I have compiled a short list of commonly used branding terms that we use regularly when interacting with clients.
Brand
A brand is a collection of perceptions in the mind of the consumer resulting from their experience of a product, service or company. A brand has functional and emotional elements which create a relationship between customers and the organisation, product or service.
Brand Architecture
The method by which an organisation structures and names the brands within its portfolio. There are three main types of brand architecture system:
> monolithic – where the corporate name is used on all products and services offered by the company
> endorsed – where all sub-brands are linked to the corporate brand by means of either a verbal or visual endorsement
> freestanding – where the corporate brand operates merely as a holding company, and each product or service is individually branded for its target market.
Brand Audit
A comprehensive examination of all aspects of a brand to assess its health, uncover its sources of equity and suggest ways to improve and leverage that equity.
Brand Attributes
The functional and emotional associations which are assigned to a brand by its customers and prospects. Brand attributes can have different degrees of relevance and importance to different customer segments, markets and cultures.
Brand Champion
Internal and external advocates of the brand empowered with the task of spreading the brand’s vision and values and promoting its purpose within an organisation.
Brand Commitment
The degree to which a customer is committed to a given brand based on the likelihood of them re-purchasing in the future. This indicates the degree to which a brand’s customer franchise is protected from competitors.
Brand Equity
The value someone places on an organisation, product or service brand, based on everything that the person thinks, feels and knows about the brand.
Brand Essence
The distillation of a brand’s intrinsic characteristics into a succinct core concept.
Brand Experience
The means by which a brand is created in the mind of a stakeholder. Experiences can be influenced by personal contact, retail environments, advertising, products, services, websites etc. Some are uncontrolled eg word of mouth. Strong brands arise from consistent experiences which combine to form a clear, differentiated overall brand experience.
Brand Extension
Leveraging the values of the brand to take it into new markets or sectors.
Brand Identity
The outward expression of the brand, including its name and visual appearance. The brand’s identity is its fundamental means of consumer recognition and differentiation from competitors.
Brand Management
This involves ongoing management of the functional and emotional experiences of the brand. These can range from exposure to products, packaging and price – to the customer experience of marketing activities and interaction with people.
Brand Personality
Includes all the tangible and intangible traits of a brand, say beliefs, values, prejudices, features, interests, and heritage. A brand personality makes it unique. It describes a brand in terms of human characteristics. It is seen as a valuable factor in increasing brand engagement and brand attachment, in much the same way as people relate and bind to other people.
Brand Platform
The Brand Platform consists of the following elements:
> Brand Vision - The brand’s guiding insight into its world.
> Brand Mission - How the brand will act on its insight.
> Brand Values - The code by which the brand lives. The brand values act as a benchmark to measure behaviors and performance.
> Brand Personality - The brand’s personality traits (See also definition for Brand Personality).
> Brand Tone of Voice - How the brand speaks to its audiences.
Brand Positioning
The distinctive position that a brand adopts in its competitive environment to ensure that individuals in its target market can tell the brand apart from others. Positioning involves the careful manipulation of every element of the marketing mix.
Brand Strategy
A ‘big picture’ plan for the systematic development of a brand to enable it to meet its agreed objectives. The strategy should be rooted in the brand’s vision and driven by the principles of differentiation and competitive advantage.
Brand Tone of Voice
How the brand speaks to its audiences.
Brand Valuation
The process of identifying and measuring the economic benefit that derives from brand ownership.
Brand Values
The code by which the brand lives. The brand values act as a benchmark to measure behaviours and performance.
Brand Vision
A concise statement of what a brand means to its owners and their intent for its future direction.
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Friday, December 19, 2008
Friday, November 28, 2008
Motor City brands on the road to oblivion?
The crisis meeting of the ‘Big Three’ US car manufacturers last week in Washington served to indicate how a global financial crisis can impact some of the biggest brand names on the planet and highlight their flaws, the majority of which are management induced.
The behaviour of company leaders can have a profound effect on public and employee brand perceptions. From a public perspective the respective leaders of the Big Three, once sworn enemies in the marketplace, are now seen suitably humbled going cap in hand to Washington in a last ditch attempt to persuade the Democrats to take pity on them and rescue a US industry that is basically bankrupt. Here they are, desperate for a bailout, secure in the knowledge that no bank anywhere in the world will lend them money. Why the reluctance to bail them out? Because they have comprehensively proved themselves incapable of managing their companies and creating products that will sell. Yet the fact that so many employees are involved and such an infrastructure of suppliers are reliant on the Big Three surviving, will ensure a bail out happens. You wait and see. Hopefully it will come with conditions attached and hopefully with an external management group in control, preferably Japanese, Korean or even Indian. Sadly all auto manufacturers will now be treated with extra caution by the banks, which will only make life harder for everyone.
Oh how the Japanese and Koreans must be excited at the prospect of damaged or failed US competitors. The M&A guys must also be excited by the potential opportunities, though the challenge of trying to make something out of such a monumental mess is probably too daunting for them.
The Big Three leaders impressed no-one on the day by flying to Washington in their private jets. Are they so arrogant that they didn’t realise how this may turn public opinion against them? Maybe they just don’t care. Where were their spin doctors?
No one in their right minds would ever believe that US$25 billion split three ways will rescue the three biggest US car manufacturers. No way will it turn around management attitudes, never mind magically produce new, smaller and greener cars and new production lines to make them. And who will bail out the dealerships? Chances are that if the $25 billion bail out magically happens, there will be no dealerships left to sell the ‘new’ cars.
Management were ill prepared to recognise and respond to change. Is it a case that the industry is a dinosaur that needs to die in order for a new and leaner one to replace it, one more appropriate to the needs of customers and the environment? What do the Japanese, German and Korean brands think of all this? How will they respond? Is this the big chance of all time to strengthen their brands and take the US market by storm? You bet.
What has not been considered so far is the damage inflicted on the Ford, GM and Chrysler brands. Let’s face it, the brands are forever tarnished, except in the eyes of the fanatical brand loyalists, whose numbers will inevitably decline. Those people who were at the point of purchasing one of their cars before the crisis set in are hardly likely to do so in the near future. Would you? Who wants to buy a car from a bankrupt car manufacturer with an uncertain future?
There is one hell of a job in the offering for a brand turnaround specialist. The most likely scenario, and this is only my view, is the emergence in the US of a new generation of smaller, leaner, smarter start-up auto brands with a focus on small, fuel efficient cars and trucks. Perhaps they may even be bought out and badged Ford, GM and Chrysler. Or are they more likely to be badged Toyota, Hyundai or BMW? Coming soon to a dealership near you...
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
The behaviour of company leaders can have a profound effect on public and employee brand perceptions. From a public perspective the respective leaders of the Big Three, once sworn enemies in the marketplace, are now seen suitably humbled going cap in hand to Washington in a last ditch attempt to persuade the Democrats to take pity on them and rescue a US industry that is basically bankrupt. Here they are, desperate for a bailout, secure in the knowledge that no bank anywhere in the world will lend them money. Why the reluctance to bail them out? Because they have comprehensively proved themselves incapable of managing their companies and creating products that will sell. Yet the fact that so many employees are involved and such an infrastructure of suppliers are reliant on the Big Three surviving, will ensure a bail out happens. You wait and see. Hopefully it will come with conditions attached and hopefully with an external management group in control, preferably Japanese, Korean or even Indian. Sadly all auto manufacturers will now be treated with extra caution by the banks, which will only make life harder for everyone.
Oh how the Japanese and Koreans must be excited at the prospect of damaged or failed US competitors. The M&A guys must also be excited by the potential opportunities, though the challenge of trying to make something out of such a monumental mess is probably too daunting for them.
The Big Three leaders impressed no-one on the day by flying to Washington in their private jets. Are they so arrogant that they didn’t realise how this may turn public opinion against them? Maybe they just don’t care. Where were their spin doctors?
No one in their right minds would ever believe that US$25 billion split three ways will rescue the three biggest US car manufacturers. No way will it turn around management attitudes, never mind magically produce new, smaller and greener cars and new production lines to make them. And who will bail out the dealerships? Chances are that if the $25 billion bail out magically happens, there will be no dealerships left to sell the ‘new’ cars.
Management were ill prepared to recognise and respond to change. Is it a case that the industry is a dinosaur that needs to die in order for a new and leaner one to replace it, one more appropriate to the needs of customers and the environment? What do the Japanese, German and Korean brands think of all this? How will they respond? Is this the big chance of all time to strengthen their brands and take the US market by storm? You bet.
What has not been considered so far is the damage inflicted on the Ford, GM and Chrysler brands. Let’s face it, the brands are forever tarnished, except in the eyes of the fanatical brand loyalists, whose numbers will inevitably decline. Those people who were at the point of purchasing one of their cars before the crisis set in are hardly likely to do so in the near future. Would you? Who wants to buy a car from a bankrupt car manufacturer with an uncertain future?
There is one hell of a job in the offering for a brand turnaround specialist. The most likely scenario, and this is only my view, is the emergence in the US of a new generation of smaller, leaner, smarter start-up auto brands with a focus on small, fuel efficient cars and trucks. Perhaps they may even be bought out and badged Ford, GM and Chrysler. Or are they more likely to be badged Toyota, Hyundai or BMW? Coming soon to a dealership near you...
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Friday, November 21, 2008
Showroom models caught in a brand trap
The quickest way you can destroy the integrity of your brand is to promise one thing while behaving in a way that is totally contrary to this promise. General Motors is experiencing the biggest crisis in its history, which will either see it die in the next few months or be bailed out by the US government. Ford and Chrysler are not far behind and will be eagerly awaiting the outcome. As far as they are concerned one less competitor will give them a market advantage, but on the other hand, if the bail out money goes to GM, will there be any left to guarantee a future for Ford and Chrysler? One possible scenario will be that a Chinese company will buy them, in similar fashion to the purchase of MG in the United Kingdom; or Land Rover and Jaguar by Indian auto giant Tata.
Back to the brand. GM is to be admired for investing heavily in its Volt electric vehicle, hailed as a ‘response to today’s and tomorrow’s energy and environmental challenges’. Here we are witnessing an attempt at a brand makeover – the rebirth of the GM brand as a caring, environmentally focused, world conscious car manufacturer at the forefront of a new era in automotive trasportation. This beggars belief however when you visit the GM website with an array of vehicles that definitely don’t look as though they have economy in mind – dominated by Hummers, Cadillac Escalades, GMC Yukons, Chevrolet Suburbans – a whole fleet of monster gas guzzlers and polluters that would have those nice chaps at Top Gear in the UK slashing their wrists. What were they thinking? Did they think it would go on forever? Surely there must have been one tree hugger in the product development division brave enough to suggest enough is enough?
As regards brand naming – General Motors’ dual values of the moment make the ‘General’ part of the name rather appropriate. Quite ironic really. GM’s Holden Division here in Australia, while having a more balanced model offering, still persists in churning out V8s to satisfy the petrol heads. And guess what? In the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 November is the headline ‘GM Holden to halve car production’. Chilling stuff, particularly for the poor people on the production line and their families.
GM Holden is to be criticised for not having sufficient foresight and not responding fast enough to changing conditions, particularly in the knowledge that it takes a long time to design, test and gain approval for new vehicles and change production lines.
As far as the GM Holden brand is concerned, it doesn’t alter the fact that it can’t be taken too seriously in these troubled times having a Volt on display in one showroom and a Hummer in the next. A conflict of brand values perhaps?
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Back to the brand. GM is to be admired for investing heavily in its Volt electric vehicle, hailed as a ‘response to today’s and tomorrow’s energy and environmental challenges’. Here we are witnessing an attempt at a brand makeover – the rebirth of the GM brand as a caring, environmentally focused, world conscious car manufacturer at the forefront of a new era in automotive trasportation. This beggars belief however when you visit the GM website with an array of vehicles that definitely don’t look as though they have economy in mind – dominated by Hummers, Cadillac Escalades, GMC Yukons, Chevrolet Suburbans – a whole fleet of monster gas guzzlers and polluters that would have those nice chaps at Top Gear in the UK slashing their wrists. What were they thinking? Did they think it would go on forever? Surely there must have been one tree hugger in the product development division brave enough to suggest enough is enough?
As regards brand naming – General Motors’ dual values of the moment make the ‘General’ part of the name rather appropriate. Quite ironic really. GM’s Holden Division here in Australia, while having a more balanced model offering, still persists in churning out V8s to satisfy the petrol heads. And guess what? In the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 November is the headline ‘GM Holden to halve car production’. Chilling stuff, particularly for the poor people on the production line and their families.
GM Holden is to be criticised for not having sufficient foresight and not responding fast enough to changing conditions, particularly in the knowledge that it takes a long time to design, test and gain approval for new vehicles and change production lines.
As far as the GM Holden brand is concerned, it doesn’t alter the fact that it can’t be taken too seriously in these troubled times having a Volt on display in one showroom and a Hummer in the next. A conflict of brand values perhaps?
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Conspiracy theory - the Democrats did it
I think we’re all sick and tired of reading about the latest round of retrenchments from around the traps. Give us a break. We’ve had enough. Yes, it’s the recession we had to have etc etc, but let’s put it behind us, learn from it and move on.
But just before we do...
Here’s a final round up of the latest Australian stats, before Obama wins the elections, a miraculous overnight turnaround happens and the conspiracy theory guys start to suggest that the economic slump was perpetrated by the Democrats.
Data from ANZ suggests that the number of job advertisements – newspapers and internet – dropped by 5.9% in October. Compared to October 2007, the total number of advertisements was 9.8% lower.
A special survey by the Australian Industry Group asked 303 companies their views:
The bad:
60% of companies said the crisis had negatively affected their business
55% saying they expected production to fall as a result
53% claim employment prospects have worsened.
60% said sales had fallen as a result of the crisis
64% said new orders had been hit
56% said their capital investment plans have been negatively affected by the crisis
The really bad:
40% are planning to reduce employment
40% are revising their business plans
38% are planning to cut costs
28% are planning to reduce investment
25% are planning to reduce production
10% are cutting back on R&D spending
So that’s enough of that. Things are now getting better. Our troubles are over. Markets are improving. So we can all go out and buy that new car that’s been hanging around on the docks for the past few months and make that cheeky offer on the repossessed holiday home on Avoca Beach.
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
But just before we do...
Here’s a final round up of the latest Australian stats, before Obama wins the elections, a miraculous overnight turnaround happens and the conspiracy theory guys start to suggest that the economic slump was perpetrated by the Democrats.
Data from ANZ suggests that the number of job advertisements – newspapers and internet – dropped by 5.9% in October. Compared to October 2007, the total number of advertisements was 9.8% lower.
A special survey by the Australian Industry Group asked 303 companies their views:
The bad:
60% of companies said the crisis had negatively affected their business
55% saying they expected production to fall as a result
53% claim employment prospects have worsened.
60% said sales had fallen as a result of the crisis
64% said new orders had been hit
56% said their capital investment plans have been negatively affected by the crisis
The really bad:
40% are planning to reduce employment
40% are revising their business plans
38% are planning to cut costs
28% are planning to reduce investment
25% are planning to reduce production
10% are cutting back on R&D spending
So that’s enough of that. Things are now getting better. Our troubles are over. Markets are improving. So we can all go out and buy that new car that’s been hanging around on the docks for the past few months and make that cheeky offer on the repossessed holiday home on Avoca Beach.
Oh and more importantly, before you do any of this, of utmost importance is that you call Heywood Innovation and get your brand strengthened and ready for the good times ahead. Will branding be on Obama’s agenda I wonder? Kevin take note.
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
Death of a legend
22 October 2008
At its peak Chrysler was a brand of legendary status. This year the motoring legend is destined to fall from grace and get tossed on the brand scrapheap by private equity.
Herein lies the story of yet another monumental hi-octane blunder fuelled by private equity greed and incompetency. Cerberus – the private equity owner of Chrysler since 2007 looks certain to offload its investment. Described as ‘this terrible mistake’ by a former CEO of American Motors, the purchase from Daimler only last year was widely seen as an ill considered move. Even the transfer of ownership to Daimler in 1998 – an uncomfortable liaison that spawned DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC – had many motoring scribes scratching their heads. Auto manufacturer madness.
Here are some interesting facts – Daimler bought Chrysler for US$37 billion, then spent billions more trying to keep it afloat. Cerberus Capital bought Chrysler back from the Germans for US$7.4 billion! Bet the Daimler shareholders were mighty pleased. Perhaps the Daimler brand value took just a slight dip after waving goodbye to US$30+ billion?
So what price will Cerberus now get in this financially battered market? General Motors is seen as the favoured suitor which is presently scavenging in the ruins looking for tasty morsels. Not that General Motors is without its own problems, with estimated debts of US$300 billion – which makes Daimler’s US$30+ billion loss look almost acceptable. All victims of a consumer society once fixated on ‘big is beautiful’ and now too slow to respond to environmental concerns and a global shift to smaller and more economical vehicles – cars that were great for the 1980s but dinosaurs today. Global warming and public sentiment sealed their fate.
So what value is put on the Chrysler brand now? Apparently precious little. Peter DeLorenzo, a former auto ad exec commented “After you get Chrysler, you take Jeep and the minivans, and get rid of the rest”. It seems that in order to restore brand strength and sales of the legendary GM Hummer (down 47.3% this year) all GM needs to do is to align it with Jeep ‘a brand with worldwide appeal’ (sales down 26% this year). What do you end up with? You get two brands with declining sales – one being the most despised and environmentally unfriendly auto brand of them all, sold alongside an honest and reputable ‘fun 4WD lifestyle vehicle’ albeit with a distant military heritage. Guess which brand will tarnish the other? You think Hummer will revitalise, or will Jeep’s brand suffer after the initial showroom frenzy and PR spin die down and everyone checks the sales figures? I’ll leave it up to you to figure that one out. What will all those loyal baby boomer brand diehards, who grew up with the ‘classic’ Chryslers think of these well heeled, smart talking, suntanned, quick buck merchants from Cerberus? Do we need to mention gun laws here? I guess here’s another brand going down the toilet big time, that’s likely to get its ass shot off or run over before it does so.
Chrysler brand RIP. 1925-2008
STOP PRESS 27 October
Chrysler has announced it is to cut 25% of its white collar workforce.
Daimler has announced it is to suspend production for one month after unveiling a big fall in profits.
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
At its peak Chrysler was a brand of legendary status. This year the motoring legend is destined to fall from grace and get tossed on the brand scrapheap by private equity.
Herein lies the story of yet another monumental hi-octane blunder fuelled by private equity greed and incompetency. Cerberus – the private equity owner of Chrysler since 2007 looks certain to offload its investment. Described as ‘this terrible mistake’ by a former CEO of American Motors, the purchase from Daimler only last year was widely seen as an ill considered move. Even the transfer of ownership to Daimler in 1998 – an uncomfortable liaison that spawned DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC – had many motoring scribes scratching their heads. Auto manufacturer madness.Here are some interesting facts – Daimler bought Chrysler for US$37 billion, then spent billions more trying to keep it afloat. Cerberus Capital bought Chrysler back from the Germans for US$7.4 billion! Bet the Daimler shareholders were mighty pleased. Perhaps the Daimler brand value took just a slight dip after waving goodbye to US$30+ billion?
So what price will Cerberus now get in this financially battered market? General Motors is seen as the favoured suitor which is presently scavenging in the ruins looking for tasty morsels. Not that General Motors is without its own problems, with estimated debts of US$300 billion – which makes Daimler’s US$30+ billion loss look almost acceptable. All victims of a consumer society once fixated on ‘big is beautiful’ and now too slow to respond to environmental concerns and a global shift to smaller and more economical vehicles – cars that were great for the 1980s but dinosaurs today. Global warming and public sentiment sealed their fate.
So what value is put on the Chrysler brand now? Apparently precious little. Peter DeLorenzo, a former auto ad exec commented “After you get Chrysler, you take Jeep and the minivans, and get rid of the rest”. It seems that in order to restore brand strength and sales of the legendary GM Hummer (down 47.3% this year) all GM needs to do is to align it with Jeep ‘a brand with worldwide appeal’ (sales down 26% this year). What do you end up with? You get two brands with declining sales – one being the most despised and environmentally unfriendly auto brand of them all, sold alongside an honest and reputable ‘fun 4WD lifestyle vehicle’ albeit with a distant military heritage. Guess which brand will tarnish the other? You think Hummer will revitalise, or will Jeep’s brand suffer after the initial showroom frenzy and PR spin die down and everyone checks the sales figures? I’ll leave it up to you to figure that one out. What will all those loyal baby boomer brand diehards, who grew up with the ‘classic’ Chryslers think of these well heeled, smart talking, suntanned, quick buck merchants from Cerberus? Do we need to mention gun laws here? I guess here’s another brand going down the toilet big time, that’s likely to get its ass shot off or run over before it does so.
Chrysler brand RIP. 1925-2008
STOP PRESS 27 October
Chrysler has announced it is to cut 25% of its white collar workforce.
Daimler has announced it is to suspend production for one month after unveiling a big fall in profits.
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Thursday, October 09, 2008
9 important brand considerations – and how to avoid those sleepless nights!
If you're responsible for the ownership or management of your organisation's brand I wouldn't blame you if you admitted to having a few sleepless nights worrying about what might go wrong next. Let's admit it, there is plenty that can go wrong.
> Trying to make communications read and look as though they come from the same company
> Imminent merger discussions no-one bothered to tell you about
> Getting every department to use the same font on correspondence
> Having a website that looks as though it belongs to someone else
> Employee induction packs that aren't painting the same picture as the interviewers
> Internal sign system that isn't pointing visitors in the right direction
> Corporate profile that's five years out of date
> Powerpoint presentation that the student on work experience put together
> Company mission and vision that no-one can remember
> Advertising agency that charges like a wounded bull
> Staff who look as though they need a good dose of motivation
> Company procedures that don't exist
> Designer who is claiming copyright ownership of the company logo
> The discovery of five different sets of stationery templates circulating internally
> New product launch that marketing wasn't advised of
> Awkward questions on future vision from the media that the Chairman couldn't answer
> Launch of the new product name overseas that didn't translate too well
> The sales team's business cards with the company URL missing
> The three senior executives who resigned all in the same week
> Customer complaints that just increased 200% in one month
> Newspaper ads that use exactly the same headline as a competitor's ad last month
> The pirated software your in-house designer has been using
> New receptionist with tattoos and body piercing that someone hired...
Many of the brand assignments my own company is commissioned for are ones where an existing brand needs rectifying, needs updating or is subject to internal or external change. Companies are getting particularly wise to the fact that, in addition to customers, an underperforming brand can impact considerably on employees and the potential to attract and retain top talent.
I thought it would be useful to touch on a few things that warrant consideration.
1/. Future vision. Does the leader have a vision for the future which everyone within the organisation is inspired by… or is the ship rudderless, off course and without GPS to guide it?
2/. Who owns your brand? Have you negotiated with your designer to hand over copyright, and have you trademarked it?
3/. Do you have control of your organisation's communications? Do they look the same? Do they speak with the same voice? Does anyone check spelling and grammar? Are templates and guidelines available?
4/. Are written HR procedures available for interviewing job candidates? Is there an induction pack explaining the organisation's brand, what it means and the role employees play in its success? Are training and company procedures included in it?
5/. When was the present corporate identity introduced? Does it build an accurate and positive perception of what the organisation is, does and believes in?
6/. Likewise, do communications in print, online, DVD and video build an accurate perception of the organisation's brand? Do they include strong messages to influence your audiences?
7/. Does your organisation have sub brands? If so, do they competently support the main brand? Are they consistent with the parent brand if that is the intention?
8/. Has the organisation's brand been audited within the last 12 months? Are you aware of all applications that are visually branded eg stationery, brochures, Powerpoint presentations etc? How consistent and relevant are they?
9/. When was the last time the organisation's website was updated? Does it contain out-of-date information that may render the organisation legally liable?
These are just a few considerations. Our experience is that there are many more. If you need advice to overcome your branding challenges check us out at www.heywood.com.au
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
> Trying to make communications read and look as though they come from the same company
> Imminent merger discussions no-one bothered to tell you about
> Getting every department to use the same font on correspondence
> Having a website that looks as though it belongs to someone else
> Employee induction packs that aren't painting the same picture as the interviewers
> Internal sign system that isn't pointing visitors in the right direction
> Corporate profile that's five years out of date
> Powerpoint presentation that the student on work experience put together
> Company mission and vision that no-one can remember
> Advertising agency that charges like a wounded bull
> Staff who look as though they need a good dose of motivation
> Company procedures that don't exist
> Designer who is claiming copyright ownership of the company logo
> The discovery of five different sets of stationery templates circulating internally
> New product launch that marketing wasn't advised of
> Awkward questions on future vision from the media that the Chairman couldn't answer
> Launch of the new product name overseas that didn't translate too well
> The sales team's business cards with the company URL missing
> The three senior executives who resigned all in the same week
> Customer complaints that just increased 200% in one month
> Newspaper ads that use exactly the same headline as a competitor's ad last month
> The pirated software your in-house designer has been using
> New receptionist with tattoos and body piercing that someone hired...
Many of the brand assignments my own company is commissioned for are ones where an existing brand needs rectifying, needs updating or is subject to internal or external change. Companies are getting particularly wise to the fact that, in addition to customers, an underperforming brand can impact considerably on employees and the potential to attract and retain top talent.
I thought it would be useful to touch on a few things that warrant consideration.
1/. Future vision. Does the leader have a vision for the future which everyone within the organisation is inspired by… or is the ship rudderless, off course and without GPS to guide it?
2/. Who owns your brand? Have you negotiated with your designer to hand over copyright, and have you trademarked it?
3/. Do you have control of your organisation's communications? Do they look the same? Do they speak with the same voice? Does anyone check spelling and grammar? Are templates and guidelines available?
4/. Are written HR procedures available for interviewing job candidates? Is there an induction pack explaining the organisation's brand, what it means and the role employees play in its success? Are training and company procedures included in it?
5/. When was the present corporate identity introduced? Does it build an accurate and positive perception of what the organisation is, does and believes in?
6/. Likewise, do communications in print, online, DVD and video build an accurate perception of the organisation's brand? Do they include strong messages to influence your audiences?
7/. Does your organisation have sub brands? If so, do they competently support the main brand? Are they consistent with the parent brand if that is the intention?
8/. Has the organisation's brand been audited within the last 12 months? Are you aware of all applications that are visually branded eg stationery, brochures, Powerpoint presentations etc? How consistent and relevant are they?
9/. When was the last time the organisation's website was updated? Does it contain out-of-date information that may render the organisation legally liable?
These are just a few considerations. Our experience is that there are many more. If you need advice to overcome your branding challenges check us out at www.heywood.com.au
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Online advertising bonanza
Ofcom, the independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, has announced in its annual report that mainstream TV advertising is no longer the medium of choice in the UK. Spending on online advertising has overtaken TV. Online grew 40% last year to A$6 billion, accounting for 19 percent of all advertising, in an industry that is worth A$109 billion. The report also states that in a comparison of the period from 2002 to 2007 the time spent on computers by the British public increased 400%, representing 24 minutes a day per person. Mobile phone time increased 200%. By comparison, Australia’s online advertising market grew 61.5 per cent in 2006 with the full year spend just topping the $1 billion milestone. Way to go.
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Tony Heywood is a Fellow of the Design Institute of Australia, founder of Heywood Innovation in Sydney Australia and joint founder of BrandSynergy in Singapore.
View some of Heywood’s work on www.heywood.com.au
Share on Facebook
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
