For a while at Base One we’ve been questioning the logic of the single big idea as the basis of a brand’s campaigns. Having spent years creating consistent and compelling campaigns around a single idea, why change? It’s been proven to work and buyers are still buyers surely?
Well yes, and no. The fact is that Buyers are changing as this extract from a post by Chris Tacy, Chief Innovation Officer at Brand Experience Agency, Method implies:
… now we have an entire new demographic who have grown up not
having to take it. And as a result, the control relationship between brands and
consumers has changed. And it's not going back. Technology has helped - but
behavior is a big part of this. And at then end of the day... the chickens are
coming home to roost.
In this new world... The Big Idea doesn't really hold
water. Without the control relationship on the side of the brands, it's not
even justifiable. [http://method.com/#/thoughts/ideasculture/detail/WpPost/17/]
It’s this change of relationship that is making us rethink. Brand owners have to realise that they will no longer have control of what people think or say about them. We can influence what they say and think but not control it. And our buyers fit many Persona we know that and for each of them the brand can mean different things. Therefore, we need to start developing clusters of brand ideas that can be relevant to different groups, and yet all relevant to the brand.
Strong brands in the future (even B2B brands) need to resonate as part of the sub-cultures that exist within our markets. Sub-cultures are different yet they overlap, so too must the ideas we place at the centre of our brands.
I've been feeling very good about B2B Marketing recently. Not the magazine, or the website (though they are both fantastic) but the genre. Until today that is. Rushing down the stairs to the tube at Waterloo station I was struck by a monstrosity of a poster ad for Brother printers. It felt like a throw back to the 1990s. Shame on you Brother, and your agency.
I know it's just an poster campaign and I should be recognising what is a great bit of media buying, but I'm willing to bet that I and perhaps a few other of you sensitive marketers are the only people that remember it and for that reason it's depressing. Not only is it a brand (or possibly a product range) ad focusing on a feature that is so generic (speed), but the execution is frankly insulting. A man hurdling a desk. A man hurdling a desk, of all things.
I thought we'd progressed beyond that. I thought we all recognised that we may select a product on it's features but we select a brand on much more subtle things. Things we don't necessarily consciously recognise but that are more powerful and more influencial than any product feature. Especially in such a mature market like office printers!
We have to do better, in fact most of are. The sophistication of planning observable across all B2B sectors is way above this, but just a few of you (and you know who you are) are letting the side down.
When we do Brand workshops with clients we often include an exercise designed to help them to identify the character they want their brand to portray and I think today I've spotted a trend. During the exercise participants are asked to choose two faces, one that represents how they feel the brand is seen now and the second, to represent what how they would like the brand to be seen. The actual faces are not that important its about the differences between the two faces. Invariably the changes in perception they wish for include:
- to be more open / accessible
- to be friendlier
- to be more interested / engaged
- to be less formal
If we stop to think about it this isn't surprising as it reflects changes in our society, but the real challenge comes in implementing the changes internally to make this character real, especially in a service business. It's relatively easy creating communications that portray the brand in this way, but changing the culture so that personal interactions feel in line with this character requires absolute commitment from the very top. Often the people at the top are older, more traditional and dare I say it, out of touch with what their customers really want.
We usually find that the "feeling" a business projects reflects the leader, especially when there is a strong leader. And so it should you could argue, but I believe there should be a separation between the personality of the leader and the personality of the business. This can only happen if it is designed to be so and implemented through a program of change. That's not as easy as it sounds.
We're currently working on two new B2B brands. One is a well backed start up and the other the result of an MBO of the division of a bank. Part of the process is to define the brand values and this can sometimes be an arduous process. In these cases however it has been a (relatively) straight forward exercise and that has given me confidence for the future success of both brands. Why has it been so stright forward?
It's all about the management having a clear sense of what it is that makes the business what it is - essentially the culture. So if it's as easy as that why do so many businesses get it wrong? And believe me they do. I had a look at the "Best Brands" listed in the Business Superbrands book. (I have to admit to a prejudice against this book) but it is a single place to find the values of many of the UK's "leading brands" just to remind myself of some bad examples.
All too often they include the values that are a pre-requisite for a succesful business today - Honesty (uh!), Customer First (that's a distinct idea) ... I could go on. Your values are your chance to focus your employees on what is distinct about you and since having too many is confusing you need to focus on the values that make you what you are. It's important because your brand will reflect your values, the experience of interacting with your business will be what your values feel like at the recieving end and they are what give you a distinct personality.
An example of distinctive value would be those for TNS, the market research business, they are: Wit, Intelligence, Attitude and Imagination. Combine them and you have a really unique personality and one that is recognisable and believable.
So if you're rethinking your brand remember the importance of clear and distinct values. There's a good definition at http://www.brandchannel.com/education_glossary.asp and in other places and what they all say is that your values should act as a benchmark against which to judge the brands behaviour. In B2B it goes further - it's a benchmark against your employees also need to judge their own behaviour since in most cases they are the brand!
Mergers and Acquisitions, they’re all about growing your business and rapidly increasing its value. Right? It’s a sure fire way of buying market share or increasing the range of products you can sell to your existing customers. As long as you can get the price right and can arrange sufficiently attractive financing, you can’t fail.
Sadly no. Many experts give M&A activity just a 50% chance of being successful. A recent Deloitte and Touche survey suggests that almost 70% of companies that undertake a merger or acquisition fail to achieve their stated goals. Another report in the US
The problems tend to lie in one of four areas - a clash of leadership styles; conflicting management systems; different approaches to decision making; or failures in communications. It’s worth noting that these aren’t financial issues per se, but that are more about culture, practices and communications – “branding” in fact.
In modern business what differentiates one business from another is less about the products or services you provide and more about how you deliver them - the customer experience. This is in turn is dictated by the culture, the practices, attitudes and behaviour, and communications - all elements of the brand. We may usually refer to them in brand speak as Brand Assets – the things that your business does particularly well, the Brand Promise – the thing that is most compelling about the customer experience you provide, Brand Personality and so on, but what we’re talking about is the promise of and the delivery of a consistent and valued customer experience.
However, in our experience, branding issues are rarely considered prior to a merger or acquisition and usually inadequately dealt with afterwards. The consequences both internally and externally can be catastrophic. Internally the effect on employees in both organisations can be confusion, a loss of purpose and pride, and a dramatic fall in trust and motivation. Externally the effects are similar. But what can you do to avoid this happening?
Here’s six things that will help:
Investigate the target
Make sure that in your investigations of potential acquisition targets you develop a clear understanding of their assets, practices, cultures and the resultant customer experiences even before you look at the financials.
Assess conflicts
Having decided that the brand is attractive make an assessment of whether or not this represents added value to your current and potential customers. It’s all very well them having a need for these additional products or services, but are the practices needed to deliver them successfully consistent with those needed to deliver your existing products or services. Do they, by their very nature, require a different culture to be effective.
Management Buy-in
Make sure that the senior management that will be responsible for running the combined business understand and buy into the goal and understand the strategy for assimilating the acquired business. Not how much money will we make out of this deal, but, how will this deal help us to achieve sustainable profitability
Design the culture
Literally, design the new culture. It may sound perverse to look to create a culture but no two cultures are the same and it is critical that the combined business has a single culture. You have three options:
1. Assimilation – to impose one of the existing cultures onto the other organisation
2. Hybrid – identify which cultural norms are shared and which ones have to change in each organisation
3. Integrated – create a distinctly new culture based on the good points from each
Identify Assets
Be clear about what the Brand Assets of the combined business will be. Identify what it is that your business is going to be good at and which elements are most important in making that a reality. This may mean adopting some practices and assets from the acquired business throughout the organisation.
Align Communications
Review what each of the businesses have been saying about themselves in the past. How aligned are they? How contradictory are they? What needs to change in each so that they reflect the new Brand Promise.
It’s worth noting that communications comes last and this is because what you say about your Brand must reflect the reality of what you are going to deliver and how you are going to deliver it. Whilst it may be seen as the sexy side of branding it only has meaning and will only have the desired effect internally and externally if the experience is as you say it will be.
Obviously, the finances have to add-up, but I would argue that they should be secondary to the branding issues. If the resultant “brand” is stronger and more attractive than the two constituent brands then there is usually a way to finance the deal. If, however, the “brand” does not create value for the customer because of a clash of cultures, contradicting communications, an unclear promise or indistinct points of difference, then, no matter how you structure the deal you will end with a less than 50% chance of success.