Summary: In January 2011, the Medinge Group’s annual Brands with a Conscience (BWAC) awards will be announced for their eighth consecutive year. The awards, created by a Stockholm-based international think-tank on branding, single out exceptional organizations and individuals for distinction in humanistic branding. What does this term represent? What are the awards, how were they created, how are they decided, who has won in the past and how can they be viewed in retrospect? This paper assesses the BWAC initiative, its evolution and possible significance.

OVER THE PAST 20 YEARS, we have lived through a generation of disillusion with organizations and the brands they represent. Criticized in works like No Logo by Naomi Klein, corporations were handed blame for all of the world’s ills, and brands demonized as sinister and insidious forces bent on the destruction of society. There has even been the suggestion that brands contribute to an irreconcilable east–west divide. A great dialogue grew out of these accusations, challenging the idea that financial gain was the only driver for defining an organization’s success or merit. It was out of this dialogue that the Medinge Group was founded in 2000, when a group of interdisciplinary brand professionals came together to debate, foster and articulate ideas of what they called humanistic branding. The group asserted that brands had the potential to do well by doing good, that ethical behaviour needed to become a cornerstone of corporate governance. The group’s annual Brands with a Conscience awards were created out of this extended conversation. Over a period of seven consecutive years (2004–10) companies large and small, known and invisible, young and old, drawn from all categories, have been singled out for distinction as recipients of Brands with a Conscience awards. There is no monetary prize attached to the awards, though winners are permitted to use the BWAC logo in their own communications. But an array of categories, sizes and nationalities can be seen, even in a short list of names drawn from past winners: Grameen Phone, BP, IKEA, Toyota Prius, Sanrio, Pictet et Cie., Slow Food Movement, Innocent, Happy Computers, Alibaba, architect Paolo Soleri, Virgin Fuels.
   The Medinge Group initiated the BWAC awards concept in 2003, intending to recognize brands whose conduct demonstrated humanistic values, and to call attention to or to encourage them. The first nominations were made via group-wide emails. Lively internet-borne debate followed. In making their nominations, members were asked to evaluate from brands’:

• reputation and self-representation;
• history;
• direct experience a member might have with the brand nominated;
• media presence of the brand;
• and an assessment of the organization’s expressed values of sustainability.

   Over the years the system of nominations and judging has evolved into a formalized automated process which today employs on-line nominating and voting, while preserving the collegial internal debate in the run-up to the final balloting. The voting is a closed process, and only members of the group may nominate, discuss and vote.
   From August until October, Medinge Group members post their nominations. Members carry out their own due diligence to support their nominations. Once the nominations are posted debate begins among the membership. Medinge members consider six elemental criteria on any nomination:

• leadership: how committed is management to brand and its cause? Does the leadership team live out the values of the brand?;
• authenticity: how well articulated is the brand visually and experientially? How evident is its ethical programme, and the degree to which it is sincere?;
• humanity: how evident are the human implications of the brand? How motivated is the brand’s humanity? How visible is the brand’s conscience?;
• community: how heavily does the brand invest in relationship-building? How deep an advocate is the brand for "caring for one another"?;
• accountability: is the brand visibly accountable for its actions? Does the brand apologize when things go wrong?;
• belief: does the brand take risks in line with its beliefs? Does the brand acknowledge that we are all equal?

   Following the nomination and debate phase, around November 1, a ballot is sent to all members of the think-tank and voting occurs. Members are also given the opportunity to abstain. There are normally 40 to 50 nominees and only seven or eight winners. The first week in December BWAC winners are announced to the membership. In the first week of January the winners are made public through a PR campaign. In the first week of February the Brands with a Conscience certificates are presented at a ceremony during the annual Medinge Group meeting in Paris. In 2006 the group added a unique category commendation, the Colin Morley Award, recognizing exceptional achievement by an individual or non-governmental organization. Colin, a member of the Medinge Group, died in the London Underground bombings on July 7, 2005. The award commemorates his visionary work in humanistic branding. So far the winners of the Colin Morley Award have been Shakespeare’s Globe, Star Schools, Paul Newman and Muna Abusulayman.
   Though the awards are granted by a group of 20 international brand professionals—mostly white, mostly European and mostly male—the variety of BWAC winners over the years has shown a commendable range in size, visibility, location, and segmentation. A small collective in rural Nepal was named in the same list as a huge British multinational petroleum company in 2006. A tea producer in Sri Lanka appeared as a winner in the same year as an American carpet manufacturer. The BWAC awards tend to contextualize historically what the climate of business was at the time they are given. 2009’s awards had several winners focused on issues of water. Twenty ten’s awards lauded two financial institutions in an era of criticism against that segment of business. The same year both an Indian and a Chinese company appeared in the winners’ list, acknowledging the world’s largest emerging markets. The Brands with a Conscience awards are extended not only to acknowledge results, but may be given for the promise they carry, with attention paid to the potential for change they can influence. Virgin Fuels was encouraged in 2007 for their innovative model on alternative energy. Fetzer Vineyards received an award in 2008 in recognition of their sustainable wine-making programmes. BP was lauded for their green reidentification and renewables’ policy in 2006. Yet in some instances the award has been granted in spite of other mitigating factors, such as in the case of IKEA, who were recognized in 2007 for their strong anti-corruption stance in Russia, while no mention was made of their promotion of consumerism or destruction of forests in the manufacture of their products.
   In any altruistic endeavour there is bound to be blowback, and the Brands with a Conscience awards are no exception. Medinge’s 2006 award to Toyota Prius did not anticipate the massive recall of this particular model in 2010, nor the Chairman’s public apology for subjecting its customers to such a massive safety issue; the brand is still in recovery. BP has been a succession of bad-news stories which demonstrate how it has gone nowhere near ‘Beyond Petroleum’. In the year following Whole Foods’ BWAC award it was revealed that the chairman had been manipulating his own stock price and savaging his competition with pseudonymous weblog posts. Virgin Fuels never came close to its own promises on green policy. Kiva was forced to admit that it could not verify disposition of funds dispersed in microlending as it represented on its website. Freeplay Energy introduced a line of visionary alternative energy products but showed catastrophic financial management.
   The Brands with a Conscience awards have also showcased brands whose humanistic qualities endure. Grameen Phone’s founder, Mohammed Younis received a Nobel Prize in 2009 for his innovative work in microfinance for developing economies. Holland’s Chocolonely stands as a brilliant and inventive example of ethical branding, which brought to the forefront issues of slavery and the production of chocolate. Innocent continues to make the world a better place through its recycling initiatives and its abiding relationships with local producers. Happy Computers is consistently named as one of the top workplaces in the UK, with its solid values and productive community work a testament to humanistic vision. Patagonia remains a brand true to its stated values in a conflicted market-place. The American actor–philanthropist Paul Newman posthumously retains his distinction as the most generous man on earth on a per-capita basis, having given away over $240 million to worthy causes during his lifetime.
   Today the speed of information factors in the creation and destruction of brands. A reputation can be built over a century and ruined overnight. The yearly interval for naming these awards could be a fail-safe for their validity. It is the hope of the Brands with a Conscience initiative that organizations which understand humanistic and ethical principles will thrive, and that these annual awards can celebrate their potential and urge their emulation. The Medinge Group’s work continues, questioning the way that brands are built, what they stand for, how they affect the world we live in. Until humans achieve perfection and the world transforms into a utopia the Brands with a Conscience awards will retain a unique relevance.

Special thanks to Patrick Harris, Nicholas Ind, Ian Ryder and Jack Yan for invaluable help in the preparation of this article.

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’.

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

PDF version

Executive summary
Successful brands on the internet depend on certain ingredients. And unlike offline brands, the process surrounding vision, research, exposition and image differ slightly, even if the ingredients of brand equity remain the same. Importantly, a loose vision, informal research, and tapping into consumer advocacy all help build a strong brand on the internet. All these additionally contribute to whether a brand has acquired secondary meaning in a legal sense, although the existing test needs to be reconsidered.

1. Introduction
Despite some major texts on branding in the last 10 years, from Wally Olins’s The New Guide to Identity,² to Nicholas Ind’s Living the Brand,³ and the Ind-edited Beyond Branding,⁴ branding is a very divisive field. Few have done studies to connect the organization’s vision to business performance, which this author did in 1999, and the majority of companies have still failed to appoint marketers to the boardroom. Meanwhile, others are leading the cutting edge of branding, such as Stefan Engeseth with his new work, One.⁵ There is little bridging research into the integrated marketing communications’ model and the cutting-edge, consumer movement papers; and certainly very little on how brands can be built using the internet.⁶
Before delving into this paper, it is useful to cover what branding is. As outlined in one of the author’s earlier papers,⁷ it may be thought of as:

the methods in which the organization communicates, symbolizes and differentiates itself to all of its audiences.

The word branding has altered in meaning, even amongst the experts such as Olins.⁸ Traditionally, the ‘brand’ was part of ‘identity’, which may be defined as:⁹

the explicit management of all the ways in which the organization presents itself through experiences and perceptions to all of its audiences.

The brand was merely the part of this management that was directed at a consumer, or an audience member, external to the organization.

However, perhaps through media coverage and Naomi Klein’s seminal No Logo,¹⁰ which questioned the ethics behind branding, the word brand entered the vernacular. At the same time, the branding model evolved somewhat: Olins began touting the brand as an ‘attitude’ that described the organization,¹¹ and branding consultants became a little more obsessed with the message being sent to consumers, perhaps in the wake of No Logo. It, therefore, became important to make sure that the vision of the organization took into account the message it would send to consumers as one of its earliest steps, and to make sure what was being communicated inside the organization was identical to what was being communicated outside. The word brand began taking on the meaning once given to identity.

This coincided with another development: the “mainstreaming” of the online world. With consumer input now being sought readily for things such as product development (e.g. online surveys became common and were thought of as a means through which the most current data about the market-place could be sought), and consumers themselves becoming powerfula dvocates for brands (spreading good news via emails, or indeed, bad news), there was less of a distinction between the marketing departments of organizations and the customers themselves.

Therefore, the branding model began looking quite different. Once, organizations could depend on training their staff to tow the official line, expressing the brand in the way dictated by head office. But consumers could not be managed in the same way. They needed to be incorporated into brand-communication decisions, either by (a) inspiring staff members and getting them to work so closely to consumers on the hope of “infectious enthusiasm”, or (b) turning those consumers themselves into a de facto marketing department.¹²

There are good examples of each. The former group is typified by companies in Ind’s Living the Brand,¹³ notably Patagonia. The sportswear company has staff that use its products, while consumers are prepared to talk up its goods. The latter group includes many of the networking services on the web, including LinkedIn (www.linkedin.com). Arguably, the initial growth of Yahoo! (first built while its founders were still at Stanford University), Google (which uses its user base to spread news of its new products), and Flickr (which is being found by web users frequenting blogs and similar services) could be credited to the second method. The author refrains from using the viral marketing term here, largely because it has become hackneyed.

But how does this online growth actually happen and how does it contribute to the strength of a brand? And if this happens, can the internet truly impact on brand equity¹⁴ and related issues, such as providing a brand with secondary meaning¹⁵ in the eyes of the law?

2. The branding process
The logical place to begin is in the regular branding model.¹⁶ The brand begins with a vision, or, indeed, a slogan (if it is far-reaching enough to guide the whole organization). The important things are that the vision is unique and able to summarize the organizational “attitude”. Audiences learn of the vision through such things as the logo and the communications that surround it. These should ideally express the brand’s attitude. They form an association between the symbols such as the logo and the values of the organization.

As stated in an earlier paper, ‘Semiotics are key’:¹⁷

Symbols, logos, etc., signify certain things that form mental pictures in our mind when we interpret them. [A branding] campaign ensures that the correct pictures are formed and that incorrect or earlier ones are replaced.¹⁸ Repeated exposures reinforce meaning, which is why consistency in branding is important.

This leads to brand equity, which is the added value that a brand endows a particular product or service. The author wrote of its consequence:¹⁹ ‘As audiences—whether they are shareholders, future customers, students or any other group—select or think of the brand more frequently, they ultimately contribute to the organization’s business performance in economic or strategic terms.’

Online, the psychological process remains largely the same. In 2001, when the author last explored online brands,²⁰ there were more audience members specifically seeking certain companies’ products and services on the web. Other than online advertising, many web-based brands were not discovered unwittingly, unlike many that appeared on television or in print. However, there was an indication that this was changing as the web became more commonplace.

2.1 Online brands today
It is almost difficult to remember how western business was conducted without the internet and the World Wide Web. The web is often the first destination for any researcher today, for instance.

But there is still no follow-up from the author’s earlier work on how some online brands capture the public’s consciousness and others do not. Most people discovered Google, for instance, through referrals. (At the time of the earlier paper, Google was still unknown, although the firm existed.) Blogger.com, the service that enables web users to maintain public online journals (web logs, or blogs), spread through its logo appearing on the blogs it hosted on the internet—and gained a secondary meaning as a result. Yet other brands remain online, and have done so for years, without influencing the public.

It may be easy to say that Amazon.com, for example, was so revolutionary that by being first-in-sector, it gained mainstream media coverage. That may be so, but there are other ventures that were firsts in their sector that never received that coverage—Fashionbrat, for example, was New Zealand’s first online fashion magazine, but has become forgotten beyond this author’s own coverage. Even some of the first fashion magazines on the internet in Australia (Marie Claire, Fashion Australia) and the United States (Fashion Internet) never captured huge public attention and do not survive today. Something else must be at work.

The author’s earlier work²¹ illustrated that there were some strategic and structural differences between successful online firms and successful offline ones.
Vision. Visions were more fluid, so ventures that were defined too tightly failed: Pets.com and Boo.com, which admittedly had other issues, were defined narrowly and could not shift into new businesses when their original failures became apparent. At the time, the author cited one of his own properties, Lucire, which has survived as a web site and online magazine; while the other two businesses cited have changed only because of changes in their founders’ personal lives. Up to the times of their changes, they had survived well, based on a “loose” vision. By equal measure, Amazon.com survived by branching out from books to DVDs, toys and even lawn furniture.

One issue that was apparent in 2001 was the need to have corporate citizenship. This shift toward more socially responsible firms has become stronger in the last few years, with greater awareness of “anti-brands”.²² Internet audiences tended to be more alert to these anti-brands, some preferring products from entrepreneurial, independent firms.
Research. The earlier research also illustrated that there was a lower-cost and shallower research process, with online entrepreneurs willing to begin their ventures on instinct and relationships with other organizations and customers. Successful online firms were willing to employ modern communication techniques.
Exposition. In communicating the brand, the organization partners with others to help it get its word out. Independent contractors, freelancers and other web sites (through links, and, today, mentions on blogs) become “advocates” for the organization. Those that began offline tended to retain the same brand. (Exceptions exist, such as Condé Nast’s Style.com, the online version of Vogue, though that can still be reached in the United States via Vogue.com.) They also tended to be global in their approach, quoting, for example, US dollar prices, despite their location, and made little use of their own country’s symbols. They also attempted to use as much offline media as possible.

To reach the public, they relied more on below-the-line marketing, and not above-the-line. Part of the reason is budgetary, but they also managed to put out distinctive products or services. The successful firms examined tended to have a more personal and positive “attitude”. They made use of a cynicism against big business to their own advantage.
Image. No changes to how brand image—the consequence of branding—were found between offline and online firms. In other words, all the “hard work” is done earlier, with the results of a strong brand—image, business performance and secondary meaning—unaffected by the medium.

Two brands today may be instructive, as their growth is happening at the time of writing and are considered successes by the media. One is Flickr.com, a photograph-sharing service recently acquired by Yahoo!.Its growth has been gradual, but it shows that a company that did not have a huge marketing budget can become an integral part of the web. (At the time of writing, Flickr has 158,000,000 hits on Google, while a search for “US Supreme Court” results in 37,400,000 hits.) If it follows the pattern of Yahoo!, Google et al, which it is expected to,²³ it will become a normal way for people to share digital photography.

A second brand, which is more fleeting, is the name of a movie. New Line’s Snakes on a Plane, starring Samuel L. Jackson, began pre-production in 2005. The name was mentioned on a blog in August 2005, and its star insisted that the film be called that, after the studio attempted to change it to a more generic Pacific Air 121. Because of its odd name, it began circulating around the web, mostly with bloggers. By the end of the year, Wired had published an article about it in its print edition,²⁴ and unauthorized cups, T-shirts and even a blog (Snakes on a Blog) had been created. Some even went so far as to say that snakes on a plane had become a common phrase akin to ‘C’est la vie’ and had input it into the Urban Dictionary, a site where colloquialisms and slang can be entered.

The buzz was so strong that New Line went back to the studio to shoot for five extra days to satisfy fans.²⁵ A fan-designed logo even became the official logo for the film, to be released in August 2006.²⁶ One news source even believes that a parody line that appeared on a blog will make it into the film.²⁷

Finally, it may be worth considering Google, since it was not as strong at the time of the earlier study. An upstart search engine is now the primary search engine on the internet, with 80 per cent of searches for the author’s own web site coming from it. Google has branched from its core search service into Google Earth and Gmail, neither of which would appear, on the surface, to be connected to finding information. Google Ads has become a force in the online advertising arena, and might be influential enough to branch into offline advertising.

These three represent three very different parts of the web. Flickr is part of the much-vaunted ‘Web 2·0’, which in a layperson’s terms is a more interactive evolution of the World Wide Web where everyone has a chance to create their own dialogues, networks and web sites, with richer user experiences.²⁸ Snakes on a Plane is an intentionally fleeting choice: it was not set up as an online venture per se, and is merely reflective of a conversation taking place on the web. Google is well known and began as a single application in the time of Web 1·0, but is adding services (and has added services) such as Blogger, representative of Web 2·0.

2.2 Do they fit into the branding scheme?
2.2.1 Flickr.com

Flickr’s offering, however, is simply stated. It is a photo-sharing service, with a difference: it allows users to tag their images, thereby ordering them under different topics. Those searching for images for tsunami, for example, will find all photos with that tag, regardless of photographer. Prior to that, photo-sharing services tended to be grouped by users, so they were shared only as far as one user was able to spread the word.

The idea, perhaps, is not new. Del.icio.us, another Web 2·0 service, allows users to group blog posts. Professional photo libraries have been grouped using keywords. Flickr democratized not just the library, but the ability to create those keywords—tags under the latest parlance. The difference was that there was an intent about sharing, and the site is typical of the “social media” made possible by the internet.

But on the surface it appears to be a well defined company with a single offering, enough to tempt Yahoo! into acquiring it. (Google was reportedly interested, too.) However, the original vision was not necessarily of this service.

Flickr co-founder Stewart Butterfield, suffering from food poisoning, had a dream about a multi-player game ‘built around sharing photographs.’²⁹ The original Flickr site actually centred on instant messaging with some digital photography support. Early members were gamers and bloggers, with an interest in photography. Butterfield made use of Flickr’s loose vision to emphasize the strength that was emerging from its user base: users who were conversing but setting the tone using digital photography in their instant-messaging.

That same looseness meant a certain level of experimentation, rather than formal research. Flickr noticed where its strengths were by letting users find their own feet and interests.

Flickr does partner with others to spread the word. But rather than through formal alliances, it does this by bringing its users into the fray. Users become the editors for sorting the photographs. In effect, organization and user are on the same side, in an expression of the One principle espoused most heavily by Engeseth.³⁰

Its strongest advocates were its users, and Yahoo!’s own interest came from an email from a ‘Flickr fanatic in Bangalore, India’.³¹ That eventually led to a $30 million deal.

Flickr is now ranked 90th in Alexa, the service that examines where web sites are placed on the web. It can be said to have a strong image, if measured in brand equity terms: it has ever-rising brand awareness, it is positively considered by its users, there is a great deal of loyalty to the service, and its perceived quality is high. The value of its proprietary brand assets—its trademark and intellectual property—may be considered to be high, given what Yahoo! had paid for the company.

Flickr confirms the original criteria set down by the author for a successful online brand.

2.2.2 Snakes on a Plane
Snakes on a Plane is an unusual choice for this paper. It is not a venture, therefore it could not be said to have a vision per se. It is a movie title whose quirkiness led to an initial round of blogging, an article in Wired, and a decision by the studio to shoot for five more days given the buzz on the internet. That prompted more mainstream media coverage.

The author first heard of Snakes on a Plane as Pacific Air 121, when Lucire was first asked to participate in the movie. The studio, New Line, states now that Pacific Air 121 was a working title used to solicit support, though there are claims that it had wanted to change the name to avoid ridicule.

Its Google references have gone up and down since word first got out that Snakes on a Plane was the decided title. Before January 19, 2006, they rested on 96,900, rising to 461,000 by February 1. However, there was a fall from that point: 380,000 on February 5 and 176,000 on February 15. It was New Line’s decision to shoot extra footage that piqued the interest of the mainstream media, and the hits started on an upward trend: by March 25, this had risen to 880,000.

Given there is no “organization” that is called Snakes on a Plane, it is hard to consider if it had a loose vision or not. Perhaps one could say that its producers had an open mind in considering all the attention the film had received on blogs; and that if the vision was “tight”, there would not have been a reshoot. Nevertheless, this inquiry cannot be academically rigorous.

However, other branding aspects can be considered from the perspective of the production company. Evidently, research was informal and inexpensive: the preference for Snakes on a Plane was signalled most by bloggers, not by the studio. Samuel L. Jackson chimed in to say that the title should be retained, but that appears to be a more recent development. Listening and monitoring blogs indicates a willingness to incorporate modern technology in researching how well the Snakes on a Plane title was being received.

The communication of the name has come from not just the studio—New Line pays lip service to it on its web site and snakesonaplanemovie.com, the official site, is barely more than a home page—but from the internet audience. Therefore, the “advocacy requirement” for a successful online venture is more than present—it could even be said now to be Snakes on a Plane’s raison d’être.

The consequences of all this cannot be measured at this time. Providing the interest in the venture does not wane—as it did in February—then Snakes on a Plane will enjoy a sizeable audience. Perhaps with the extra footage, it now will, because New Line was willing to show it would participate in the dialogue with its advocates. Only then can one measure brand equity—whether the brand loyalty is strong enough to be maintained until the film’s release in August.
Snakes on a Plane could be said to be a brand, notwithstanding the absence of a vision. It symbolizes, communicates and differentiates a product. Furthermore, like Star Wars figurines and the like, the Snakes on a Plane name has extended into cups and T-shirts, even if they are not formally merchandised and endorsed by New Line.

But only on certain aspects can one say for sure that Snakes on a Plane fulfils the earlier criteria. However, on those that can be considered at the time of writing, they are met.

2.2.3 Google
There is less similarity between Google and the other two brands examined to date. It is the oldest venture of the three and has received the most coverage. Its name has become so ubiquitous that it is now a verb: to google means to search for something on the internet,³² specifically using the Google web search service.

The history has been dealt with many times before, and is a familiar story: two Stanford University students began tinkering. Larry Page had a fascination for back links pointing to any given web site and built a program to compile them. The offline press began noticing Google as early as 1998. The Google culture, however, was not one of formality. New ideas emerged from Google’s staff and many were implemented, the most famous being Google News. Google never intended to be in the news-editing service, but Google News analysed stories that a web spider found and ranked them on a page of headlines. By 2000, it had introduced AdWords, a keyword-targeted advertising service. Other acquisitions illustrated that Google was not just about search. If it had a tightly defined vision, none of these developments would have been encouraged, let alone see the light of day.

As told by Heilemann in GQ:³³

But beneath the comically clichéd trappings, Google was becoming something interesting—and powerful. Having cut deals with an array of companies, most critically Yahoo, Google was processing more than 100 million searches a day and indexing an unprecedented 1 billion Web pages. Fueling this growth was a relentlessness about innovation. [Founders] Larry [Page] and Sergey [Brin] were openly, brutally elitist when it came to hiring engineers. (Job applicants, no matter their age, had to submit their college transcripts.) In software and hardware, Google’s innovation was remarkable. Using off-the-shelf components, the company was building what was, in effect, the planet’s largest computing system. And its official mission—“to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”—extended far beyond searching the Internet.
“I did not understand when I came to the company how broad Larry and Sergey’s vision was,” [Former Novell CEO Eric] Schmidt says. “It took me six months of talking to them to really understand it. I remember sitting with Larry, saying, ‘Tell me again what our strategy is,’ and writing it down.”

At the same time, the boys had fostered an environment that was flamboyantly idealistic. Search was all, profit peripheral, “Don’t be evil” the corporate motto. (Asked later what the slogan meant, Schmidt would say, “Evil is what Sergey says is evil.”)

In short, Larry and Sergey had already encoded the DNA of the company Schmidt was supposed to run. The character they instilled in Google could be summed up in three phrases: Technology matters. We make our own rules. We’ll grow up when we’re damn good and ready.

The boys’ reality took some getting used to for Schmidt. It wasn’t just the dot-com fripperies that fazed him or the dogs trotting up and down the halls. It was the squatter in his office. (The interloper was an engineer frustrated with the bustle in his own shared quarters. After first attempting to evict him, Schmidt gave up and endured the situation for several months.) He also found himself frequently occupied with grounding Larry and Sergey’s flights of fancy. There was the time the boys suggested having Google enter the business of low-cost space launchings. And the time Larry reportedly tried to ban telephones from a new Google office building.

In terms of research, Google relies on the inspiration of its staff. This informality has almost become legendary, shunned by some traditional business experts and praised by those who believe an entrepreneurial style should be maintained by an organization. At its first post-IPO investors’ meeting, Google was so informal its chef wound up explaining the food on the menu—a move heavily criticized by the Wall Street establishment.

Its growth did come from people spreading the word about the search engine. The initial 1998 press came well before Google secured large financing, and was a direct result of everyday users. Given that the late 1990s and early 2000s saw a dot-com downturn, Google weathered this thanks to users spreading the word and, of course, through delivering a quality service.

Its brand equity is strong. The initial public offering, according to CNN, indicated a worth of $24 billion in 2004.³⁴ Its brand loyalty and perceived quality are high, given that rivals have not managed to dethrone Google. Brand awareness can be little higher—Alexa ranks it at no. 2, behind Yahoo!. Google was found to be a top brand according to Brandchannel,³⁵ while branding shop Landor found it in second but predicts a Google win for 2006.³⁶

There is some negativity relating to its more recent developments—offering Red China a censored version of its search engine, Google.cn, for instance³⁷—but not enough to signal that its image has been tarnished in a major way. Again, only recent events have indicated that Google is anything but a dynamic, entrepreneurial and almost anti-establishment firm—even if its founders are multi-billionaires who have the financial worth of the establishment.

Google also confirms the author’s earlier work on the ingredients of a successful online brand, though it may be useful to examine the consequences of its most recent actions in Red China with Google.cn. The Chinese market itself may opt for other services should the political climate change and the people enjoy greater freedom.³⁸

The three brands examined also illustrate that while the author’s earlier work was directed at Australian and New Zealand enterprises, the rules apply in the United States, too. Indeed, the author advances that they are universal, given the global nature of the internet and very similar online browsing habits between all cultures and creeds.

3. Secondary meaning
It may be worth, in a legal inquiry, to see if the online branding model can endow a brand with secondary meaning.

Traditionally, brands have acquired secondary meaning through ‘advertising or massive exposure’, establishing a trademark ‘in the minds of consumers as an indication of origin from one particular source.’³⁹ Tyndall offers a fairly standard explanation:⁴⁰

A descriptive name, word, term, or mark will have achieved secondary meaning when a significant quantity of the consuming public for the goods and/or services in question understand it to refer exclusively to a particular party. …

Courts examine the following factors in determining whether a name, word, term, or trademark has acquired secondary meaning:
1. The length and manner of use;
2. The nature and extent of advertising and promotion; and
3. The efforts made in promoting a conscious connection between the name, word, term, or mark and the product, service, or business in the minds of consumers.

It is accepted that the antecedents of branding, even in an offline model, do not necessarily provide a brand with secondary meaning. This is usually due to insufficient exposure.

In the internet world, where there is a potential global audience, do the standards for secondary meaning differ? The three examples in §2 can be said to have acquired secondary meaning: they cannot be mistaken either for anything else or having been from anyone else but their creators. They had got there without heavy (conventional) advertising or promotion; instead, it was their user bases or fans that propelled them into the minds of consumers in their market-place.

Indeed, an inquiry into the length of use may be less applicable on the internet: Snakes on a Plane has been mentioned only since around August 2005 and has managed 880,000 hits in Google (in seven months). The internet is not the only place where timeframes are more compressed than they were many decades ago: the same pattern can be found in new product development and in the product life cycle.⁴¹

Only the third factor quoted above may be said to have relevance in an inquiry about secondary meaning in online branding.

One approach may be to obtain Alexa statistics of all web sites, making a judgement on each one to see where a cut-off point might lie between online brands that have acquired secondary meaning and those that have not. However, this may prove unreliable: there are offline brands that have ventured online that have a low Alexa ranking⁴² but possess secondary meaning, such as the New Zealand clothing brand Karen Walker.

The best approach is to examine, instead, how well linked they are on the World Wide Web. As advocates will post about their favourite brands, and provide links to them—especially in the age of citizen media or social media—they will get picked up by search engines.

Google, which ranks sites in its index through an algorithm, is best placed as an analysis tool. The algorithm includes a consideration of how many web pages link to a particular site, and even how credible those pages are. It is partly based on web traffic. Further, it is an international consideration, of consumers worldwide, although given the United States’ position as the leading nation on the internet, there will be more American viewpoints covered. It is also, fortunately, independent: no one person can influence the Google algorithm, even if some lawsuits have been started over it.

Flickr, Snakes on a Plane and Google are all unusual words or terms, but Amazon is not. A search for Amazon does not come up with the river, but Amazon.com, the retailer, first. The first mention of the rainforest is the third site. Only two in the top ten do not refer to the retailer. Within its market, it is highly unlikely anyone would consider Amazon to relate to any other organization but Amazon.com.

In short, if a brand has met the criteria from the author’s earlier paper, summarized here, then it can qualify as a ‘strong online brand’. If, in addition to this,⁴³ it has achieved some success in the Google index, then a future court should regard it as having acquired secondary meaning.

4. Summary
Organizations cannot expect to employ the old, offline rules of branding in an online sphere. But at the same time, they cannot expect that the old rules will apply offline, either.

Importantly, the internet has helped identify consumers who are conscious of corporate social responsibility, and public opinion now favours entrepreneurial-style firms over establishment-style ones. These trends have not changed since the author first examined online branding in a pre-9-11 paper.

But even more vitally, the democratization of media—the emergence of citizen media or social media—has meant that individuals have become brand advocates. Online brands find success through tapping in to their respective advocates, providing them with a “reason to spread” their names. Those that follow these requirements have found success, and some of 2006’s most talked-about brands—new, fleeting and established—have done so, by and large, perhaps unwittingly.

This has an impact on the way secondary meaning is to be considered by the courts, changing drastically any consideration into advertising. This needs to be replaced by a consideration of “chatter” on the World Wide Web, resulting in links or a high Google ranking. Secondly, the consideration into time needs to be altered, as brands can be built on the internet at a rapid pace.

The internet has forced such changes that few organizations can have an offline-only existence, so the processes described in this paper need to be considered in any branding exercise or inquiry into a brand’s or trademark’s secondary meaning.

Notes
1. LL B, BCA (Hons.), MCA. CEO, Jack Yan & Associates (http://jya.net); President, JY&A Consulting (http://jya.net/ consulting).
2. W. Olins: The New Guide to Identity. Aldershot: Gower 1995.
3. N. Ind: Living the Brand: How to Transform Every Member of Your Organization into a Brand Champion, 2nd ed. London: Kogan Page 2004.
4. N. Ind (ed.): Beyond Branding: How the New Values of Transparency and Integrity Are Changing the World of Brands. London: Kogan Page 2003.
5. S. Engeseth: One: a Consumer Revolution in Business. London: Cyan Books 2006.
6. Many of the papers discussing online brand-building are general, without creating a credible model. See, for example, the papers collected at Allaboutbranding.com.
7. 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.
8. J. Yan: ‘The attitude of identity’, Desktop, October 2000, pp. 26–31.
9. W. Olins: The New Guide, op. cit.
10. N. Klein: No Logo: Taking Aim at the Brand Bullies. New York: Picador 2000.
11. J. Yan: ‘The attitude of identity’, op. cit.
12. Brand managers could well become managers of consumer perceptions some day, helping guide them and feeding them back into the corporate vision. The brand could become a pluralistic “collective of perceptions”, rather than a single idea under the current model. So far, that has not happened, but it is a logical outcome of today’s trends.
13. Op. cit.
14. D. A. Aaker: Building Strong Brands. New York: Free Press 1991.
15. Secondary meaning arises when consumers have come to identify a trademark with its owner over time.
16. J. Yan: ‘Online branding’, op. cit.
17. Ibid., at p. 186.
18. J. Engel, R. Blackwell and P. Miniard: Consumer Behavior, 6th ed. Chicago: Dryden Press 1990.
19. J. Yan: ‘Online branding’, op. cit., a p. 186; q.v. S. T. Cavusgil and S. Zou: ‘Marketing strategy-performance relationship: an investigation of the empirical link in export market ventures’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 58, 1994, pp. 1–21; and R. Dau and P. Thirkell: ‘The relationship between marketing orientation and export performance: further empirical evidence’, Proceedings of the 1996 Australia–New Zealand Marketing Educators’ Conference. Wellington 1996, pp. 369–86.
20. J. Yan, ibid.
21. Ibid., pp. 190 ff.
22. The term is a misnomer, since anti-brands work on the same principles as brands when it comes to the branding process. However, the vision will generally include a rejection of undesirable, unethical behaviour and the embracing of principles including fair wages and the use of sustainable resources.
23. J. McClellan: ‘Tag team’, The Guardian, February 3, 2005, <http://technology.guardian.co.uk/online/story/0,3605,1403974,00.html>.
24. E. Steuer: ‘The best worst movie of the year’, Wired, vol. 14, no. 1, January 2006, <http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.01/play.html>.
25. B. Kit: ‘Fan frenzy for “Snakes” is on a different plane’, The Hollywood Reporter, March 23, 2006, <http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ thr/film/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002234847&imw=Y>.
26. C. Elsworth: ‘Cult film fans are bitten by Snakes on a Plane’, The Electronic Telegraph, March 25, 2006, <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml? xml=/news/2006/03/25/wsnakes25.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/03/25/ixworld.html>.
27. B. Kit, op. cit.
28. Tim O’Reilly of O’Reilly Media Inc. notes the seven ingredients of a Web 2·0 firm as: (a) services, not packaged software, with cost-effective scalability; (b) control over unique, hard-to-recreate data sources that get richer as more people use them; (c) trusting users as co-developers; (d) harnessing collective intelligence; (e) leveraging the long tail through customer self-service; (f) software above the level of a single device; (g) lightweight user interfaces, development models, and business models (original emphasis). See T. O’Reilly: ‘What is Web 2·0’, O’Reilly.net, September 30, 2005, <http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/ 2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html>.
29. E. Schonfeld: ‘The Flickrization of Yahoo’, Business 2·0, December 2005, pp. 156–65.
30. S. Engeseth, op. cit.; and S. Engeseth: Detective Marketing: Creative Common Sense in Business, 3rd ed. Stockholm: Stefan Engeseth Publishing 2003.
31. E. Schonfeld, op. cit.
32. The author believes the first high-profile usage of the term was in Maid in Manhattan, a film released in 2002. See J. Yan: ‘Branding to youth: the forces at work’, address to Sales and Marketing Executives International, Auckland, New Zealand, March 11, 2003, <http://www.jackyan.com/files/stuff-030311-smeiauckland.shtml>.
33. J. Heilemann: ‘Journey to the (revolutionary, evil-hating, cash-crazy, and possibly self-destructive) center of Google’, Men.style.com, <http://men.style.com/gq/features/full?id=content_422>.
34. ‘Google IPO priced at $85 a share’, CNN.com, August 19, 2004, <http://edition.cnn.com/2004/BUSINESS/08/19/google.ipo/>.
35. R. Rusch: ‘The search is over: Google wins in 2005’, Brandchannel, January 23, 2006.
36. ‘Brands in the news: winners and losers’, USA Today, December 28, 2005, <http://www.usatoday.com/money/advertising/ 2005-12-29-hot-brands-chart.htm>.
37. See, e.g. M. Dickie: ‘Google to launch censored China service’, The Financial Times, January 25, 2006, <http://news.ft.com/cms/s/0cf3fc52-8d0b-11da-9daf-0000779e2340.html>.
38. J. Yan: ‘Yahoo! and Google kowtow—would I?’, Jack Yan: the Persuader Blog, February 11, 2006, <http://www.jackyan.com/blog/2006/02/yahoo-and-google-kowtowwould-i.html>.
39. Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th ed. St Paul: West Publishing Co. 1979.
40. J. M. Tyndall: ‘Secondary meaning’, United States Trademark Law Overview, 2002, <http://home.att.net/~jmtyndall/ustm/secondary.htm>.
41. See, e.g. K. B. Clark, and S. C. Wheelwright (eds.): The Product Development Challenge: Competing through Speed, Quality, and Creativity. Boston: Harvard Business School Press 1995.
42. J. Yan: ‘Online branding’, op. cit., pp. 197–8.
43. The two need to be considered together as the inquiry should be whether a brand has acquired secondary meaning, not a common word or phrase which may appear in the Google index.

This paper has also appeared in CAP Online.