ThinkingSparks

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?

 

The depersonalization of YOU

After the umpteenth blogpost on personal branding I realized that all this talk of personal brands make my skin crawl. First I have to admit though that about 9 years ago for a writing class, I for the first time used the word personal branding. (And my classmates ate it up.) So I am not without sin. It seemed logical to me to speak of personal brands as we all were trying to put personal traits to brands and the similarities were obvious. After 20 years in branding, the omnipresent use of the word "brand" is starting to bug me. It has bugged me before but with the use of the word brand for people I think we have gone too far.

Don't get me wrong. All the things that are being said about being authentic, consistent and working from your values etc. etc. ring true to me. And I am fine with taking a professional approach to developing once career or once one (wo)man show. Apply the business principles that are useful and valuable and help you become more successful. Use the tools that are available to do your thing and be the best at whatever you want to be.

There are two major problems I have with using the word brand for a person. First of all it seems to be directly and solely related to the use of social networks. The blogpost I refered to at the beginning even states: "If you are an individual or business that has not started to use Social Media, you will not be successful." Really? Four questions play through my head:

1. Can a brand only become successful through social networking?
2. Can a professional only become successful through social networking?
3. Of all the millions of people who are using social networks how many are truly successful?
4. Of all of the successful people how many owe their succes to social networks? Think Madonna, think athletes, think of some successful corporate hotshot who doesn't even know how to use his email.

So even if a person is a (successful) brand, social networking is not the only contributing factor to that success. Of that I am pretty sure. Social networking is a tool. It is a tool I like but I think every individual or organization has to find and use tools that work for them.

The second and biggest problem I have with using the word brand for a person is that it depersonalizes or dehumanizes you. In a worst case scenario you may become invisible.

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.

• Does that mean that you are what someone else thinks you are? Is their perception your personal reality? I should hope not with all the misconceptions people tend to have about one another.
• Does it mean that you may be nothing because you as a brand do not exist in other people's minds?

I think a person is a person and should be called a person; or by his or her name. Not a brand. Calling ourselves brands shortchanges our identity. Because if the brand is the driving concept, will you let your personal and professional life be driven by your brand? I don't think anyone would want to have his or her private life dominated by their brand. Not the employee, but also not the one (wo)man business that works 24/7.

But that are just my thoughts on this topic. What do you think?

The psychological dimension of The Voice of Holland

The Dutch tv show The Voice of Holland is causing a commotion. Not only because there are some real exciting talents on the show, but also because the show is causing a controversy.

The idea behind the show is that it is all about the voice. When candidates were auditioning, the jury sat with their back towards the talent. They could just hear the voice and could not see them. In the remainder of the program they can see the talent.

That sounds like a good idea but if singing talent is all that is needed to become a popular singing brand, Madonna would never have made it and Susan Boyle would have been a star years ago. The proof is in the show also. Beautiful Jennifer Ewbank has a lot of fans, but also a large following of "anti-fans". I must admit I am one of the latter. So far she has ruined "Can't get you out of my mind" by Kylie Minogue and a Burt Bacherach classic. Jennifer Ewbank in my opinion could be an Idol but not The Voice of Holland. And I think that this is why such a large part of the Dutch audience think there is some major conspiracy going on behind the scenes.

It can be explained by the Dimensions of Customer Value (Dipak Jain, p. 137). These dimensions are the dimensions by which customers select a new product (or service, or artist):

• economic
• functional
• psychological

When liking musicians, writers, or actors it never really is about the economic dimension. You do not like an artist because the music is cheaper.

The functional dimension is about prefering a product that has the most sophisticated set of features. When it comes to singing this could be applied. I would translate it as being able to sing as the most basic feature. The ability of timing, high notes, different genres and all kinds of other musical technicalities rank higher on the dimension (and is only for the few). The Voice of Holland is looking for someone who scores high on the functional dimension. In my opinion Jennifer Ewbank scores very low on this dimension.

The psychological dimension is generally "driven by several intangibles such as service, brand name, trust, relationship and reputation. Customers seeking these benefits care about total satisfaction with the product and desire peace of mind." (Direct quote from Kellogs on Marketing, p. 138). This is Idols, where the search is on for a person with the x-factor. The search for a performer that has many attributes rolled into one; not only singing talent. With her good looks and sense of style Jennifer belongs in this category.

The problem with The Voice of Holland is that the audience gets to cast a vote. But the "functional dimension" program is watched by an audience of which a majority is a "psychological dimension" customer (read: viewer). The result is a disgruntled group of "functional dimension" viewers.

So there is a disconnect. I think the flaw in thinking is on the side of the makers of the show. Firstly, they should know that most of the audience will look at the total package and not just listen to the voice. It is naive to think otherwise. But not including the audience is from an era gone by. Besides they are making money when including the audience through all the phone calls and texts when it is voting time. And if only the voice were the object of judging it should be a radio show. Secondly, Madonna has proven that you don't have to have a great singing voice, other aspects factor in also. Madonna is a strong personal brand. She could teach not only Branding 101 but the Masterclasses too.

So who is going to win The Voice of Holland? The person that can sing and has the x-factor too. Fortunately there are some who can beat my unfavorite. And with all that it is just another "psychological dimension" talent show.