You Brand

I have mentioned before that brands shouldn’t try to engage with their customers before engaging with their employees. This calls for vertical integration.

Equally important is horizontal integration. In many companies – especially old economy – the caste system is still very much alive: There’s the R&D crowd, the guys from production, sales people, marketing people, finance people and so on. Sooner or later many different ‘esprit de corps’ develop.

For example the production guys will insist that they obviously do a great job, but R&D always wants fancy solutions, HR doesn’t give them enough people, finance doesn’t give them enough budget, purchasing doesn’t give them the best parts, sales wants the product yesterday and marketing insists on USP’s. Depending on the perspective, other divisions will argue in a similar way.

The system is held together by the good old hierarchy. Board members from all divisions usually meet once a week, but what about the rest? They only meet when working on a common project, which usually doesn’t involve all divisions. It is difficult and time-consuming to develop positive relations and common understanding under these conditions. Some employees, which are more proactive than others, develop their own ‘private’ and ‘personal’ networks. But this is not the solution.

Customers don’t differentiate between divisions – for them there is only one brand. Companies are well advised to break down the caste system and facilitate horizontal and vertical integration. It improves the relations: inside and outside.

What’s your view?

Corporate-identity programs are the expression of a corporation’s culture, personality and the products and services it has to offer – the very symbol and signature of the values that should inspire trust with consumers, employees, clients, suppliers and the financial community. Names, logos, colors, fonts, slogans and architecture have been an essential part of major branding strategies since the middle of the last century (Marc Gobé: emotional branding).

Corporate identities were developed to enable brands to make a more or less permanent visual statement about themselves. It was hoped that those statements would in turn define consumer perceptions. Many, especially premium brands, developed a rigidity bearing a resemblance to the Ten Commandments. Their headquarters and showrooms felt like modern interpretations of Cathedrals. The objective in both cases was to communicate in a convincing and at times dazzling manner that the brand and only the brand was in control. Individual interpretations by the believers, i.e. consumers, were not an option. Aspiration was cultivated, automatically including a portion of ‘hard to get’.

The social Web has fundamentally changed the relationship between brands and consumers. Consumers have been empowered by the Web and turned into ‘prosumers’, i.e. they are both producers and consumers. Brands are loosing control, as ‘prosumers’ shape them, influence their value more than ever before and effectively acquire co-ownership.

Brands need more flexiblity, because ‘prosumer’ tastes are changing more often. Not only that, tastes are often different from one ‘prosumer’ to the next. Identities have to be emotionally connected, rather than written in stone. Brands need to incorporate values like social, fresh, immersive, transformative, democratic and trustworthy. Otherwise they will fall into oblivion.

The first consequence for corporate identity is apparent: Brands must include the ‘prosumer’ globally in defining the identity, rather than leaving it to an agency. Crowdsourcing would be a good way to start. What do you think?