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?

Is Internal branding just a sexier term for internal communication?

Last Thursday I was having a conversation on Internal Branding and how it really doesn’t go beyond internal communication in most cases. Then yesterday I opened Communicatie (magazine) and out fell an insert.

The insert was a booklet on the Internal Branding campaign for two insurance companies (Achmea and Interpolis) that had merged. Interesting stuff I thought and read it. The booklet had a foreword by the CEO and an interview with renowned academic Cees van Riel. The booklet was very well executed. After reading I was very disappointed though. What had been described was an internal communication campaign. From what I read, very well thought out and executed (although the results will really tell how good it was), but to me no more than an internal communication campaign to help easy the merging of these different companies.

After the read, too be honest, I was a bit miffed. Is internal branding nothing more than internal communication? Just like a normal bottle of whisky customized with a special edition gift box into an exclusive present? Or is it the agency that has upgraded itself from an internal communication agency to an internal branding agency? Do they want to be sexier? Maybe everyone involved wants to be sexier. They all bought into their concept of what internal branding is. They even spend a lot of money to tell the world through an inserted booklet how great their internal branding efforts are.

I have my doubts on this internal communications approach to internal branding. I have doubts on the term internal branding. I guess I am writing my thesis about this topic for a reasonJ.

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?

Putting the brand in its place

In her manifesto Michel Hogan puts the brand in its place. The brand lives inside the company (p.12). This is an interesting contradiction to for instance Ind who in his book Living the brand, states that "brands only properly exist in the minds of the consumers and represent the totality of experience" (p. 94).

So where does the brand exist? If Ind is right then how is it possible for employees to live the brand? As I mentioned in an earlier post that Ind doesn't like verbal gymnastics and calls everything a brand. Maybe Brand needs a new name. I think the question of where the brand exists, at least indicates the neccesity of calling things by its name. Of course there will be people who will call that semantics, but I think it is important for the discussion that hopefully results in the development of knowledge, to use the proper terms. And please lets limit the number of terms as much as possible!

So what is it that lives inside the organization? I dont think it is the brand. Inside the organization are people that share a common goal and do the things they think they need to do in order to obtain that goal. However that is perceived by the outside world is the brand image or corporate image. That lives inside the minds of the consumers.

As to answer the question Michel Hogan asks herself if brand isn't the same as culture she answers:'

The answer is yes and no. Authentic brands are in many ways the identity of the company culture. They help that culture become visible. They also embody the values and purpose of the company, giving all these things a face and a voice that can be seen and heard by everyone the company touches.

I don't quite agree with Michel here. The company culture can not have an identity. It is the company that can have an identity, the culture cannot. I am not sure if the brand helps the culture become visible. The culture is there to be perceived. It needs no help to be seen. It may need help to be interpreted, but not to be noticed. The brand also doesn't exclusively embed the values and the purposes of the company. The brand better embed those, but they are embedded in the organizational culture first as there should be a causal relation between culture and brand. Should, not is, as very often brand values is made up and not based on those that form the organization's culture.

I will explain the relation between brand and culture based on the three levels of culture as defined by Schein. The top level is that of Artefacts. These are the visible organizational structures and processes. It is what people often describe as "the way we act around here". It's the buildings, the logo, the way people dress etc. The second level consists of the espoused values. These are the strategies, goals and philosophies. A formulated brand or brand identity goes in this category. This level consists of the things the organization says it is. The deepest level of culture consists of the underlying assumptions. These are the unconscious, taken for granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts and feelings. These are the ultimate source of values and action. This level is what the organization really is.

Ideally, the first and second level follow out of the deepest level. An organization that has this type of alignment is truly authentic. Unfortunately, very often the second level is made up, not discovered through organizational introspection. If that happens the organization in not only not authentic but can never live up to its promise.

So brand is a result of the true identity of the organization and enhances and reinforces it. Then the values that are embedded in brand and culture are the same. Practice shows that there is still a lot to be done to put brand in its rightful place.