ervice. And 200 employees sent e-mails expressing disbelief that the company would "distribute pornogra- phy." The American Family Association asked the Department of Jus- tice to investigate the company for possibly violating federal pornography statutes. A coalition of twenty-seven socially responsible investment funds that claimed to own $100 million in AT&T shares began drafting a shareowner resolution voicing opposition to distribu- tion of the Hot Network. One could (and in fact some did) argue that this was a relatively small number of complaints for a company with upwards of 50 mil- lion customers, and that $100 million was just a fraction of the com- pany's overall market value. Indeed, our own tracking research indicated that only 3 percent of the public associated AT&T with the stories about the distribution of pornography on cable TV. That figure would drop to less than I percent over the coming months despite sporadic news stories as various groups jumped into the fray. But no one should have drawn solace from any of those numbers. A brand is a complex blend of associations and impressions that are formed unconsciously as consumers interact with a product or representations of that product in advertising and in the media. While few single events are potent enough to alter a brand's image funda- mentally, a succession of actions that are inconsistent with a brand's values can undermine it just as quietly and just as surely as slowly dissolving limestone can suddenly create a sinkhole. The dilemma that Armstrong now faced was accurately described by the Financial Times: "Does he decide not to carry the channel and risk being seen as succumbing to censorship? Or does he stick to his guns and risk tarnishing one of America's best known brands in a long-running battle with outraged believers?"2 But even that analysis missed the real Pay Attention to the Power of the Few point: However lucrative it might be and however common the prac- tice, distributing pornography simply was not consistent with the val- 