A clear example is Singapore Airlines, which ranks among top 20 safest airlines in world. In wake of October-2000 crash at Taipei airport, company immediately confirmed accident and possible causes, releasing a list of deceased passengers to press and victims' family members. A dreadful episode for one of world's safest carrier, accident apparently did not hurt its long-term image, according to John Trevett, a trainer of air-crash investigators at Cranfield University in England, as quoted by Time.

BusinessWeek regularly admits and posts printing errors and false information noticeably in readers' page of its weekly issues, though it could have gotten easily by overlooking errors or not publishing letters of critics and corrections from its readers. At end of day, magazine only reinforces its brand as a trustworthy and credible business-information source.

We can also learn from software giant Microsoft, which since past two years has dominated media headlines with its announcement of flaws in its products along with potential resulting damages. While such tactics obviously won't diminish its perceived strong-arm tactics, at very least Microsoft spawns sense of responsibility and concerns for consumers using its products.

In end, disclosing mistakes and claiming responsibilities accordingly may actually reinforce or improve your brand. One thing we marketers should keep in mind is that negative publicity serves as a complement to positive PR ploys. A controllable dose won't harm your image, but doing it on a daily basis is a prescription for disaster.

The power of a strong corporate brand is even visible in company with multiple brands as demonstrated by CNET, which incorporates its well-known name into less popular sub brands under its network -- News.com, Search.com, Download.com, Shopper.com, CNET Radio -- to boost their credibility. You can instantly get 'feel' of CNET when logging on to any of these sites as they essentially share same colors, layout, and navigation. News junkies are ensured of credibility of content presented by News.com, which bears CNET logo of trustworthy brand of network of technology-related sites.

Ironically, strongest point of a company brand is also its weakest link. Relying on a single brand can do widespread damage across sub brands in catastrophic episodes, even when only one product involved. In wake of Ford-Firestone tire debacle in 2000 for a while both companies were down in toilet with eggs on their face, despite exclusivity of mishap - Firestone Wilderness AT tires on Ford Explorer.

On other side of spectrum, individual brands can stay virtually unscathed when their corporate parents stumble upon mishaps. The downward spiral that illustrates AOLTimeWarner's image since completion of AOL-TimeWarner merger in early 2001 does little harm to its brands; general public sees Fortune and Warner Music as separate entities with their own image and characters, without drawing any reference to fact that AOLTimeWarner has become an example of a failed mega merger.

Association to established brand

It is more practical and easier to launch an individual brand when not operating under shadow of corporate brand - particularly in wake of a disastrous event that hurts image of company. The new brand can be safely introduced to and accepted by market without fear for consumers' associating it with corporate brand under crisis.

This advantage has been enjoyed repeatedly by consumer-goods companies such as P&G and Unilever. P&G exploits potential of emerging markets in South America and Southeast Asia by creating regional brands, without noticeable connection to image of P&G and its other brands in United States and other countries. Furthermore, except for those in business and economy sector, probably nobody has no idea what P&G is or what it does, or what company makes their laundry detergent.

Conforming to unofficial but widely existent phenomenon that no school of thought can be valid at all times, two branding strategies I am proposing here are subject to a set of constraints -- current condition of market, nature of business, and consumer, economy, and social environments. The persistent success of Sony in sustaining mind share as a household name in advanced and long-lasting electronics, may justify option of going with company brand. Yet for more than fifty years Nestle and P&G, and now AOLTimeWarner, have proven that settling down in background and instead diverting spotlight to a set of well-managed individual brands, can be a lifesaver during times of crisis.