their marketing and branding.

              Jimmy Johns has a reputation for providing good food quickly and cheaply. It’s not 5-star cuisine by any means, but it’s a viable option for anyone who wants something they’ll like without having to wait very long and without having to spend large amounts of money. This is especially important for college students, since most students are working with a limited budget and are incredibly busy.

              I think the Jimmy Johns franchise is aware of its reputation and uses it to enhance their branding. Their commercials highlight how “freaky fast” their service is, which is an important part of their reputation with their customers. Since one of their most important target demographics is young people (or milennials), they incorporate things that milennials care about into their branding strategy – like a fun, off-beat atmosphere in their stores, created through their fun phrases & signs. On the whole, it’s important for branding and reputation to reinforce one another to create a cohesive image for a company, and I think Jimmy Johns does that very well.

Reputation-building

I have a strong reputation in the actuarial program here at the University of Illinois. I developed my reputation through becoming steadily more involved in the program and adding to it during my time here. I started gaining credibility by going to club events in the beginning of freshman year. This showed commitment to the club and helped grow my network. I added credibility through my internship at State Farm during that spring semester, and was then voted onto the club’s executive board for the following year. While on the board, I initiated new programs and helped plan and execute annual events. Each year I’ve gained more responsibility and credibility, eventually becoming the president of the club. To keep my reputation intact, I manage the club and create new programs for it. I also teach two actuarial classes and serve on committees for the mathematics department.

While I love my position in the club, there are definitely times I wish I could get away from it. There’s a certain pressure to maintain a professional appearance in the presence of club members and keep relationships with club members and the executive board professional as well. We’re all college students, and some of my best friends are in the club and on the executive board, so it’s hard to draw those lines sometimes. It’s also hard to maintain that reputation when there’s a club event I’m expected to attend or something I need to do to maintain my reputation, and I’d much rather be doing other things. Most times I follow through with what needs to be done, but there have been times when I’ve slipped.

I very rarely intentionally cash in on my reputation, but there has been a time or two when that’s happened. There have been times when I’ve had work to do or events to go to during the weekend and I’ve decided to make a trip home instead. In general, though, I tend to stick to my normal routine.

Conflicting Priorities from Principals

               Instances when agents have two principals with conflicting priorities can be troubling and complicated. Issues of power often come into play, and depending on the situation, ethics could factor in as well. By nature of the situation, there’s no one right answer in these cases, although there are some ways of handling the situation that are better than others.

               One specific instance that’s happened to me multiple times is when someone asks me what it’s like working at a company they’re interested in applying for. The company would prefer that I speak highly of them and would rate my performance as good if I painted a great picture of what it’s like to work there. The friend would prefer that I was honest, and talked both about the positives and negatives of working for that company so that they can make an informed decision. In these situations, my actions affect me personally as well – my credibility is at stake if I’m dishonest, but if my employer heard me speaking about the company in a bad light, that could have negative effects on my career.

               As I said, there’s no right answer here. However, from taking different courses of action in the past I’ve found that some strategies work better than others. Things tend not to work well when I oversell a company. In this case, students who aren’t a good fit for the company apply and there’s a mismatch between what the student wants and what the company provides, and that isn’t good for either party. Students also tend to take my advice in these situations less seriously afterward. While I satisfied the company’s short term goals of maintaining a positive reputation on our campus, I’ve failed their long term goal of recruiting good students that fit in well with the culture.

               In cases where I’m honest about both the features and pitfalls of an organization, some students that I talk to are dissuaded from pursuing that company, which might not be good for the company in the short term. The candidate appreciates it, though, because they don’t waste resources on a company that wouldn’t be a good fit for them long term.

               There are ways of handling the situation in between these extremes – like being honest but putting a positive spin on things, or simply not giving advice on it at all since I’m a biased source – and some of those can be effective as well. If there’s a way to handle these kinds of situations where both parties benefit (and especially where there’s the most possible social benefit), that would be preferred to a case where one principal gets exactly what they want and the other loses out. In cases where one principal wins and the other loses, outside factors about the specific situation would have to come into play.