4 Captivating Companies and What They Share

· They follow their founders. Howard Schulz, Steve Jobs, Larry Page and Sergei Brin, and Jeff Bezos are as different as personalities come in business: Schulz is a famously nice guy; Jobs pretty much the opposite of a nice guy. Page, Brin and Bezos don't fit the stereotype of the charismatic chief executive at all. But each of these leaders continues to be central to his company's identity and has remained (or returned) as an embodiment of the company's culture and values. Jobs has kept Apple intensely focused on product and advertising design. Bezos has rooted Amazon to delivering top-notch customer service. Page and Brin embody Google's belief in algorithmic solutions, experimentation and bottom-up creativity.

· They engage consumers on an almost spiritual level. This may sound a bit silly, but it is crucial in understanding why people feel so passionate about SAGA companies. Think of the reaction this summer when Starbucks announced it would close 600 outlets: There were protests and petition campaigns throughout the country. Americans reacted as if they had a legal right to lattes within short reach of their homes and offices. In large part, this is because the companies inspire both a sense of community and the ability to create personal brands -- I am my iPod -- which is a powerful combination.

In a book published last year called "Firms of Endearment," three business writers argue that America is going through what they call an Age of Transcendence and that successful companies understand they need to appeal to stakeholders on a level that is more than just dollars and cents. That approach is literally built into SAGA companies, such as Google's famous "20 percent time," which allows employees to work on personal projects during office hours. But it also means tapping into the passion of customers, suppliers, communities and stockholders. Each strives not only for profit and growth but also for social and even moral significance.

These commonalities help explain why many other innovative and successful companies -- Yahoo, Whole Foods and Microsoft, for instance -- don't make the SAGA cut at the moment. Yahoo hasn't changed anything about American life. Whole Foods is a presence in upscale life but has yet to achieve the mindshare of a Starbucks. Microsoft is no longer characterized by a strong sense of purpose. There are a few other companies that we think of as potential SAGAs. One is Netflix, whose SAGA status will probably depend on how it adapts its business to the age of digital downloads. Another is Facebook; its explosive growth and deep engagement suggest SAGA-like passion, but it is still relatively young and occupies a space vulnerable to fads.

Of course, SAGA companies themselves aren't invulnerable. Each has gone through a crisis. With the exception of Apple, each might now be plausibly said to be going through a slump (as Apple did in the mid-1990s). Both Starbucks and Apple had to bring back founders to run the companies after investors and even many customers lost faith with corporate leadership. Starbucks's plan for global growth has stalled and may never be realized, and Google has been criticized for failing to develop and integrate the companies it has gobbled up in recent years. But it's the ability to admit shortcomings and to retool the corporation that sets the SAGA companies apart. Even when they're going through tough times, they're still the companies we want to read about.

James Ledbetter is editor of the Big Money. Jacob Weisberg is editor in chief of the Slate Group and author of "The Bush Tragedy."