Toyota's Image Re-Building: The Start of a Long Haul

The headline from the past two days of Toyota testimony before Congress is clear. Toyota has finally shaped and disseminated a message of corporate contrition: we grew too fast, focused on revenues and profits instead of quality control and the customer, and we forgot what got us to the top in the first place.

But corporate messaging aside, predicting the outcome of the crisis for the world #1 carmaker remains dicey. Here are some thoughts on the Toyota testimony from the past two days:

1. Toyota was well advised that the Members of Congress were the stars. Toyota executives did not attempt to upstage elected officials. They knew this was political theater.

2. The apology from Mr. Toyoda to individual customers and their families appeared sincere, but did not give any additional information or ammunition to the plaintiff attorneys. Apologies are not admissions of facts. Still, for one of the most powerful Japanese executives in the world to apologize to the public in person before another country's governing body is a powerful statement given that country's traditional culture of organizational pride and personal accountability.

3. The pledges to do better also appeared to be sincere but the recent documents praising the victory in dodging U.S. sanctions for minimizing recalls were very scarily damaging.

4. It's unclear what impact the hearings will have on the audiences of existing customers and potential customers. Customer decisions will depend on whether the "fixes" work and when and if the bad news stops.

5. There did not appear to be any "Japan bashing" from the US lawmakers. Reasons: Toyota has worked hard to integrate itself into the U.S. Its American workforce and its impact on domestic suppliers is significant. Furthermore, lawmakers - despite the government ownership of GM and Chrysler - have no inordinate love of U.S. owned auto makers. Toyota played the Congressional game the way any domestic company would. Asking why the early memo and signals of problems weren't communicated to the U.S. subsidiaries was more questioning of corporate communications incredulity than any xenophobia.

For the moment Toyota may be stabilizing its seriously damaged corporate public image. But the automaker still stands on shaky ground. Fixing mechanical problems will only be part of the next challenge. Rebuilding confidence in its products, and regaining the loyalty of customers, dealers and suppliers is going to be a much longer haul. My biggest question: What impact does this continue to have on the next generation of auto buyers? The current ones wouldn't buy their parents Oldsmobiles. Will next gen buy a Camry or a Lexus just because it was in the driveway?

What do you think? Has the corporate image band-aid worked? Will it translate into renewed trust in the Toyota brand and its products?

Twitter Accountability and Longevity: What's the Future of Twittering Versus Fact-Checked Journalism?

Twitter doesn't claim to compete with The New York Times or The Washington Post, but it can have similar influence on - can even be a maker or breaker of - an organization's or an individual's reputation. But, could "Tweets" soon be cast aside as rumor and unfounded hype? Or will tweets gain power and influence?

Tony La Russa seems to think that either way, tweets shouldn't be ignored. The St. Louis Cardinals manager filed suit in San Francisco, CA Superior Court claiming that Twitter allowed a fake account to be set up under La Russa's name with demeaning and derogatory updates about current and former players - that has caused irreparable damage to his reputation. Should Twitter and/or the person who opened the fake account be liable?

It seems that many people feel that tough-talk-twittering amounts to merely off-the-cuff, inconsequential speech as opposed to measured and leveraged assaults that can cause real damage. So, tweeters should feel free to say anything they want.

Apparently, you can even feel free to criticize the President. Sen. Chuck Grassley posted a scathing tweet about President Obama's demand for action on healthcare reform: "Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND."

But, we're talking about just 140 characters max, so any damage would be limited, right? Wrong. As Time Magazine pointed out, Twitter is being used as a "pointing device," sharing links to articles and videos and other longer-form pieces. This all extends the interest and influence. In fact, let me point you to that interesting Time article: http://tinyurl.com/pr9qg5

Are there no consequences to tweeting? If there are none, should there be? Also, will tweeting last and even continue to expand? What is your opinion?