The biggest mis-fortune of the liberalized media is the mis-management of conflict of interests. The best example is the recent publication of BrandZ Top 100.
http://www.millwardbrown.com/libraries/optimor_brandz_files/2011_brandz_top100_chart.sflb.ashx
Ofcourse, the methodology will be given, after-all we live in a democracy in the West. But once you start reading the fine-print including the people behind the publication, things start getting bit more fuzzy. In this specific case of BrandZ Top 100, it is published by a branch of WPP. Now, WPP will have huge interest in the concept of branding because they deal in advertising for the same brands. Isn't it a conflict of interest then. As usual regulators are either sleeping or have been made to look other way in the name of 'small government', 'pro-business policies' blah-blah-blah.
Coming to the specifics, after we cross the management jargon, the list is still mis-leading because of at-least three obvious reasons:
1. The inclusion of Utilities where competition and choice doesn't matter.
2. The Distribution Models which restricts competition and choice.
3. Non-inclusion of Aspirations for brand-story.
1. The inclusion of Utilities: What are Utilities doing in a branding exercise. The nature of utilities is distribution of 'scarce' resources. People have no choice but to go with them. The selection is based on availability and price, not on brand. Whether one buys fuel or go to bank for a loan, the same principal applies.
2. Restrictive distribution models: Again, the way the regulation works is people do not have a choice. Without choice there is no brand. For instance you go to a restaurant, you get either Pepsi or Coke. But not both. Similarly, you go to a petrol station and do we have a choice of fuel from 5 different companies? When the distribution models are masked under protectionism, does brand matters there?
3. Non-inclusion of Aspirations: Clearly, a brand is not just about buying the products but being associated with it not just in the present but in future. What about the aspirations to join the team behind the brands?
The simple questionnaire to define brand loyalty is: Are you happy with the product and will you come-back and recommend it to others?
Covering the methodology under gobbledock of company's earnings to brand-equity makes no sense. It just complicates the matter so that the marketing departments of these companies run to the same people for consultancy services.
The best way of doing a branding survey is:
a) restricting it to products where there is competition and people have choice (automotive/tablets/mobile phones are very good example(s), Banks/Oil Companies are bad examples)
b) capturing not just the present purchase but aspiration to buy the brand's products in future.
c) capturing the aspiration of not just buying the products but to join the team to create future great products.
The irony here is the top-ranked Apple. It's marketing and brand management is based on the company's strategies and not on the consultancy provided to WPP or it's marketing spend. For example, as soon as Steve Jobs declared on the Apple Keynote Presentation that Apple deals and leads in POST-PC products, they pulled the plug from the wonderfully creative 'get a mac' ads. That is how brands are created not just by increasing marketing spend.
To put is simple, the Brand is a representation of not just the products sold but also the culture of the company behind it, the creative team's skills, the aspiration of the students/prospective employees to join that team, the aspiration of the people to buy those products in future etc.,
If all this looks subjective, then of-course it is because the brands are felt by HEART not analyzed by minds and definitely not by company's earnings.
Pradeep Kabra
No comments:
Post a Comment