Communication professionals (including public relations, public affairs, government affairs, both in-house and agency) have recently allowed several high-profile clients, in high-stake situations, fail.

What was once assumed to be a major responsibility of those providing PR counsel has somehow been neglected, with very public, very significant consequences.

Perhaps that is why Pfizer announced a new position–VP, Corporate Reputation and Policy Communication. Its role? Build Pfizer’s reputation. Though still working under Pfizer’s head of public relations, the responsibility is now with one person. Pfizer management decided reputation needed more emphasis and created in effect, a reputation czar.

Executives in high-profile, high-stake situations also may need a reputation czar, if their staff and public relations counsel are failing them. Consider three major communication disasters that happened in just over a three-month period in late 2008 and early 2009.

First, on November 19th, Detroit’s “Big Three” auto execs came to Congress asking for a bailout. Their messages were weak, and left the impression the executives hadn’t given much thought as to what they would say or what the committee and the American public wanted to hear. But that failure was overshadowed by the defining moment of the testimony: Each of the government bailout executives had flown to DC in his company’s corporate jet at a cost of $ 20,000 per executive.  Who was looking out for the executives’ reputations? Apparently not their internal or external communication folks.

Second, on February 10th Treasury Secretary Geithner presented the Obama administration’s financial sector relief plan. Sir Timothy (I refer to him as such because he was touted as the “white knight in shining armor” who could rescue Wall Street) had flawed messaging which he conveyed with an uninspiring, lackluster delivery. How did the market react? It lost 5% in value in a day. Who was looking out for the Secretary’s reputation and effectiveness? Apparently no one.

Third, two weeks later on February 24th, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal delivered the Republican response  to President Obama’s Address to Congress. His “speech” was an article, not a speech. The staging made him appear awkward, ill at ease. And so the governor, an intelligent man, well liked by his constituents looked stiff, boring and clearly not ready for prime time.  Who was watching out for the governor? It might have been the Republican National Committee, except the recent change in its leadership diffused its focus. And it may well have been that the governor’s staff didn’t know what to look out for.

In all three cases a reputation czar would have protected the speakers’ best interests and increased the results each wanted.

What about you or your clients? Do you have a reputation czar looking out for your reputation?