The article is a version of a paper published in the Journal of Brand Management (2011).

Jack Yan¹
Jack Yan & Associates
jack.yan@jyanet.com

The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011

WEB 2.0 AND SOCIAL NETWORKS have been hailed as the next media for marketing, its proponents pointing to the presence of politicians and actors on Twitter and Facebook. Since mainstream media pointed out that actor-writer Stephen Fry was on Twitter, there was a sudden growth in subscribers in the UK. A further mention on The Oprah Winfrey Show saw some talk about an ‘Oprah effect’ on Twitter, spurring growth Stateside. The most complimentary publicity for Twitter, however, was for then-Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, with some crediting the service for his success.
   Each one of these statements has an element of truth to them. There is no doubt that celebrities have managed to harness social media to broadcast to their fans, bypassing the press and setting the record straight. Fans feel somehow connected, as though their idol is talking to them directly.
   The Obama campaign, meanwhile, tapped in to a group of voters who are computer-savvy. The campaign managed to mobilize people who might not have voted, giving the senator an edge that his principal opponent, Sen. John McCain, did not consider.
   But how real are these phenomena and how do they impact on branding?
   Aside from setting some ideas for future research, this paper aims to provide an examination of blogs and social networks, considering their branding potential and what organizations need to consider to build their brands using them.

Why brand online?
The case for online branding has been set elsewhere, with the conclusion that most of the same rules apply. Brands still need to be differentiated and communicated to audiences, and it was found that successful online firms in the late 1990s tended to have strong CEO involvement in their websites.² As the web mainstreamed, countless exceptions emerged: there was no longer a talent vacuum when it came to managing website relations with consumers, and CEOs could step back from answering feedback forms. Staff who grew up in the web era understood how to deal with online questions; databases with copy-and-paste answers were developed; and, in some cases, “knowledge bases” looked for keywords in a submitted question and fielded prepared answers without human intervention.
   In essence, the promise of the 1990s’ World Wide Web began disappearing: once seen as a democratizing force where stakeholders could speak directly to company heads, especially in the small- to medium-sized enterprises that went online in the early days, it became just another medium.
   Blogs were seen as the next step: Chua and Parackal have done some incisive research into CEO blogs,³ which give some leaders a chance to provide audiences with an idea of their philosophy. But in an era of competing media and short attention spans, Facebook updates, fan pages and Tweets became part of the branding lexicon.
   Facebook’s commercial potential was always present, from the minute founder Mark Zuckerberg took the service away from its North American college-campus roots and allowed non-students to create profiles in 2006. It has become more commercialized (and arguably less concerned with user privacy)⁴ since then, in order to capture business and profits through advertising. Originally a site that aimed to connect friends and contacts, Facebook broadened to include groups and fan pages for organizations, creating a closed network of 400 million (and rising) users who advertisers might wish to pitch.
   Many flock to the service. Facebook allowed blogs to be imported, forcing more users to stay on the site rather than go to the source. It gave the impression of direct engagement: companies could, for instance, communicate directly with their supporters. It attempted to bridge the gap between organization and audience again, much like the web and email once did.
   In politics, the author is currently in a bid for the mayoralty in Wellington, New Zealand. A Facebook fan page has been set up, and the same behaviours are apparent: supporters seldom head to email to ask political questions. They field them on his Facebook fan page. Some of his opponents have set up rival pages, and other cities’ mayors and mayoral candidates have done the same in this election year. Interaction is often rewarded with additional supporters.
   Outside politics, the author has observed the growth of the designer Tamsin Cooper, whose Facebook page, set up during the first quarter of 2010, has brought 658 fans at the time of writing. Cooper lives in a town, Arrowtown, New Zealand, of 1,700: the Facebook page has been a way for her to centre her international marketing activities, complementing her website and online sales. Importantly, it allows Cooper to interact directly with her supporters and clients.
   Twitter, which claims to have Sen. Barack Obama as a user—though later it emerged that the ‘Tweets’ were those of his campaign team⁵—is less formal. One user Tweets a statement of 140 characters, usually an update of what that person is doing. In terms of the Obama campaign, the Tweets pertained to the senator’s political speeches and campaign ideals, and followers could ask questions and engage with him.
   It was a masterful use of the service. While it was not Sen. Obama himself on there, it gave the illusion of his presence. It certainly reflected his views. Secondly, his campaign team was careful to follow back as many supporters as possible—Twitter users can see who has become a “follower”, giving them an option to return the favour. This, too, satisfied netizens’ feeling of being engaged: that there was a genuine belief of a two-way street in communication with the senator.
   The desire for engagement is not limited to the United States. The Residents 2010 conference in Wellington, New Zealand, brought residents’ associations from around the country together for a day, discussing issues that were pertinent to them. The Hon Peter Dunne, MP, stated early in the conference that such organizations need to ‘band together’ to fight for their communities, acknowledging that ‘power resides in the community, with their representation and their engagement. Community engagement is not political … local democratization is occurring more in residents’ associations.’
   Showing a video from author John Ralston Saul,⁶ it was stressed that one of the causes of community alienation stems from specialized managers who are employed to solve various problems. But their specialization restricts citizens who have other ideas, which combats the democratic nature that one expects.
   Other comments heard include, ‘The Local Government Act does not empower local representatives to represent local people’; ‘Councils will become less representative, because their business objectives will alienate citizens’; and ‘As [local issues] become more pressing, how can we activate the public response?’
   In another speech, New Zealand’s native Māori population was a victim of “ticking the boxes” when it came to their needs, trivializing and indeed restricting what they were about. (Parallels were drawn with the rights of women and blacks in the US in earlier centuries.) There was a general fear of politicians losing power through engagement, and talk after talk highlighted that engagement was not happening early enough with citizens.
   If there was one sector where engagement was called for consistently, it was in local politics. In her concluding conference speech, New Zealand Chief Ombudsman Beverley Wakem stated, ‘The internet’s tools are important [in describing] how to mobilize and educate people regarding their rights and the legislation.’
   Short of an Obama-style campaign engaging the public, New Zealand’s local political scene was in dire need of politicians and political processes that could engage the public. In the wake of the American presidential election, citizens’ feeling of alienation could quickly be dealt with through social media.
   The author is currently in a bid for the mayoralty in Wellington, New Zealand. A Facebook fan page has been set up, and the same behaviours are apparent: supporters seldom head to email to ask political questions. They field them on his Facebook fan page. Some of his opponents have set up rival pages, and other cities’ mayors and mayoral candidates have done the same in this election year. Interaction is often rewarded with additional supporters.
   Far more trivial, though no less interesting from an academic perspective, is the Twitter account of a fictional character, Jim Keats, from the recently finished television show Ashes to Ashes. An unofficial account, it was set up in January 2010, long before the character was introduced on the show. After the show commenced, the Keats account (at twitter.com/jimkeats) attracted an average of 100 additional followers per week, of fans wishing to supplement their television viewing with Tweeting—even if it was with a fictional person. Very few of the 900 followers the account attracted were bots, surprisingly. ‘Jim Keats’ interacted with other fictional characters on the service, all role-played by other fans. It helped take the programme’s brand on to Twitter and provided viewers with an additional access point to the TV show.
   In most cases—those in which fictional characters are not involved (!)—blogs, Facebook and Twitter are helpful in revealing the thinking of the people behind the brands. They satisfy a need: the desire of engagement with a brand they wish to be associated with, or, to put it in Engeseth’s terms, to feel “one” with the brand.⁷ Their motives are connected to the idea of corporate citizenship and how successful brands promote its ideas.⁸
   Engeseth’s theory is that the separate nature of many brand relationships—the “them” and “us”—is obsolete. Companies need to collaborate with consumers not just for R&D, but for everyday marketing purposes. Examples he cites includes Linux, where the user base collaborate on developments to the operating system and become evangelists in the process. WordPress, the blogging platform, is another. Engeseth also points out that Michael Dell spends 40 per cent of his time dealing with Dell computer customers directly. As does Ingvar Kamprad, the founder of Ikea.
   Brands cannot be controlled centrally or in a top-down manner in these circumstances. Coinciding with these developments has been the rise of virtual working, of people expected to unite under a single banner with a uniform brand despite being based in homes or in spread-out offices.
   But Linux is a real collaboration: the results speak for themselves. The real fear with brands in the social networking era is that they will fall into the same traps they did with email and the web, where the interaction with those in charge is gone. Facebook and Google, two brands that rank relatively highly in surveys, are notorious for being opaque: Facebook’s privacy changes frequently prompt criticism, while there is virtually no support for the free users of Google, unless they are lucky enough to find a person in authority. Both companies may provide tools for online interaction that can aid transparency, but neither practises it when it comes to their core products.
   Above, the author has pointed out that Barack Obama’s Twitter account, during the presidential campaign, was not manned by him. Thus, it is as easy to obscure one’s identity with these services as it is with any other medium.

   An analysis of some of the top celebrities and politicians indicate that they are not engaging their fan base, undermining the use of the Twitter service. There is little or no engagement by some of the most-followed users of the service, including Ashton Kutcher, Oprah Winfrey and Al Gore (Table 1). For them, Twitter is a one-way service, an extra broadcast channel where the relationship with the audience matters less than their own message. However, President Obama, Britney Spears and Stephen Fry have better ratios, indicating more engagement, or at least, a greater intention to engage. (The ideal number is 100 per cent, although this is impossible to expect, especially when a Twitter account acquires mass following over a short period of time.)
   Given this, are they genuine tools for transparency and the sort of “oneness” preached by Engeseth? And what advantages can organizations get from using them?

Brands and social networks
The theory behind social networking is sound. Brands must be genuine. Those that are “surface” are soon uncovered. It is no different from a government offering sound bites that seem pleasant to the public ear, but whose policies differ from the electorate. It is a sure way of being unelected at the polls the first chance voters get.
   By going to blogs and social networks, people can understand the personalities behind the scenes. In fact, this can prove more useful for the smaller organization because the principal can be the one who writes, updates the Facebook fan page, or Tweets. It allows that organization to be more responsive to audiences and consumer demands. It also allows the chief decision-maker in the organization to grasp the prevailing mood of the public.⁹ They are more cost-effective media than above-the-line advertising or even formal PR,¹⁰ and go some way to levelling the playing field for small- to medium-sized enterprises.
   Brands that are unsupported by additional media can fail because they are not letting their stories shine through. The importance of “legends” inside the organization have been shown by many writers and researchers to be important, providing a hook for brands to be understood internally and externally. Therefore, even the less well presented company, lacking the budget to look as swish as a richer competitor, might be able to exploit a competitive advantage by telling a story without the interference of a communications’ department.
   The personalities can come through: a traditional law firm might still Tweet but do so in a formal way—writing in complete sentences, never abbreviating or using internet acronyms, and providing useful knowledge to its followers. It would have to stop short at revealing any privileged information, but its personality can still come through. At the other end of the scale, a musician might provide samples of her work online, downloadable through a blog, and connect that blog automatically on to her Facebook page and Twitter account. Regardless of the situation, a unique voice can emerge, one that is sufficiently differentiated from competitors. The organization manages to solve not only the question of differentiation, but those of transparency, engagement and accessibility.

Issues
   With an increasing amount of activity happening in the social media sphere, it would seem prudent to examine how to incorporate the media into a brand strategy.
   Along with his colleagues at the Medinge Group, the author participated in writing Beyond Branding,¹¹ which dealt with the growing consumer desire for transparent brands. There is nothing to suggest that that desire has lessened in the last seven years: anecdotally, it has grown as social media have.
   It would suggest, for many organizations, a total change in how they communicate, abandoning the top-down process for something that accepts inputs from audiences to drive strategies.
   When many authors discuss transparency in branding, it is not simply about ethics. There are obvious savings in communicating the same message to internal and external audiences. By being open, every audience has the same potential access to the same information. Perhaps most importantly, stakeholders feel that sense of corporate citizenship and oneness, which helps build brand loyalty and grows awareness.
   Issues for practitioners will include:

• how to include this level of transparency into a branding strategy, and whether the organization itself can handle the added work. As part of the vision-setting for the organization, organizations must ask themselves if they desire extra scrutiny. Questions will include whether principals are willing to schedule in regular entries on to a corporate blog, and work alongside their communications’ department. The structure is flatter. They might want to consider whether they wish to read the feedback personally. Ideally, they will need to ensure that it is their voice and not one that has been too sanitized by communications. The organization has to consider whether these statements appear in a corporate account or a personal one, and the relationship between the two;
• it will have to look at researching its audiences and whether they demand the level of interaction that social media provide. Some businesses might not need it because their audiences are not connected online: those targeting elderly audiences might find conventional media to be more useful. The author notes that a growing number of clients are finding that their audiences are demanding, at the last, a Facebook presence;
• the organization will have to look at extending the rules surrounding its brand usage in to new media. It will also have to consider whether it is to influence the appearance of personal accounts. If personal blogs and Twitter accounts have already been set up before the organization has created its own, it needs to ask itself how official they are;
• the organization needs to consider how to measure the success of branding in social media, either through surveys on whether audiences believe transparency has increased, or using other measures, such as brand equity constructs, revenue, market share, or follower or fan numbers.

Challenges to transparency
   Labour malpractices, child exploitation and environmental harm have nothing to do with branding, even if, in the eyes of Klein¹² or Quart,¹³ the profession is complicit. Equally, the misuse of blogs and social media are not due to any inherent problem with the platforms. If certain parties choose to use Twitter as a one-way channel, then it is their choice: there is no rule book that governs the service. But it would be a wasted opportunity, doing little to promote interaction and understanding audiences. Instead, those that use the technologies as top-down media risk making themselves look separate, going against transparency and oneness. In an era when both are valued, the brand, whether personal or organizational, is weakened through appearing “above” one’s supporters.
   Secondly, there is the problem of having someone other than the claimed person behind the blog, Facebook or Twitter account. The organization should ensure that in the case of a shared blog or Facebook fan page, the identity of the writer is known; but ghost-written media can prompt criticism; this can only undermine the brand.¹⁴
   The looming problems are also technological. Each medium starts off being exclusive. The programming that appears on that medium appeals to that exclusive audience. But as it mainstreams, that exclusivity is lost.
   For the most part, there is nothing wrong with this diffusion of an innovation. Television would be useless if TV sets cost the equivalent of a motor car; motor cars would have failed to transform society if they remained the playthings of the rich.
   But with the democratization of technologies, they have become utilitarian. Email was once exclusive; it is now a tool, with few business people using it for leisure as they did 20 years ago. Along the way, spam threatened to make email useless; email newsletters risk being caught in spam filters.
   The same tendencies are emerging in the blogosphere, with some websites generating fake entries. Blogger, the blogging platform owned by Google, has been using a bot to detect fake blogs that are created using automated scripts. A small percentage of legitimate blogs have been deleted including, for a brief period in 2010, one for the respected UK firm Minale Tattersfield, which was out of action for two weeks. Vox, the blogging service owned by Californian firm Six Apart, is a target of many “sploggers” (spam bloggers).
   Twitter, which is much harder to patrol and easier to manipulate, has its share of fake accounts, with programs adding followers and Tweeting fake messages. Reports of Twitter’s growth stagnating have surfaced in the technological press during 2009 and early 2010.¹⁵
   Facebook, meanwhile, is turning off a small minority of users fed up with its privacy changes—although the carrot of 400 million users is too great for many organizations to abandon it.
   All may well turn users away at some point, especially when they feel they can no longer have the sense of engagement and oneness with the brand.
   Therefore, while these tools are useful, they may well be replaced by others in the 2010s. Perhaps those tools will integrate visuals and the person’s voice, things that are (at this point) harder to automate. For now, they are real, and they need to be considered in a branding strategy.

Conclusion
   Audiences have demanded greater ethics and transparency from brands for many years. However, that demand has become far louder as audiences found their voices through the internet, in particular, driving a greater awareness of social responsibility in the 2000s. Alongside those demands have been ones for transparency, forcing organizations to work more closely with their audiences. People want to know that they have some influence over the brands they connect with.
   As technologies change, social media are where audiences can interact with those brands. They have their pitfalls, with many organizations not building them into their overall branding strategies, or failing to use them to interact. In neither case is transparency increased. Technological problems limit their appeal.
   Nevertheless, if used correctly, blogs and social media can be useful tools for differentiation as they allow a company’s personality to shine through. They also provide means for audiences to engage and access brands. Importantly, they can provide greater transparency, a behind-the-scenes look at the thinking of organizations, giving their brands greater relevance and appeal.

Notes
   1. LLB, BCA (Hons.), MCA. CEO, Jack Yan & Associates (http://jya.net); Founding Publisher, Lucire (http://lucire.com); Director, the Medinge Group (http://medinge.org). Copyright ©2010 by Jack Yan & Associates. All rights reserved.
   2. J. Yan: ‘Online Branding: an Antipodean Experience’, in Kim, Ling, Lee and Park (eds.): Human Society and the Internet. Berlin: Springer 2001, pp. 185-202.
   3. A. P. H. Chua, and M. Parackal: ‘Co-creating value through corporate blogs: a proposed research framework’, 5th National Conference on Computing and Information Technology (NCCIT), Bangkok, Thailand, May 22-3, 2009.
   4. B. Krishnamurthy and C. E. Willis: ‘On the leakage of personally identifiable information via online social networks’, Workshop on Online Social Networks (WOSN), Barcelona, Spain, August 17, 2009.
   5. M. Kirkpatrick: ‘Obama: “I have never used Twitter”‘, ReadWriteWeb, November 15, 2009, <http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/obama_i_have_never_used_twitter.php>.
   6. Cf. J. R. Saul: The Collapse of Globalism and the Reinvention of the World. Camberwell, Vic.: Penguin 2006.
   7. S. Engeseth: One: a Consumer Revolution in Business. London: Cyan-Marshall Cavendish 2005.
   8. N. Ind and R. Bjerke: Branding Governance: a Participatory Approach to the Brand Building Process. Chicester: J. Wiley & Sons 2007, pp. 51-7.
   9. An example of a responsive CEO is Christian von Koenigsegg, who made modifications to his company’s sports car after criticism on the TV show Top Gear. A new model was ready for testing within weeks. A larger company would have added the criticism to a longer improvement cycle and the modification might not have been seen for years.
   10. S. Engeseth: The Fall of PR and the Rise of Advertising. Stockholm: Stefan Engeseth Publishing 2009.
   11. N. Ind (ed.): Beyond Branding: How the New Values of Transparency and Integrity Are Changing the World of Brands. London: Kogan Page 2003.
   12. N. Klein: No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. New York: Picador 2000.
   13. A. Quart: Branded: the Buying and Selling of Teenagers. Cambridge, Mass.: Perseus Publishing 2003.
   14. Especially in politics: opponents of the two high-profile politicians in the 2008 US presidential election, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, flung accusations about ghost-writing.
   15. D. Gross: ‘Has Twitter peaked?’, CNN.com, January 26, 2010, <http://edition.cnn.com/2010/TECH/01/26/has.twitter.peaked/index.html>.

Stanley Moss
DiGanZi
diganzi@gmail.com

Pierre d’Huy
Experts Consulting
ph@ph8.fr

The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011

GENERATIONS AGO in the time of the Ancients, and long before the current era of peace, two kingdoms lived side by side, separated by a mountain range and unending war. They had been enemies for as long as anyone could remember. People had forgotten what started the quarrel in the first place. There were years when an uneasy truce would prevail, but one side or the other would eventually break it, causing the kingdoms again to lay siege on each other, advancing, retreating, attacking, defending, plundering. They understood nothing but perpetual struggle.
   Finally, in the Year of the Hawk in the 10,000th Dawn, the advantage fell to the kingdom of the west, Jandrigar. They had worn down Indrigar, to the east. The ruler of Indrigar was an elderly monarch known as Karek the Wise. It was his misfortune to have presided over a disastrous campaign, which left the countryside in ruins, his subjects starving, his fortress surrounded. His councilors and generals were summoned, but they were of no help, and he dismissed them in exasperation.
   He had the further disadvantage of an impatient and disrespectful son named Prince Lorono. This short-tempered youth knew one day the throne would be his own. This particular prince kept his head in the clouds, and had a romantic notion about the power of political causes. He would often admonish his legions, urging them on with the hollow words claiming that together they could change the world. He pretended that he trusted and believed in his father, and falsely asserted that he knew in his heart there should always be hope.
   But behind closed doors, in the dark throne room of the king, amidst the light from torches hung upon the stone walls, and in desperation of their dire circumstances, he accused Karek. ‘You led us into this battle, and it is because of you we suffer now. We have no weapons left.’
   ‘Weapons will not win this war,’ his father countered. ‘We need to listen to the ancients.’
   ‘Will the ancients feed our families?’ the son asked. ‘All the food is gone. We have no sorcerers.’ He shifted his heavy shield to the other arm, and moved his sabre to the opposite shoulder. ‘How do we live today?’ the prince asked. ‘How do we live when your solution is not working? In the world of the ancients the king ruled, and you do nothing but recite the old words. Your father used to tell us, let the throne look to the mirror. I’ve looked in that mirror a hundred times and I don’t know what it tells me. I am trying to find acts which can change the world, or at least learn a way to behave in this situation.’
   ‘You don’t know what to think,’ the king said. ‘You don’t remember the great heroes—so how do you expect to act if you do not study our legends?’
   ‘Exactly,’ the prince thundered. ‘I am looking for a solution, any solution. I seek the ancient knowledge.’
    ‘The greatest person is the one who holds the blue box,’ the king said wearily. ‘It is so written. Let the throne look to the mirror. The person who holds the blue box will not be touched. Look to the mirror,’ the king repeated. ‘The truth is in the mirror.’
   The prince said, ‘That old story had been often repeated, but it does not help us with the invaders outside our walls.’ He knew the words by heart from childhood, yet the meaning eluded him. Still, he decided to placate his father, so he said loudly, ‘Yes, I think I begin to understand. We are supposed to look deep inside ourselves for the wisdom, as in a mirror, and the blue box represents the answer.’
   ‘The answer,’ his father said, ‘is something you deserve to get. You receive it at the moment you need it. Soon a secret will be revealed to you.’
   The Prince could take it no longer. He thought of the ragged people huddling along the walls, starving, frightened, sleepless. He remembered the army encamped outside the city walls, its bonfires blazing, war machines at the ready. Soldiers standing in a menacing line along the western horizon. He thought of the hardship of the war campaigns.
   ‘There is nothing left to do!’ he shouted. ‘Nothing left to think! I have seen enough of the mirror!’ And saying that he hurled the heavy shield at the mirror, which broke into a thousand shiny pieces. Behind the space where the mirror had been they could see the entrance into a chamber. Inside the chamber, all could see that the legendary blue box rested on a mountain of gold.
   ‘All you needed was the right key,’ Karek the Wise said.
   ‘We are saved,’ Prince Lorono exclaimed, and ran to the treasure, taking the blue box in his hands. He reached the parapet, where he stood facing the enemy. Then he held the blue box above his head.
   The enemy knew what had been written, that peace would come from the blue box. Nobody really believed in the legend any longer. But the time had come to sue for peace. One by one, the enemy put down its arms.
   Three days of feasting reunited the kingdoms of Indrigar and Jandrigar. And thus from the frontiers of the kingdom of the East to the deepest ends of the kingdom of the West began an era of lasting peace and joy.

Dr Nicholas Ind
Partner, Equilibrium
nind@equilibriumconsulting.com

The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011

WHILE CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY IS a widely used and well-understood term, conscientious brands is not. Its origins lie with the Medinge Group, which since 2004 has given its annual Brands with a Conscience awards. The Medinge Group argues that a brand with a conscience has the following attributes.

• It has a visible conscience.
• It apologizes when things go wrong.
• It invests time and energy in relationship building.
• It promotes the value of caring for one another.
• It acknowledges that we are all fundamentally equal.
• It’s visibly accountable for all its actions.
• It takes risks in line with its values.

The attributes were not defined through research, but rather were derived from discussion among members of the Group.
   In thinking about brands as conscientious, one important association to emphasize is that of services dominant logic.¹ Here we can argue that it is the connectedness of consumers and other stakeholders with the brand owner that creates the brand. A brand may be managed by an organization, but its meaning is formed out of the purchase, usage and dialogue that the organization and stakeholders engage in. This view is relational and suggests a model of inseparability between the one who offers and one who consumes. It shifts the idea of brand building from transactions to relationships: ’because a service-centred view is participatory and dynamic, service provision is maximized through an iterative learning process on the part of both the enterprise and the consumer.’² The importance of this change of perspective is not only due to the dominance of service industries in OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries³, but also to a reinterpretation of the process of exchange. Vargo and Lusch argue that everything, whether tangible or intangible, is a service. This distinction also serves to emphasize that increasingly brand owners cede control of their brands to consumers. As people use brands, discuss them with others, form communities of interest and interact online with companies, so the influence of the brand owner diminishes. Now a brand is created in a conversational space where the organization and the individual meet.
   The word conscientious also brings specific associations with it. It is a word that we normally apply to individuals and it suggests attributes such as hard-working, thorough and attentive. It conveys the idea that someone is aware of the needs of those around them. If we connect the word to brand, the implication is that the brand owner is capable of understanding and meeting the needs of diverse stakeholders; of extending sympathy and creating value for all.⁴ As Rorty notes,⁵ the moral imagination, which is essential to an ethical perspective, occurs when people are willing to move beyond the possibilties dictated by precedent and empathize with others. This is a view that is distinct from approaches that stress a narrow focus to creating value and recognizes instead the interconnectedness of all those that touch or are touched by an organization.
   This is becoming increasingly important as the size and influence of organizations and their impact on more aspects of people’s lives grows. Indeed, we can argue that the role of the organization has changed: ‘companies have to recognize their accountability not only to shareholders, but to all audiences and to society as a whole.’⁶ This is a point that Freeman⁷ makes when he writes that the stakeholder view is an ethical requirement for companies and that the linkage of different stakeholders requires a balanced approach. In their 2007 book Freeman, Harrison and Wicks⁸ note that the the primary aspect of corporations is cooperation. They suggest that the business organization should be a vehicle ‘by which stakeholders are engaged in a joint and cooperative enterprise of creating value for each other.’⁹

The attributes of ‘Conscientious Brands’
If we can argue that a conscientious brand is one that is cogniscent of, and tries to meet, the needs of all its stakeholders, what might this mean in terms of attributes? Building on the Medinge list, we would argue that there are three core attributes that are necessary for a brand to be seen as conscientious: a committed and inclusive approach, the ability to think long-term and a willingness to keep promises.
   One important omission from the core attributes however should be noted: altruism, which can be defined as an unselfish regard for the well-being of others. We encounter a problem here of who ‘others’ might be, but if we argue that ‘others’ encompasses stakeholders external to the organization, altruism creates a problem of imbalance. For as well as achieving the well-being of others, brands must be able to deliver well-being for themselves and those inside the organization. Altruism could consign a brand to destructive decisions. In its place we might argue that brands should have a selfish regard for themselves and for the well-being of others.

A committed and inclusive approach
A facet of conscientious brands is that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is not seen as a marketing tool or a department or a process that orbits far away from the corporate sun, but is integrated into the fabric of the organization. The greater the orientation towards a communications-based approach, the stronger the tendency for CSR to be seen as superficial. In fact, telling consumers about CSR through traditional media such as advertising increases the risk of provoking scepticism.¹⁰ However, there are examples such as the Norwegian sportswear brand Stormberg,¹¹ the Dutch Fair Trade pioneer Max Havelaar, the Swiss Bank, Pictet et Cie and the Bangladeshi telecoms operator Grameen Phone, that are stakeholder-focused and make CSR a part of everyday practice.
   For example, Pictet et Cie, which was founded in 1805, has a focus on sustainable development and encourages the maximum investment in sustainable areas for a given risk. The bank manages a Water fund, which was launched in 2000, and has become the world’s largest of its kind, with over €4 billion in assets; and a Clean Energy fund. The company has also establishe the Prix Pictet—the world’s first international prize dedicated to photography and sustainability—mandated to encourage the use and power of photography to communicate vital messages to a global audience. Pictet et Cie understands that business is not somehow separate from the world, but is very much part of it and must demonstrate a broad commitment to stakeholders and to society at large.
   Hewlett-Packard (HP) also exemplifies this in the way it works with other companies, governments and NGOs to improve the health, education and infrastructure in developing markets, because its long-term growth depends on new consumers. Anholt writes of HP and others, that ‘they (big companies) need consumers who are wealthy enough to buy their products, have enough free time to enjoy them, are educated enough to consume advertising messages and evaluate products and brands, and live in countries where there is the liberty to make money and spend it.’¹²

Long-term thinking
Key to the cited examples is the prevalence of long-term thinking, which runs counter to the sometimes short-term view of shareholders. Acting conscientiously means rejecting expediency for principle, temporary advantage for long-term gain. Grameen Phone didn’t look a good business prospect in the late 1990s in a country suffering from high levels of corruption, political uncertainty and poor infrastructure. But new distribution methods were established, low-cost pricing plans introduced and innovative and socially valuable services, such as HealthLine and Community Information Centres, established. Today, Grameen Phone has 23 million subscribers (February 2010) and is the most desired company to work for in Bangladesh.
   At Anglo-Dutch fast moving consumer goods company, Unilever, reducing environmental impacts while improving performance is the core vision and it means taking a longer-term view and tackling short-termism head on. In 2009, CEO, Paul Polman, in an attempt to move the focus away from short-term returns, stopped providing earnings guidance to investors. Seeing his mandate as more concerned with long-term success, he also railed against hedge funds, arguing, ‘they are not people who are there in the long-term interests of the company.’
   One implication of shareholder short-termism might be that it is easier for privately owned companies to act conscientiously. While Freeman et al¹³ argue for the mutual interest of different stakeholders, the power of shareholders in publicly quoted companies whose primary motivation is in above average returns can run into conflict with other stakeholders. In privately owned companies such as Pictet et Cie, Max Havelaar, Stormberg and also US outdoor brand, Patagonia, it is the long-term shared vision of owners and managers that drives decision-making.

Keeping promises
There has been a shift in emphasis in brand-building, from making promises to keeping them;¹⁴ from communication to people. This represents a turning away from traditional advertising and a focus on direct interaction. Indeed, some organizations are moving branding entirely away from communications and towards connecting strategy, culture and a wider stakeholder involvement. They recognize that branding is a process that is too important to be left just to the marketing or communications department. These organizations have understood that brand building is a participative process involving the whole organization and is the responsibility of all employees.¹⁵
   This suggests the importance of widespread employee engagement with the organization’s brand ideology—the set of ideas that define what the organization is, how it does things and what its aspirations are. The better individuals identify and internalize the ideology, the greater the likelihood of its delivery in the experiences that connect the organization and its stakeholders.
   As an example of this consider the software company, Mozilla. This is example of an organization that lives up to its stated mission of promoting openness, innovation and opportunity on the web. It is a non-profit organization that grew out of Netscape and is involved in building communities of people that both help create and use their products such as the web browser, Firefox, an email client, Thunderbird, and a global community of innovators, Drumbeat. Mozilla employs a core group of people (around 300) that develop software, manage process and market the products, but since the start of the company, much of the development of products has been due to the enthusiasm and involvement of customers who have become volunteers.
   In the early days of Mozilla, when it was up against a very dominant competitor in the form of Microsoft, there weren’t enough resources internally. As many software developers identified with the ideology of keeping the web open and accessible to all, they gave up their spare time to develop products they themselves would like to use. It was also an opportunity to work with smart people and solve difficult problems. Of course, Mozilla could have closed their doors to these would-be helpers, but it would have shown up that the principle of openness was just a veneer. Asa Dotzler of Mozilla says, ‘by 2004, the majority of the code had been written by Netscape employees, but there were many hundreds of volunteers who played a substantial role in writing code including important features. For instance the first implementation of tabbed browsing was a volunteer written code. Our first implementation of pop-up blocking and session restore when you crash, and lots of other key features were developed by volunteers.’
   By 2010, more than 12,000 free community-generated add-ons had been implemented. Mozilla has encouraged outsiders to help evolve the project. The idea of improving the internet experience for people everywhere led to one volunteer choosing to pioneer disability access because he felt passionately about it, while volunteers around the world seized on the opportunity to preserve the integrity of their languages, by translating content. When Mozilla launches a new version of Firefox, it is delivered in 75-plus languages simultaneously (2010). As long as the initiatives align with the Mozilla ideology, the organization chooses to make it easier for people to do what they wanted with the brand. A similar philosophy has also been adopted for marketing the Mozilla brand whereby a community of marketing professionals and enthusiast consumers helped to construct and implement a marketing campaign, even to the extent of donating money to run a launch campaign for Firefox.

Challenges to the concept
The concept of conscientious brands and the blocks on which it is built can be challenged from different angles. First, the stakeholder perspective has been challenged by Frooman¹⁶ in particular for being too company-centric. While he recognizes the impact of Freeman’s 1984 book, he also judges that in his ‘hub-and-spoke conceptualization, relationships are dyadic, independent of one another, viewed largely from the firm’s vantage point, and defined in terms of actor attributes.’
   Certainly traditional models of organization-stakeholder interaction have emphasized the organization as doing things to, and communicating at, stakeholders. In a more networked world where interactions are fluid and organizations are more porous and transparent, it has become clear that the connections between stakeholders has become more complex and the locus of control has shifted away from the organization. This has become evident during uprisings in North Africa and riots in the UK (2011) as brands such as Facebook, Blackberry, Vodafone and Twitter have been used to facilitate civil unrest. As a consequence, these brands have been criticized by governments. Yet the point should be made here that it is citizens who are defining how these brands are used (whether it be for good or for bad) in ways that were never conceived of by the brand owners.
   Alternatively, Martin¹⁷ (2010) is critical of much management thinking because it lacks a sufficient customer orientation. He describes the stages of modern capitalism, from Berle and Means’ The Modern Corporation and Private Property,¹⁸ which signified the emergence of managerial capitalism to Jensen and Meckling’s Theory of the Firm,¹⁹ which signified a shift to shareholder capitalism. Jensen and Meckling’s emphasis on maximizing shareholder value has since become a standard of modern management and argues quite explicitly for the pre-eminence of the shareholder. Martin’s critique is that the focus on shareholders hasn’t done anything for shareholder returns: ‘there’s no sign that shareholders benefited more when their interests were put first and foremost.’ Shareholder capitalism has also made organizations dysfunctional, in that it also downplays the interdependence of their audiences. As several studies have shown, involved and engaged employees are important contributors to customer satisfaction which in turn leads to enhanced performance.²⁰ Similarly, having a positive reputation among influential people and organizations helps a business to achieve its broader goals. Where we might diverge from Martin is in his solution to shareholder capitalism. His argument is that the new orientation should be customer capitalism and he cites two key examples of organizations who have exemplary long-term performance and live up to their rhetoric: Johnson & Johnson and P&G. They are interesting choices and they certainly give prominence in their corporate statements to consumers, but the important thing is that they stress the intertwining of stakeholders. Johnson & Johnson’s credo is both long-lived and well known and connects doctors, nurses, patients, parents, children, communities and stockholders. P&G’s Principles state: ‘We will provide branded products and services of superior quality and value that improve the lives of the world’s consumers. As a result consumers will reward us with leadership sales, profit and value creation, allowing our people, our shareholders and the communities in which we live and work to prosper.’

A new approach
’Corporate brands are hugely influential on society and can either be part of the problem in fuelling excessive and high-impact consumption or part of the solution in driving consumers towards sustainable living.’
—Dax Lovegrove, Head of Business & Industry Relations, WWF UK

The central problem for the concept of conscientious brands is that one of the requirements for the organization is encouraging consumption, while a conscientious brand should be aiming to limit or shift consumption to ensure it is sustainable. As the philosopher Slavoj Zizek observes, you only have freedom to the extent that you make the right choices, which means: ‘you are free to do anything, as long as it involves shopping.’²¹
   Yet, there are some signs of resistance to the Zizek view in the emergence of the idea of voluntary simplicity. ‘Voluntary simplifiers’ describes a category of people who have made the conscious decision to reduce their consumption levels and find meaning through reducing their spend on products and services and spending more time on activities that generate meaning for them. This group is anti-consumerist and ideologically motivated.²² The size of this audience is difficult to estimate, but it is suggested that in the US there are some 60 million people who fit into the category.²³ These are still consuming individuals, but they are, in their eyes at least, consuming responsibly within self-defined boundaries. Kozinets has argued persuasively in his analysis of the Burning Man Festival that it is impossible to escape the market²⁴—except temporarily. Consumerism is all pervasive. Yet the emergence of voluntary simplifiers demonstrates that the ‘less is more’ mantra has a significant number of adherents.

Conclusion
Branding is changing. It is moving away from a focus on products and consumers to a services-dominant logic that weighs up and tries to balance the needs to all stakeholders in an increasingly transparent and fluid dialogue. What’s important for marketers and brand owners is to see this change not as a threat but as an enormous opportunity for brands to make a positive difference to the world. Brands can respond to the stated desire of consumers and citizens to live responsibly (even if there is a gap between stated intent and actions)²⁵ by using the tools of branding to change people’s behaviour so that it becomes more sustainable. This extends the role of brand owners beyond simply marketing products to helping people become more ethical. As Devinney, Auger and Eckhardt²⁶ argue, ethically oriented consumption requires consumers to become knowledgeable participants so that they can become more socially conscious in their purchasing and consumption. This will require organizations to move beyond their tendency to short-termism and their overt orientation on shareholder returns. Instead there will be a requirement to focus on the real needs of people and to engage with them in a services-dominant approach that recognizes the importance of participation and dialogue.

Notes
   1. S. L. Vargo and R. F. Lusch: ‘Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 68, no. 1, 2004, pp. 1-17.
   2. Ibid., at p. 12.
   3. Thirty-four countries that are members of the forum that is committed to democracy and the market economy.
   4. D. Hume: A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Penguin 1969.
   5. R. Rorty: ‘Is Philosophy Relevant to Applied Ethics?’ Business Ethics Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 3, 2006, pp. 369-380.
   6. N. Ind (ed.): Beyond Branding: How the New Values of Transparency and Integrity Are Changing the World of Brands. London: Kogan Page 2003.
   7. R. E. Freeman: Strategic Management: a Stakeholder Approach. Boston: Pitman 1984.
   8. R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison and A. C. Wick: Managing for Stakeholders: Survival, Reputation and Success. New Haven: Yale University Press 2007.
   9. Ibid., at p. 6.
   10. A. M. Sjovall and A. C. Talk: ‘From Actions to Impressions: Cognitive Attribution Theory and the Formation of Corporate Reputation’, Corporate Reputation Review, vol. 7, no. 3, 2004, pp. 269-81.
   11. L. E. Olsen and A. Peretz: ‘Conscientious Brand Criteria: a Framework and a Case Example from the Clothing Industry’, Journal of Brand Management vol. 18, no. 9, 2011, pp. 639-49.
   12. S. Anholt: Brand New Justice: the Upside of Global Branding. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann 2003, at p. 160.
   13. R. E. Freeman, J. S. Harrison and A. C. Wick, op. cit.
   14. R. J. Brodie, M. S. Glyn, and V. Little: ‘The service brand and the service-dominant logic: missing fundamental premise or theneed for stronger theory?’ Marketing Theory, vol. 6, no. 3, 2009, pp. 363-79.
   15. N. Ind and M. Schultz: ‘Brand Building, Beyond Marketing’, Strategy & Business, July 2010.
   16. J. Frooman: ‘Stakeholder Influence Strategies’, Academy of Management Review, vol. 24, no. 2, 1999, pp. 191-205.
   17. R. Martin: ‘The Age of Customer Capitalism’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 88, nos. 1-2, 2010, pp. 58-65.
   18. A. Berle and G. Means: The Modern Corporation and Private Property. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers 1932.
   19. M. Jensen and W. Meckling: ‘Theory of the Firm: Managerial Behaviour, Agency Costs, and Ownership Structure’, Journal of Financial Economics, vol. 3, no. 4, 1976, pp. 305-60.
   20. A. Rucci, S. Kirn and R. Quinn: ‘The Employee-Customer-Profits Chain at Sears’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 76, no. 1, 1998, pp. 82-97; M. G. Patterson, M. A. West, R. Lawthom and S. Nickell: Impact of People Management Practices on Business Performance. London: the Institute of Personnel and Development 1997; D. Maister: Practice What You Preach: What Managers Must Do to Create a High Performance Culture. New York: Free Press 2001.
   21. S. Böhm and C. de Cock: ‘Liberalist Fantasies: Zizek and the Impossibility of the Open Society’, Organization, vol. 14, no. 6, 2007, pp. 815-36; S. Zizek: Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. London: Profile Books 2008.
   22. F. M. Belz and K. Peattie: Sustainability Marketing: A Global Perspective. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons 2009; C. J. Oates, S. McDonald, P. Alevizou, K. Hwang and W. Young: ‘Marketing Sustainability: Use of Information Sources and Degrees of Voluntary Simplicity’, Journal of Marketing Communication, vol. 14, no. 5, 2008, pp. 351-65.
   23. J. A. Sandlin, and C. S. Walther: ‘Complicated Simplicity: Moral Identity Formation and Social Movement Learning in the Voluntary Simplicity Movement’, Adult Education Quarterly, vol. 59, 2009, pp. 298-317.
   24. R. V. Kozinets: ‘Can Consumers Escape the Market? Emancipatory Illuminations from Burning Man’, The Journal of Consumer Research, vol. 29, no. 1, 2002, pp. 20-38.
   25. Young et al. notes an estimated 30 per cent of consumers indicate concern about environmental issues but only around 5 per cent translate this concern into action. W. Young, K. Hwang, S. McDonald and C. J. Oates: ‘Sustainable Consumption: Green Consumer Behaviour When Purchasing Products’, Sustainable Development Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 2010, pp. 20-31.
   26. T. Devinney, P. Auger and G. M. Eckhardt: ‘Values vs. Value’, Strategy & Business, no. 62, spring 2011.

The article is a version of a paper published in the Journal of Brand Management (2011).

Ava Maria Hakim
IBM Global Solutions
hakimava@us.ibm.com

The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 5, no. 1, 2011

THE TRULY CONSCIENTIOUS BRAND cannot exist in a society based on consumerism. The challenge lies in the sociology of capitalism and a system which has created an environment of producers and consumers that support each other in an ongoing cycle of eco-terror and innovation decadence. Patterns of consumption and the animal spirits driving today’s prevailing economic systems have to change in order to go beyond corporate social responsibility (CSR) and the ethical capitalism that remain closely connected with the profit-responsibility of the corporation to its stakeholders. Positive change has to strike at the core of the problem—the model itself. By doing so, the opportunity exists to develop a sustainable economic and social model versus a model that, by its very nature, has more negative impact than the positive impact created from its “sustainability” efforts.
   The model would have at its core the following five concepts:

• Mass production = mass destruction
• Innovation should be mindful, not landfill
• Measure long term use value
• Quality is a craft
• Consumer needs are basic

Brand management plays a significant role in influencing and affecting consumer behaviour. Changing consumer behaviours and production philosophies, while expanding control of strategic brand direction, will determine the speed at which a socially responsible and environmentally friendly economic model will be developed.

Sustainability is parallel to the horizon
In a line diagram of production, sustainability is the horizontal baseline. This represents the essence of sustainability—the ability to endure the forces that act upon it. It also represents the goal—equilibrium of production with the resources needed to produce. In today’s consumption-based society, demand is increasing the distance from the ‘production’ line to the ‘sustainability’ baseline. As production increases, so does waste and the depletion of resources. This has a multiplying effect with more waste potentially impacting future resources and thereby negating any positive results from other pro-environment initiatives. In Figure 1, nothing is moving toward the ‘sustainability’ baseline. This is the production model of consumerism. Sell more, produce more, use more—in any order you like. Sustainable development defined as ‘that which meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’¹ is not possible in this model. As long as development forces an increasing depletion of resources and continued growth rate of waste, “sustainable development” is in fact an oxymoron.²

Figure 1: Impact of a consumption-based model

   Ethical capitalism and CSR initiatives attempt to change the direction of these lines by injecting innovation. But in most cases the innovation can only impact the angle of the lines. For example, eco-efficient design may decrease the angle of the waste and resource line, but because production continues at the same or increasing rate (fuelled by consumers connecting to sustainability) the impact remains incremental. Similarly the use of renewable resources may decrease the rate of depletion of resources, but without a change in production numbers, the direction remains the same. Rarely is there an impact to the production line because by its nature, capitalism is about production and growth. The consumer becomes both the target and source of this destructive desire for growth.

Concept 1: Mass production = mass destruction
As long as the focus is on producing more stuff for more consumers, the ‘waste’ and ‘resource’ lines move away from sustainability. To move closer to the ‘sustainability’ baseline, both the ‘waste’ and ‘resource’ lines need to change direction—waste needs to be removed and resources need to be used at a rate less than or equal to the natural rate of replenishment.
   ‘Researchers have compared humans’ annual demand for resources with the area of land needed to generate the required resources and absorb the wastes … They calculated that in 1961 human demand for resources was about 70 percent of Earth’s ability to regenerate; by the 1980s demand had grown to equal the annual supply of resources, and by the end of the 1990s it exceeded by 20 percent Earth’s capacity to sustain consumption. “It takes the biosphere, therefore, at least a year and three months to renew what humanity uses in a single year”, so that humanity is now eating its capital, Earth’s natural capital.’³ Buddhist Monk Thich Nhat Hanh uses a powerful metaphor—the Sutra on the Son’s Flesh—to illustrate the outcome of maintaining current consumption patterns.⁴ The moral of the Sutra is that in effect we will be eating the flesh of our children if we do not make changes now to safeguard their future through more mindful consumption.
   To create more goods for more consumers, mass resources are taken from one location, often shipped to another location for development and then sent to distribution points for consumer masses around the world. Waste is created throughout the cycle not just at the end of the product’s life.
   To reduce waste, the amount of goods produced needs to be reduced and changes need to be made in how things are produced. Innovation and quality concepts need to be applied beyond mere product design to eco-efficient production systems—or “eco-systems” of production quality. In these “eco-systems” of production, waste is ultimately recycled into the “natural resource” and quality drives the need for fewer replacements and long-term use value (Anderson, Sarah et al 2004; Wessels, Tom 2006).⁵ Figure 2 illustrates the impact of innovation and quality to production reduction—narrowing the gap between waste and resources.

Figure 2: Impact of reduction in production

Muji, a Japanese retail company that sells a variety of household and consumer goods, was established in 1980 with the idea of ‘completely eliminating wastefulness … It started with careful selection of materials, streamlined processes and simplified packaging. The concept of rationalizing products by totally eliminating wastefulness, and at the same time making them more attractive, is at the heart of traditional Japanese æsthetics’.⁶ The company looked to add quality with a no-label philosophy. They design things based on simple functionality–‘not a fancy towel, but a useful towel. Socks with right angles like feet. Beautifully simple bicycles.’ The Muji design process resists technology and prototypes are produced with paper rather than computers, so as not to encourage unnecessary detail. The manufacturing process is determined on the basis of the consumer’s use of the product, which in turn is a design priority. Finishes, lines and forms are minimized for manufacturing ease. They maintain continuous and open communication with customers through the Quality Products for Everyday Life Research Center—a ‘laboratory’ where they have dialogue with customers to determine what ‘will suffice’. Muji does little or no advertising, gaining recognition purely from word of mouth, and quality of product.

Concept 2: Innovation should be mindful, not landfill
The current nature of innovation is iterative, rapid, and for competition’s sake. In an economic system where greater profit and continued growth is the goal, innovation becomes a source of survival and the means for “beating” the competition. This type of innovation creates an innovation decadence that spews products for the sake of creating something “new” rather than creating something useful or something needed. It produces an array of choices that are essentially the same with minor differences in features designed to appeal to the consumer looking for the latest thing or “lifestyle enhancer”.
   Take a look at the number of bottled water drinks. Carbonated water, sparkling water, spring water, filtered watered, water with flavour, and even water with vitamins (for those who prefer not to get their vitamins through proper nutrition). The water comes in big bottles, little bottles, plastic bottles, squirt bottles. The Container Recycling Institute reports that ‘Americans buy an estimated 34·6 billion single-serving (1 litre or less) plastic water bottles each year. Almost eight out of ten end up in a landfill or incinerator. Hundreds of millions end up as litter on roads and beaches or in streams and other waterways. Taxpayers pay hundreds millions of dollars each year in disposal and litter cleanup costs. That’s 877 bottles wasted every second’.⁷ Yet more than one of the water companies claims to be socially responsible with a sustainability focus.
   Furthermore, innovation focused on product differentiation not only stresses out the natural environment with unnecessary resource usage and waste, but it also causes societal stress as consumers, and labourers struggle to “keep up” with the latest technological advancements.⁸ Innovation in a sustainable model needs to be directed beyond the walls of the corporate cash register and the marketing department. It needs to address the entire product life cycle and focus on the resources not only to create but also to dispose of the product. If innovation ends up in landfill or on roads and beaches, it is not innovation—it is rubbish. Sustainable development requires innovation to define a process that changes production to reduce waste and maintain natural resources.
   Apple, Inc., ranked as the top most innovative company in 2011 by Fast Company,⁹ has an environmental approach that begins at the design stage and provides a comprehensive “cradle-to-grave” approach including a full Life Cycle Assessment. Apple tracks the environmental impact of each product by measuring greenhouse gas emissions for its facilities, the manufacturing process, product packaging, transportation, and customer usage of its products. An environmental report is provided for all products they currently ship. Their recycling programme ‘begins in the design stage, when we create compact, efficient products that require less material to produce. The materials we do use—including arsenic-free glass, high-grade aluminium, and strong polycarbonate—are highly valuable to recyclers, who can reclaim them for use in new products’.¹⁰ These practices enable Apple to drive greater efficiency and develop products that have less impact on the environment.
   Riversimple, a UK-based transport provider with the goal ‘to eliminate the environmental impact of personal transport’ is applying business model innovation to change an entire industry. Riversimple has applied what they are calling ‘whole system design’ to develop a completely new approach to auto manufacturing. This approach looks at the entire system (of business) and optimizes the whole versus focusing on one single subsystem.¹¹
   Today, auto manufacturing is based on a model that generates revenue by “selling more products”. Design and technology are used to sell more products and sell more products more often. By not defining their business as auto manufacturing, the Riversimple model looks to sell mobility as a service—shifting the auto manufacturing model mentality of “sell more products to make more money” to “generate revenue from less product”. The interest of the mobility provider becomes the efficiency, longevity and quality of the vehicle in order to optimize the revenue from each vehicle versus optimizing product sales. Like Muji, Riversimple looks to accomplish their goals via a collaborative innovation environment that is open to the world of designers and engineers.¹²

Concept 3: Measure long-term use value
The real measure of the value of an innovation, or product should be in the long-term life time use value—not share or transactional economic value. Our society of consumerism continually wants and buys the latest, throwing away the “old”. But in an environment of rapid innovation, old becomes younger and younger. Consider the life span of a cellphone—two to five years at the maximum? Nearly 2 billion cell phones were sold in 2007, double the sales number in 2000.¹³ Including the handset, battery and adapter, each represents about one pound of waste that needs to be managed.¹⁴ Add to that all the accessories, whose lifespan is even shorter and it becomes apparent that recycling efforts will have to increase significantly in order to be at all effective. According to Environmental Protection Agency reports, the amount of recycling is increasing, yet the actual percent of what is recycled has remained constant because consumption continues to grow at an ever increasing rate.¹⁵
   By designing for long-term use value rather than short-term profitability, the rate of waste production slows along with the need to produce more and more of the same basic thing. It also means creating a product that is built to last and bringing to market those innovations that make a significant difference—a difference that is worth the overall impact it has across its life time. Wouldn’t it be better to have a cellphone designed with the same principles as a fine Swiss watch? And rather than throwing them away every two years, we pass them along to the next generation who actually longs to use it.
   IWC Schaffhausen has been engineering master timepieces since 1868. The company was founded in Schaffhausen, Switzerland to take advantage of the skilled craftsmen, low wages and location. From the beginning, IWC used invention and innovation to design according to the founder’s ultimate mission: ‘simple but perfect, absolutely reliable mechanical watches for everyday use’. The company began keeping detailed records for every watch that has left the factory since 1885. Since 1885, details of the calibre, materials used and cases have been entered into the records. In the case of later models, the company claims that its service department has the parts and is capable of repairing and maintaining watches from every era since IWC’s foundation in 1868.¹⁶
   Today, IWC is still in Schaffhausen with a few hundred employees. Their timepieces are still produced to the quality goals set at inception with many of its models sought by collectors. Quality, treasured products—products likely to never occupy a landfill.

Concept 4: Quality is a craft
Schumpeter states in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy that capitalism forced out the artisan and craftsman. ‘The world of the artisan was destroyed primarily by the automatic effects of the competition that came from the capitalist entrepreneur’.¹⁷ Gone with the artisan and craftsman is the passion for producing individual items of quality and moreover, gone is the connection of the producer to the final product. With the assembly line and the “factory” concept (applied even in service organizations today) workers have become more and more disconnected from the final product and from the actual consumer of the product. Rather than one person putting their name on the product and holding accountability, there are now sales organizations that sell, factories that produce, and a whole host of directors driven by their own agendas. In very few cases do sales work in the factory or vice versa. The factory worker has no connection or accountability to the consumer. After all, if there is a problem, the consumer will call the help desk in a low-cost country and be assisted by someone who is “scripted” and has no impact on the design or production of the product. And all sales wants to do is sell. How authentic is that? Yet you will find that many corporations utilizing these practices are also branding themselves as socially responsible.
   In the proposed model, the craftsman is brought back into the picture with the sole responsibility to add more “soul”—to bring back a passion for quality. Quality—not quantity—is the key to sustainability. IWC is one example of the true value of quality. But this also requires that consumers understand the value of quality and change their compulsive buying behaviour. Conscientious brands need to influence conscientious consumption.

Concept 5: Consumer needs are basic
According to Jeffrey Sachs in The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time, ‘the extreme poor and the poor make up about 40 percent of humanity’.¹⁸ He continues, ‘The gulf between today’s rich and poor countries is … a new phenomenon, a yawning gap that opened during the period of modern economic growth … Today’s vast income inequalities illuminate two centuries of highly uneven patterns of economic growth.’ He goes on to explain that this discrepancy is due to the ability of some regions to achieve unprecedented ‘long-term increases in total production’ with technological innovation being the main force behind this achievement.¹⁹ But, at what cost?
   Numerous studies and indices show that human development and satisfaction do not continue to grow with personal expenditures or Gross Domestic Product (GDP).²⁰ ‘Despite high and sustained levels of economic growth in the West over a period of 50 years—growth that has seen average real incomes increase several times over—the mass of people are no more satisfied with their lives now that they were then’.²¹ The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), a measure that looks at human development and welfare of a nation in relation to economic progress shows that in fact the ‘well-being’ of Americans has declined even though GDP has increased. Similarly, the Happy Planet Index (HPI) which measures the relative efficiency with which nations convert the planet’s natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens²² shows a negative correlation between GDP and the changes in HPI. The Index supports the view that ‘Over-consumption in rich countries represents one of the key barriers to sustainable well-being worldwide’.²³
   So although growth is needed to provide 40 per cent of humanity to a standard of living that ensures survival, there appears to be a point where growth no longer provides positive benefits. ‘Growth not only fails to make people contented; it destroys many of the things that do. Growth fosters empty consumerism, degrades the natural environment, weakens social cohesion and corrodes character’.²⁴ This occurs because once basic needs are satisfied, the market and promoters of growth convince us that we need more—more to demonstrate that we are accomplished, that we live a certain lifestyle and that we have meaningful, progressive lives. But meaning does not come from manufactured objects of identity. Moreover, this consumption-based model is not sustainable. It does not positively impact our behaviours, our sense of well-being or the well-being of our society and the planet. Even as global consumption expands without precedence, consumers basic needs are not being met—sanitation, water, food, and happiness.
   The United Nations Millennium Development Goals to cut poverty in half by 2015 are certainly noble. But if the thought is to progress billions of people along the path of the current “high-income”, consumption based countries, the plan is strongly faulted. It has been stated that ‘if everyone in the world were to consume as much as the average consumer in the rich countries we would require four planets the size of earth’.²⁵ Without a change in the culture of capitalism itself, without the development of a more conscientious consumer and society as a whole, the dream of ending poverty may be achievable but totally unsustainable. Such progress will be void of what people really want—happiness.

The role of brand management
To develop the “truly conscientious” brand will require an expansion of brand management’s influence on production, development and areas of innovation. Without some ability to influence the development of products and services, brand management is not managing the brand but simply creating marketing messaging.
   Brand management plays a significant role in influencing consumer behaviour and brand managers have a key role in helping to eliminate those things that drive excessive consumption and social and environmental destruction. Consumption in itself is not a bad thing. Rather it is the increasing rate of consumption by a relatively small part of the global population that puts strain on the environment and forces consumption patterns on others that are not sustainable. Eliminating shallow marketing messaging and “lifestyle” advertising is the first step toward positive change and influencing the development of a conscientious consumer—one that demands quality, eco-efficient products with long-term use value—from all the products that they purchase. The same type of creativity that is applied to developing identities and campaigns needs to be applied to developing products that eliminate wastefulness. The goal is more with less. More meaning, less stuff. More quality, less waste.
   Change has to occur in production and consumption. Corporate social responsibility initiatives typically only address the symptoms and in some cases drive further increases in the rate of production, waste and consumption inequalities. Brand management has the ability to influence both production and consumption, but to do so brand management will also need to change. Brand management has to become the catalyst for sustainable development and an activist for the conscientious consumer. In developing countries, there is great opportunity to create models for sustainable development from which conscientious brands can arise naturally. In developed countries this change will be more challenging but the implications are great. Models to address these challenges deserve further investigation and immediate thought.
   ‘When we’re able to get out of the shell of our small self and see that we are interrelated with everyone and everything, we see that each of our acts affects the whole of humankind, the whole cosmos … Mindful consumption brings about health and healing, for ourselves and our planet.’²⁶

Notes
   1. Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1987, p. 54. Viewed November 2010, http://www.un-documents.net/ocf-02.htm#I.
   2. S. Harding: Animate Earth: Science, Intuition and Gaia. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Co. 2006; S. L. Hart: Capitalism at the Crossroads: Aligning Business, Earth, and Humanity, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Wharton School Publishing 2007.
   3. C. Hamilton: Growth Fetish. London: Pluto Press 2004.
   4. T. N. Hanh: The World We Have: a Buddhist Approach to Peace and Ecology. Berkeley, Calif.: Parallax Press 2008.
   5. S. Anderson, et al: Alternatives to Economic Globalization: a Better World Is Possible. San Francisco: Berrett–Koehler Publishers, Inc. 2004; T. Wessels: The Myth of Progress: Toward a Sustainable Future. Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England 2006.
   6. ‘Back to Our Origins, Into the Future’, Muji Global 2010, http://www.muji.com/message/. Viewed November 2010.
   7. ‘Bottled Water’, Container Recycling Institute 2010, http://www.container-recycling.org/issues/bottledwater.htm. Viewed November 2010.
   8. D. Harvey: The Enigma of Capital and the Crises of Capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
   9. ‘Most Innovative Companies 2011’, Fast Company, no. 153, March 2011, http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/153. Viewed March 2011.
   10. ‘Apple and the Environment’, Apple Inc. 2010, http://www.apple.com/environment/. Viewed November 2010.
   11. ‘About us’, Riversimple LLP 2010, http://www.riversimple.com/Content.aspx?type=7&mode=menu&key=136c7243-2378-407e-96cf-750d15de37a8. Viewed November 2010.
   12. Ibid.
   13. Electronics Waste Management in the United States. Washington, DC: Office of Solid Waste, US Environmental Protection Agency 2008, EPA530-R-08-009, p. 11, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/docs/app-1.pdf. Viewed November 2010.
   14. B. K. M. Fishbein: Waste in the Wireless World: the Challenge of Cell Phones. New York: Inform, Inc. 2002, p. 23.
   15. Fact Sheet: Management of Electronic Waste in the US. Washington, DC: US Environmental Protection Agency 2008, EPA530-F-08-014, p. 8, http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/ecycling/manage.htm. Viewed November 2010.
   16. ‘About IWC’, International Watch Company 2010, http://www.iwc.com/history/. Viewed November 2010.
   17. J. A. Schumpeter: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. London: George Allen & Unwin 1976.
   18. J. D. Sachs: The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities of Our Time. New York: Penguin Books 2005, p. 19.
   19. Ibid., at pp. 28–31.
   20. C. Hamilton, op. cit., at pp. 54–61; S. Harding, op. cit.; J. G. Speth: The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability. Yale, Conn.: Yale University Press 2008.
   21. C. Hamilton, op. cit., at p. 3.
   22. ‘About the Happy Planet Index’, Happy Planet Index 2·0, 2009, http://www.happyplanetindex.org/learn/. Viewed November 2010.
   23. S. Abdallah, S. Thompson, M. Michaelson, and N. Steuer: The Happy Planet Index 2.0: Why Good Lives Don’t Have to Cost the Earth. London: New Economics Foundation 2009.
   24. C. Hamilton, op. cit.
   25. C. Hamilton, op. cit., at p. 174.
   26. T. N. Hanh, op. cit., at p. 27.

THE EMERGENCE of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) has been both rapid and significant. Twenty years ago it was a subject of marginal interest to businesses, but now every organization of any size has a policy on CSR. The growth of CSR is a reflection of the continuing (although sometimes resisted) move to a stakeholder view of capitalism. Some well established businesses had long practiced this philosophy based on an understanding of the inter-connectedness of all their stakeholders; that social well-being, engaged employees, satisfied customers and suitably rewarded investors were inextricably linked. However, for many, CSR has been seen as more utilitarian: a sticking plaster that could heal a company’s reputation and improve its appeal. The challenge here is that in such organizations, CSR is a peripheral activity rather than core to business thinking.

Getting to the core
Organizations often see CSR as a tool to improve the legislative climate, enhance media attitudes and inspire current and potential employees. As a consequence, business television and newspapers are awash with advertising that makes claims for the social virtues and long-term perspectives of corporate brands. Yet most of the activities, while laudable in themselves, remain superficial. Scratch the surface and you find that CSR does not run very deep. When it comes to facing up to dilemmas about doing the right or the expedient thing, there is a temptation to take the easier option and satisfy the short-term needs of shareholders.
   Lorna Tilbian, Executive Director of the London-based bank Numis stresses that reputation-building is about being principled and having a long-term perspective—both of which are subject to pressures. She says, ‘Short-termism influences the managers of the company to cut corners to keep performing on a quarterly basis. The only test that really matters is the test of time.’
   For a business to really commit to CSR, it has to be truly integrated into strategic thinking. This seems to be easier for organizations which are not publicly owned. For example, the privately owned, outdoor sports clothing business, Patagonia, has a long-term perspective and a mission statement that says, ‘to use business to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis.’ The ideal implied here has led the company to move out of businesses that it believes are environmentally damaging, to provide customers with a lifetime guarantee (on the basis it’s better to keep the product you have rather than buy a new one), to provide full traceability on all its products, to develop new materials that are recycled and recyclable and to support actively environmental causes. At Patagonia environmentalism is not an add-on—it permeates everything the company does and says.
   When the whole organization (and its customers) is engaged in adhering to a principle, then it creates a focus for decision-making and moves idea about CSR to the core. At Patagonia there is no CSR department as such, although there are individuals specifically concerned with looking at CSR based issues, rather every person from the receptionist (who developed a frisbee from recycled materials) to the designers (who are driven by environmentalism) delivers on the mission day-in, day-out. It’s part of the reason that Fortune magazine labelled Patagonia the coolest company on the planet.
   Similarly, the Dutch financial services’ group, Rabobank, which has 60,000 employees and 9·6 million customers, has long adhered to policies that are designed to connect it to all its stakeholders. This is not surprising given that it is a cooperative bank that is owned by its members. The continuous dialogue the bank enjoys with its customers and other stakeholders helps ensure it delivers on broader social needs as well as meeting its performance goals. As a symbol of this closeness and the integration of its audiences, anyone who is approved by the bank can visit its new headquarters and wander freely throughout the building.
   Both Rabobank and Patagonia are adept at balancing and integrating different stakeholder needs, but you have to search harder for publicly quoted businesses that deliver on this score. The requirement to deliver ever-increasing returns to shareholders tends to hinder a full-blooded commitment to CSR. We might, for example, look at the Norwegian oil company, Statoil, and its approach to extracting oil from the sands of Northern Alberta in Canada (a contentious issue) and argue that they have been socially responsible in consulting with communities and using sound extraction methods, but we could also counter that true social responsibility would argue against being there in the first place and avoiding the environmental damage.
   One business that has been trying to tackle the dilemma of competing interests, head-on, is Unilever. Last year, CEO Paul Polman stopped providing earnings guidance to investors, in an attempt to move the focus away from short-term returns. Seeing his mandate as more concerned with long term success, he also railed against hedge funds, when he said, ‘They would sell their grandmother if they could make money. They are not people who are there in the long-term interests of the company.’
   Unilever has been integrating its approach to sustainability across its brand portfolio, focusing on renewable resources (such that all the palm oil it sources will be from renewable supplies by 2015) and thinking about the implications not only of the act of purchase but also the use of product.
   Unilever has 400 brands that are used 2 billion times a day around the planet, with about 70 per cent of the greenhouse gas imprint occurring during use. Encouraging sensible and environmentally responsible use of products, therefore, can have a big impact. As Santiago Gowland, VP of Brand & Global Corporate Responsibility, argues, ‘Marketers, with their expertise in innovation and behaviour change, can, and should, be making a significant contribution towards societal goals by enabling consumers to make more conscious choices and encouraging people to adopt conscientious consumption habits.’

Conscientious brands
At the Medinge Group, our annual awards, known as Brands with a Conscience tries to uncover and reward organizations that have integrated corporate responsibility into the core of their thinking: brands such as One Water, that exist to give all their profits away to water projects in Africa, the Swiss private bank, Pictet et Cie that demonstrates a long term perspective and a commitment to environmentalism and Merci, the Paris-based lifestyle retailer whose very existence is based on the idea of improving the lives of people in Madagascar. These brands are all genuinely people-focused and reap benefits in terms of highly motivated employees, committed customers and supportive communities. The interesting challenge is to see whether more businesses (especially larger organizations that can have a significant impact) can fully integrate CSR and become truly conscientious.

The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 4, no. 1, 2010

IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, I took my wife to a desert island to celebrate our anniversary. Situated 9 km off the coast of the United Arab Emirates, Sir Bani Yas Island is a nature reserve accessible only by seaplane or boat, and offers a wonderful location for a romantic getaway.
   While on the island, we were taken on a nature drive with a local guide who showed us the various flora and fauna, as well as the island’s various landmarks. While driving near the palace of Sheikh Zayed, named for the late president of the UAE, the tour guide told us that the football-field sized plantation we were driving through had been made into a curious shape, and asked if we could guess what it was.
   I promptly took my iPhone out of my pocket, opened the Google Maps application, and pushed a button that showed me my location on a satellite map. ‘A coffee pot!’ I exclaimed proudly. And then it quickly dawned on me what has just taken place.
   I had just called up a geolocated satellite image of where I was standing. With my mobile phone. On a desert island.
   Beyond the hype and Twitter-madness that we read about every day, a new reality is dawning. The technologies and platforms we are currently experiencing are fundamentally changing the ways in which we live our lives.
   If we just think back to the summer of 2006, Italy had just won the World Cup, Lebanon and Israel were at war and Shakira was telling us her hips don’t lie.
   However, at the same time, Facebook was an invitation-only student community none of us had heard of, Twitter was making its quiet début and the iPhone had not even been announced.
   If we fast-forward to our lives today, we cannot comprehend a world in which we could not communicate with our global networks of friends on Facebook, talk to a brand that did not tweet, or have a mobile phone that could only make phone calls and text messages.
   Our world is changing faster than we can imagine, and with it, the way in which brands are built in the minds of their consumers. Suddenly, the internet has no longer become an afterthought in the minds of brands and consumers, but the fundamental infrastructure on which our lives are being built.
   We all know that change happens, but the speed with which the old paradigm of media consumption has been destroyed has left advertisers everywhere scrambling to pick up the pieces and make sense of this new world.
   First, the internet happened. Suddenly, people could consume news and content from millions of places that didn’t exist the year before. There was a fundamental break in the covenant between advertisers and the media. It goes something like this: ‘We, the advertisers, need you (the media) in order to communicate our messages and control the story.’
   Suddenly, ‘the media’ were not the only way consumers could see what was happening around them, nor was it the only way brands could speak to consumers.
   And then, something else happened: the tools became easier. Not only were they not consuming content on their own terms; they were now producing content on their own terms. And suddenly, the consumer was in charge. And this has led to some interesting new developments.
   Now, any idiot with a smattering of ability could create a blog, post a video, upload a picture, or act like a real journalist. And suddenly, we went from mass media to mass broadcast, where any kid in his bedroom could shout as loudly as any brand on the internet. And given the fact that many major brands still treat the internet like it’s a bizarre scientific experiment, is it that surprising?
   The tools for them to speak to us have become more effective, and now brands have no excuse but to listen. On every channel and across the universe, the biggest brands in the world can set up listening posts now and hear what is being said about them for a few thousand dollars a month. Suddenly, they were trumping the media with every story.
   And the most important realization that has emerged from this discovery is that if brands and governments don’t do their jobs, someone else would do it for them.

The Dubai Mall
Opened in 2008, the Dubai Mall holds the title of the biggest mall in the world based on total area.
   While they have a lovely website (I should know, my agency made it), the need for a mobile application to allow consumers to easily navigate their way through 1,200 shops in an area the size of 50 football fields should be obvious. However, budgetary constraints have always kept them from making this necessary investment.
   However, a quick search of the iTunes App Store for ‘Dubai Mall’ features an app for the Dubai Mall, as well as apps for three other iconic malls in Dubai. These apps are free, and were made by a freelancer in the hopes of eventually selling them to the malls.
   The apps are nothing short of awful, and their maps for the Dubai Mall were stolen from our website, but the reality is that because a brand failed to do its job to meet a basic consumer need, someone else has done it, to the detriment of that brand.

The Haiti Crisis Map
In the wake of the devastating Haiti earthquake in January 2010, aid groups from across the globe were deployed to the island to assist in the recovery effort. However, in the absence of a coordinated effort to map and identify problem areas, aid groups were uncoordinated and “working blind” in order to focus their efforts.
   However, help quickly arrived in the form of the Crisis Map of Haiti. Mapped in real-time with information from SMS, web, email, radio, phone, Twitter, Facebook, television, list-serves, live streams, and situation reports, the Crisis Map continues to be the most accurate source of information for aid groups on the ground.
   However, what is most interesting about this Crisis Map is where it came from. It was not made by the UN or USAID or MSF. It was made by a handful of volunteers at Tufts University and Ushahidi, an African open-source project website that was initially developed to map reports of violence in Kenya after the post-election fallout at the beginning of 2008.
   According to Ushahidi’s Patrick Meier, ‘I first heard about the major earthquake around 7:30pm (Boston time) … What happened between 7:30pm and midnight was inspiring. We went live with a basic deployment within half an hour.’
   The fact that a handful of students could mobilize so quickly to meet such a challenge speaks not only to the power of the individual, but also to the inability of governments to react faster than their citizens to a crisis.

While the intentions of the Dubai Mall app developer and the students at Tufts University were noble, they both show how individuals are now trumping our existing power structures in order to fill a need. As traditional media channels are fading in influence, so are any other channels that brands and governments have any control over.
   While we create more of these “unofficial” ways for consumers to engage with brands and governments on their own terms, we are denying these organizations the chance to speak to consumers with any real control over the message or the medium.
   Organizations need to work harder to anticipate customer needs, work with existing and emerging technologies and address these gaps in service before they completely hand over their brands.

Pierre d’Huy
Experts Consulting
p.dhuy@experts-consulting.com

To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk.—Thomas A. Edison

My method is different. I do not rush into actual work. When I get a new idea, I start at once building it up in my imagination, and make improvements and operate the device in my mind.—Nikola Tesla

WE INHABIT an era which does not tolerate ambiguity, one disposed to regard progress in terms of absolutes, a universe of black and white. We seek the example of leaders who show us innovative, creative, success-giving conduct in what we believe to be a concrete environment. But stop for a moment to reconsider two scientific pioneers who shared a common historical context a century ago. Possessed of divergent work method, ethos, and fates, these individuals survive in our collective memories as near-archetypes of the industrial age. Yet how irreconcilable they seem at re-examination.
   The first is Thomas A. Edison, American inventor, born in 1847 in Ohio, seventh child of a middle class family, deaf, home schooled, self-educated. He left home at thirteen and took a job as newsboy. Obsessed with self-improvement and a voracious reader—especially of scientific texts—by age 16 he had taught himself how to operate a telegraph, and became a full time telegrapher. At 19 he received his first patent, for an electric vote recorder, designed to speed the election process. The invention proved a commercial failure, and Edison resolved that thereafter he would only invent things he was certain the public wanted. By 1869 at age 22 he had invented an improved stock ticker, the sale of which, along with a group of other patents, brought him $40,000, approximately $630,000 in today’s money. This enabled him to set up in 1871 his first small laboratory, where for the next five years he invented and manufactured devices which improved the speed and efficiency of the telegraph. By 1876 he set up a complete R&D facility in Menlo Park, New Jersey, containing all the equipment necessary to work on any invention, in essence prototyping what we now call a research lab. In 1878 Edison registered his first patent from the new space, the tin foil phonograph, the first commercial machine that could record and reproduce sound, single-handedly creating the consumer category today called home entertainment. The following year he patented the incandescent light bulb. It was the incandescent bulb which opened the door to his contact and eventual rivalry with a precocious emigre Serbian scientist nine years his junior named Nikola Tesla.
   Nikola Tesla was the son of an Orthodox priest and an unschooled but highly intelligent mother who was an inventor of household appliances. From an early age he demonstrated exceptional powers of visualization and memory, eventually speaking six languages. A dreamer with a taste for poetry, he also was known for self-discipline and a desire for precision. After university studies in engineering, he worked for a Budapest telephone company. During a walk in the park, Tesla visualized an induction engine driven by a rotating magnetic field, which he sketched in the dirt, then later built, a solution still widely in use over a century later. Though the motor did not find acceptance at first in Europe, Tesla brought it along to America in 1884, when he emigrated—penniless and bearing only a sheaf of his poetry—to begin a job with Thomas A. Edison. Edison had invented the icandescent bulb, but had not solved the problem of how to power it. His lamps were weak and inefficient when powered by the system called Direct Current (DC).
   Tesla’s task was to improve Edison’s dynamo designs, but he quickly recognized the limitations of the DC system. Coupled with radical differences with Edison on everything from business attire (Tesla came to work every day in suit, tie and white gloves) to business practice (Edison verbally promised Tesla $50,000 for the improvement of the dynamos, only to later renege on the offer and dismiss it as "American humour"; he also filed patents under his own name for work done by Tesla) the collaboration was doomed. At the end of a year, a disappointed Nikola Tesla left Menlo Park and sold his patents for Alternating Current (AC) to George Westinghouse, the start of a public rivalry with Edison which continued for decades.

Character is fate
One could find no better example of polar opposites than these two scientists. If Edison was of the left brain—analytical, egocentric, mechanistic, aggressive—Tesla was of the opposite: side-intuitive, altruistic, instinctive, compassionate. In problems solved best by observation, experience or deduction, Edison might score higher. In problems necessitating induction, intuition, imagination or vision, Tesla holds the advantage. Edison’s extant remarks are pithy and plain-spoken, homespun, concerned with work, trial-and-error, product development and the nature of success. Tesla’s quotes are florid, eloquent, lyrical, cosmological, philosophical, and prescient.

Most people don’t recognize opportunity when it comes, because it’s usually dressed in overalls and looks a lot like work.—Thomas A. Edison

   Edison was the inveterate tinkerer, who worked obsessive hours in shop coat and apron, then slept on the workbench of his laboratory. Edison’s deafness made him more solitary and shy in dealings with others, and though he counted titans like Henry Ford among his confidants, he favoured friendships with his fellow workmen. Though he had a reputation as a family man, his first wife was sickly and deferential to his wishes; his second wife, a social activist, spent a lot of time trying to improve her husband’s often careless personal habits.
   Tesla, a lifelong bachelor, led a somewhat isolated existence, devoting his full energies to science. He built labs for ambitious experiments performed on a heroic scale. For many years he resided at the Waldorf Astoria; there he threw elaborate dinners inviting famous people, then demonstrated spectacular electrical experiments in his lab. Tesla rubbed shoulders with the intelligentsia of the day, counting the author Mark Twain among his closest friends.

The mind is sharper and keener in seclusion and uninterrupted solitude. No big laboratory is needed in which to think. Originality thrives in seclusion free of outside influences beating upon us to cripple the creative mind. Be alone, that is the secret of invention; be alone, that is when ideas are born.—Nikola Tesla

   The idea of collaboration was better understood by Edison. He generally worked in conjunction with, and co-opted many of the ideas generated by others. Thomas A. Edison was not circumspect about this aspect of his work. He freely admitted, "I readily absorb ideas from every source, frequently starting where the last person left off."
   Tesla preferred to work alone, the quintessential mad scientist. During 1899, when he did experiments with high voltage, high-frequency electricity and other phenomena outside Colorado Springs, Colorado, he managed to create artificial lightning bolts 30 ft long, earth tremors and blacked out the entire city’s electrical system.

In search of profit

To my mind the old masters are not art; their value is in their scarcity.—Thomas A. Edison

Thomas Edison was by far the greater businessman, insulated from his own financial folly by corporate shields and a constant stream of income. He amassed 1,400 patents in his lifetime, and at one point he and his companies controlled most of the technology connected to sound recording, incandescent lighting and the motion picture industry. Over the years the goals of General Electric became more to maintain market viability than to produce new inventions frequently. Edison demonstrated real genius as a salesman throughout his career in promoting his inventions. While he claimed to have made unwise investments in the final years of his life, Edison’s residence alone was valued at $12 million at the time of his death, equal to $172 million in today’s money.
   Tesla, always impractical in financial matters, made a succession of bad business decisions during his lifetime. Though he filed over 700 patents in his own name, he systematically sold them off over the years. He left huge bills of unpaid rent for all his apartments notwithstanding, his Colorado lab was dismantled and sold for the value of its wood to satisfy unpaid rent. The Wardenclyffe laboratory became the greatest financial disappointment of his career when J. P. Morgan withdrew funding in 1905—had the experimental site gone online it would have been the world’s first international transmitter. By 1907 he had given up rights to his Westinghouse royalties for a fraction of their immense value. In 1916 it was revealed that Tesla was penniless, and had filed for bankruptcy.

Axes to grind

If Edison had a needle to find in a haystack, he would proceed at once with the diligence of the bee to examine straw after straw until he found the object of his search … I was a sorry witness of such doings, knowing that a little theory and calculation would have saved him ninety per cent of his labor.—Nikola Tesla

Both men carried grudges throughout their careers. Edison’s resentment at the superiority of AC current caused him to mount a decade-long negative publicity campaign after Tesla won the AC contract to power the 1893 Columbian Exposition. In order to demonstrate the dangers of AC current, Edison systematically electrocuted hundreds of animals, including an elephant in 1903.
   The half-century feud with Edison was not Tesla’s only regret. As early as 1893, Tesla had pioneered research and filed patents inventing radio. He was deeply disappointed when Marconi and Braun were awarded the Nobel Prize for it in 1909. Some sources speculate that one reason Tesla did not receive the Nobel Prize in 1915 is because he refused to share the award with Edison. In 1943, the year of Tesla’s death, Marconi’s radio patents were revoked and reassigned to the Tesla estate.

Last years
At the time of his death in 1931, Thomas Edison lived in a 29-room mansion called Glenmont on a 13½-acre parcel in an exclusive neighbourhood of West Orange, New Jersey. He had been in declining health for 20 years, and spent his last days in relative comfort. After he died the lights of most major western cities were dimmed for one full minute to honour his lifetime accomplishments. Ironically the same year as Edison’s passing, Time magazine featured Tesla on its cover in honour of his 75th birthday.
   Nikola Tesla lived the final ten years of his life in a two-room suite at the Hotel New Yorker, across from Bryant Park. Most days he could be found seated on a park bench, feeding pigeons. He died alone, reclusive, broke, an eccentric driven by compulsions and a progressive germ phobia. At his funeral held at the Cathedral of St John the Divine, Tesla was lauded by Nobel laureates as ‘one of the outstanding intellects of the world.’

Prediction and legacy
Edison spoke little about the distant future. He made remarks about horrible weapons with unthinkable destructive powers, but the sum of his recorded comments are grounded in practicality, the celebration of perseverance, and common sense. General Electric, what Edison’s first businesses merged into, survives as a century-old multinational organization with over 300,000 employees around the world today. Thomas A. Edison’s career work gave birth to what we now call telecoms, he illuminated the planet, launched home entertainment, innovated sound recording, developed moving pictures, created the dictaphone, mimeograph, and the storage battery. Today in many ways these automated utilitarian consumer items of the post-industrial age define our culture. While Edison claimed he never invented a device which killed people, one of his patents still in use remains that for the electric chair—an invention created out of spite.
   Reporters respected Nikola Tesla for his eloquence, but his futuristic prophecies met with criticism. He believed he intercepted radio communications from other planets—scientists today suspect he was simply hearing static electricity from space. He asserted he could ‘split the earth like an apple’, and offered the Department of Defense a ‘death ray capable of destroying 10,000 airplanes at a distance of 250 miles’. The same man who uttered these claims brought to mankind the elegant refinement and efficient automation of electrical conduction, invented radio, did early work with X-rays, researched radar and sonar, and posited cryogenics, particle-beam weaponry, VTOL aircraft, and smart mobile devices. Every electronic device started up anywhere in the world today applies a scientific principle harnessed by Nikola Tesla. He is present in every technology we employ.

I haven’t failed, I’ve found 10,000 ways that don’t work.—Thomas A. Edison

Solution-building
For Thomas Edison to make a discovery he needed to apply his inexhaustible energy to ideas generated by someone else. He made no great scientific breakthrough in his career, but deployed principles discovered by others, especially in the creation of new consumer goods and applied technology. His solutions were arrived at through rigorous processes of trial and error, and by eliminating that which did not satisfy the technology’s need. Edison tested the product until it worked, a kind of paralysis by analysis. In essence, no scientific breakthrough could be made except by happenstance. He looked to what the market-place sought, confident that the world would yield the solution.

If you only knew the magnificence of the 3, 6 and 9, then you would have the key to the universe.—Nikola Tesla

   Nikola Tesla possessed the gift of vision, the ability to see the result, to perfect his inventions completely in his mind before committing them to paper. Throughout his career he intuitively sensed hidden scientific secrets which came to him in an instant. He then applied scientific principles to what the problem required. This talent for seeing and dreaming the answer, finding the appropriate analogy, made him the iterative inventor he was. This liberation of thought was also his limitation. Tesla lived in a world of theory, a philanthropist of thought who dreamed of bringing power to the world. As such he did not really build anything that lasted, a kind of extinction by instinct, driven by the notion that his brain would always give him the solution.
   Viewed from the vantage point of today’s world it might be said that Edison embodied the method and mindset of the west: pragmatic, results-driven, interested in the market-place, focused on the economics of discovery. Tesla can be seen as more a man of the east: mystical, possessed of a sense of awe with the magnitude of the universe, seeking to deploy science for the greater good of all mankind, focused on the elevation of the spirit, preoccupied with the divine.
   No single individual can demonstrate all aspects of both Edison and Tesla. Those more Edisonian produce inventions which drive the market-place, found great institutions and probably die rich, though they tend towards ruthlessness and selfishness. Those disposed to more Teslian behaviour solve the greatest mysteries of the universe, but cannot work in teams, squander their fortunes, descend into madness. We all have inclinations in one way or the other, those more Edison-like and less Tesla-like (ETs), those more Tesla-like and less Edison-like (TEs). It is the balance of these two personality types that make successful teams. Today’s Edisonians might include Gates, Jobs, Ellison, Dell, Branson, and Ted Turner. Today’s Teslians might include Elon Musk, Paul Allen, or Dean Kamen.
   Socrates advised us: know thyself. In reconsidering Thomas A. Edison and Nikola Tesla, it’s important, therefore, to ask: are you an ET or a TE?

The thing I lose patience with most is the clock. Its hands move too fast.—Thomas A. Edison

We are whirling through endless space, with an inconceivable speed, all around everything is spinning, everything is moving, everywhere there is energy.—Nikola Tesla

Related links
   An odd and charming web site admiring of Edison, rich in revealing quotes, with surprisingly little about Tesla’s role: http://thomasedison.com/quotes.html.
   The best, most comprehensive site on Tesla, warts and all, with excellent photography: http://www.teslauniverse.com/nikola-tesla-quotes-start_30.
   An article published shortly after Edison’s death, discussing his personal wealth: http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/02/10/did-thomas-edison-die-a-poor-man/.
   A one-minute film clip of the 1903 elephant electrocution: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkBU3aYsf0Q.

Translated from the French by Stanley Moss
DiGanZi
info@diganzi.com

The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 3, no. 1, 2009

AA Often the criticism gets levelled that specialists in strategy try to manipulate the public by using brands. This article proposes to demonstrate that the accusation makes no sense. Not for moral reasons, but for reasons semiologic. Any sorcerer’s apprentice in branding who uses such manipulative techniques to mislead their interlocutors will inevitably find themselves challenged by the question, ‘Who’s kidding who?’*

BB For the past decade the Medinge Group (see www.medinge.org) has brought together brand experts from around the world to ponder questions such as this one. Though their mother tongues are different, their business is the same: to advise customers and help build a patient approach, a complex of signs and signals which correctly represent the organisation in question. This structure of thought is dynamic, even organic. It unfolds gradually over a period of years. The client grows older, changes along with its mark, like it or not. The brand always influences, an iteration of the concept of cognitive dissonance, described in the annals of psychology by Leon Festinger around 1957. This conceit states simply that everyone in the presence of mutually incompatible knowledge experiences a state of unpleasant tension. Once we reach the discernable point of discomfort we consult our knowledge of strategies to restore cognitive balance. One such strategy to reduce cognitive dissonance is called the process of rationalization. This is precisely what occurs when an approach to branding is overambitious, and seeks to be better than it truly is. To rationalize the difference between what is said and what really happens, the change proposed will itself need to undergo change. Being unable to move, the piano is reconciled to the piano stool. It is the classic challenge of corporate brand-building. The nuclear heart of branding must be handled with care, while its imperfections—intentional or not—will be naturally smoothed by time. Its speech may be opposed by journalists, shareholders, employees, if the words are not followed by facts. That is the beauty of branding: brutalized, used like an instrument, it turns against its creator.

CC A fake brand rings false. A fake brand acts like a truth serum. During the exchanges at our seminars, we were able among professionals to share our discomfort in instances where brand fakery revealed itself. Our experience validates this—the Nokia brand for Thomas Gad, the Orange brand for Patrick Harris, to mention only the most prestigious—are great branding stories because they endeavoured to build honest brands, sincere brands.

DD The only redemption for branding is this sincerity, or at least the application of a large dose of good faith. The client, whether a company, a city, a theater, needs to speak to its public. But the signs do not know they cannot lie. The result of a manipulative approach to branding is ultimately an unmasking. It’s the responsibility of Medinge’s specialists to announce unequivocal reality to their clients: we do not brand dishonestly. You can’t play with signs and escape the consequences.

EE Naming is betrayal
‘To name things badly adds misery to the world,’ Albert Camus said, and the same holds true for badly named brands. The modern understanding of the word branding originates from the archaic word brand, the red-hot iron employed to mark ownership of cattle. Naming memorializes the key moment of the birth of an entity. Badly named, or worse—something deceptively named—dooms an entity to failure. A bad name creates a fake identity. A bad name self-mutilates the brand. A brand is an indelible marking. Thus a small brand which wants to achieve the stature of a great brand, but bears such a name, will never say more than that. Far from succeeding in impersonating a major brand, its name reveals nothing more than ‘I-am-a-small-brand-that-wants-to-be-seen-as-a-big-brand. A frog who wants to be as big as an ox.’

FF Let us observe two examples of badly-named brands which have since disappeared. Boo.com was the name chosen by three Swedes, Ernst Malmsten, Kajsa Leander and Patrik Heddelin, in 1999. This start-up distribution company spent $135 million in eighteen months, before filing for bankruptcy. A bad name is like a bad casting in metal. It constitutes an incoherent and schizophrenic identity which subverts any hint of success or stability at its base. Boo is an onomotæpia, a sound used to scare, startle or take by surprise. This brand development launched itself at the dawn of the internet, and sought to establish a relationship of trust with future customers. A second example concerns the failure of a French bank launched in 2001, which called itself Nabab, a subsidiary of Société Générale. It demonstrated that in matters of money, little comfort could be taken from renaming a financial institution in an altered tone.

GG All schools of psychoanalysis devote a good deal of thought to the nature and question of hidden identities. Freud, Jung and Lacan continually return to discussion on the literal or subliminal significance of names. The act of naming signals an intention. With branding, the name is never manipulated. To name is to inevitably translate, and often to betray that which was not meant to be discovered.

HH The choice of typography and its associated symbols occurs in the natural order of design, that is subsequently, arriving at a set of mnemonic keys. It is most often tested in the final moments of engagement, but as validated by Malcolm Gladwell in his book entitled Blink, the client recognizes the signal in an instant. The brand adviser waits until the client exclaims, without too much justification, ‘Yes, that’s certainly us.’ Again, no conspiracy possible, just a clear feeling of identification.

II To this we add the notorious practice of determining an entity’s values. The difficulty falls much more in the direction of laziness, of a certain unanimity in the temptation to lie. Most of the time our role is to encourage the customer into selecting specific values the brand will express. The risk is the adoption of a bunch of hollow words, an accusation generally leveled at competitors whose catch phrases are often engraved on slabs of marble in the lobbies of US companies. A list of values, seemingly endless, not binding, and demonstrating concerns mainly designed to show others who we believe we are. This is the key: branding requires disclosure. To make an effective brand you must agree to deliver.

JJ Branding compared to a mobile by Alexander Calder
Branding is an exact science, but neither truth nor lie can figure in it. The slightest false move is clearly visible. Thomas Gad analyses this phenomenon in his book entitled 4-D Branding, with a scheme that employs analysis of four dimensions. He describes branding as an unstable balance, living between four poles and connected by two perpendicular axes. One axis shows the functional dimension relative to the spiritual dimension; the other shows the social dimension relative to the mental dimension. A complementary visualization would be to consider branding like a mobile by Calder, consisting of a series of branches, all linked. If any of these branches is modified, the entire mobile as a whole is affected. All these branches will be fully aligned over time with the identity of the whole (‘the brand’). This metaphor describes a mobile’s resilient architecture, one which is much like a well-researched brand’s. It absorbs the movements of its ecosystem in a dynamic manner, then invariably returns to its original position.

KK Sign language requires the skill of a bomb disposal expert. Anyone who cheats will sooner or later step on the very landmine he has placed. It doesn’t happen in a dramatic revelation like, ‘It’s a scandal that company isn’t what it claims to be, and their whole approach to branding is complicit in the deception!’ Rather, perception recognises a form of systemic failure. The principle of dynamic branding affects the entire company. A sincere and consistent branding programme directs the marketing strategy, inspires innovation, unites staff, while it reassures the President and Executive Committee. Nothing escapes the brand. The risk from an attempted manipulation is that no positive contributions are carried out. The active principle of branding no longer works and the client is at worst the victim of an unreliable, poorly designed and inadequate campaign.

LL A brand is both a reflection of the present and a promise for the future. From that dichotomy comes the misunderstanding, causing stakeholders to believe either that the reflection is not sufficiently accurate or that the promise will never be fulfilled. A good brand settles itself perfectly equidistant from the two ideas. An overdone descriptive fixed to the present prevents the brand from evolving. Investing too deeply in the promise, a pretentious outburst is betrayed, a weakness created. The brand consultant needs to be vigilant with such fine-tuning, free from obscure intentions in the practice of his profession, instead attentively gardening, with brand solutions elegantly arrived at, built over long years to achieve a sincere likeness. It is beautiful and appetizing brand identities like these which the Medinge Group has chosen to honour since 2004 with their annual Brands with a Conscience award.

* Here Pierre d’Huy employs the French expression ‘l’arroseur arrosé’, literally, ‘the sprinkler sprinkled’. He originally indicated this would be the article title, but has since retitled the essay, ‘Nul ne peut se jouer avec les signes’, literally, ‘Nobody can play with the signs’.

Stanley Moss
DiGanZi
diganzi@gmail.com

In the canon of English-language writings on brands and brand management, few documents possess the stature of the legendary McElroy Memorandum known as “Brand Man”. Authored in 1931 by a a 27-year old Proctor & Gamble promotions executive, it inserted into the practice of brand-building seven directives which shaped our perception of brand’s purpose and function in the ecology of the marketplace. This single manifesto created the modern Brand Manager. For more than seven decades its enduring words were regarded with a reverence like that for the Holy Grail, and perpetrated a set of attitudes which beg to be re-examined in the face of brand world today. McElroy is at heart a strategic marketing document. It prescribed dynamic relationships be instituted within teams, and dictated a rigid hierarchical schema for the organization. Its application helped P&G separate brand managers into parallel teams, with each team competing internally with other brands in the company’s portfolio. Teams were mandated to market their own products to the sales force.

While the youthful Neil McElroy understood a brand to represent a cold-hearted economic entity, such a narrow presumption no longer holds exclusively true. The McElroy memo was simply the first step in codifying brands as instruments of an evolving, organic process. The memo limits its focus to fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG), those rapidly-produced products with short shelf lives, which need to be sold in large quantities in order to be profitable; in this particular category new-product creation factors mightily, competition is uppermost in everyone’s mind, and only good performance guarantees brand survival. Business schools, take heed. If McElroy is the foundation for all brands of the future, then we are in for rough waters. That’s because brands are no longer simply tools of marketing departments, or receptacles which hold psychological levers for creating demand and moving product. The equation has upended. Marketing today is a fraction of the brand equation.

We now understand brands to be deeper, broader, more dimensional entities than ever before. But a look at the memo shows why brands became the distorted commercial entities which later came back to haunt Brand Men, and why the discipline engages in such soul-searching, especially in Post-Globalization world.

McElroy’s point 1 shows us clearly where his priorities stand: he directs his Brand Men to take careful heed of units shipped. In the hierarchy of formalization we are dealing with a classic bean-counter mentality. It’s a short-term, simplistic directive which assesses quantity moved as of primary importance. It implies that sheer numbers dictate the highest imperative for brand evaluation. Nothing else takes precedence. There is no future, only an opportunistic present.

Point 2 instructs the Brand Men to examine carefully where brand development is heavy and “progressive”, an interesting and provocative term, especially taken in its historical context. In 1931 “progressive” might have inferred Communist leanings; today the term smacks of fringe cases at the periphery of political movements, possible techno-libertarians advocating secession from the union, free love and anarchy. McElroy asserts that numerical growth is the highest objective, that Brand Men should apply successful treatment to comparable territories. Today’s brand specialist focuses on greater sensitivity to local culture, and pays more attention to local need before overlaying some proven marketing strategy simply because it has worked to sell product elsewhere.

In point 3, McElroy gives five sub-directives for underperforming brands, what he refers to as “light” brand development. He charges his team to study past advertising and promotional history, then evaluate it in the context of the local territory both on supply and consumer sides. Find out the trouble, he writes mysteriously, employing a vast euphemism. Once the weakness has been uncovered, he counsels, make a plan. It’s a statement of pure brute economics, with managers warned to be certain that money budgeted will produce results. Abide by the corporate hierarchy, he goes on, clear it with the District Manager, get buy-in on the local level. In other words, tell your local manager what to do in his own back yard and tell him how to do it. Get him to agree. Next up: hype the sales force, keep them hammering the territory. Write everything down, document, evaluate, assess. In no place does McElroy ask, Is this product needed, redundant, obsolete? Does somebody else make a better one? Do consumers really want it? What consequences does its consumption carry? In 1931 fewer channels of mass media existed for oversight, there was no conception of a problem with disposability and waste, few corporations thought about notions of community, and the term sustainability would not be coined for 40 years. Listen up, brand managers: the world has changed.

Point 4 pins total responsibility on the Brand Manager for the concise communications connected to his brands. This presumes that anything the organization cares to say about product is apt. There is no reference to accurately reflecting product claims, or any consideration of ethical underpinnings. As long as what is said works, it is permitted.

Point 5 addresses the manufacturer’s expenditure at point-of-purchase, quantifying marketing effectiveness at the retail level. We see no recognition of the universe of stakeholder communities which are touched by a product’s existence. Today we acknowledge that advertising adds to mass sensory overload, a form of pollution in an overcrowded environment. McElroy believes if you put the message in front of the consumer, it will be consumed. This is the fundamental corruption of traditional advertising writ large.

Packaging is addressed, but only superficially, in point 6. The Manager is counseled to experiment with and recommend wrapper revisions. We are again firmly in the terrain of marketing, insisting that the package jump off the shelf, differentiated from its competitors, ramping up the claims, doing anything necessary to grab the impulse-driven buying decision. Not a lot of ethics here, and certainly not abiding by Massimo Vignelli’s famous dictum that “the best packages are invisible.”

By point 7, McElroy is back into his corporate ivory tower, advising his Brand Men to see District Managers a number of times a year to discuss any “faults in promotion.” Here is the crux of the unreality: as long as promotion is correctly tweaked, the brand becomes invulnerable. All hinges on the success of promotion, the product lives in a universe independent of any considerations except its own self-interest. Is it any wonder, with subtext like this, that society drifted into a delusional and mindless consumption-driven consciousness?

History is an odd and elastic commodity, which lurches ahead, but mostly plods along, and we have had seventy years of McElroy’s calculating marketing strategies laying claim to the brand. While McElroy is frozen in time, a kind of Peter Pan of brand theory, brand has grown up around the memo. Brands are our silent partners, devices which deliver inspiration, carry promises, help us create our own identities, and stand as symbols for who we are and what we believe. It’s no longer a case of simply selling more units than your competitors. The challenge for Brand Men today is to reflect an understanding of a bigger world out there than one driven by unenlightened self-interest and short-term profits, and that the time is now to focus on truth-telling, to advocate for the greater good, and to always consider the deeper ethical implications of our commercial conduct.

Jack Yan
Jack Yan & Associates, PO Box 14-368, Wellington 6241, New Zealand
jack.yan@jyanet.com

Executive summary
Detroit has not ever used a brand orientation in its automakers’ marketing strategies, and it talks of trimming brands and numbers to allow it to compete. The author believes in being more focused on brands and not losing economies of scale, and building more of what consumers want. The tools are there, such as consumer-targeted blogs, but manufacturers need to use them.

Introduction
Motown has been in trouble constantly since the 1970s. That time, it was its failure to see how the imports were gradually conquering North American market, and when the Arab-Israeli War forced up fuel prices in 1973, the Japanese were already there with models that had great gas mileage. When the second oil shock happened, US companies were still largely ill equipped. Then-Ford president Lee Iacocca noted that sales of its full-size cars were going up, leaving Detroit’s number two without many economy models.¹ The Japanese won again.

Similar patterns began emerging in the 1990s. Then, Detroit was obsessed with trucks and SUVs. It is generally regarded that there is some financial wisdom behind building these large vehicles, as they generate plenty of profit in an industry where US automakers have massive costs, especially relating to union workers’ pensions and healthcare. But it was becoming obvious to only a few that Detroit was leaving its economy models behind, while the Japanese, once again, were sweeping in with up-to-the-minute variants of their Toyota Corolla and Honda Civic.

The author wrote of this folly at the turn of the century, including DaimlerChrysler’s decision to abandon the low-cost Plymouth marque²—in case low-cost, cheap cars became necessary again. In both these cases, the latest (2008) fuel crisis, driven by high prices and speculation, have proven him right. Detroit is scrambling once again, as it did in the 1970s and early 1980s, wondering how to fix itself. And its ideas smack of repetition—since some of them have been proven to have failed the industry before, in other nations.

The problems are long-term ones that cannot be fixed by short-term adjustments. The truck and SUV obsession was a short-term fix, a quest for profits which Chrysler Corp., in particular, rode very well with its Dodge and Jeep lines in the 1990s. But it left Chrysler weak in passenger cars.³ It is to be expected, however, since Wall Street itself has an obsession: that of the quarterly result. This, however, does not bode well for corporations that have to last generations.

Japan seems to lack this problem as investors are perfectly happy for their companies to see out a longer term. While there are exceptions, Toyota has been mostly left to its own devices, its management opting for a gradual evolution of its strategies, cutting costs of manufacture and appointing westerners to the board. It builds, for instance, the Camry and Corolla in more locations than any one US model.

It would be foolhardy to say that Toyota is impregnable. It has weaknesses, in that its cars are considered the equivalent of domestic appliances: reliable but uninspiring. Detroit had attempted such cars before, often with Japanese input. And it found that these models were not true to the various brands owned by Chrysler, Ford and General Motors.

The brand orientation, which necessitates long-term thinking, is what Detroit needs.

This is a bold statement as GM-watchers may be able to point to a failed era where the company did just that. Buick, Cadillac and other GM divisions were, the company claims, run as brands. But this is not true, at least not branding as most professionals understand it. GM made the classic mistake of equating sales to branding: all it did was to regroup into a geographical sales structure and expected its regional heads to maximize sales.⁴ Little consideration was given to the meaning behind each brand, nor was there feedback from consumers. The experiment was deemed a failure.

Others may also point to the failure Ford has had with its brands, even if it has been credited with being a good brand steward of properties such as Volvo and Aston Martin, two which it had acquired in the 1990s. Jaguar, it is pointed out, was always a division that kept needing investment, never making anything for Ford, despite it paying US$2·5 billion. But there, too, Ford misunderstood the Jaguar brand, lumbering it with passé designs that the marque’s customers did not want. While it never wound up merely badge-engineering Ford cars, it cannot be easily argued that Ford’s failures were due to brand management.

The talk around Detroit is of rationalization and killing off brands, getting its costs and sales more into line. GM, it is argued, may have to be content with being a global number-two, and Toyota can remain in its top spot. Retrenchment seems to be the theme.

It’s true that the Big Three need to leave or at least reconsider sectors where they have not created products that the customer wanted. But are they listening? There are enough tools out there on the blogosphere to show that, for example, Ford buyers would prefer the latest European Focus rather than the model it is currently selling. But only GM has made any headway in blogging and listening directly to consumers’ feedback. Ford is blinded by the fact its old-tech Focus is selling well, without realizing that the same behaviour turned the original Ford Taurus from class leader to a has-been model line in less than a generation.

Most of the techniques have existed for decades. Retrenchment and rationalization were pursued by British Leyland in the 1970s on. The company now exists, other than the Jaguar and Land Rover businesses, as an independent company making one MG model, as a division of Shanghai Automotive Industry Corp. Jaguar and Land Rover are owned by India’s Tata Motors.

Toyota, the darling of the motoring press, particularly for its hybrids, does not pursue retrenchment. It is easily argued that it does not have to. But it has been clever in filling niches and using a minimal number of platforms to create a wide variety of cars—something Detroit’s Big Three were once credited with doing and needs to again. Right now, it’s looking at ways to cement the lead, especially in a cost-cutting programme—in the belief that it’s better to do this calmly than being forced to.⁵

This paper deals first with some of the ideas being bandied about the US auto industry for starters, then groups them into techniques that could save the Big Three.

Troubling thoughts in Detroit
Ingrassia⁶ points out that the Big Three have shed 269,440 employees since 2000 and lost a combined $67 billion in the last three years—and that’s not even counting Chrysler for all 12 months of 2007. But at the same time he points out that Fiat turned itself around and posted record profits. Nissan went from lossmaker to profitable in 2001. Chrysler itself was turned around by Iacocca in the 1980s.

The industry, he says, has at least made moves on the union front, which is one of its biggest hurdles.

But some of the ideas that he has found executives mentioning in Motown show the usual maximize-profits-now mentality that landed the automakers into trouble in the first place.

GM
GM has eight brands, and it is believed, some need to go. In fact, GM has more than eight, once one starts counting Opel, Vauxhall and Holden in its overseas arms. Ingrassia reports very geocentric thinking from Detroit: ‘If you’re shopping for a midpriced sedan, for example, G.M. has six. Buick by itself has two. Toyota, by comparison, has just one—the Camry, which sells nearly as many vehicles each year as all six of G.M.’s offerings combined.’⁷

It’s not totally true. Even in the US, Toyota has a Lexus sedan costing what a well equipped Camry would cost. In its home market, Toyota ?elds more than six mid-priced sedans, selling to a smaller total population. While this is a straw-man argument—foreign automakers have a small share in Japan and Toyota nears 50 per cent⁸—the quantity of entrants in any sector is generally not a problem.

The important thing is that each brand is well defined enough without cannibalization. Ingrassia indicates that GM CEO Rick Wagoner is trying to consolidate sales’ channels without trimming the brand line-up. This makes total sense, because there is nothing that suggests that one manager could not oversee two or three brands. The Japanese have generally kept trim structures for its brands. Toyota itself manages three. Having one divisional head oversee two or three brands can work if there are no favourites and each brand’s positioning is well defined and understood.

The short-term thinking is that Saab, Buick, Pontiac, Hummer and Saturn should die. This is the same thinking at DaimlerChrysler that led to Plymouth’s demise. But it is not the same thinking that led to Oldsmobile’s, a GM division, at the turn of the century.

Oldsmobile became an untenable brand for GM because it occupied a very similar market niche—price-wise and psychographically—as Buick. Purists will be able to nit-pick that argument as there were differences between the buyers: Oldsmobile ones sought American quality and tradition, while Buick ones sought presence without arrogance. However, the reality inside GM was that Oldsmobiles were not really given a distinctive character and given that one of branding’s core tenets is differentiation, the brand had failed.⁹

Plymouth, however, was on its way to becoming a distinctive brand with its own design language. Chrysler had already débuted the Plymouth Prowler, a hot rod acting as a halo car for the brand. The next model, the PT Cruiser, was about to be launched, débuting a retro design. The remaining Plymouths, developed as Dodges with different trim, were given scripted badging that hinted at the brand’s more youthful, lively positioning for the 21st century.

A Plymouth division, had it not been for its cancellation under DaimlerChrysler, would have expressed American youthfulness—the PT Cruiser’s initial success illustrated as much—while Chrysler itself would have remained premium, and Dodge sporty.

Instead, Plymouth products were rolled into the Chrysler marque, confusing that brand—diluting it and forcing a repositioning into a sort of American Volkswagen. At least then it posed no greater threat to some of Mercedes-Benz’s lesser models. But Chrysler lost a distinctive brand with value-leading models—which would have helped it today in an age of high fuel prices. Plymouth had stayed away from SUVs and trucks—a great brand image for 2008.

The brand-trimming argument is what caused BL to kill Triumph’s saloons and MG’s sports cars a generation ago. The thinking was that Triumph and Rover saloons competed in the same sector—based on price, they did.¹⁰ Based on brand, they didn’t. There was similar thinking that led to the closure of MG—because Triumph, it was decided, already had a corporate sports car.

The consequence that played out over decades was that BL’s successors lost their economies of scale.

BL was starved of investment, however, which meant it could not have realistically fielded two identical cars with different badges for long. But it had already made steps to group Austin and Morris together, then Jaguar, Rover and Triumph. One divisional head could have overseen well defined brands, putting a sporting version of one saloon into Triumph’s range, and a traditional one into Rover’s. Experts generally agree today, with hindsight, that the failure to understand the distinctive brand attitudes and brand loyalty behind each BL brand caused credible models to be axed.

Even Toyota has been careful in Japan. It fields, for instance, mid-sized front-wheel-drive sedans such as the Camry and rear-wheel-drive models such as the Mark X. They look fairly similar. But it understands that they appeal to different buyers in a market where consumers are likely to be loyal to model lines in the way US buyers are loyal to brands. If this holds true, then Chevrolet, Saturn and Pontiac can coexist, for example.

There is no need to ape Toyota just because it fields just three brands in the US. No US automaker can afford to rationalize its range to that extent, because none has been able to show that a single American brand can sell twice the volume of two defunct brands. A Chevrolet Cobalt might not be able to fill its own shoes as well as that of a Pontiac G5’s, if Pontiac were to be axed. It’s just as likely that those Pontiac buyers would go to the imports. Historically, did Oldsmobile and Plymouth buyers remain with GM and Chrysler after their parent firms killed them?

Brand axeing should take place in cases of overlap or ill de?nition—and a recent example in Japan would be that of Mazda, which bid farewell to many of the marques it tried to create in the early 1990s (such as E?ni and Eunos).

Saab is a distinctive brand that has been starved of new models for years, but it certainly isn’t in as bad a shape as any of Mazda’s old marques. It has two sedans on Opel Vectra platforms, by themselves not that successful. An SUV was put into the range to stop buyers from leaving the marque. Saab’s problems are not down to a brand that has a strong aircraft heritage, the warmth of Swedish culture and a history of innovation—messages that are still continued in its marketing. Saab’s problems are due to the dearth of new models, which means that it fails as a BMW or Mercedes-Benz rival.

It has no ready overlap in the GM universe, and all the brand really needs are new models. GM has made some headway in putting Saab development with its German company Adam Opel. What it needs Stateside is to look at Saab alongside a non-competing GM brand—and any are compatible. In Australasia, Saab is sold alongside HSV and Hummer, two other premium GM brands.

Modern communications could see a very effective platform engineering programme, which GM is already putting in place anyway. This means one team is working on the Opel Corsa E and Daewoo Gentra replacements, which will be sold in the US as the Chevrolet Aveo successor next decade. GM Europe is working on mid-sized cars such as the Opel Insignia and the next Chevrolet Malibu. And GM’s Australian arm, Holden, created the full-size platform underpinning the Holden Commodore and Chevrolet Camaro.

This programme simply needs to be extended further to creating niche vehicles for Saab as well as replacements for its current range—and there is evidence that GM already got that memo. Buick should benefit from this, too: a Lucerne replacement could easily have been developed alongside the Commodore.

Similar arguments could be made in support of Buick’s presence. While that brand has trimmed models in recent years, what it does field is distinctively styled and its brand, too, is well defined. Sheetmetal might cost money, but the majority of R&D goes into automotive architecture—stuff that customers cannot see. Buick and Hummer appeal to very distinctive buyers who are not catered for elsewhere, and Hummer itself is leading the charge into international markets.

That leaves Pontiac and Saturn, which is already benefiting from globalization. Pontiac fields two rebadged Holdens: a large sedan and a truck. Saturn is becoming the American name for Opel: it can easily go from import-fighter to import-seller, provided it keeps its no-nonsense approach to retail, one of its main differentiating factors.

GM has used the rebadging idea well in some markets. In Britain, most Vauxhalls are really Opels—in most of the range, the model names are even the same. For years, Holden used the same method, though now it rebadges several Daewoo models (Daewoo is another GM brand). There is no reason for Pontiac not to have some Holdens, with the rest of the range selling extreme-performance models made in the US. It would increase economies for Holden. Saturnized Opels would also help Opel in Europe reach greater economies there.

If there is one thing that history has taught us is that tastes are cyclical. Muscle cars may be wrong for 2008 but they may be right for 2012. If Pontiac is killed off, can GM successfully deal with that sector then?

The above are cursory brand analyses only. No one should say that that Saturn’s only differentiator is a no-nonsense retail approach. There are plenty of other reasons that Saturn is distinct from Chevrolet or the other automakers’ brands. And those other reasons, especially considering the buyer, probably won’t overlap as greatly as a mere financial, BL-style analysis would suggest.

In fact, Aaker’s ?ve brand equity targets¹¹ are instructive and it is not impossible to maximize all of them, propelling every GM brand to varying degrees of success. GM and its investors need to remember history and why Britain still has a car industry, just one dominated by Japanese and foreign makes.

GM needs to begin by defining its brands and engaging consumer help to get there. It has a good enough support base via its blog, Fast Lane, to which Bob Lutz, its product czar, contributes. People believe their ideas are being heard and Lutz has been making many of the right moves by enlisting the help of global GM divisions. That can only be enriching to brand equity.

One brand that has escaped criticism for the most part is Cadillac, which has at least sorted its design language and styling out, produced products that Americans (especially style-conscious younger consumers) want,¹² so either GM got lucky—or GM has the skill set already within its company.

GM’s other great asset, which it is finally using now with Lutz’s top-down endorsement (another necessity in branding), is its global divisions.¹³ Each has been made a centre of excellence. Each is part of a greater global structure, entrenched in GM behaviour over decades. Toyota centralizes a lot more of its product development, but GM may be able to have each centre work in tandem and bring products to market more quickly.

Ford
Ingrassia is more optimistic about Ford, which has been slimming down, selling Aston Martin, Jaguar and Land Rover. But he is critical of the company’s product range, and rightly so.

At the time of writing, Ford has been enjoying healthy sales in the US with its Focus compact car. However, car enthusiasts have been critical of this model, since it uses an old platform. Even México has the new-platform model in its range, leading some to disbelieve Ford’s reason that the newer model would be priced too highly to be competitive in the US. (Ford also sells the Mazda 3 in the US at a competitive price, and that is on the newer platform.) Alongside the Honda Civic, the Focus seems old hat.

However, expensive fuel and Ford’s widespread US dealer network have meant that the Focus is being snapped up. Some of this is probably due to brand loyalty, too: those that stuck by the company in the days of the truck and the Explorer SUV are looking at the Focus as a simple, bugs-ironed-out model.

As mentioned earlier, strong sales are not always an indicator of long-term brand strength. Should fuel prices come down and people begin repeating their less considerate, energy-consuming behaviours, will they turn to Ford? Many Taurus buyers did not return to the company when they wanted another mid-sized sedan: they went to Toyota and Honda. There are only so many years that a company can sell an old-platform design, and in the age of the internet, car buyers are more savvy than ever.

Ford has a bright spot, says Ingrassia: its CD338 line of sedans (Ford Fusion, Mercury Milan and Lincoln MKZ). He is right, as these have also managed to be sold in South America as well, as premium models. Using an old (but revised and competitive) Mazda Atenza platform, CD338 was developed with good savings, showing that single platforms can be adapted further. The current Taurus, using a Volvo platform, is another example.

But Ford could trim its platforms further and make use of its international divisions. The Ford Mondeo’s European development duplicated that of CD338, and enthusiasts have been supportive of the European car. Ford is ending the duplication with its next B-sector (supermini) car, the Fiesta, which will be sold in Europe, North America, Asia and Oceania.

Ford’s problems in the past were linked to internal politicking, leading many to dismiss the global model. They cite the CDW27 project of the early 1990s to be an example of a car developed in Europe and failing in the US. Its size was often blamed. The reality was that CDW27 was under-marketed, especially as BMW continued to earn sales in the same size segment.

Facing troubles, and with a new leader in the form of CEO Alan Mulally, Ford may well have realized that being a united company has its benefits.

It could do more, as Australian commentators are quick to point out that their countrymen’s big-car expertise is not used sufficiently. But it does make use of Volvo as a safety centre of excellence, and there are signs of change.

From a branding point of view, Ford may well have sorted things with its core brand, steadily sorting its product range out in what appears to be a medium-term plan leading into the mid-2010s.

It has generally been regarded as a good brand steward for Volvo and Land Rover. Jaguar’s problems were detailed earlier and they seem to have been an (expensive) exception rather than the rule. Aston Martin grew under Ford as well.¹⁴

Volvo has been engineering class-leading platforms for the company, it has a well defined brand centring around safety and Swedish design, and it’s a rare case where the (profitable) status quo should be observed. Mazda is Ford’s sporting brand, and seems to trade well on its Japanese origins and philosophy, with halo cars such as the MX-5 and RX-8.

Its problems rest with Lincoln and Mercury. Lincoln was once a proud brand, but with the demise of the Town Car, no longer fields a large luxury model to rival the large Lexus LS and the top Cadillac. Instead, its models are warmed-over Fords, making sense from a cost perspective. Lincoln buyers are indeed different, brand-wise, from Ford ones. But surely they are discerning enough to notice that what they drive does not look that special?

The good news for Lincoln is that it has downsized, something that it failed to do in the 1970s until GM had already made its move. However, Ford is falling into a trap with cars that do not support the Lincoln brand well, and it can hurt the company in the long run. A brand vision was once developed and show cars built (such as one called the Mark IX), demonstrating a renaissance and a design language for the brand. Little seems to have come of it other than adopting the grille design. It shows short-term thinking and Lincoln is being hurt until it can launch more interesting cars. It seriously needs a brand strategy outlined.

If Lincolns are not special, then what of Mercury—which has languished for over a generation? The brand is nearly invisible, it sells cars that are considered upscale Fords, and the company’s financial problems meant that any distinctive models (such as the Cougar) were cancelled.

Mercury could be fixed if Ford simply examines its Japanese affiliate’s range at Mazda, which develops more models than US consumers see. If the brand were defined as a quality import-fighter, it could have a chance at distancing itself from its warmed-over-Ford image. An obvious candidate for “Mercurization” would be the next Mazda MPV.

Chrysler
Chrysler, the smallest player, is now under a private equity firm’s control and is not particularly well positioned. Once a highly respected company in the 1990s, Chrysler had lean R&D processes, exciting niche models and the admiration of American businesses. Forbes called it the Company of the Year.

This was appealing to Daimler-Benz AG of Stuttgart, which took over Chrysler in the late 1990s. As discussed, the Plymouth marque was a casualty. But the takeover was poor in other areas: there were cultural clashes, the brands were never defined to begin with, and the newly merged DaimlerChrysler found dif?culty getting economies of scale with the platforms. Lean R&D suddenly seemed more cumbersome. And the resignations of many of Chrysler’s old bosses—Bob Eaton, Bob Lutz, François Castaing, inter alia—did not do much for the workforce.¹⁵

Dodge was an easy brand to define, alongside Americanness and sportiness. However, Chrysler went from innovative American luxury—its LH big cars were highly acclaimed, as were their successors—to a sort of Volkswagen, having low-priced models such as the Neon and PT Cruiser sitting uncomfortably with the 300 large car.

Brand-wise, Chrysler is all over the place. Ingrassi is right that the company has not fielded a true luxury car for years. It is cooperating with Chery of China on a small car—which might be too little, too late, when it is launched.¹⁶ And when it is launched, where will it go? It would have been ideal for Plymouth.

Meanwhile, Nissan is building a subcompact for Chrysler in South America. Chrysler is building a minivan for Volkswagen at a Canadian plant.

One scenario is to kill Chrysler off, which would dilute Dodge’s brand—since models such as the Chery joint-venture vehicle will have to be absorbed. It would fit as poorly there in buyers’ minds as the PT Cruiser did with the old LHS and 300M large cars. Dodge, after all, has just released a sports car, the Challenger, a retro-design exercise meant to recall an age when its brand was well defined and proud. The Chery JV model could well look sporty—but if it is an economy model, will Chrysler be tempted to put another marque on it?

Having fewer brands will do Chrysler no favours with its future models. Any disease the parent brand has will simply be passed on. Its saving grace is Jeep, which has not been tarnished greatly; in fact, Chrysler has been quite good at managing that brand and, for the most part, delivering the right product.¹⁷

While it might make some sense to streamline further, buyers make their decisions about a brand quickly. Brands are shortcuts so consumers can grasp their message quickly, hence the need for recognizable brand “attitudes”.¹⁸ And Dodge and Jeep have distinct characters that shouldn’t be tampered with for fear of turning consumers away from that easy recognition and brand equity. Chrysler can be redefined as a quality marque, one with a dose of snob appeal but everyday prices—if it can really deliver that quality. Taking the halo effect of the 300, its most recognizable model, and bringing it on to smaller models isn’t a bad idea—but it remains to be practised.

It will never be a Cadillac rival in the foreseeable future, unless some of those rapid R&D and tight inter-business relationships can return to make it a lean niche-filler. Those glory days weren’t that long ago.

The solutions
First, each of Detroit’s Big Three has some homework to do, in understanding their brands’ visions, what they mean, and what they can mean. They can involve the public via the blogosphere, in a country that has high internet penetration. This will show transparency and a willingness to engage with the American car buyer, whom each company needs to win back. Or, they can do the exercise internally with cross-functional groups, but properly¹⁹—there is no more room for a lip-service nod to branding as there was in the 1990s.

Secondly, the Big Three need to understand just what makes their cars appealing. Aaker’s brand equity elements are a good start but the quest for them needs to be constant.²⁰ The Japanese may have used W. Edwards Deming’s principles over decades to get their quality up. American companies need to leap-frog that by being more engaging, being open where Japanese companies act closed. Continued understanding of consumer tastes via the blogosphere is one method; using that to inform future tastes is another. Feedback is important, and it has only recently played a part in the marcom end of the Big Three. Prior to that it only had customer clinics.

Thirdly, there is an untapped generation, namely the young people who are either too young to drive or getting into their first cars now. What has informed their choices? The author is willing to bet that while there are some who love muscle cars, there may be many more impressed by models that conserve energy.

Fourthly, US automakers are among the heaviest R&D investors—and they need to bring more innovation to the market more rapidly.

Fifthly, they need to realize the effect of a loss of economies of scale. The historical models are there. The key is to build the cars consumers want²¹—something that GM and Ford actually do quite well in Europe. If Levitt is right and there is a homogenization of tastes²²—BMW and Porsche operate on this notion, and Toyota does in the mid-sized and subcompact sectors—then foreign bases need to be used more effectively. It’s not about shutting factories and firing personnel, but being more sincere about delivering for future consumers.

Summary
Killing brands, as any observer of British Leyland has demonstrated, is not a solution when those brands are well defined, contribute to economies and have brand loyalty, recognition and perceived quality. Even if a brand contributes to economies alone, it can be saved through repositioning.

The US automakers need to put in play longer-term thinking. Chrysler is most dire at the moment, and Ford, while leaner, could do more with Lincoln and Mercury. Ford itself has excellent product and needs to show it can overcome regional politics. In neither case should they feel forced in delivering short-term results. In Chrysler’s case it may be able to demonstrate to its owners that it can do well without the pressure of share prices.

General Motors has all the necessary ingredients for survival. It has shown a willingness to engage consumers, find ways of making use of its foreign operations and look at ways of retaining brands and economies of scale.

Being true to their brands can help US automakers get back to a strong position. Setting one’s sights lower and claiming easy victories was certainly not the way Toyota rose to number one. Honda climbed from obscurity to Japan’s number two—and it has one of the US’s top-selling models—by setting higher goals. British Leyland should be a constant reminder of what not to do—unless the Big Three want to wind up being subsidiaries of foreign firms, their marques mere reminders of better times.

Notes
1. L. Iacocca and W. Novak: Iacocca: an Autobiography. New York: Bantam Books 1984.

2. J. Yan: ‘Where Is DaimlerChrysler Heading?’, CAP Online, February 12, 2000, <http://www.jyanet.com/cap/2000/0212ob0.shtml>.

3. J. Flint: ‘Company of the Year: Chrysler’, Forbes, January 13, 1997, pp. 83 ff.; q.v. E. A. Robinson: ‘America’s Most Admired Companies’, Fortune, March 3, 1997, p. F-2.

4. M. Kerbs: ‘G.M. Will Pare as Many as 1,000 White-Collar Jobs’, The New York Times, August 5, 1998.

5. P. O’Connell (ed.): ‘The Man Driving Toyota’, Business Week, July 22, 2005 (also online at <http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/jul2005/nf20050721_7169_db053.htm>).

6. P. Ingrassia: ‘Who Will Survive?’, Condé Nast Portfolio, June 2008, pp. 86–95.

7. Ibid., at p. 93.

8. I. Rowley: ‘Toyota Set to Top 50% Market Share in Japan’, Business Week, ‘The Auto Beat’, November 1, 2007, <http://www.businessweek.com/autos/autobeat/archives/2007/11/toyota_tops_50.html>.

9. See, e.g., E. Shapiro: ‘Is Oldsmobile Name a Marketing Lemon?’, The New York Times, October 29, 1992.

10. The Triumph brand is owned by BMW, which understands that from a branding perspective, it poses a threat to its core range.

11. D. A. Aaker: Managing Brand Equity. New York: Free Press 1991.

12. J. Yan: ‘The Brand Attitudes of Automobiles’, New Age Branding: Concepts and Cases, vol. 1. Hyderabad: ICFAI Press 2002, pp. 101–13, at pp. 105–6.

13. Remaining divisions such as Cadillac simply need to get the product right: the author understands that its much-lauded CTS sedan, for example, still falls well behind its German rivals on the interior. Meanwhile, Opel does acceptable interiors. This is a single example of GM’s unused assets.

14. J. Yan: ‘The Brand Attitudes of Automobiles’, op. cit., at pp. 111–12.

15. Ibid., at p. 111.

16. Not every company has been successful in cooperating with Red Chinese companies. Chrysler has had some experience with its Beijing Jeep venture, among others, but not with Chery.

17. Some cannibalization has been risked with models such as the Jeep Commander, and its low-end passenger-car spin-offs have questionable appeal for the brand long-term.

18. See, e.g. J. Yan: ‘The Brand Attitudes’, op. cit., and W. Olins as quoted in J. Yan: ‘The Attitude of Identity’, Desktop, October 2000, pp. 26–31.

19. See, e.g. J. Yan: ‘The Brand Attitudes’, ibid.

20. Toyota’s success factors are discussed in ibid., at pp. 108–9.

21. See, e.g. G. Green: ‘Meet the Inspirational, Indefatigable Geoff Polites’, Car, June 2008, pp. 130–3, at p. 132.

22. T. Levitt: ‘The Globalization of Markets’, Harvard Business Review, vol. 61, no. 3, May-June 1992, pp. 92–102; cf. M. Griffin: ‘From Cultural Imperialism to Transnational Commercialization: Shifting Paradigms in International Media Studies’, Global Media Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, fall 2002, <http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/fa02/gmj-fa02-grif?n.htm>.

This paper has also appeared in CAP Online.