The Summer Collection...

The recent spate of rebranding initiatives clearly indicates the state of mind of a lot of managements in the country. Brand is high on priority but low on understanding. However there is some interesting work some not so great.
On the whole, here is what I felt of the 3 that I have noticed.
Shoppers is a pretty neat job of making the retailer future ready. The new logo has all the understated class and cosmopolitan feel of the brand while keeping it very accessible. The line- Start Something New – really is awful. Not only is it copied, it is so passé that it undoes some of the ground covered by the logo.
As Luke Sullivan says in Hey Whipple Squeeze This- If you don’t have a ‘just do it’, just don’t!
Godrej, I feel has gone a few decades back and somewhere the confused identity is leaping out. The new logo looks terribly inspired by Google and that is certainly a little too much for Godrej to replicate. However, it is pretty clear that Interbrand has not developed a strong sense of what Godrej has meant over the decades to Indians and left a lot of money on the table in terms of leveraging the equity of the group. The treatment of the new logo is terribly out of character with the group’s overall enduring, dignified and classy appeal.
I feel strongly about Ceat though. I feel it has shot itself in the foot by taking the rhino out. Metaphors like these are hard to come by. A gattu (Asian Paints), a Maharaja etc. have been few and far between and one wonders what kind of managements are not gotten by a great idea when they see one. In an earlier post I had written about the power of a Branding Idea.
To me Ceat getting rid of the rhino is a form of hara-kiri as other than that logo I can’t think of anything distinctive the company had going for itself for a while. The new logo is another one of those idealess logos where reams of longwinded explanation will be provided about every color, every nuance and every brushstroke that has gone into that logo but ask the consumer to interpret it and not even 1% of that will be played back.

What's in a Name!

The amount of agonizing I usually see over naming issues in companies makes me wonder if it is all worth it. Just to qualify, I have nothing against a truckload of creativity in naming a company ( a la innocent, Apple etc.) but when I see massive amount of management time being spent on commoditized businesses running under absolutely bland family names I wonder What’s really in a name?
Recently came across a client dilemma. An industrial business (B2B) has been operating under a certain name (a generic English word) across a few geographies. Now it wants to enter a new geography where some other business with the same name has already been in existence. The question is whether to go ahead with the same name and spend our money and imagination to establish our version of the same name more distinctively than the other or to choose a new, distinctive one. One would want to analyze the situation from various angles like the existing equity in their name, any regulatory hurdles etc. and not to mention some possible superstitions of the management.
However the question on my mind remains if we are grappling with the real stuff or just the cosmetics? And is it worth the time and money being spent on such exercises?
(Incidentally just came across a blog dedicated to the issue of naming - Namewire is an interesting blog which covers this topic from various perspectives and provides a lot of material to mull over).
In Indian we have had a remarkable marketing story unfolding over the last decade or so in the form of what is known today as Vodaphone. It has gone from starting out as Max-Touch to being Orange and then till a few months ago Hutch. Every time it has managed to transition to a new name absolutely effortlessly keeping the same core values and brand personality intact. Although it may sound a little too premature, there are two Reliances operating and carving out fairly distinct personalities for themselves. On the flip side there are the expensive but superficial rebranding/revamping exercises a la Shoppers Stop, Ceat, Berger, Godrej etc. that we have witnessed in recent times.
The point I am making here is that very few clients seem to be engaging with the real issue of brand personality which is where the brand gets built or destroyed and not in naming/visual identity. Only when a senior management is in touch with its organizational personality it can cause uniqueness to happen in the market and name in may opinion plays an insignificant role in it. Sadly, in my opinion very few pass that test and end up looking for answers in the wrong places like visual identity (a highly overrated domain in my opinion , but will leave that one for another day).
I have been a part of an absolutely brilliant naming exercise for a not-for-profit called Janaagraha where we identified what the movement needs to stand for and the name consciously evoked a certain proposition and personality of Gandhi.
On the other hand, my own firm which is called Centre of Gravity (not yet a brand by any stretch of imagination) has been a total positive coincidence. What is our firm today was started by a colleague who was into climbing/adventure sports and the name Centre of Gravity sounded apt for that. Due to a host of serendipities the team ended up doing brand strategy work for a few clients and eventually decided to focus on pure Organization Brands and when we looked at the name it sounded perfectly apt and incredibly creative since our work is primarily about helping organizations define the core of their being their identity i.e. their Centre of Gravity.
So, while we agonize over naming our rose- the starting point would be to get in touch with its smell…

Additional Perspectives on Measuring Reputational Capital...

In an interesting coincidence, discovered this blogpost by David Hensley which also talks about the challenges in measuring reputation and brings the dimension of risk management to it. The other perspective i found interesting is how parts of the brand management responsibility of a corporate brand gets split across CSR, Corp Comm and investor relations. Read on...

Managing..OOPS...MEASURING the Reputational Capital…

As a brand-building advisor one is always striving to tangible-ize the benefits that an organization can look forward through investment in understanding and strengthening their brand/s. And I was wondering about what would be keeping the CEOs of reasonably well-run organizations awake at night and conecting the benefits to those priorities.
It essentially came down to profits, revenues and increasingly, attrition.
And while great brands command not only great premiums, ever expanding sales and a higher loyalty of employees, it continues to be a important to have and but the how is pretty unclear to senior managements. There is a serious causal ambiguity about achieving this chimera called an 'Great Brand'.
I say this because I do not see them spending on reputation management the kind of time and resources that are spend on financial management as well as people management. Large corporations rarely have a marketing function and even if there is one it is usually ends up being an out-house managing corporate communication accountabilities.
So what explains this lack of involvement, why do marketing advisors not enjoy the same position as investment bankers and HR managers in front of the CEO.
I believe bulk of the responsibility lies with the lack of quantitative accountability within the marketing function. The primary function of marketing is to strengthen the reputation of the brand but comprehensive brand building takes time and results are felt only over a period of time and at times only under crisis when this intangible buffer of goodwill kicks in to provide the benefit of doubt in one’s favor.
While everything to do with finance and HR is measurable on a daily basis, the same cannot be said about the reputation.
In product brands it is still possible with the established tracking mechanisms available (although I have my reservations about their accuracy and objectives as well). Therefore, the brand management function enjoys the pride of place in such organizations. However, management of product brands has also become increasingly mechanical and the total lack of imagination has increasingly led to particularly the fmcg space losing its prominence.
But organization brands are far more complex and abstract. The current techniques of tracking them do not represent an adequate appreciation of their uniqueness and the standardized methodology just looks for things like recall which are not just inadequate but seriously misleading.
What is needed is an ongoing tracking, particularly with opinion leading constituencies like B-school students, financial analysts, media etc. which tracks a corporation for the primary unique values associated with it.
Goldman Sachs, on its website mentions the management of its finances , people and reputation as its foremost priority. And they are one of the most unique and admired company brands in the world. One wonders if these finance wizards know a trick or two about reputation measurement as well which we marketing types would have missed.

Artificial Limits of Brand Extensions

Brand Extension has been one of the buzzing advisory space and as i read a neatly written post by Jennifer Rice on How far a Brand can Stretch, i was wondering if the limits we put to a brand are in any way real. I for one believe that every brand name can carry anything under it and it is only limited by its competence. There are no external limits to a brand in terms of consumer perceptions, which are absolutely and continuously capable of changing.
It may sound a little brash and provocative, so let me share where i am coming from. When i look at an Apple moving from category to category, or large conglomerate brands like the TATAs or a GE, i fail to see why a brand cannot cut across many unrelated categories.
My submission is that a brand extension assumes a certain easy-way-out by doing a me-to or a sub-optimal offering, which is aimed at purely riding on the strength of the existing equity of the brand built through the good work done in another category. It is actually a lazy marketer's answer to growth.
A brand really keen to enhance its reputation will focus on bringing something dramatically new to the new category and by doing that will not only succeed in the new initiative but also enhance the overall equity of the brand. Who would have suggested Apple expand into MP3 players?
After all, if brands are like humans, the argument can go towards their limitless potential in extending and expanding themselves. I have seen many individuals building successful reputations in more than one unrelated areas of life and being celebrated rather than questioned for it...
As the Company Brand paradigm takes hold, this question of what is the extendable limit of a brand is going to come under increasing pressure to prove itself innocent.

...only one King!

To all those looking for some serious theoretical grounding in the abstract, subjective world of brands and communications, JWT has done a huge favor by coming out with the Timeless Works of Stephen King. I have been fortunate to have been exposed to his works by my mentor and we have been studying, not just reading the stuff he wrote during nearly three decades of practice at JWT. The prescience and the depth of the man is mind boggling. Particularly the articles on Brand Building in the 1990s and Strategic Development of Brands. In the latter, he talks about a new kind of brand planning organization that will be required to service clients in the future (article written in 1988) and almost every word resonates as having come true, including the need for expertise in one-to-one interactive marketing, even before the advent of the Internet.

This book needs to be treated like a pillow and flattened by every planner worth his salt.

It breaks down the world of brand-building practice into simple universally applicable elements that can guide decision making under almost any circumstance. And this grounding in my opinion, is key to ensuring that the world of brand strategy is taken as seriously by clients as the world of management consulting.

On Great Branding Ideas...

Taking the discussion on corporate brands and their communication solution further I want to talk about the notion of the Branding Idea. Stephen King mentioned it first but I haven't seen much understanding of this concept beyond that. When the brand is the corporation, it needs more than advertising, a visual metaphor that can not only go across a host of media vehicles but also captures the identity of the organization in a well understood metaphor. Probably the ML Bull and the Singapore girl are the best recognized examples of such an approach, not to forget our very own Maharaja. They all capture the personality of a service brand and serve as a guideline for all frontline staff.

However a lesser known concept of a branding idea is one where the proposition or the promise of the brand is captured in a metaphor. I have been fortunate to work on two such exercises for not-for-profits and although i cannot share the specifics of strategy, the Janaagraha idea captures the idea of participatory democracy while the VoteIndia idea is about political reforms. I see the LeadIndia logo drawing heavily from this idea that was developed by my creative colleagues about 3 years ago.

And to round it off here is another highly successful example of a branding idea that focuses more on the promise than the personality of the brand i.e. BPCL's Pure for Sure. It is an area of personal passion for me so you will see much more on the subject of branding ideas. Treat this one as a bit of a primer.

The Rajeev Cluster!

Icons are defined as ideas that are a symbol of their times and 'Iconic Brands' as well perform the same role in our consumption driven society. It probably requires the benefit of hindsight to distinguish the real icons of an era and doing it for the recent past is always tricky given how much of the real substance of certain brands is really drenched in hype...when every second brand is claiming to be the spirit of new India, which ones will realy be remembered 20 years from now remains to be seen

Here is taking a shot at a few icons from the 1980s- I think the central event of the decade was the coming to power of Rajeev Gandhi, who despite all his flaws brought a refreshingly modern world-view to India and for a couple of years we were all enrolled in it till he lapsed back into the politics of the past...i think at his best he represented youth, progressiveness, professionalism, a world-class standard of doing things and by being that repositioned the past (mostly to do with his mother and her coterie) as regressive, feudal and dated. And riding on that spirit were three brands which did exactly the same repositioning to the respective incumbents in those categories. The icons for the 80s in my opinion would be Maruti, Hero Honda and Titan - b rands that actually did a Rajeev Gandhi on Ambassador, Bajaj Sccoters and HMT. Only Bajaj, of the incumbents, has been able to reinvent itself and among the icons Titan has probably lost a lot of its iconic appeal by continuing to did deeper into a category fast losing its relevance. If one were to conjecture on the iconic brands of the 1990s, what would they be?

Any guesses?

A Brand Ambassador called NRN

In an earlier post on Infosys i had mentioned how the leadership in the last few years has not shown an understanding of the Infy difference the way NRN used to. They have been extremely competent business managers delivering great results but no different from the guys at TCS or Wipro or Cognizant... Last evening, after a long time, saw NRN in action on CNBC and he spoke about the rupee appreciation in a manner only he can. Despite IT companies losing millions of dollars, he defended the appreciation of the rupee as a sign of the strengthening of the Indian economy and how our imports will become cheaper and therefore the overall good it represents for the country. This is what separates him from the rest- whether it is taking a stand on the IIM quota issue, or suggesting that IT companies should be taxed by governement or questioning intentions of ex-prime ministers... he has always taken a clear stand and operated from a place of conviction rather than convenience.

And that has been the Infy difference- not in terms of business model or culture as much as the ideology that it represented. Coming from the middle class background, NRN somehow showed the opportunistic middle class how not be emasculated and be a stand for a few things irrespective of the stakes involved....

Dying to see some of that spunk in the current leadership as well!

Some Research on Quali Research!

For the believers of quali research, it's been getting increasingly difficult (particulary in India) withdemanding respondent criteria from clients, shortage of genuine research talent and extremely suspect field work. The fact that most clients feel comfortable with the tangibility of numbers makes the task of convicing them about the validity of findings even more challenging. The proverbial 'searching under the lampost for keys not because you lost them their but because that where the light is' phenomena is inescapable in the research context.

Two relatively recent works propose a couple of interesting directions quali research could take. Firstly Doug Holt's How Brand Become Icons?, looks at the cultural role brand play and in the process some become symbols of their times in a society a la Beetle, Coke, Bud, Apple etc. The other very interesting work is by Dr. Clotaire Rapaille called the Culture Code and recommends a semiotic/psychoanalytic approach to uncovering the hidden codes and symbols at the heart of a category. Both these books put enormous emphasis on the societal/cultural aspects in which the brand or the category is rooted and going into lives of the consumers to uncover the meaninsg they attach to using these products.

Both these methods require very high level of skill and specialization and focus on going deeper rather than broader in terms of understanding a phenomena. Both the methods require talking to a select few respondents and going beyond the superficial or spontaneous responses.

Doug Holts recommends studying the societal conflicts that define a certain time period and peg the brand as a reconciliation of that conflict while Dr. Rapaille's methodology belives in going deeper into the lifescripts of consumers and getting them in touch with their earliest memories and associations with that brand/category.

Both are extremely compelling arguments that make enormous sense in explaining a lot of the complexity behind how people interact with brand s and why some become more successful than others. However, the execution of this kind of research (including interpretations) is complex and demands qualifications that very few quali researchers lay claim to.

However, I see it as the future of research as the easy gains that come in a high growth economy dwindle and brands would need to pull off something extraordinary in order to justify their premiums. It is agreat opportunity for research firms to decommoditize themselves and occupy a place that is as valued as any upstream consultant's.

The question is - how many are up to it?...afterall easy gains are easy gains for all and god is the enemy of great!

What does a company need most- vision, values, mission, direction...

Another response to a David Maister (www.davidmaister.com/blog) query which too k me into thoughts i had never had--
If we look at it as sequence of events in the life of a company before a virtuous cycle sets in reinforcing each element-- I would say a business gets created by identifying a need i.e. customers in the market. It then becomes a company when a set of like minded people come and stay together around that need (although it could happen the other way round also with a group of like minded people figuring out a business to be in a la Sony) so shared values (or culture) keeps these people together... and this can become an enduring company if it looks at its business with a sense of contribution i.e. a purpose beyond making money. And it will become a visionary company if it develops a strong sense of direction early on in its life rather than being subject to environmental forces and opportunistic behavior.
In my consulting I have tried to study most of my clients with the Built to Last framework where Vision is a combination of values, purpose and a long term goal.
What I have found most often is the presence of a value system which is the glue keeping it all together. What is most often lacking is a sense of purpose and direction.
The growing Indian economy keeps this virtuous cycle in place and the core team sticks together trying out every new opportunity that comes up in the environment but there is no real sense of strategy and trade-offs that seems to exist.

One hypothesis I have is that most strategic calls get taken by a sense of identity that the management has of itself (this is our kind of opportunity and that is not) rather than any serious analysis of market opportunity or competencies (they come into play only when they desire excellence which is very often not the case). So, if as a consultant I can help clients become more self-aware by putting them in touch with their core values then an entity may emerge over a period of time that is differentiated in the market by what we call organizational culture.
One may wish to give them a long-term strategy articulating in great detail on a quarterly basis what they should be doing..however it is likely to get thrown out of the window the moment first unpredictable event takes place in the environment. And environment is only getting more unpredictable.
So, for an established organization I would focus most on discovering core values and illustrating it with actions/trade offs/rules etc.
for a new start up, i would focus on understanding the nature of the market opportunity.
Ultimately, it is all about finding, articulating and sharpening a difference you can preserve and at various life stages of a company, these would be my priorities.