When a brand is not a brand
By Sandy Belford, Director at Principals.
The success of an idea – or, in this case, a word – often comes back to haunt it, sometimes from over exposure, sometimes from opportunism. And that currently seems to be the fate of the word “brand”.
The word is everywhere. Twenty five years ago, outside the idea of branding someone as ? usually something unflattering… it had limited use. In marketing, it was used mainly in the context of consumer products, for example, someone’s favourite brand of washing powder. You did not hear companies describing themselves as corporate brands. You did not even hear fashion companies describing themselves as anything more than a label. You did not read anywhere of the idea of nation branding, or at the other end of the spectrum, personal branding.
But all those expressions are common now. Are we losing control of the word? Are there some areas of business – government-owned enterprises, for example – where branding doesn’t belong?
Earlier this month, Chris (Lord) Patten, reputedly the British government’s choice as the next chairman of the BBC Trust told The Daily Telegraph: “The BBC is a great organisation, but I think sometimes it has given the impression that public service broadcasting is a brand and not an ethic.”
He was referring to claims that BBC executives wanted to be paid as much as bankers. Lord Patten seems to be implying that thinking of the BBC as a brand sullies rather than enhances its reputation.
The BBC certainly aims to embody an ethic, expressed in its mission “To enrich people’s lives with programmes and services that inform, educate and entertain”.
In reality, the status of the BBC is greater precisely because it thinks of itself as a brand and communicates a consistent idea of what it stands for to its audiences around the world.
Wherever we see the BBC logo on a TV programmes or news edition, we have an instant expectation of a certain level of quality.
BBC Worldwide and BBC Enterprises have created massive franchises, marketing BBC programmes and news throughout the world. And the very fact Rupert Murdoch is so determined to break what they consider to be the BBC’s unfair advantage, specifically in online news, tells us how successful the BBC has become as a brand.
So, Lord Patten, don’t limit the BBC. Let it reach its brand potential.
Qantas, in contrast, needs to think further about what it means to be a brand.
During the recent Egyptian crisis, Qantas announced that it was sending planes to Egypt to bring stranded Australians home. So far, so good.
According to a story in The Age last month, Qantas chief executive Alan Joyce conceded that the airline was using its offer of free flights home to stranded Australians to repair its image, which had been damaged by an engine explosion on the flagship A380 late last year. “Qantas was certainly hurt by the events of last year and we know we have a lot of rebuilding to do,” Joyce said.
The Age’s Paola Totaro noted that “the free flights from Frankfurt or London to Australia would have a total ticket value of about $1 million, but it seems to pay dividends in brand perception”.
Now, this seems to me to put the idea of how brands work on its head. Conventional wisdom has it that brands live in the minds of their consumers, that is, brand owners take a course of action and we, as consumers, form (brand) impressions of that business as a result, good or bad.
I would have been more reassured that Qantas was repairing its image had it said it was sending planes because it was the right thing to do, or even because the government had demanded it do so, not because it thought we might think better of them or because it might correct people’s faltering image of the Qantas brand.
Let it be judged by its actions, not just by its words.
Finally, personal branding. Is it branding at all?
Arriving late for a lunch with a reporter from Britain’s Financial Times earlier this month, American internet entrpreneur Sean Parker reportedly said: “The lateness thing is part of my branding almost but, in this case, I’d planned on getting here on time.”
In one short sentence, Parker summed up the extent to which the word “brand” has crept into our vocabularies and our lives.
He was saying that, because being late is part of his personal “branding” and not just an ingrained (bad) habit, it’s almost justified.
Is there such a thing a personal branding? More importantly, is it really branding at all?
There are many celebrities who have become brands by virtue of the commercial investment they have made in products that bear their name. Victoria Beckam famously announced in 1991 that, from an early age, she had wanted to become as famous as Persil Automatic (Unilever’s leading detergent brand in Britain).
Brands are created by marketers, managers and entrepreneurs, as commercial entities, not as expressions of personal individuality. As French brand consultant Jean-Noel Kapferer put it: “A brand exists when it has acquired the power to influence the market.”
Victoria Beckham has more than achieved her ambition, with her fashion and fragrance brands. As has Madonna and Jennifer Aniston. As has, perhaps most spectacularly of all, Richard Branson, who embodied his personal identity in the growth of the Virgin brand. But therein lies the clue. All these people have used their names for commercial purposes, not just fame. And they have all influenced markets. Not just their neighbours, or their boss, or their friends.
Personal branding, as it applies to you and me, is not branding. It’s the self-improvement industry. It’s self-help. But it’s not branding.
The BBC is a brand. Qantas needs to think of itself more as a brand. But I am not a brand.
It’s time for greater clarity around the brand word.
First published on AFR (www.afr.com) - 22nd March 2011
