ThinkingSparks

Old style branding professionals will fast become obsolete!

Internal branding is hot but the branding professional comes up short when it comes to knowledge to deal with this complex matter. Of course the branding professional has a lot of knowledge; of branding to the outside world that is. This has become so much his modus operandi that he looks at employees as just another internal audience . To be bombarded with internal campaign messages. Check out Colin Mitchell's article in HBR: Selling the brand inside.

Instead the new branding professional should be one with knowledge of and insight in organization & management, organizational development, organizational culture and behavior and even change management. That is if he wants to have a consistent and successful organization that lives up to the brand promise.

Authenticity or short term indulgences

A news segment on TV yesterday talked about business outings and team building sessions as a means to show corporate social involvement. The idea behind it is that instead of a day out on the town or building rafts in the freezing cold, a group of people do something good, something socially involved. The segment showed a group of people from Orange painting and restoring parts of an elementary school. A very nice thought. The journalist even stated that Corporate Social Responsibility is already a common occurrence in organizations.

Well, I do not buy that. First of all I do not believe that CSR is as common as the voice over said it is. If that were the case there would be no fraud, employees would behave in an ethical manner, food manufacturers would not suggest that their food is healthy when it really isn’t. Laws would not have to be made if everyone behaved ethically and socially responsible. A stakeholder value approach would then prevail over the mere pursuit of shareholder value. That seems logical as an organization that prioritizes shareholder value, doesn’t prioritize the interests of other groups. Society is one of those groups.

Very often CSR is approached as only a PR or corporate communication instrument; “look at us being good and social”. This approach will backfire if not authentic. It may feel great to be a do-gooder one day, but if that is the total duration of such behaviour, it is not authentic. So organizations should do something that fits with what their being and stay away from things that are out of character.

A mail-order gone internet retailer was very keen on CSR,  so they supported the Ronald McDonald fund. At the same time the organization had a reputation – true or not – for stimulating sales on credit with consumers, resulting in people with financial problems. Instead of supporting some other organization’s CRS-project which in no way connects to the being of their own organization, they could have addressed the credit issue. They could have supported micro credit facilities for women in Africa or supported national organizations that help consumers with solving their debt, if they wanted to have something to show for. Or they could have lowered their interest rates or could have taken the decision not to target consumers that were already in debt with their organization.

In the case of Orange doubt if painting a school is what fits Orange's character most. Maybe they should start a good nutrition program in elementary schools and give away oranges. Or maybe they could look into the problem of teenagers in debt through high mobile phone bills. Whatever they chose, it should be fitting and it should be long term. One day indulgences, even if the walls would have been painted orange, do not authentic social responsibility make.

Naïve views on Internal Branding

Currently I am working on my thesis for my master in philosophy of management and organization. The topic under philosophical scrutiny is Internal Branding

While working on it I was amazed at how myopic the point of view from many authors are. Internal Branding is looked at solely from the perspective of brand management and few look across their own professional boundaries to fields such as organizational behavior, organizational culture and change management. This results in sometimes astoundingly naïve approaches towards the relation between the employees and the brand. Burmann & Zeplin actually state that the boss is the brand over the employee. Colin Mitchell (Selling the Brand inside) sees employees as (just) another audience and advises an internal advertising campaign to turn employees into brand champions. I think those authors are too narrow minded; they look at the world through their branding glasses and fail to see the complexity of managing and changing employees’ behavior. Unfortunately, branding professionals – who also tend to look at the world through their branding glasses – may think that these authors preach the gospel.

Another author who is very popular is Ind. He wrote the book on Living the Brand. Interesting but also limiting in some aspects. Ind doesn’t like verbal gymnastics and stays away from definitions and distinctions. “Culture” is the same as “brand” and other terms used interchangingly are mission and vision and values and – once again – brand. Ind ’s aversion of verbal gymnastics makes it confusing to understand what exactly he is talking about and why it is the brand he is talking about. Ind also assumes a lot and he admits to that. I have a big problem with Ind’s assumption that work should be the person’s outlet for passion and intellect. What about those people who have other passions and only work to support that passion? And what about people who for some reason do not work. Have they lost the chance for passion or intellect in their life? I don’t think so.