ThinkingSparks

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?

The term Internal Branding

Internal Branding, when I first heard it, sounded like a great term to wrap around all the stuff related to the internal and organizational side of the brand. The more I think about it, the more I think it is not an adequate term and actually a bit of strange term.

When talking about the history of branding the story of cattle literally being branded with the owners’ sign always comes up. A lot of the approaches to internal branding I find very instrumental and not very insightful into what drives human behavior or change. Some authors introduce with their views on internal branding a new brand of feudalism and employees in this scheme revert to the status of serfs. These approaches always invoke the image of a human replacing the cow or bull and being branded with a hot iron on his backside. The employee is asked to lower part of his or her pants, to bend over and gets the organizational logo burned on his or her right buttock. Ouch!!! Probably the same amount of pain and hurt that instrumental or feudalistic internal branding programs can cause.

When using “brand” it is not clear what it is we mean exactly. Do we mean “brand identity” or “brand image” or do we mean something else entirely? Which aspect of “brand” are we talking about? “Brand” as a term is applied to so many things, organization, product, services, organizational culture etc. etc. that it is starting to lose its meaning. I believe that what is going on is some kind of “definition contamination”. We are all using the same word to describe different things and it makes conversation on a whole lot of topics (being covered by the word brand) unclear. It may seem easy to call everything a brand, but in the end it is confusing and also somewhat annoying.

Definitions of “brand” state that the brand exists in the mind of the consumer or any other member of the target group for that matter. That is a long way from seeing a brand as a visual sign of ownership. If the brand exists in the mind of the consumer then what is the basis for an internal branding program? It seems to me that when looking at it from a perspective of causality the term internal branding is inadequate. If the brand exists outside of the organization, can the organization use it internally? How would the organization deal with all these different consumers having a different brand existing in their minds? It wouldn’t do that by using them as a basis to manage internal behavior, would it now? What an organization is trying to achieve is that the brand that exists within these consumers’ minds align with each other and with what the organization intended. But the intention is different from the brand existing within the minds. Just like identity and image are two different things. Some authors distinguish between brand identity and brand image. So would internal brand identifying be a correct term? Maybe, but it is a bit of a mouthful.

Why don’t we just call it quality management, managing organizational behavior, or managing organizational culture? Don’t they all have the same goal? Any naming suggestions, anyone?

Why do we need brand values?

When I read about internal branding it is often described as a way to stimulate on brand behavior among employees. The brand and its values being a moral compass to guide behavior and decisions.

What I don’t understand is this. So many branding professionals write about the importance of organizational culture in branding. If the brand is truly based on or grounded in the organizational culture and its values (assuming that the culture is a good one) then why is internal branding needed? Cultural values already guide behavior. So why do we need brand values?

If it ain’t broke a philosopher can help you fix it…

Elaborated on my comment at Tom Peter’s weblog (no trackbacks there):

I think it is Schein who said that in mature organizations there is little time spent thinking on organizational culture. The culture that is, is the the one that brought the organization where it is today. So there is no need to do something about it. If it ain't broke why fix it?

Looking at one’s culture is looking at oneself. Taking a good look in the mirror is always difficult. The leader has a big impact on the culture, so he or she has to look first. Reflection and time to do so are needed, as are courage and honesty.

As I posted before organizations need philosophers, to create room for thought, reflection and contemplation and maybe even teach them how to do that.

Where is organizational culture in all this?

BrandXpress writes on criteria for healthy brands and consistency as the most important aspect of successful branding. I miss the factor organizational culture in all of this. Is it not important? Is it overlooked? Is it implicitly assumed? Is it not understood?

Some time ago I posted on Naïve views on Internal Branding. Alternative authors to the one I mentioned there are Hatch and Schultz. Their toolkit is interesting, but so are their publications.They take culture into consideration. They also voice their opinions about the simplistic approaches branding professionals and consultants take.

Interestingly enough when searching Technorati there are no hits when looking for these two ladies (their last names) and either “corporate branding”, “corporate culture” or “branding” in “all blogs”. I can hardly believe that to be true, but apparently their insights have not gone beyond the world of academics. Even though they put the culture into branding.

Organizational culture and the fall of organizations

The movie Apocalypto by Mel Gibson starts with a quote by Will Durante. It states ”A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within.” Apparently Durante refered to the Romans, but I would say that it is as easily applicable to organizations.

When organizations perform poorly very often competition or circumstance is blamed. It is hard to take a good look at oneself and wonder if oneself is to blame. But very often the rot starts from within.

Not many organizations take their organizational culture into account when making their plans for the future. Very often culture is seen as something that is. The way people dress or the fact that they have a open door policy. Organizational culture is more complex than that, and also complex to influence. That doesn’t mean that in the case where an unhealthy organizational culture threatens the existence of the organization itself, one should not make a conscious effort. Otherwise your organization may fall like the empires of the Romans and the Mayas.