weLEAD Online Magazine
leadingtoday.org
Copyright
2006 ã weLEAD, Inc.
February
2006 Editorial
The Symbiotic Dimensions of Branding:
Competitive and Enduring
Editor of the E-Journal of Organizational Learning and
Leadership
Ford Motor Company
announced in October 2005 and again in January 2006 its plans to reinvent
itself through brand reconceptualization and
realignment. According to company chief William Clay Ford, Jr., the company spent a great deal
of time researching the question, “What do our customers think we do
best?” Ford then announced plans to
enhance or eliminate operational areas and products to bring more clarity to
the question of what the Ford brand is about.
Some might
inadvertently believe that the activity surrounding the Ford announcement and
pending implementation of new, refined and purged approaches to marketing
encompasses the process of branding.
Yet, practitioners of effective branding practice describe the concept as being
complex, a combination of rational analysis and emotional welfare. Branding is an interactive process of
organizational and customer “meaning making.”
Bedbury defines it as “taking something common
and improving on it in ways that make it more valuable and meaningful.”1 Branding is a symbolic process of conceptual and values transitioning. When branding is
defined conceptually on two levels, branding for competition and branding for
endurance, the interactive nature of these two levels can be considered. When
examining branding on two levels, qualitative and quantitative data drive
organizational decisions regarding identifying immediate and long-term needs,
planning for product life cycle/creative destruction issues, and managing
resources.
In previous
decades, branding was largely the concern of private enterprise, but now the
public sector has an increasing need to position and brand itself as well. Regardless of organization type, two
dimensions of branding are needed and interact symbiotically. As Nelson states, a good brand passes both
quantitative and qualitative tests, offers both tangible and intangible value
to the customer, and, hence, to the organization. She further states, brand built on the
dimensions of competition and endurance can help to carry an organization
through good times and bad.2
Branding for Competition. Branding
for competition is an integral part of organizational success in the private
sector, driven by the forces of capitalism and the global market economy. Interestingly, in recent years, branding for
competition has become an integral part of public sector leadership and
management as well. This has occurred
with the realization that there is consumer choice in the public sector and
only extensive marketplace diversification.
For instance, public schools now face competition to such an extent from
charter schools, voucher programs and private schools, that they are using
taxpayer dollars to hire marketing consultants.
Schools find themselves struggling for viability because if one school
emerges as the one most community members select, it certainly will occur at
the demise of the school that they do not choose. Schneider and Buckley describe the impact of
competitive branding in schools as,
. . . .
choice may change the schools themselves—making better
‘products’ available for parents to choose among. Indeed, fundamental to the push for choice is
the idea that choice unleashes competitive pressure on the schools that makes
them improve. . . .” 3
Branding for competition
in the private sector is an approach undertaken by organizations of all sizes
and types. For example, after
experiencing annual losses in the middle 1990’s, IBM refocused itself on “the
basics,” where its brand became market driven and it reallocated resources to
foster technological innovations to meet market demands. Starwood Hotels and
Resorts’ success with competitive branding revolved around lifestyle;
specifically, their beds and bedding became their brand identity. In the case of the Ford Motor Company and
competitive branding, several solutions to the pressures of competition are
presented by management, including product lines redesign and reduction, plant
closings and employee layoffs. Ford is
facing the ever-tightening demands of the marketplace and realigning corporate
goals and resources to meet those demands.
In addition, it has positioned itself for the hybrid market and
alternative fuel vehicles.
Branding for
competition allows organizations to gain success in the ever-changing
marketplace, where current success has no relation to the past. The talented singer Sheryl Crow has enjoyed a
long-term career in the entertainment industry.
She was recently asked about her past success and whether or not that
success gives her the option to choose what she wishes to sing. She stated that she does not ever feel like
she has “made it” because everything is in the “immediate.” Her response describes the marketplace
dynamics for any enterprise engaged in branding for competition. Ford’s story
is about how rapidly the marketplace changed when they did not change with
it. Organizations striving for
competitive branding must have the capacity to react to evolving customer
demands. As Brown states, “brand awareness is not worth much anymore, relevancy
is.”4
Competitive branding involves reaching a target in an extremely
fragmented market by creating a relevancy as a perception of truth in the minds
of customers.
Branding for Endurance. Branding for endurance is different from
branding for competition, where identity by comparison is a guaranteed short
life. While both approaches to branding
are necessary, they function in different dimensions. Branding for endurance is described by Bedbury as the “softer side of brand.” (see
Footnote 1) He provides
examples of how Nike and Starbucks achieved brand endurance by relying on the
power of symbolism to create meaning and change behavior. Bohlman and Deal
explain the value of symbolism in organizations, “What is most important is not
what happens, but what it means.”5
Branding for
endurance is different from competitive branding in that it embraces a
long-term, sustainable approach. It
allows for the time it takes for transformative experiences to take place with
employees and customers. It is more
broadly focused than competitive branding, and is resistant to fickle changes
in the marketplace. Branding for
endurance carries high symbolic value as a strength. Branding for endurance develops as an
organization remains clearly focused on its founding purpose. Over time, a frame of reference emerges for stakeholders that is stable in regard to mission. Branding for endurance occurs when
compatibility between organizational values and practice exists. When an organization strives for endurance
branding, it must be committed to a long-term, single-minded, whole-hearted
approach.
Nelson advocates
for this long-term approach to developing a strong brand and describes how to
attain endurance branding through developing sound ideas and a good product or
service, supported by a solid business model that allows for differentiation.
(See Footnote 2) Southwest Airlines,
winner of branding excellence awards has developed endurance branding through
their employees. Miles and Mangold describes this as the process by which employees
internalize the desired brand image and are motivated to project the image to
customers and other organizational constituents. Employees have a “psychological contract”
with Southwest, according to Miles which allows them to “internalize and
deliver the desired brand image.”6 The intangible value of
endurance branding lies in its ability to align core mission and values to such
an extent that it has implications for employee recruiting and retention.
Endurance branding
works when an organization has cohesion, cooperation and single-mindedness
about its purpose and what it delivers.
Messages are transmitted in a way that clearly, consistently and
frequently conveys mission, vision, values and brand image. Trout states, “You have to stand for
something in the mind or you become nothing.”7 The Vatican and government
organizations, such as FEMA, are facing the demands of developing endurance
branding. The USDA Rural Development
department reports on recent restructuring efforts in order to create brand
endurance. Gray states, “money is not
enough,” but brand has to be supported and shepherded through complex
organizational processes.8
It is ideal to
develop both levels of branding. For
example, some organizations have been able to focus on both branding
for competitiveness and branding for endurance.
While branding is not well understood in the public sector,
Perkins-Gough reports on high-impact schools, who have
done so while serving large populations of low-achieving, low-income or
minority students by developing branding at both levels. In these high-impact schools, average state
scores are met, with gains for the lowest achieving students coming in higher
than expected, meeting the demands of branding for competition. In addition, these schools are developing
branding for endurance by creating cultures that are markedly different from
their counterpart. Collaborative
cultures, supported by high degrees of autonomy in which to allocate scarce
resources, provide high expectations for students, rigorous academic work,
differentiating support for underachieving students.9
The potential for
wealth creation through proper management of brand is limitless, for brand
success is about effective knowledge management. Brand is about voice, reliability,
truthfulness, and validity. By
continually eyeing the market and tapping into organizational capacity,
organizations can strive to be the best through competitive branding. In addition, cultivating intangibles by developing
sustainable organizational characteristics and marketplace products and
services through endurance branding--well, even brand visionaries would not try
to predict what is possible!
References:
1Bedbury, S. (2002). A New Brand World: 8 Principles for Achieving Brand Leadership
in the 21st Century. New
York: Penguin Books, 14, 15, 41, 133.
2Nelson, S. (2005). Six telltale signs
of a weak brand. [Electronic
version]. Brandweek, 46(41), 28.
3Schneider, M. & Buckley, J.
(2003). Making
the grade: comparing DC charter schools
to other DC public schools. Educational Evaluation &
Policy Analysis, 25(2), 204.
4Brown, D. (2005). What keeps brand
execs up at night. [Electronic
version]. Brandweek, 46(20, 24.
5Bohlman, L. G.
& Deal, T. E. (2003). Reframing Organization: Artistry, Choice and Leadership (3rd
ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass,
242.
6Miles, J. M. & Mangold, W. G.
(2005).
Positioning Southwest Airlines through employee branding. [Electronic version]. Business
Horizons, 48(6), 535-545.
7 Trout, J. (2005). Branding can’t exist without
positioning. [Electronic
version]. Advertising Age, 76(11), 28.
8Gray, J. (2005). What’s in a
name? [Electronic
version]. Canadian Business, 78(12), 34-36.
9Perkins-Gough, D. (2006).
Accelerating the learning of low achievers. Educational
Leadership (63), 5, 88-89.
Comments
to: flumerfe@leadingtoday.org
About the
author: