ThinkingSparks

Passion

 

How to deal with the corporate brand in a partnership network

About 15 years ago my mom got a new micorowave and I got her old Sharp Microwave. After a couple of years of using it, it broke down for the first time in 20 years. So I called Sharp and asked them how to go about having this wonderful (the best microwave ever made) aparatus repaired. Turned out they had outsourced reparations of their electronics to another company. However, this "service" company was not about delivering service. Having them pick up the microwave was a challenge in itself. They didn't pick up defect electronics during the evening. They answered my question on that with: "Well little lady, we cannot start doing that, because that is what everyone then wants". Fulfilling a need that apparently everyone has, seemed pretty straightforward to me, but to them it was an alien concept.

Ever since that experience I have been wondering and thinking how you protect your brand in your supply chain of network of partner organizations you work with. As this microwave was so utterly wonderful (did I mention it was the best one ever made?) I held Sharp in high regard. Their outsourced repair partners however, totally frustrated that. Maybe it was an area that received little attention as these microwaves hardly ever broke down.

This crossed my mind when Marion de Vries posted an interesting question (Dutch) on Twitter yesterday.

How do you guard a #corporatebrand in a network marketing organization?

No employees but a collection of #personalbrands.

My answer was: shared values and a strong culture within that network. And the selection of personal brands becoming would become very important. Marion's answer was that in a network marketing organization the selection is often not on the person but on that person's ambition. And that it is the mix of people that makes it interesting. I responded by saying that other selection criteria are needed for a supply chain brand like that. Based on share values instead of shared goals.I was intrigued by this question and promissed to think and blog about it.

My first thought was about the different types of rationality of actions that Max Weber wrote about a century ago. He described actions based on values and actions based on goals. Actions based on goals, through time, lead to inconsistent behavior as goals change over time. They goals can basically change anytime a new CEO or manager arrives on the scene. Actions based on values lead to consistent behavior according to Weber. And as a corporate brand you definitely want to be consistent.

Selecting network partners on ambition, is selecting them on shared goals or dreams. This selection criterion could result in inconsistent behavior between corporate brand and partner brands. For instance, an ambition can be to become the market leader. But there are many ways to reach that goal. You can be all Dallas like JR about obtaining succes or you can be the exact opposite. Resulting in all kinds of incongruent behavior within the network. Inconsistency is the outcome and thus bad for the corporate brand.

It would be totally different if shared ambitions (goals) are fed by shared values. If the corporate brand and its partners are all JR-type entrepreneurs, you may not like them, but they are consistent. Just think about Al Qaida and all its cells. They share values. They share goals. And as a result you could say that they have a consistent corporate brand.

I am sure that there are nuances on this that are determined by criteria such as "intended duration of the partnership" and "needed expertise within the partnership". I can imagine that if the expertise you seek as a corporate brand is very unique you will compromise on values as long as the ambition is the same. This would always be an incidental short term partnership. If the expertise you seek is widely available than you do not compromise on shared values and shared ambitions. Not even if it is a short term partnership. For a long term partnership with a unique expert, you may have to position this partner as an excentric but authentic brand alongside your corporate brand. I tried to put this in a matrix:

These were my thoughts on this topic. What do you think?

 

Consistency beats authenticity

Two days ago I shared the questions I had on consistency vs. authenticity when it comes to branding.

What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth?

Wikipedia gives the following meaning of authenticity:

1. Authenticity refers to the truthfulness of origins, attributions, commitments, sincerity, devotion, and intentions.
2. Authenticity is a technical term in existentialist philosophy, and is also used in the philosophy of art and psychology. In philosophy, the conscious self is seen as coming to terms with being in a material world and with encountering external forces, pressures and influences which are very different from, and other than, itself. Authenticity is the degree to which one is true to one's own personality, spirit, or character, despite these pressures.

The only applicable definition in Merriam-Webster is the similar to the philosophical definition.

Joe Pine and Jim Gilmore in their book Authentity use the following criteria for authenticity:

1. Is the offering true to itself? This describes the relation between the organization and its output.
2. Is the offering what it says it is? This describes the relation between the organization and its customers.

Check out their Real/Fake Matrix in the vote box (right side; look for explanation)..

From a philosophical perspective it would seem that in order to be authentic one has to withstand external pressures. Keeping customers in mind, which is what most companies should do, in itself clashes with being authentic.

I like to believe that most independent artists (painters, photographers, writers, poets etc.) are authentic. They produce what they think they should without taking into account if there is a market for it. Of course if there isn't they will be the stereotype of the starving artist. With this definition it is clear that any organization with stakeholders cannot ever by authentic.

It is obvious that Pine and Gilmore adapted the meaning of authenticity to their needs by adding the second criterion. A criterion that makes sense. As an organization you want to keep your promisses. Be it your brand promiss of the promiss of quality or price, service etc. It is important because if you don't keep your promisses your customers will be gone before you know it.

I however, think that that is more a question of consistency than authenticity. Harmony of conduct or practice. In other words: practice what you preach in all those moments of truth. Of course authentic behavior leads to consistency. But the question is if there are other ways to consistency.

Being authentic in itself means nothing. Being true to one's own personality, spirit or character, means that you should be true to the good and the bad in you. But it is the bad or negative charactertraits of a person or organization that can lead to not making true on our promiss. Authenticity has a downside too. Although excentricity to an artist may be a plus.

Being authentic with flaws and excentricities gives a competitive advantage as it is hard to immitate such traits. And every organization or person even, is looking for a competitive edge. At the same time however, there are umpteen thousand books, articles, classes, workshops etc. etc. to improve and change ourselves and our organizations. Is that being true to oneself? Somehow it doesn't feel that way.

So being truly authentic in the sense of being true one's personality, spirit and character is not always desirable. It leads me to prefer the term consistency to authenticity.

Have I answered my own questions now?

1. What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? I think we are looking for consistency and are confusing that with authenticity.
   
2. Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? I think authenticity is a route to consistency but it is not an easy one as the content of authenticity has many shapes and sizes. How do you control the dark side of your authenticity? Should you control the dark side of your authenticity?
   
3. Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? Maybe. I don't know. Maybe the term authenticity is misused and hyped. Maybe we like to believe that everything is possible and makeable; even authenticity. Which is a contradiction in itself: makeable authenticity.
   
4. And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth? Social networking may offer a whole new range of possibilities but consistency is harder when there are more touchpoints.
   

This is what I think. What do you think?

Consistency or authenticity?

What is more important when building a brand? Consistency or authenticity? Or is authenticity an easy - and only? - route to consistency? Is it the need for consistency that drives the quest for authenticity? And does social networking make it easier to build a brand or harder because of more touchpoints and moments of truth?

All these questions in my mind. My answer is likele to pop out any day now. What do you think?

The alibi of schmauthenticity

Tom Asacker has problems with the concept of authenticity. He thought about it for a long time and wrote an article to express his point: Authenticity Schmauthenticity! He doesn’t believe in it. He believes that consumers want a great experience even if the inauthenticity hits them in the head.

I posted on authenticity before and referred to Tom here and here and here again. All my posts on authenticity can be found here. Basically my point is that most consumers do not care about authenticity, but:

1. Consumers do care about the consequences of organizations not being authentic; they do not like to be taken for a fool.
2. Being authentic means living up to your promise. A lot of organizations don’t. Again, consumers care about not having their expectations lived up to.
3. Authenticity makes it easier for for brand and organizational culture and behavior to align and be consistent over time. Especially for organizations that bring an experience. Inauthenticity requires good actors to give a consistent performance.
4. Authenticity has to do with Corporate Social Responsibility. Inauthentic CSR is worse than no CSR at all. Just like claiming authenticity when one is not is a big no-no.
5. All in all authenticity in itself means nothing. There can be good authenticity and bad authenticity.

So I think there is more of a nuance to the concept of authenticity then Asacker’s presents. His position creates an alibi for every organization that wants to be untruthful or even misleading; the consumer doesn’t want authenticity or truth. If organizations are given this alibi not to be genuine, where will that lead? To tobacco companies bamboozling their consumers into the false belief that smoking is a pleasant experience without any effect on their health…..? I think we passed that point a long long time ago…………………

Nip tuck marketing

I wrote about attending the launch of the Dutch magazine Vrouw the other day. The day after the lunch I checked on Telegraaf (the largest Dutch newspaper) what their journalists had to say about the launch.

Apart from my observations on networking, I observed the event and its goings on. There was a fair amount of people. I would estimate between 80 and 100. In next day’s newspaper (which is the same publisher as the magazine) they made it seem that the launch had been overrun by an enthusiastic crowd of female readers. They were bending the truth a little I would say. And of course it’s not the only organization that does it. Individuals do it too.

Some time ago I read an interview with an acquaintance of mine in a business magazine. I do not know him well enough to know all his inner secrets, but I know enough. Enough to know that he wasn’t completely truthful in the interview. I have seen other people do it too. And I have seen people believe them.

I understand why people and organizations do it. It makes for a better story. When I know the truth behind the story however, I wonder if misrepresenting the facts makes for a better story. I sure do not see the benefits in some cases. What about being found out? Is enhancing the truth understood? Is it ok and accepted just like fake boobs and botox filled faces?

Nip tuck marketing sure is at odds with the whole concept of authenticity. Can these two concepts exist together or are they mutually exclusive? Who offers an opinion?

Culture based brand or Brand based culture?

The other day I was reading an article in which the Dutch consultancy Business Openers was quoted. They call themselves the pioneers of Internal Branding in the Netherlands. I am not sure if they really are pioneers, but apparently they like to position themselves as such.

If I interpret them correctly, they use the brand as a basis for culture change. They call that ‘internal branding’. I agree with them that behavior has to match the promise, but I am not sure if I agree with their views on causality. I am also not sure if this is what internal branding is.

On their site (in Dutch) the working through this process with Albert Heijn (grocery retailer that is part of Ahold) is described. What struck me is that in the whole process the starting point is the external brand. From the external brand the brand values are inferred. These then are the basis for behavior. Hopefully resulting in a brand based culture.

I always wonder if that works. Everyone involved in change of (organizational) cultures knows that it may take some time to replace one set of values by another. An organizational culture already had a set of values driving behavior before the brand values where conceived. So unless an organization has a (soon to be) dysfunctional culture, why not do it the other way around: a culture based brand? Build on the good behavior that is already there. It has the same results of living up to the promise, it is authentic and you avoid the long period of the culture change process. And the pain and resistance that comes with change. Don't get me wrong. I am not against change. But if it ain’t broke why fix it?

I fear the incessant and continued internal branding process being fueled by external advertising or brand agencies, the changes in those, the changes in marketing or brand directors that each want to do it better, different than their predecessors. It is something that comes natural. And with every such change, the organization has to change along with it. It might keep ‘internal branding’ consultants busy but I am not convinced that it is the right way to align organizational behavior and brand promise.

Any insights anyone?

Authenticity by consumer demand?

In response to my post if creating shareholder value excludes authenticity, Tom Asacker, wonders if consumers care one way or the other if companies are authentic or not. Seth Godin writes:

Consumers are begging to be sold on the authentic. The easiest way to do that, of course, is to be authentic. And yet, ever since they replaced the sugar in Coke with corn syrup, who knows any more... Being inauthentic is tricky, unpredictable and often wrong. But it also works.

The fact is, most of the people want to be fooled, just about all of the time.

I question Seth on a number of points:

1. Either consumers want authentic or they want to be fooled. Which one is it?
2. Which fact proves that people want to be fooled? I would really like to know.
3. I personally hate being fooled or being treated like a fool. So I do not understand the statement that most people want to be fooled most of the time. Is that a conscious choice? In some situations? Sometimes? Or an unconscious acceptance that being fooled is just a fact of life? As long as a person doesn’t know that he is being fooled, ignorance is bliss? It must be, because knowing that you are fooled makes you feel like a fool. I think consumers don’t want to have that feeling. It is the feeling that someone has gotten the better of you..
4. Maybe it is the wish of the consumer to be fooled that has driven businesses to the lack of authenticity? I don’t think this is congruent with the power that business has or the lack of power consumer may feel.
5. Authenticity by consumer demand, claims Seth Godin, Asacker wonders if consumers care one way or the other. I think they do not necessarily explicitly care about authenticity, but they care about the consequences of businesses not being authentic. These consequences can be bad, like: Organizations not living up to their promise, Poor service, Poor products, Crappy apologies when something does go wrong,  Poor leadership, Phoney corporate social responsibility, Weak brands. Weak non-performing organizational cultures,  Enron, Ahold. The list can go on and on………..So while consumers may not demand authenticity per se, they demand the outcome of authenticity. Especially if experience is what a company sells to its customers. Fellow customers are part of the experience and authenticity is needed to pick the customers that both enjoy and enhance the experience.
6. Being authentic isn’t easy and becomes more difficult with the number of employees in an organization, number of different geographical locations of the organization, number of business units etc. etc. Besides, if it was easy to be authentic, we would not be discussing it now. Authenticity would then be a given.
7. Authenticity to me is a component of Corporate Social Responsibility. The latter is not possible without the first. Surely, Seth Godin doesn’t preach corporate social unresponsibility or suggest that consumers would want that that type of behavior from business?

I think authenticity is important, but it is also a very difficult concept to reconcile with the way business has been done.

Does creating shareholder value exclude authenticity?

In the ethics of economics the concept of normative theories is used. A normative theory is that which is a leading principle for the organization. There are two of those theories as far as I know. One is the stockholder theory and the other one is the stakeholder theory.

The stockholder theory was first described by Milton Friedman who saw it as the responsibility of businesses to increase its profits for its owners. R.E. Freeman is responsible for the stakeholder theory which basically states that there are more parties that have interests in the organization than investors, suppliers, employees and customers.

With either theory the interest of others (except employees; they form the organization) is the driving force behind the actions of businesses who subscribe to any of these two theories. And some people say that especially a stockholder theory and corporate social responsibility is mutually exclusive. Journalist Johann Hari seems to think so. The only responsibility the organization has is to make money for the stockholders. And there are others that claim the opposite. It is very well possible to follow both theories at the same time.

But as in my book being authentic is part of being CSR, can you be authentic and further other people’s interests on purpose? Doesn’t being authentic mean that you do your thing regardless of what other people think of it? Which in itself means that other people’s interests do not matter to you. Unless of course looking out for other people’s interests is part of your value set. The nature of these interests (economic, environmental etc. etc.) then start playing a role and how do you weigh these? Which interest is more important?

And how does talking of authentic brands work within organizations that are driven by creating shareholder value? Must authentic brands be socially responsible or can they be authentic without being CSR?

Stuff on which I need to do some more thinking. Several bloggers (Asacker, Lehew, Arruda, Branding Strategy Insider, BrandXpress) have written about authentic brands, I value their opinion and those of their readers. I invite their input.

Ludicrous example of Corporate Social Responsibility

In the latest issue of ODE magazine there was a small news item called Eco-friendly fire. The item discusses the paradox of corporate social responsibility within BAE Systems, Europe’s #1 weapons manufacturer (and the world’s #4). Following is what they say on CSR with regard to their products:

We aim to design products that are safe to handle and transport. For example, RO Defence, a BAE Systems company, has developed a range of insensitive munitions, using new explosives that are significantly less likely to explode in an accident.

Lead used in ammunition can harm the environment and pose a risk to people. Our RO Defence site at Radway Green is developing lead-free ammunition which will be available in 2005.

There have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm. In 2003, we stopped using depleted uranium in our products. Our depleted uranium manufacturing facility at Featherstone is being decommissioned in compliance with standards.

It makes me wonder. How weird is it to say that there may have been concerns that the use of depleted uranium in weapons may cause harm? Weapons are intended to do do physical or mental harm, may it be in attack or defense.

If it is your company’s business to produce and sell weapons how can you even hope to be seen as ethical by starting a CSR program? You may strive to do less damage, but is that moral? At what amount of damage does being moral stop or start?

A spokesman for the Campaign Against Arms Trade thinks the whole thing is laughable. I agree and believe that one aspect of being moral is authentic. Producing weapons such as an Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System and worrying about causing harm with your weapons sounds contradictory to me. They simply can not be a product of the same value set; "our conscience is not impeded by our values to produce weapons, but we worry about the damage we do?".

Corporate social responsibility with BAE Systems sounds like load of crock to me.