Archive for the 'Communications Industry' Category

01
Mar
10

Implementation: Rethinking the cost (and value) of rebranding

Occasionally we invite friends of Pendry White to contribute guest articles to Whiteboard, highlighting a best practice innovation in our own world of reputation marketing. We invited Gideon Wilkinson, Founding Partner of Endpoint, to share his thoughts on an innovative new approach to the complex issue of brand management and implementation

Anyone who has had anything to do with managing a brand knows it is expensive and complex when it is done right, and very expensive when done badly. Fortunately, a new discipline is making a consistent brand image across the whole business a much greater probability, with the added benefit of controlling costs and improving quality. Brand Implementation Advisers are beginning to play a critical part in the smooth rollout of new and revitalised brands, working alongside senior brand managers, creative consultants, and internal resources to deliver a brand that works, on budget and on time.

All too often we see senior management focus enthusiastically on the front end creative aspects of a new brand identity, a rebrand or even a simple brand refresh. But, when the glamorous bit is done, the truly critical phase, the physical implementation, becomes a ‘simple’ operational matter left to others.

So many organisations fail to recognise that this part of the process will in reality cost many times what you spent on the expensive creative thinking – some estimates put this at 10-20 times the front end design spend. Put that in numbers to get a measure of what it means – if you pay £1million to develop a new brand and visual identity, expect to pay up to £20million to make it work as the creative consultants told you it would – and that will be your problem, not theirs!

It doesn’t matter what industry you are in, your brand is critical to your business. Yet when it comes to major changes to your brand so many organisations allow the all-important implementation programme to become fragmented, with control over costs and quality moving away from the brand guardian to other “operational” areas, such as property, facilities, IT and many other distant parts of the business.

We recently conducted a small survey among a panel of senior marketing professionals, who between them had managed a significant number of brand change programmes. We asked them what typically happens when there is any kind of brand change. Their answers were consistently ‘inconsistent’ i.e. it seemed to happen in a different way every time. And that is not surprising, you don’t rebrand every year and the level of past experience within most organisations in reality is limited – so it tends to “get made up as we go along” as one of our interviewees said.

Again not surprisingly, it is pretty much common practice to bring in a brand consultant to help to shape the brand messages, the corporate visual identity, to develop the brand guidelines, and so on. Our panel all said this was the norm and, while expensive, it was worth it to get the visual brand and the brand communications in alignment.

But when we asked what happened next in making the new or reenergised brand work at a physical level, in all locations and all functions, there was almost universal agreement that, at that point, the “Brand Director” lost control and became reliant on others to make it happen across the organisation. Indeed, there is often no central idea what the total real cost of that implementation might be as it gets lost in departmental budgets, already planned replacement spend, and other ongoing initiatives. And that meant parochial politics, local priorities, in-house people with their own preferred suppliers, “not invented here” syndromes, and a myriad of other factors which influenced the speed, efficiency, and cost effectiveness of the brand implementation.

Major brand change programmes can be driven by a number of factors – merger (usually a total new brand – like the recent Towers Perrin/Watson Wyatt merger to form Towers Watson) or acquisition (often imposing one on another (e.g. Santander with Abbey and Bradford & Bingley), a brand re-launch or brand refresh (such as Ernst & Young did quite recently).

Let’s take a current example and just speculate for a minute to illustrate a point. Nobody knows as yet what Orange and T-Mobile will do with their new merged business entity, assuming it gets the necessary clearances in London and Brussels. However, here we have two very strong brands, with two equally strongly branded parents, neither of whom will want to see their brand devalued – somewhere along the line one or more brands will become redundant. Whatever happens, there will almost certainly need to be some changes to the brands of both of these High Street operators, even if it is only to reposition them as sister organisations. Or it could result in a complete rebrand. The probable scale of those changes will necessitate careful planning and implementation from their brand managers.

The marketing people will be looking at the front end on the consumer brands – but is anyone taking a view across all aspects of the combined businesses where brand change is going to be necessary? For example, on buildings and other property sites, in internal systems and processes, at corporate presentations and events, and a multitude of other areas where change could and should happen.

Has anyone added up the potential cost of those changes in real terms? How do you build brand engagement on both sides of the new entity? Does the Orange brand culture absorb and take over the old T-Mobile brand culture, or vice versa? And who is taking both the big picture view and looking in detail at the actions needed? For both, cost reduction must be critical to pay for the deal, so they will need to be very cost conscious when deciding how they intend to manage the new brand going forward.

It is in situations like this, making the brand strategy a reality, where the newly emerging role of the Brand Implementation Adviser offers a major step change for organisations going through brand changes. Let me declare my self–interest: Endpoint is one of consultancies leading the development of this new approach to brand implementation but today I am simply explaining the approach and the benefits – if you want the sales pitch just call me!

In a nutshell, what the Brand Implementation Adviser does is sit alongside the brand guardian/owner within the client organisation (usually an over worked Marketing Director who is also trying to make sure the brand is implanted across all his or her own highly visible marketing activities) and provides the day to day linkages to all other parts of the business.

It doesn’t replace local accountabilities, doesn’t interfere with existing preferred supplier arrangements or step on in-house toes. But what it does do is make sure that the brand is being implemented as it should be; that schedules are being met; that costs are being controlled and monitored; that quality is being maintained; that wheels are not being invented twice.

At one level it is about a massive check list of actions that makes sure nothing falls between the cracks. At another level, it is an independent eye offering experienced advice and guidance when and where it is needed. And at a third level it is a point of arbitration, even head banging when needed, to ensure the programme is not derailed by issues of “my patch” or different perceptions of priorities.

For example, with the Santander re-branding of Abbey, the master check-list had an action to replace branding on all ATM machines. Simple statement, complex to implement! There are huge variations in the type, location and size of all the ATMs and this complexity had to be managed along side the bigger branch rebranding programme, the changes to literature and other corporate materials, the IT changes necessary to implement the new brand and so on.

Just as the brand creative consultant sits at the front end of the process, the Brand Implementation Adviser should also sit at the front of the process because he will be the ongoing link that makes the creative consultants’ award winning ideas actually appear wherever it should, when it should and in a format that actually works! We can all think of examples where an expensive new corporate identity just hasn’t worked in real life as it was envisaged by the designers. Could these have been avoided with better planning and programme management? Almost certainly!

So today, when there has to be a real, measurable bottom line cost to any branding exercise, Brand Owners really should be putting someone in place to ensure best value and best practice is delivered. They should work with the creatives at the front end of the branding process. And then with the management team and all the people around the organisation, with an interest in or responsibility for making it happen, at the back end of the process. In this way, you will greatly improve the chances that the corporate goals that drove the rebranding in the first place are actually achieved, on time, on budget, at the right quality …. and definitely ON BRAND!

Gideon Wilkinson is one of the founding partners and is a director of Endpoint Limited. He can be contacted on +44 (0)20 7089 2670 or by email at gideon.wilkinson@endpoint.co.uk. You can learn more about Endpoint at www.endpoint.co.uk

27
Oct
09

logistically speaking, engaging optimum assurance solutions – where could we be without jargon?

Roger White writes:

It is sad to admit this but, as a regular driver on the auto routes of Europe, I have become a bit of a truck-spotter.

Halfway through a boring 1000km drive there is a certain juvenile glee in suddenly crying out “There’s a big Willi” (Betz), or spotting one of thousands of Norberts (Dentresangle). Then there are all those Vos, de Rijk, Patinter, Waberer, Olano and, of course, in the UK, Eddie Stobarts to spot!

However, I have noticed even in the glamour-free world of trucking, meaningless corporate jargon has now become commonplace – any combination of “logistics” “solutions” “delivering” “optimum” “global” painted on the sides of every possible type of truck.

Remember that word game from the 90s? You picked random words from a long list to make up a new corporate buzz phrase. Well, it is now living on the tail gates of the world’s Logistics Solutions Providers.

I am not having a go at truckers, but lets be honest, what they do is move “stuff” from A to B. The rest of it, as one of my clients says, is marketing BS.

It is not just truckers. Once upon a time all accountancy firms delivered audit and accounting services and every one knew what they did. Post Enron, and in a rush to avoid their market place being restricted by new regulations, they all suddenly discovered the exciting world of Assurance – but what does it really mean?

Similarly, the IT marketplace has long been the home of technical jargon designed to confuse and baffle those who are not true insiders – usually the customer!

And in the HR field the buzz word “de jour” is Engagement.

Whatever industry or sector you are in there will be meaningless jargon attempting to illustrate differentiation and encapsulate your corporate ethos and culture.

As a marketing man I am not against tag lines. I admit one of my own clients is using the “solutions” word. And I love bold statements that do sum up a business personality – “Just Do It” as they say.

But what I do want is a return to proper use of language – just say what it does on the tin and get some meaning back into what we do and say.

Do I phone a haulier and ask for an “optimum logistics solution”? I doubt a Board has ever said “we need help with our assurance”. And no employee of mine has ever said “I need more engagement with you” – they have usually been a lot more blunt about things!

And that is my point. If you tell it as it is – this is what we do and this is how you, my client, benefit from working with us. I believe that you will have instant differentiation from most of the jargon-addicts you compete with.

Try speaking the same language as your customers and see how your relationship with them becomes warmer, closer and more profitable. Oh, and by the way, we are in Reputation Marketing – that’s exactly what we do for our clients, use marketing techniques to enhance or protect corporate reputation, so no jargon there, then?

Roger White is Managing Director of Pendry White

03
Sep
09

warnings from history – pr and the new sciences

One of the most intellectually challenging bloggers in the PR community is Swiss-based Paul Seaman who takes a robust and unsentimental view of the trade. He is a good source on issues that are currently arising from within the community and that may come to have public policy effects.

Last month, he picked up on the inevitable – the attempt by the PR industry to acquire prestige and income from the revolution in neuro-science. Our sister team at TPPR has also been highly suspicious of trends to quantify ‘persuasion’ – in their case, as political analysts, they have directed their sceptical gaze at the potential for excessive claims about the meaning of the data embedded in social networks.

If this was just a case of advisers looking for the latest sales gizmo to restore the battered fortunes of the more traditional parts of the marketing services industry, we might be less concerned but there is a deeper worry here as Governments increasingly detach themselves from the community and seek out tools to quantify their tendencies towards populism.

The public relations industry, as Seaman points out, is heir to the rhetorical tradition of the Ancient World. It derives from the need of all those who have power to retain that power. The satisfaction, all things being equal, of those under the command of elites can be constructed through the creation of a narrative that meets the ends of the rulers. This is not some left wing fantasy, it is the reality to which Machiavelli addressed himself.

A new book on the surprisingly short but ever-fascinating tenure of the National Socialists in Germany (about the same as the current New Labour Government) points out what common sense should have told us but which we have chosen to ignore because it was inconvenient.

The Nazi regime was popular but only because the ruling group was more terrified of the population than the mass of the population was terrified of it and because it delivered some very material (and inflationary) goodies to please it.  Indeed, other than Hitler’s formidable will, a natural motivation for war was that Germany’s economy may well have crumbled if it had failed to expand physically – rather like those old asset-stripping corporations that start to collapse the day they stop doing deals.

Work on Soviet Russia indicates something similar under Stalin where, whatever the scale of the police state, the majority were doing better than they had ever done before in peace time. This determination on mass working class benefits was a deliberate policy done not out of love but necessity.

Public relations people like to draw a distinction between their ‘profession’ and propaganda, largely by adopting the half-baked liberal version of ‘truth’ that also suits the media. This is faux-naive. The liberal media and PR both eschew outright lies but both create narratives that are not designed to educate and inform but to sell and maintain whatever micro-regime (clients or publisher) is central to institutional survival.

In this respect, modern liberal democracy is not ‘truer’ than totalitarian systems but merely cleverer and, in permitting freedom of expression and open political struggle, less sclerotic with many more opportunities to force narratives to line up more naturally with public expectation and the facts on the ground.

It is theoretically possible for dissident opinion to change the nature of elite culture in the West and there are periodic ‘paradigm shifts’ in the Kuhnian sense, but the reality is that elites are generally embedded for a generation or so and group-think is rife. High levels of economic development, the rule of law and social complexity constrain these elites from misbehaving but have no doubt that they would if they could.

We could go further down this route but the concern here is the potential use of new scientific discoveries – in neuroscience, in cognitive psychology and in data-mining from the massive amounts of material appearing on the internet – in developing political and social manipulation strategies that could start to rip the heart out of the liberal democracies that they aim to serve.

Even the notionally libertarian Tories have started to get excited about ‘nudge’ psychologies. The temptation by Government and business to believe that scientists, mediated through a PR industry desperate for the next big thing to sustain its institutional presence in society, can deliver power and sales may mean that the split between hard policy-making, community engagement and political education on the one side and ’spin’, technocracy and populism on the other will become ever wider.

In practice, the Western corporate sector has avoided the excesses of the politicians. Political power is all about seizing and holding power, not regularly going back to the market to sell goods and services, raise capital and hire and motivate good people. Business in the West is now infinitely more accountable than Governments.

The danger is that social manipulation strategies based on half-baked science will be used for short term reasons by Governments, taken up by corporations through the advice of ’big man’ bluff merchants, and then be exposed by the new internet activists in a way that undermines the current liberal capitalist consensus that ensures political stability.

On the one side, the Piracy Party UK has now been launched. On the other, it has been announced that the Metropolitan Police has hired a digital agency allegedly to monitor the web for evidence of crime ‘and conversations about the Met’s policing methods’. Hmmmm!

Privacy and the conduct of an authoritarian State, trying to maintain order in a time of social upheaval, are both going to be big issues in the coming years. The idea that PR is becoming the trade of those determined on controlling the population through scientific means and selling them what they don’t want or need, instead of communicators of reliable if biased narrative, would be a reversal to the years when Vance Packard rightly exposed the ‘hidden persuaders’.

Only this week, naked climate change protesters (we have a sneaking admiration for their chutzpah) invaded Edelman and Guido Fawkes has already declared war on the lobby industry. It will be a battle that the PR industry cannot win in the long run if it goes over the line  that divides its role as barrister for its clients to becoming seen as part of the infrastructure of political and social control, a process that probably started around a decade ago. 

The political class, the traditional media, the state and the marketing services industry can no longer control the commanding heights of the information economy within a truly free society. The question is whether a truly free society is going to be acceptable to them under these conditions.




 

March 2010
M T W T F S S
« Dec    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Copyright

©2009-2010 The Pendry White Partnership Limited. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Pendry White and Whiteboard with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.