Thomas Gad
Chairman, The Medinge Group
Founder, Brandflight

Stanley Moss
CEO, The Medinge Group
Founder, Diganzi
diganzi@medinge.org

T. Gad and S. Moss: ‘The Second Wave of Sustainability Hits Swedish Brands’, The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 2, no. 1, 2008.

When Scandinavians read news about global warning, it somehow does not feel like news to them. It is more like a repetition of something they have heard and feared for years. A long-standing awareness that environmental protection of unique natural resources was necessary has been under discussion at home for decades. They understood the threats, the consequences of pollution and the price to be paid for damaging the richness and variety in flora and fauna. They knew this in turn would severely change the climatic conditions on earth. How did they know this? Because it was a part of their education at elementary schools in Scandinavia for the last 20 years
   Energy saving in this region has a long history as well. During cold winters, when electricity produced in local clean-water generated power stations was insufficient to cover the demand for electric heating, Scandinavians were forced to buy power often from dirty coal-fuelled power stations in eastern Europe. Events like these were a part of their upbringing and it created a deep-rooted understanding of the issues and consequences. Sustainability has never has been such a dramatic story as it now is in world media. Scandinavians find it rather boring, a presumption they probably share with the Germans. After all, the influential German Green Party was established 1985 and Scandinavia has had its own green parties and powerful political factions for as long as people can remember. Thus, last year’s environmental warnings did not really shake anyone up. People simply shrugged their shoulders and said, it had to happen some day in the face of all the reports about global warming. In essence it was old news to them.
   What impresses branding professionals is how powerful the concept brand, ‘Climate Change’, has become and how quickly it developed. Another surprise: how strong the personal brand ‘Al Gore’ has got, certainly more potent than if he had simply become another president of the USA. It does demonstrate to Scandinavians the abiding importance of the USA in world opinion-making. Scandinavians have the conviction that this time climate warnings may finally be for real. There is hope that at least it leads to global action.
   Inaction by the rest of the world was precisely the problem previously. Nordic citizens felt alone in their vanguard interest about sustainability issues, ahead of their time. It was they and the Germans and possibly the Californians (with smog-stricken Los Angeles) who concepted the first models of responsible thinking. This perhaps sprung out of the New Age movement, which also emerged in Sweden. Nobody else seemed to take it seriously. Swedes later felt sceptical towards the USA for not signing the Kyoto protocol, an erosion of trust over the inability globally to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. After all, the biggest and most consuming nation in the world had turned its back on the crisis after contributing so significantly to its creation.
   Sweden’s responsible environmental consciousness is largely political and grew up in combination with the social-democratic tradition and the idea of a welfare state. Government always takes responsibility in setting the rules for social issues. This may explain one reason for the world’s highest rate of income taxation. In Sweden, this so-called Swedish model has lately been under attack, and the new non-socialist government has it on the agenda to adjust the model, so as not to wreck it all together.
   There is still a widespread consensus across all political parties about the fundamental principle of governmental responsibility. This consensus about collective responsibility naturally translates over to Scandinavian brands. Scandinavian companies are good at following the rules. At the same time these are nations with small domestic markets and who need to export to survive. They have always been aware of global competition. Scandinavian industries have complained that the social responsibility they have borne has been excessively one-sided, and that it has made Scandinavian products more expensive. This causes Scandinavian jobs to be threatened. Yet, as there are few changes in the policies, so Scandinavian industry has long been compelled to accommodate the expenses of social and environmental responsibility in its operations and costs.
   The Nordic paper industry, a world leader, has manufacturers like SCA and Metsä-Tissue and strong European consumer brands like Lambi, Libero, Libresse, Serla and Katrin. These brands are good examples of companies who not only adjusted to the sustainability rules, but developed environmental policies far beyond what the regulations required. They invested in new technologies to turn dirty production into a cleaner one, for minimal impact on nature.
   The strong global sustainability trend has led into more self-critical discussion. Industry and government ask: are the brands and businesses in Scandinavia more progressive than the brands in the rest of the world, or have they lost their competitive advantage? Global attitudes move quickly now. Scandinavian brands feel threatened on their own ideological home turf.
   Veckans Affärer, the biggest weekly business magazine in Sweden, published its second yearly “green” issue in 2007. The big question posed concerned national sustainability leadership. They asked: who is leading? The magazine editors concluded that there is a “wait-and-see” attitude in Sweden and in Scandinavia at present. What does the widespread global alarm require companies and brands to do more than they are already doing? And how deep will be government’s role in this new climate? The government in Sweden for the first time in more than a decade leans non-socialist and more liberal, a new political landscape. What exactly will this government do, how much will it regulate, and how much responsibility will it delegate to industry?
   Scandinavian brands historically regarded green issues as a way to get PR and nurture better image domestically, but the message was not promoted abroad. Companies felt the public out there did not care that much. Now the situation is different. Most serious companies and brands in Europe have some kind of visible sustainability strategy. Green issues have moved from an “extra” to something “included”. Companies and brands are subjected to greater scrutiny over the reality of their sustainable credentials.
   Experts today acknowledge how much more difficult it is to stand out using sustainability as a branding tool. The question is now more one of accountability; what do the companies behind the brands actually do, not simply intend to do?
   Today, companies feel a pressure to demonstrate anything, and it can often turn into something resembling a bad joke. When Air France desperately offers a ‘carbon footprint calculator’ prominently on their website home page, so that you can calculate the carbon footprint of your flight with the airline, little can be done with that information. All airlines confront the consequence of a basically dirty technology and no real light at the end of the tunnel.
   For a large polluter like an airline, every reduction is a positive one and proper action demonstrates the sustainability of your brand. A good example of this hands-on Scandinavian approach, a kind of imperative to impress the national audience, is Scandinavian Airlines’ (SAS) very successful Green-Landings programme. Advanced communication and coordination between aircraft navigation computers and the computers in the air traffic control system have been developed. This yields the capability to calculate the most environmentally friendly flight path. SAS has already performed over 1,000 green landings, and every landing saves 100 kg of fuel and 200 kg of carbon dioxide. SAS knows that once all its planes systematically participate in the programme carbon dioxide emissions will reduce by 90,000 tons per year, equalling emissions from 20,000 cars driving 15,000 km yearly on average. SAS, after three near-to-crash incidents, is resolutely selling off an entire fleet of Bombardier de Havilland DASH-7 aircraft, costing the company an estimated €250 million and damaged credit ratings. This is being done to preserve SAS brand equity, for which responsibility, reliability and safety are key values.
   Another Swedish brand, H&M, has taken a leading position in sustainability issues and earned a degree of acclaim for it nationally and internationally. The company operates in 28 countries and has more than 60,000 employees all working to the same philosophy: to bring the customer fashion and quality at the best price. The brand is now one of the most identifiable, visible and valuable of Scandinavian marks. H&M has leveraged its brand equity from cheap clothing into fashion brand by co-branding with famous designers like Karl Lagerfeld, Stella McCartney, Victor & Rolf and Roberto Cavalli. Alongside its commercial success, this company demonstrates solid principles of entrepreneurship and a strong sustainability positioning, all the more difficult in a business where unnecessary over-consumption, cost-shaving, and issues of ethical production will be the inevitable accusations. H&M has grown into one of the most demanding fashion producers in the world, through determined sustainability policy, hard work, and not just sweet talk.
   Today the company stands as a benchmark for the industry. H&M’s active code of conduct encourages compliance with local labour law, statutory pay and working hours, the right to organize and bargain collectively, a ban on child labour, a ban on discrimination, a ban on forced labour, health and safety in the workplace, and compliance with local environmental legislation. All suppliers are monitored by independent auditors. H&M is such a major buyer that this ripple effect has been felt throughout the entire supply side, especially in China. Status as an H&M supplier has become a crucial demand when negotiating production contracts and prices with these suppliers.
   Many discussions occur about how to engage the alarming global warming scenario. Scandinavia has a social tradition which encourages state-initiated consensus between politicians and industry, with a reliance on entrepreneurial creativity. This got a boost during the dot-com boom, when mobile phone development, largely achieved by Nordic engineers, resulted in the establishment of world-leading brands Ericsson and Nokia.
   Sustainability is not exclusively concerned with environmental questions, but also with issues of public health. Traditional Swedish controls on alcohol, a severe anti-drug policy, high taxes and state-shop-monopoly contradicts the reality that the state owns one of the most high-profile Swedish brands, Absolut Swedish Country Vodka. This brand first began to gain international prominence in New York at the time when Russian vodkas were banned, a response to the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan. The ban came to include the Canadian brand Smirnoff for the simple crime of having a Russian name, thus driving more vodka-drinkers to alternative labels. Propelled by a rise in the global demand for clear spirits, its popularity in gay culture, trendy bars, with the art community, by clever artistic advertising and a clean, almost-medical design, Absolut came to personify the Swedish attributes of purity and political and environmental cleanliness, represented by a bottle. The current Swedish government has put Absolut up for sale, and all the world’s spirit conglomerates are lining up to bid. Some nationalistic Swedish investors would prefer to keep this iconic national brand Swedish.
   IKEA was rewarded last year by the international branding think-tank Medinge Group with one of their yearly Brands with a Conscience awards. The award referenced IKEA’s anti-corruption stance, specifically citing its business in Russia, where 300 invited guests for the launch of a new Moscow store were unceremoniously turned away from the celebration. Official permits had not been delivered, owing to IKEA’s refusal to pay bribes to the authorities. In Sweden, IKEA’s homeland, the company is considered to be a sustainability leader among Scandinavian brands (together with H&M and Volvo). IKEA’s strict environmental policy aligns closely with founder Ingvar Kamprad’s sparse and lean management principle—no waste in the economics of the business, environmentally or with energy. IKEA took the initiative to promote low-energy products and is today the leading distributor of low-energy light bulbs. ‘Good design for everyone’ is one of the founding principles and the attitude generally is very democratic and Fair Trade-oriented concerning suppliers, employees and customers.
   With this much history in place, sustainability in Scandinavia appears equivalent to a hygienic factor, and consequently a bit boring. Once the claims have been made, actions are more important than words. Companies have discovered it is critical to communicate value beyond sustainability itself. A good example of how this works can be seen in instances where organic food and sustainability are considered in tandem. It is not enough to create the impression of responsible conscience with the consumer. One must deliver more to ensure commercial success. With organic food, the good feeling and the perception of better and more natural taste is important. Svenskt Sigill, an ingredient brand for a variety of different Sweden-produced food products, emphasized its Swedish origin and the good taste (‘Home-made’ is the slogan), with greater prominence than the fact that its line is produced to stricter sustainable standards than ordinary food.
   The importance of combining sustainability values in the brand with higher product performance can be seen in the Swedish start-up EcoMarine’s first non-toxic biological paint for boats. Toxic paint has long been a problem for environmentalists in Scandinavia. Boating is a uniformly popular pastime; in fact, most households in Sweden have at least one boat, sometimes several. Frequently these are rather large sailing or motor craft. All existing paints for boats are either toxic to repel growth of algæ and sea grass on the hulls, or non-toxic but lack the repelling effect. Toxic paint is forbidden, since it releases amounts of pollutants into the sensitive waters of the Baltic Sea and the otherwise pristine lakes in Sweden. Recently EcoMarine introduced a paint formulated with natural bacteria, which not only keeps algæ and vegetation off the boat hull, but also creates a slimy surface which increases performance and speed of the boat. Environmentally speaking, it decreases the amount of energy needed to drive the boat through the water.
   The performance argument is always the winning one. It is a similar position to that which promotes biofuel ethanol, which increases the performance of the bio-powered car, in comparison to gasoline-fuelled engines of the same size. Saab successfully employed this concept in their brand building, until the argument lost some of its lustre when it became widely known that ethanol (although itself non-carbon dioxide-producing) requires objectionable quantities of energy and carbon dioxide emissions to produce and distribute.
   The combination of good conscience and good performance is the wave of the future in Scandinavian sustainability innovation and branding. Swedbank-Robur’s highly successful fund management has shown the market-place real dedication to sustainable investments for 15 years. They consistently argued that such investments could perform very well, or at least as well as non-sustainable ones. Swedbank-Robur has proven that a combination of doing good with good financial performance is a winning proposition. Proofs like these of a successful balance between the opposing sides of the sustainability discussion will always make a huge impression on performance and consensus-seeking Scandinavians
   This paper has introduced the argument that Swedish brands have moved beyond other countries’ positions on sustainability. There are lessons to be learned here about the implications for other brands. It is clear that non-Swedish brands will follow the same trajectory, raising their awareness of challenges, solutions and consumer attitudes. Countries without the social democratic model may find it more difficult to follow Scandinavia’s lead, but with the volume of alarm raised every day in world media, and the UN’s recent report which documented the urgency of global warming awareness, velocity towards sustainable behaviour can only increase.
   Somewhere out in consumer world there is an opportunity to develop an area of research which evaluates the effectiveness of how sustainability incorporates into the real fabric of organizations. This could be a sustainability orientation measure, which considers the extent to which sustainable thinking is central to decision-making. A project done in Sweden called Brand Orientation Index looked at the degree of brand orientation of 500 Swedish companies; perhaps this is the model to replicate on the course to a global sustainability orientation index? Where else but in Sweden will vanguard thought like this occur.

This paper also appeared in the Journal of Brand Management.

Sicco van Gelder
Placebrands

S. van Gelder: ‘How to Improve the Chances of Successfully Developing and Implementing a Place Brand Strategy’, The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 2, no. 1, August 2008.
Microsoft Word version

1. Introduction
Place branding (for countries, regions and cities) is a relatively new discipline and inevitably people have many questions about it. One important question is how to successfully brand a place. This question actually consists of a number of discrete questions, namely whether:

• Branding is more suitable for some places than for others?
• There are pre-existing factors that increase the likelihood of successful place branding?
• There are factors that improve the success-rate of the brand development process?
• It is possible to predict the success of a place brand strategy?

This paper tries to answer each of these questions by describing the criteria and factors that contribute to successful place branding. By assessing the place, the players and the plans they make, it is possible to predict the likely success of a place branding initiative.

2. Should all places brand themselves?
There is a debate whether all places should be actively branding themselves or that the method is more appropriate to some places than to others. There is a perception that places facing some sort of crisis are more likely candidates than places with stable economic, social and cultural settings.
   Although a place that faces a crisis may become acutely aware of the weaknesses of its brand and decide that it is high time to do something about it, there is little evidence to suggest that crises in themselves are a reason to brand a place. This is due to two factors, namely:

• brands are not built (and seldom even destroyed) in a day. Place branding is certainly a long-term endeavour and requires years of consistent and persistent actions for the brand to take shape;
• branding will not help solve the crisis simply because only decisive and targeted actions will do so. The brand will however, provide the context for solving the crises and the brand’s strengths should be applied to the solution. A strong brand will also help to mitigate the effects of a crisis as the crisis will not be (one of) its only claim(s) to fame.

If it’s not places that face immediate calamity, catastrophe or disaster, then which places can most usefully apply branding? Certainly, some kinds of places are more likely candidates for place branding. These include:

• places that face intense and increasing competition. These places are obvious candidates because they need to sharpen their competitive edge to retain or improve their positions. This is currently happening in southern Africa, where the rise of South Africa is putting pressure on the neighbours. In Europe, competition between major cities has increased over the past decade and a place such as Amsterdam finds itself competing with Madrid and Barcelona for visitors, investors, talent and events. Similarly in Asia, Hong Kong is facing more intense competition from the likes of Shanghai and Singapore;
• places that face complex development tasks, such as areas of urban expansion, regeneration and transformation. These places need to have a very strong sense of what they wish to become, what they will offer and how they will function, which is what branding can offer them. Examples are mixed-use waterfront developments that dot the cityscapes around the world: Hamburg, Toronto, Lyon, Melbourne and the like;
• places that face a slow and steady decline. Such places often lose businesses, inhabitants, institutions and events at a pace that doesn’t start the alarm bells ringing until the scale of the problem becomes acutely apparent. These places have the opportunity to stop and even reverse their slide if they act in a concerted effort to shore up their brand. Examples are Southampton in southern England and Cleveland, Ohio in the USA;
• places that have lived through a crisis and need to reinvent themselves. These places have had a major crisis that has completely altered the economic, social and (sometimes) cultural structures. There is no opportunity to reverse the situation and the only thing left is to completely rethink the brand. One of the most obvious examples is Bilbao in Spain that has reinvented itself as a tourist destination after the collapse of its manufacturing base. Other examples of places needing to reinvent themselves are Belfast and Detroit.

3. The likelihood of successful place branding
Not only is there discussion about which places should develop their brand strategies, there is also debate about what preconditions improve the likelihood of success. We find that having the following characteristics contribute to a place’s ability to brand itself:

• unity: the key stakeholders of the place need to agree to come together to shape its future by developing and implementing a brand strategy. This is not a given in most places. Stakeholders have seldom sat together to discuss their shared future and to determine how their views on the subject coincide and differ. And in even fewer places have stakeholders actually decided to act to jointly shape that future. We’ve worked in places where bringing together the stakeholders and getting them to work together was the hardest task of all;
• diversity: places that are more economically, socially, culturally and naturally diverse stand a better chance of developing a strong and effective brand. This is due to the fact that place branding is not an exercise in reduction, but rather one of adding or enhancing layers of richness. Diversity gives such places like Vancouver, Kuala Lumpur and Cape Town their attractive edge;
• initiative: places whose stakeholders already (jointly) undertake (marketing) initiatives. These provide necessary experiences beneficial to the place brand development efforts. This is due to the fact that they have already accepted the need for changes and are taking actions to bring them about;
• experimentation: there also needs to be a willingness to take risks and a certain tolerance towards failure of experiments. Often, accepted ways of working are entrenched and people stick by what they know. Risk aversion is often prominent in some of the large (and bureaucratic) organizations that are key stakeholders of many places.

4. What is required to successfully develop a place brand?
Not only are there existing factors that improve the likelihood of success for place branding. More importantly, there are factors that influence the success of the brand development exercise itself. These are:

• partnership and leadership: a place brand can only successfully be developed and implemented by the key stakeholders of the place. It is not a task to be left to the government alone. The organizations that can shape the future of the place through their actions, investments and communications should come together in partnership and should demonstrate shared leadership in the development and implementation of the place brand strategy. In lots of places, government departments have been tasked to brand and market their city, region or country and the results are mixed at best;
• vision and strategy: the first thing the brand partners need to do is to share and compare their views on the future of the place and make sure that they develop a shared vision of a greater magnitude than the sum of their individual visions. Existing visions often are highly sector-related (in one case we found 23 visions for the same city) and do not rise above the commonplace of a great place to live, with the best possible healthcare and education and jobs for everyone. Once they have agreed a shared vision, the partners need to map out a strategy for the brand of their place that they can jointly deliver;
• appraisal and creativity: the brand partners need to be realistic and understand what has shaped the brand of their place so far, and what has worked in the past and what has not. That should, however, not preclude them from finding new ways of doing things, from developing original ideas and from creating innovations for their place;
• “on brand” implementation: finally, the partners need to involve other stakeholders in realising the brand through actions, investments, attraction programmes and events that demonstrate the brand in action.

There is an immense task here of managing the stakeholders and their activities and communications to ensure that agreed initiatives are carried out, consistently and “on brand”. The brand partners must, therefore, decide how best top organise this task to ensure effective implementation of their plans.

5. When is a place brand a success?
Finally, there is the question of when a place brand strategy can be considered to be successful. In other words, what should the place brand embody of to become successful?

• value and purpose: the brand is a promise of value and one that needs to be kept. The more valuable the place brand is to its key audiences, the more likely they will be swayed by it. The brand also provides a sense of purpose to the place’s stakeholders, as it embodies the things they want to achieve. The stronger this sense of purpose, the more likely that stakeholders will pull together and deliver. Too often the brand of a place does not provide a common purpose, but only a trite slogan: City of Lights (Anchorage), the Friendly City (Orange Country), Get in on It (Baltimore), Every Day Is an Opening Day (Atlanta) and It’s Cooler Here (Edmonton);
• truth: the brand needs to reflect the reality of the place. Place brands are largely built on people’s experiences of the place, on recommendations by trusted endorsers, and on what goes on in the place. Any dissonance between the brand’s promise and these realities harms the place brand’s equity. The experience of the rough immigration treatment meted out to visitors harm the brand of the USA. The scenes of the scores of itinerant labourers sleeping on the streets of Mumbai can come as a shock to a first-time visitor to ‘The Fastest Growing Free Market Democracy’;
• inclusive and for the common good: the brand must appeal to the local community and must provide it with tangible and intangible benefits. Only if the place’s brand is embraced by its population, businesses and institutions will it also be credible to outsiders. In Bangalore local pride groups conflict with what are seen as the “outsiders” of the city’s booming IT industry. In a bid to appease these activists, the city government decided to change the official name of the city to Bengaluru, which is the local pronunciation and the city’s IT companies have started to fly the local flag. Neither move will do much unless the Kannada population of the city feel that they have a stake in the city’s future;
• creativity and innovation: the brand must help to encourage and release the resourcefulness and inventiveness of the stakeholders in their quest for realizing the place brand strategy. The brand should promote new ways of working, investing and communicating and advance new and original ideas, products and services. Newcastle-Gateshead kicked off a flurry of creative activity with the Angel of the North, a huge steel statue along the motorway, and followed this up with the distinct Millennium Bridge, the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Arts and the Sage Concert Hall. All a far cry from its drab and dreary post-industrial past;
• complexity and simplicity: the brand of a place needs to reflect its richness and not try to reduce it to a single utterance or representation. However, at the same time, the core of the brand must be straightforward enough for people to grasp its value easily. Italy stands for style, France for romance and Japan for perfection, but we also know that these places have a lot more to offer that makes them distinctively attractive;
• connectivity: the brand must help to connect up people, businesses and institutions inside as well as outside the place. A brand that allows and encourages people to rally around it stands a far better chance of being successful. In some cases, making use its diasporas’ relationships with the home country help to fan the brand’s flames. Cases in point are Ireland, India and China;
• validity: a brand must remain relevant to its stakeholders and audiences over a long period and it can only do so by delivering consistent value to them. This does not mean that the brand should remain unchanged. The world changes and so do people’s wishes and expectations, the competition (and what they have to offer), and economic, social and cultural developments. It is important to regularly check and preserve the soundness of the brand over time and to take appropriate actions for it to retain its significance.

6. Risks and rewards
Place branding is an intricate activity and chances of doing it successfully rest on a proper understanding of the factors that influence the outcomes. Without understanding the risks involved and how to reduce these to a manageable level, success is unlikely and subsequent failure will simply prove what the (inevitable) critics have said all along: ‘It’s a waste of money that could have been better spent on health, education, housing, infrastructure, etc.’ But if there are possible risks, there are also potential rewards to successful place branding, such as:

• improved and sustainable competitiveness, e.g. for attention, investments, jobs, inhabitants, institutions, visitors and events;
• higher returns on investment, e.g. in real estate, infrastructure, promotions and events;
• coherent development of the place as physical, social, economic and cultural planning join up to realize the brand’s promise;
• pride in the place, as the population, businesses and institutions experience its (renewed) sense of purpose and direction;
• unsolicited praise, approval and endorsement from media, celebrities and (international) institutions;
• increased word-of-mouth among (foreign) target audiences as personal experiences and a wish to be associated with the place create a buzz.

Ian Ryder
CEO, UffindellWest
ian@uffindellwest.com

I. Ryder: ‘Linking Vision and Values with Brand (Specifically Reputation) Management’, The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 1, no. 1, August 2007.
Accepted June 2007
Microsoft Word version

If you were offered an almost cast-iron guarantee of the route to sustained competitive advantage and a wonderful reputation would you want to know about it? Well let me try to show you what I truly believe is a very simple and easy mantra that makes it possible—but only if your organization truly embraces it as an operating (brand management) practice. Let me begin by explaining something that is really important to understand first, and the reason why the title looks the way it does.
   I am very lucky to be able to see quite a lot of academic work and current “think” pieces and for some reason the marketing world, or at least that part of it which purports to write and comment on “branding”, too often makes a misleading distinction between “brand” and “reputation”. The distinction most often indicating that they are independent or can be managed independently—I must address this first so that this article makes sense!
   Reputation management is brand management. The only difference is that brand management covers a broader spectrum. I have searched for some time to try and find a usable and easily understood analogy to explain my thinking here, so please allow me to take you through it. Then, as we see how business strategy, derived alongside a set of vision and value statements, is inextricably linked to brand strategy we will see clearly how these impact reputation, why employees are so crucial to that reputation and where the internal and external communications linkages need to be.
   I read a paper by a very well known research organization that actually damaged the “reputation” of their “brand” for me! As part of it the author argues, ‘The brand has psychological appeal; reputation appeals to the sense of social responsibility’, which is such a confused expression that if it appeared in one of the Journal of Brand Management papers I was refereeing I would be questioning the author’s understanding of the subject!
   My premise is that reputation is to brand as health is to body—allowing for the fact that no analogy is perfect.

Consider: the Body
It is a collection of 6 billion genes manifested in blood, organs, bones etc. all covered up by skin and covered in many places by hair.
   The “health” of that body is affected by such things as basic construction of those genes (i.e. luck of the draw actually) but seriously impacted by diet, exercise, sunlight or propensity to drugs, alcohol, tobacco, etc.
   ”Health” is positively impacted or negatively impacted dependent on how we treat these things and that impact, through our “health management”, will absolutely affect “the body”—it does not exist in isolation. Further, our health is the result (outcome) of the way in which we treat our body.
   However, there are things that we can do as part of our “body management” that arguably don’t affect our health, at least nowhere near as directly. We need to cut our hair, manicure our nails or treat our skin with creams to prolong elasticity, youthful looks, etc. (hasn’t worked for me yet though!)

Consider: the brand
It is a collection of lots (not 6 billion!) of “things” manifested in strategies (business, financial, marketing, HR, manufacturing, etc), systems, processes, premises, partners, products, services etc, all wrapped up and “covered” in a brand promise.
   In the same way we can take reputation (health) which is also affected by the basic construction (vision, values, culture, operating model) of the business brand (Body) but it is seriously impacted by the behaviour of our people, systems and processes or the way we communicate our attitudes to such things as CSR and customer management. “Reputation” is positively or negatively impacted dependent on how we treat these things and that impact, through our “reputation management”, will absolutely affect our brand—it does not exist in isolation. Our reputation is the result (outcome) of the way in which we treat our brand.
   However, there are things that we can or should do as part of our “brand management” that arguably don’t affect our reputation, again, at least nowhere near as directly. We need to manage our corporate identity, trade marks and patents, ensure we have a structured brand architecture and appropriate measurement systems in place.
   I know analogies are always open to attack because we can never find the perfect match, but in all my struggles to find one to try and “dispel the myth”, this is so far the best I have found and I hope it makes the relationship clear.
   Let us move on then to vision and values. Making these work in any organization is a major challenge and you really should read a book called The Committed Enterprise by Professor Hugh Davidson.1 It is one of the most readable non-fiction books I have ever enjoyed and it presents the results of a very substantial research programme looking at why many organizations fail to implement their vision and values. Two particular tables highlight some keys to success or failure which include:

Failure:
1. Agree vision and values amongst a small group
2. Develop values in a vacuum
3. Keep values vague and don’t measure
4. Allow senior management to flout values
5. Communicate inconsistently
6. Micro-manage the organization brand

Success:
1. Use vision to align and unite stakeholders
2. Establish values that build competitive advantage
3. Convert values to measurable practices
4. Communicate by action, signals and repetition
5. Macro-manage the organization brand

(See the book for the complete list.)

   Just this selected list provides so much rich discussion about what impacts our ability to manage our reputation. We will refer to this later to see how the links are made.
   Let us consider the more commonly understood primary elements that help to build or destroy reputations. There are three main ones:

• product or service quality;
• customer experience;
• social or environmental record.

   Clearly there is a very direct impact on reputation if the physical product bought is of poor quality and fails to do the task for which it was purchased. We have all bought what we think were “bargains” from unknown branded sources only to curse later when the CD didn’t play, or the handle fell off the spade, knife, wheelbarrow, etc. But we also know that even where we are buying a solid, recognized quality brand, there is a large component of “service” in the “total customer experience” associated with that brand—it is not just “service” brands that need to watch out for reputation failures from a service perspective!
   Quick example: recently I was looking to replace the Philishave electric shaver that had given me good service for about 12 years—solid product brand experience. I went to several outlets looking for advice on current models and after two experiences in well known suppliers from staff that cared less about what I wanted and knew even less about the product, I was despairing. Then I was walking through Boots (a large retail chemist) and just happened to notice that they had a section containing shavers and, as I stopped to look, I was approached by a lady who asked very nicely if she could help me. To cut a long story short, this lady knew everything I needed to know about the alternatives and handled the interaction so smoothly and in an unpressured way that I bought a model far more expensive than I had originally been considering, and I went away feeling I had enjoyed buying it!
   The key morals here are:

• “product” brands often also rely on service to complete the brand experience;
• “channels” are critical and need to be part of your brand management system in order to ensure a consistent, enjoyable brand experience for your customers;
• it was the individual that made the difference.

   This is all very self-evident in service businesses where restaurant staff, telephone contacts with such as insurance companies, banks etc. all make good or bad service very immediate. We have all spent much time, I am sure, spreading both good and bad observations around our networks that have either enhanced or detracted from the reputation of those brands!
   And so it is that employees, and indeed the wider definition of that, which includes everyone who represents our brand and helps deliver the brand experience that drives our reputation, are absolutely critical to the process. One crushing statistic that I discovered a few years ago in the Journal of Marketing found that in the list of reasons why customers defect, whilst only 9 per cent are lured away by competition, a huge 68 per cent are turned away by an attitude of indifference on the part of an employee!
   This is not rocket science! A very simple rule set says:

(a) ensure your employees understand what we mean by a ‘consistent, positive brand experience’;
(b) explain why we need to manage that;
(c) help them recognise and understand their role in that;
(d) engage their commitment to fulfilling their part in the delivery of it;
(e) make the measurement of our performance in achieving it both easy to understand and a matter of public record, so we can see we need to improve, or rejoice that we are retaining delighted customers.

   All of the above we now delight in calling brand engagement or embedding.
   Which leads us neatly into: what are the links across the organization that contribute to our reputation? Well we have already touched on several, but probably the single most important factor is the CEO of the organization. He or she is responsible for as much as 40–55 per cent of the image and reputation of any corporate brand (depends on which survey you look at), and is also clearly the driver and owner of the company vision and values—note I didn’t say developer of those (refer back to Hugh Davidson’s key failure list).
   Common situation: the CEO says: ‘We keep telling them what our vision, values and strategy are and yet I keep seeing employee surveys telling me they don’t get it—how often do they need telling?’ (N.B. this is a genuine Fortune company CEO quote.) The answer of course, is not to tell, but to listen. Listen to the voice of your customers, employees, even your suppliers and respond to that input. Your reputation is created through them and driven by every single experience (moment of truth) they have—it is also instantly changed for the worse but only gradually changed for the better.
   So, again, a very short check list:

• from any level of the organization (or brand delivery owner) up to the CEO, the delivery of the brand experience must be absolutely consistent with expected values;
• the “soft”, informal networks are the most true and valuable—listen to them and act upon them;
• your systems or processes must be designed to facilitate customer service and support in line with your values
• measurement systems are crucial. Ensure they are designed to complement and not work against each other—convergent goals. ( Jack Welch, of GE fame, had a passion to create what he called a ‘boundary-less’ culture, which is even further advanced thinking than convergent measurement, but it helped turn GE into the global powerhouse of the 20th century.)

   Finally, how do we use vision and values as a route to a strong reputation through alignment of internal and external communications? I refer back again to Hugh Davidson’s list which has communications as the key to either success or failure in the actualization of making vision and values work. Once more this is not difficult although there are many companies out there who try to make it so!

Internal communications
This is not the place to review the myriad tools available to serve internal communications. However, research indicated that the relationship of satisfaction with internal communications and the percentage of those who are prepared to speak highly of the company product or services is seriously connected. On a four-point scale from ‘very low’ to ‘high’, this moves from less than 20 per cent to almost 80 per cent of employees who would speak highly. The jump from the ‘medium’ satisfaction with communication to ‘High’ is staggering though—it more than doubles!

External communications
Again there is a myriad number of ways in which companies “communicate” to their various constituencies, but the key is clarity and consistency. It is no good, for example, espousing a set of values that include care for the environment and then behaving in a way that conflicts with that (one of the problems that the oil and chemical industries have struggled with). In fact, the topic of corporate social responsibility (CSR) has grown out of that very conundrum into a major field of its own. It is not difficult to understand why when you consider just a couple of frightening facts like:

• it has taken only 30 years to consume one-third of the planet’s resources that took 3·8 billion years to make;
• in the past 50 years the world has lost a quarter of its topsoil and a third of its forest cover.

   The lesson is, as always, very simple. Do what you say you will do and make sure that the messages being delivered through whichever communication disciplines you have chosen for external audiences, are the same as those being driven internally through training or induction and measurement systems.

Humanity-based strategy
As we move towards the summary, I wanted to share some thinking that began with my esteemed colleagues in the Medinge Group and which resulted in my contribution to our book Beyond Branding. Based around anthropology, this thinking has developed into what I call Humanity-based Strategy (HBS).
   Take a look at the four top expectations or needs as expressed by Disney employees and “guests”:

   Disney’s vision and values are legendary and they define their “Total Customer Experience” in four elements:

(a) anticipation;
(b) ‘Welcome’;
(c) the Experience;
(d) ‘Goodbye’.

   Whichever way you look at this very simple overview, it is quite clear that Disney is thinking about their customers and employees as human beings and for very good reason!
   HBS is a very simple, but powerful, concept with just three basic tenets:

(a) people are people first;
(b) manage the reality gap;
(c) create trust and relevance.

   Since man descended from the trees we have been driven by a base set of programmed behaviours that always prevail whatever social behaviours we overlay. Your customers’ (and employees’) first reaction to any situation and brand experience will always be the human one—feeling good, or feeling bad. You simply must begin to understand and learn how to manage that.
   The reality gap is simply the difference between what you think you are doing to and for your customers and staff, and what you are actually doing—there is always a gap of some kind and this can either be causing you to waste revenue or profit opportunities, or allowing gaps for your competition to enter. Learn what it is and how to manage it.
   The two most powerful words in the world of customers: without trust you can have no loyalty of any kind and no “advocation” other than bad press. Without relevance, in both product or service offer and timing, you will be unsuccessful with the sale.
   Your vision and values should drive your building and execution of each of these three tenets.

Summary
It has not been possible to address in depth any of the items that I have touched on in this article but I hope you have some pointers to use to examine your own situations, along with some further reading.
   Vision and values “fail” in organizations either because of a “flaw” in the vision or failure of the values to create any competitive advantage. However, even if these are not flawed and do lead to competitive advantage, they are executed (and that word has a very interesting double meaning!) by your people, primarily, and supported by the systems and procedures and measurements within your company. It is no good having the best website in the world, easy to navigate, user-friendly and quick, if your distribution process (owned or outsourced) lets you down—your reputation will not survive and prosper!
   The last example I will use is, not surprisingly, one that has now moved into the history books as one of the most spectacular: Enron Corporation. It is not my place or intention to question what exactly were Andersen’s values that resulted in the shredding of key papers, the action that was probably more to blame for their “crash” than the questions about their basic audit processes. But it has to be said that if they had been rigorously executing a brand management system, that was linked to the business values and disallowed any such practices because of the reputational impact of failure to conform to values, then they would not have been faced with the disappearance of what was a globally powerful brand. To link back to my opening distinction, the rapidly failing reputation (health) was bringing down the brand (body).

The guarantee!
Lest I fail to do what I am now going to implore you all to do, I did promise to let you in on the six-word secret to sustained competitive advantage through a great reputation and therefore unassailable brand.
   Make a promise … keep a promise!
   If you just think through what living to this very simple philosophy means, first developed way back in 1987 when I was asked to define brand management, you will realize how powerful it is. A brand is a promise, and a promise is about trust. Your vision and values act as the beacon. Then, using this “mantra” as the guiding principle for the delivery of those will ensure that whatever your business, be it product- or service-based, whatever your channels of selling, support, delivery or after-sales, your incidence of poor customer comment will be so low as to ensure your high reputation is maintained.
   Perhaps the last words should come from a gentleman of outstanding credentials (Nobel Award winner) who described, way back in 1937, what business was all about: ‘Fulfilling customer needs via relationships you maintain’ (Ronald Coase: Nature of the Firm).
   Says it all really doesn’t it? Good luck!

Reference
H. Davidson: The Committed Enterprise: How to Make Vision and Values Work. Boston: Butterworth Heinemann 2002.

Colin Morley
Permission to republish to be sought from the family of Colin Morley c/o the Medinge Group

C. Morley: ‘Why More Brands Now “Have a Conscience”’, The Journal of the Medinge Group, vol. 1, no. 1, August 2007.
PDF version

Demonstrating that your brand has a conscience is becoming more and more important as the population of the developed world has more of its basic needs met and starts to look for higher values. The brands in this book demonstrate the growing importance of ethical issues with the opportunities it gives to new challengers and the need for existing brands to develop new values.
   But first, ‘Hang on a minute,’ you may say. ‘How can a brand have a conscience?
   ‘Surely brands are just devices used by corporations to market their goods and services? A brand is not a conscious being so how can it have a conscience?‘
   Yes, ‘Brands with a Conscience’ is an attention-getting headline. And it also highlights one of the roles that brands now play beyond just telling you the functional characteristics of what you are buying.
   A brand can be the symbolic glue that binds a group of people together in creating and delivering value to customers. The name, colours and design of the brand come to symbolize a deeper set of shared experiences, values and beliefs that build trust between the owners, managers, employees, suppliers, customers and the wider community.
   So when you find yourself traveling past a McDonald’s or Wal-mart you have a pretty good idea of what to expect if you stop and go inside as a potential customer, employee, supplier or community representative. The owners, managers, employees, suppliers and others who have created and delivered the products and services that you will experience there have a common understanding of what they are providing that enables them to act together as an embodiment of the brand.
   The brand does what is implied in the word we use to describe the organization—it makes one body or corporation out of a group of people and things. So you can hold the corporation or brand to account for its actions in different times and places, even though different people may have delivered the product or service each time on behalf of the brand.

   As the twentieth century went on, corporations were seen to have a single mind as well as a body. It is now commonplace to think of corporations as having a “soul”, and beyond that lies the world of the corporate “spirit”. Ken Wilber describes the evolution of human consciousness through the levels of body, mind, soul and spirit in his book A Theory of Everything. Corporations and brands are evolving through the same levels of consciousness.
   Most of the brands we use every day do not seem to be very concerned with ethics or morality. They may provide features that satisfy functional needs (e.g. food, taste, vitamins) and benefits that satisfy emotional needs (sustenance, pleasure, well-being). Features and benefits are provided within an ethical or moral framework that is dictated by the economic, legal and regulatory system in force. So for example, products have to be fit for their purpose and must not make untrue claims about their performance. Few major brands or corporations seek to extend the regulatory frameworks in their industries to make production more ethical or expensive.
   That was all very well during the materialistic era of mass consumption that has driven the world economy over the last 30–50 years. Over this period, most people have been unconcerned with the ethics or morality of what they were buying. The only criterion for choice has been, ‘Does this brand do what I want it to do for me?’ Does it fulfil my needs? Does it keep me alive, make me more comfortable, give me pleasure or enhance the way other people perceive me? At the lower and middle range of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs there are few or no questions of conscience for brands or consumers.
   Consumers who think this way look for value by considering the functional and emotional benefits of the product or service quality provided, versus the price charged and any inconvenience involved.

   As the population has become more affluent and better educated, many people have satisfied the basic needs of survival, pleasure and esteem of others. New questions begin to arise that relate to the goodness or badness of what people buy.

• Were these shoes produced using slave labour?
• Does this food have organic ingredients that have been fairly traded?
• Are these packaging materials recycled and/or recyclable?
• Are the employees of this company fairly rewarded for their work?
• Does this company pollute the area where it manufactures its products?

   Some of these questions are intertwined with the functional features of the product for the consumer. For example, people may prefer organic foods because they believe that pesticides are bad for them, regardless of the perceived environmental benefits. And some of these questions are driven by media and pressure groups that are hungry for scandal and bad news with which to create headlines. Some governments have responded to public and media pressure by setting up tribunals and committees to review issues of corporate behaviour and governance. Corporations have in turn banded together into trade associations to lobby governments and supra-national bodies to reduce or limit the regulatory pressure on their activities.
   Some major corporations have discovered that questions like these can damage or even destroy them; regardless of how healthy the bottom line was before they were asked. Sunny Delight in the UK, McDonald’s, Arthur Andersen and Nike are just a few.
   However caused the interest in these questions knocks on to how people perceive themselves and takes us higher up Maslow’s Hierarchy to ‘self-esteem’ and ‘self-actualization’. When you have a choice between having your needs met ethically or unethically for the same price then there is no need to challenge your self-perception as a good person by continuing with the unethical option.
   So the question, ‘Does this brand have a conscience?’ has become more and more relevant for consumers, employees and investors.
   As a result we have seen brands and corporations adopt CSR or Corporate Social Responsibility as a standard of operation. By auditing environmental and ethical impacts and specifying programmes to alleviate or eliminate negative impacts, CSR has helped to create a conscience in many organizations. Investors have discovered that companies that practice CSR often perform better on the stock market because corporate scandals are avoided and the quality of management improves.
   Where CSR standards have been adopted by all the companies in an industry the costs and benefits involved have been common across those industries and all the brands have demonstrated a degree of conscience.
   Real Brands of Conscience, however, are those that accept the challenge of leading their industries. They accept the short-term cost sacrifices (such as more expensive ingredients and production processes) because they use the communication power of their brand values to gain a long-term benefit by appealing to the new target audience of ethical consumers. Brands of Conscience make a leap of faith that customers who today are ethically unaware or uncaring will grow to adopt the brand values and place value on the conscience of the brand.

   Many brands have CSR policies that underpin their operations and do not publicize their consciences for fear of being scrutinized more closely by people looking for violations of ethical business principles. These companies believe that the benefits to their reputation of publicising their CSR policies would be outweighed by negative publicity of their violations or by the extra costs that they perceive would be needed to eliminate their violations. High-profile brands like Nike and Coca-Cola now find it very difficult to shake off the campaigns by activists who target them continuously.

http://killercoke.org/

http://www.saigon.com/~nike/

Brands of Conscience accept this challenge and communicate their policies widely so that critics can scrutinize them and they can learn further from the feedback. When they are targeted by activists they engage in dialogue and build a constructive dialogue which further changes policies and ultimately enhances the brand’s reputation.

So a brand with a conscience is explicitly making moral or ethical conduct part of its values and positioning in the marketplace. It is making an appeal to its consumers’ sense of responsibility for right and wrong.

   So to what extent will consumers use ethical considerations to discriminate between brands in the future? Indeed will brands be able to satisfy the needs of the Cultural Creatives who have often rejected brands altogether and chosen the equivalent of the local farmers’ market instead of the supermarket?
   Here I believe we come back to one of the major roles of brands—to make the provision of a mass product or service more efficient by gaining economies of scale. The original motor cars of choice for the Cultural Creatives were basic, reliable, high quality products like Citroën 2CVs and Volkswagen Beetles. Lean production with minimal waste and based on consumer pull is becoming mainstream thinking in many factories. Brands that enable cheaper prices while expressing ethical values will have a major competitive advantage as populations move up the spiral.
   Brands that have raised ethical considerations like Body Shop and Virgin have taken business from incumbent brands that woke up too slowly. So now the race is on between the established brands that need to evolve fast, and challenger brands that can reposition the incumbents as unethical dinosaurs. Both groups can be ‘Brands with a Conscience’.