You Brand

Numerous reasons have been put forward recently as to why brands are slow in embracing social media: productivity concerns, security concerns, lack of adequate metrics etc. But ‘who’ is thinking that? Corporate management in most companies is still a man’s world. Could that be the real reason?

Numerous surveys have shown that women are more social than men. They favor building relations, whereas men love to broadcast. As a logical consequence they outnumber men in social networks.

Would more women in corporate management facilitate an authentic corporate engagement with consumers in social media and elsewhere? Would more women in corporate management enable the necessary restoration of trust?

The population in the Western world is almost evenly distributed, meaning that there are as many female consumers as there are male consumers. Of course this varies depending on the product category. Looking at the car industry where I used to work, one could argue that 50% of the cars are bought by women and the other 50% are bought to impress women! In other words, the influence of the female consumer is much higher than the gender ratio would suggest.

One more reason for brands to reassess their hiring practices.

What do you think?

Trust, as defined by Wikipedia, is a relationship of reliance. Trusting others means that we believe they will keep a previous given promise. It is an investment, because we give it before we get something in return. Trust is social capital and as far as I am concerned, it is not the only investment that is becoming riskier every day.

According to a recent survey carried through in Europe and North America by the German institute GfK (Gesellschaft für Konsumforschung) only 18% trusted politicians, 28% trusted advertising managers, 33% trusted bosses and 41% journalists. Devastating results in my opinion. Is behavior – because that is what it is all about – changing fundamentally as a consequence? At present I don’t have the impression that it is, at least not on a large scale. This is unfortunate, because we have the tools, i.e. the social web, to make ourselves heard and to initiate change. The social web aggregates and distributes dissatisfaction and mistrust just like any other information.

What is holding us back? I hear all the time that one individual experience and/or opinion doesn’t make a difference? It is true when everybody believes it, because many individual opinions will remain solitary. Using the multiplier effect of the social web has the potential to change that, but won’t do the job for us. We have to stand up and take an active part. We have to push the process and initiate the change we want to happen. Joining social networks but remaining passive and waiting for a personal miracle doesn’t work and will only increase our personal level of frustration. We need determination and stamina. One negative post on an unsatisfactory product and/or service won’t instantaneously and automatically lead to millions of followers.

Our would-be ‘true’ followers in the social web have to ‘know’ us before they trust us. There is no app for it. Authenticity, transparency, honesty, expertise, reliability and value similarity drive trust in the social web like everywhere else. Word-of-mouth and the fact that they are fellow consumers without a primary commercial interest accelerates the trust-building process. Still trust remains an investment, can’t be bought and must be earned – whether you are online or offline.

So, who do you trust?

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?

No, this is not going to be a review of an old (or not so old) movie about Robin Hood.

The Sheriff of Nottingham (as many other castle owners at that time) was, amongst other things, a control freak. The town of Nottingham was surrounded by a huge wall and the entry was a drawbridge, which could only be operated from the inside. This way the Sheriff thought that he could control what and/or who left or entered town.

Many companies love the ‘drawbridge-principle’ to try to control their brand and the conversation about it.

The problem is – it didn’t work back then and it doesn’t work today.

Robin Hood and his followers didn’t trust the Sheriff and they had good reason to. They didn’t need the market of Nottingham, as they had found other sources. Actually they didn’t need any of the so-called ‘services’ provided by the Sheriff. For them the Sheriff was redundant.

The walls and the drawbridge didn’t prevent Robin Hood from entering and leaving Nottingham as he pleased. And they did not keep the residents of Nottingham from providing Robin Hood with ‘insider’-information.

At one point Robin Hood even used the drawbridge against the Sheriff. You might recall the scene, where he was about to be hanged. His followers had found their way into town (despite the wall and the drawbridge) and liberated him. During the escape, Robin Hood took his sword and cut the ropes that were holding the drawbridge. The drawbridge pulled up and the soldiers chasing Robin Hood were caught in their own trap.

If we were to replace ‘Robin Hood’ by ‘consumer’, ‘Sheriff of Nottingham’ by ‘brand’ and ‘drawbridge’ by ‘information control’, we would have a pretty good description of what is happening today. Companies should stop acting like the Sheriff of Nottingham, because at the end they will lose and Robin Hood, i.e. the consumer, will win.

Governments, economies and communities require trust to function and a society without trust ultimately dies. Even so, surveys keep on showing us that mistrust in on the rise. Besides politicians it’s usually managers, bankers and marketeers that we trust least. Why did our trust compass break?

Is it because of a general moral decline? Or because the value ‘trust’ was considered to be old-fashioned, meaning it didn’t sell well in a society shaped by an ‘anything goes’-mentality? Or because of the communication breakdown between producers and consumers in a world dominated by one way media before the Internet arrived?

The results are devastating: Companies have lost brand control, but many still refuse to realize and accept that.

Restoring trust therefore belongs on top of the agenda. That implies a change in corporate attitude: more entrepreneurship and less management. Entrepreneurship meaning discovering the chances, implementing the innovation, tapping the resources and using them and bearing the risks. Back in 1912 Joseph Schumpeter called this ‘creative destruction’.

Consumers are the most powerful ‘resources’. Including them in the corporate architecture of value creation will ultimately lead to a new, more successful business model.