We think, therefore, we are. What do you think?

Author Archive

Jun 30th, 2010 by Tom Blackett

World Cup blues

With England soccer fans in mourning following their team’s recent 4-1 thrashing at the hands of Germany, who’s to blame? The sports pages—in all the newspapers, not just the tabloids—are a frenzy of recrimination and finger-pointing: manager, Fabio Capello got it wrong; the players were hopeless; the linesman’s poor judgment deprived us of a goal.

Perhaps the German strategy was simply more aligned than ours.

I don’t know much about soccer, but it seems that sides can elect to play in particular formations. In the lead-up games to the World Cup (in which England played pretty well) the team played in a 4-2-3-1 formation (the goalkeeper doesn’t count—he only plays in goal). But, in the tournament itself, Capello shifted the team strategy to a 4-4-2 formation.

Aside from a few key players, most the team is not used to playing in this formation. As a result, successful combinations of players (stars like Wayne Rooney and Steven Gerard) were split up and forced to muddle their way through a sudden change in strategy wrought with just enough holes for the Germans to take advantage of.

Strategic shifts in the business world can lead to the same detrimental effects. Sometimes changes in strategy are needed to position organisations for growth, but it’s important to carefully align all internal stakeholders under that strategy in order to achieve success.

In the case of the England soccer team, dabbling with the team’s formation seemed to confuse the players. And while each player may have understood victory as the end goal, not everyone was aligned on how to accomplish it. Organisations with a disjointed brand strategy (i.e., inconsistent messaging, irrational brand architecture or undefined brand promises) confuse their employees as well. As brand ambassadors, employees across all departments and global offices must fully understand and unite behind a single brand promise. Only then will they be able to deliver on that promise in a way that is clear, credible and compelling.

Indeed a unified strategy is the key to beating competitors—both on the soccer field and in the global market.

Tom Blackett is the non executive chairman for the Siegel+Gale London office.

Comments (1)

Permalink

tags: blog

Jun 2nd, 2010 by Tom Blackett

Murkier yet

Having speculated recently on the ethics of ‘ambush marketing’, this writer is taking a further downward plunge into the murky world of entrapment.

It seems as if hardly a week goes by without some well-known individual being exposed in the tabloid press. Last week it was Lord Triesman, head of the English Football Association, who told a young woman he had befriended that he suspected Spain and Russia had colluded to bribe referees. The young woman leaked this information to the Mail on Sunday newspaper, together with transcripts of amorous messages, allegedly sent to her by Lord Triesman.

Then later we learned that popular Sunday tabloid, The News of the World, announced that they had effectively ’stung’ the Duchess of York, former wife of the Queen’s son Prince Andrew. In a recorded interview the Duchess agreed to provide a reporter posing as a successful businessman with access to her former husband, the UK’s ‘trade ambassador’, for £500,000. Devastated by this revelation, the Duchess has apologized profusely, saying that Prince Andrew was completely innocent of any involvement.

People who should know better wax lyrically that everything these days can be counted as “a brand”, including personalities. Well they’re not: personalities are personalities—some might even be celebrities: but brands they most definitely are not.

One of the fundamental requirements of a brand is consistency: the brand is relied upon to deliver the same satisfactions time after time. If consistency breaks down then so does consumer trust and the brand has a crisis on its hands. People, almost by definition, are fallible—some even are gullible. The best brands are neither fallible nor gullible, and it is only when the human factor intervenes that they become so.

Entrapment reveals the vulnerability of human nature. It is an arguably savage corrective, designed to play to our baser instincts—pleasure in seeing others we think should know better exposed and humiliated. Thank heavens nobody has yet devised a way of stinging brands. But, as those bank brands laid low by the financial crisis have shown, they can do a pretty good job at stinging themselves.

Tom Blackett is the non executive chairman for the Siegel+Gale London office.

Comments (1)

Permalink

tags: blog

May 17th, 2010 by Tom Blackett

Ambush marketing

What is it?

The International Olympic Committee (IOC) defines ambush marketing as: “All intentional and unintentional attempts to create a false or unauthorized commercial association with the Olympic Movement or the Olympic Games”.

The IOC has an array of intellectual property rights in their name, the Olympic symbol, ‘London 2012‘ etc., and they make no secret of the fact that they will enforce these if anyone uses them without consent. They do this to protect the enormous revenues that lucrative sponsorship deals will bring.

The British Government, in order to protect its £9.3bn investment, has also enacted a weighty Act of Parliament.

The Olympics is a lean, mean moneymaking machine—and nobody’s going to steal an unfair advantage.

Trevor Beattie, founder of the London-based advertising and PR agency BMB, has a more relaxed attitude toward ambush marketing. “What harm is done if ambush marketing is cheeky and makes people smile?” he asks. “It’s not gate-crashing the party; it’s just pressing its face up against the window”.

No doubt he is thinking of the antics of organizations like Puma. Although Reebok was the official sponsor of the Atlanta Olympics, the British sprinter Linford Christie attended a press conference wearing contact lenses that prominently displayed a Puma logo, thereby generating considerable buzz for the brand, to the chagrin of Reebok.

And in the ‘97 New York Marathon five aeroplanes appeared overhead and wrote MERCEDES BENZ in the sky—despite the fact that Toyota was the event’s official sponsor.

According to London law firm Lewis Silkin LLP, Ambush marketing is “an attempt by an unauthorized party to take advantage of the high media profile of an event at the expense of another business’s (usually a rival) official association without paying any licence or sponsorship fees to the organizers”.

And advertisers beware. Lewis Silkin points out that even a seemingly benign strapline as “Come to London in 2012″ could potentially give rise to criminal liability. The firm therefore advises that brand owners and advertisers should ensure that any advertising that references—even obliquely—the London Games, is given careful consideration.

So, ambush marketing: an insolent but largely harmless attempt to tweak your rival’s nose: or a cynical raid on his marketing investment? A bit of cheek: or downright theft?

Add Comment.

Permalink

tags: blog

May 6th, 2010 by Tom Blackett

Prudential problems

The UK’s Prudential Assurance wants to buy AIG’s Asian arm, AIA. It has offered £24bn. To help finance this deal it planned to ask shareholders to subscribe to a massive £14bn rights issue.

However, the UK’s Financial Services Authority (the regulator) has stepped in at the last moment and caused Prudential to put the cash call on hold. The FSA is worried that the deal is just far too ambitious and would put a severe strain on the capital position of the enlarged group.

There is much speculation that Prudential will sell off its UK and U.S. (Jackson) arms once the acquisition is completed. This will completely transform the business and the brand. If the ‘Pru’ quits the UK it will, in all probability, shift its headquarters to Singapore or Hong Kong. It might also transfer its stock market listing to an Asian bourse.

Thus, will a very famous name disappear from the UK scene—an event that would have been almost unforeseeable a few years ago? However, the UK and U.S. markets are ex-growth and Prudential must follow the money.

Tom Blackett is the non-executive chairman for the Siegel+Gale London office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

tags: blog

Apr 19th, 2010 by Tom Blackett

Are political parties brands?

Theoretically, yes. But ‘master-brands’ might be a fairer description.

Just as the ‘Ford’ master-brand embraces models as diverse as Mondeo and Ka, so the ‘Conservative’ party has always described itself as “a broad church”, tolerant of a broad diversity of centre-right thinking. Similarly ‘New Labour’, in the early Blair days, was “Tony’s big tent”. It’s the same in the United States: Democrats and Republicans respectively accommodate all shades of blue and red. Political parties nowadays—short of burning ideological commitment—tend to be flags of convenience for broadly like-minded interest groups.

There have always been factions in politics, characterized by “-isms”, “-ites” and “-ists” (remember McCarthyism, Blairites and Gaullists?) It is when these ideological factions become bigger than the political party that hosts them that the brand analogy breaks down. Ideologies can be transitory and even less permanent than the automobile manufacturer’s sub-brands. These can be modified and up-dated; “-isms”, “-ites” and “ists” pretty soon become frozen in time.

The automobile manufacturers have cultivated their master-brand strategies with great care. Nothing is allowed to obscure the identity of the maker and the clarity of his positioning.

Not so the politicos.

The name may be clear, but what this stands for rarely is. Political parties have had to modify their policies with the passage of time, but now that “we’re all middle class nowadays” the Conservatives in particular have struggled. Back in 1997, New Labour comprehensively stole its policies. It re-packaged these and positioned itself as an acceptable alternative to the “nasty” Conservatives who, after 18 years in power, had become the party of sleaze and scandal.

This time round the shoe is on the other foot.

The Labour government has wrecked the economy and is mired in corruption. The Conservatives are presenting themselves as the bright-eyed and bushy-tailed alternatives. But they still struggle to find meaningful ‘content’ for their brand. They are terrified of ideology, knowing that the party tore itself apart over Europe before the ‘97 election. They are silent on immigration, one of the key issues that really matter to electors. It may be that they need a few “-isms” and “-ites” and start becoming a bit of an anti-brand.

Tom Blackett is the non-executive chairman for the Siegel+Gale London office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

tags: blog

Apr 7th, 2010 by Tom Blackett

It’s the brand, stupid

The starter’s gun has sounded and the three main political parties in the United Kingdom are out of the starting blocks. Yesterday (April 6, 2010), Prime Minister Gordon Brown went to Buckingham Palace, “kissed hands” (the Queen’s) and asked Her Majesty for permission to dissolve Parliament in preparation for a May general election.

There is barely a cigarette paper between the three parties (incumbent Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats). All know and acknowledge that the UK economy is in tatters, and that the deficit (the gap between tax receipts and public expenditure) is, at 10 percent of GDP, vast. They differ on how quickly cuts to ‘front-line services’ (the National Health Service, education, welfare, the armed services, policing, etc.) should be made. The Conservatives insist that cuts must be immediate; the Lib Dems agree. Labour insists that sustained investment (also known as ‘borrowing’) must continue to stabilise the economy as it emerges from recession, only then can cuts take place. And because Labour has access to all the grisly details, who is to say they’re wrong?

As far as the public is concerned, such arguments are largely esoteric nuances of policy. We all know that we’re in a hole, and the question is: which party leader do we trust most to get us out?

Is it PM Gordon Brown, who years ago promised “no more boom and bust”? Is it the patrician David Cameron, leader of the Conservatives, briefly a PR man but who has spent most of his working life in politics? Or, is it the Lib Dems’ Nick Clegg, a man who “has risen without trace”?

Although unemployment has increased in the last couple of years, the Great British Public has so far been spared the worst ravages of recession.

They ain’t seen nothing yet.

Labour, during its 13 years in power, has added one million jobs to the public sector, a massive body of civil servants sustained in their extremely competitive salaries and copper-bottomed pensions by the taxpayer. They must hear the tumbrels rattling.

None of the combatants are saying where the axe will fall. They can’t because it would probably cause mass emigration. It is said that we get the government we deserve. All we can do is to trust our judgment in the personalities involved. Voting numbers have dropped in the last few elections and it is the absolute duty of all citizens to pluck up their courage, peel on the rubber glove and unblock the stoppage.

So, it’s down to personalities; will our Brown prevail? Can ‘Dandy Dave’ Cameron snatch it? Could Nick Clegg and his Lib Dems hold the balance of power? Leaving cynicism aside, it will be the party that most clearly and attractively enunciates its principles that will win. If this party can deliver against its promises and the economy turns the corner, then it can virtually guarantee re-election. This time around: it’s the brand, stupid.

Tom Blackett is the non-executive chairman for the Siegel+Gale London office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

tags: blog

Apr 2nd, 2010 by Tom Blackett

A mirror to the business

Corporate brands hold up a mirror to the business. What you see there reflects what you get. It’s very difficult nowadays to conceal unpalatable truths from stakeholders, and the tidal wave of social media means that there is never a good day nowadays to bury bad news.

Speaking recently in London, Richard Lambert, director general of the The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) said that companies would increasingly drop their focus on maximizing shareholder value in favour of longer-term goals because of the damage the financial crisis has caused to corporate reputations. The CBI leader said: “If you concentrate on maximizing value to shareholders over the short term, you put at risk the relationships that will determine your longer-term success. One of the strongest messages coming through from our member companies is their concern about business reputation and the declining trust in business”.

Mr. Lambert added: “(Our members) recognize that public confidence in business has been shaken by the events of the last two years… (and that) increasingly big payouts being awarded to top executives have also soured perceptions of company chiefs”.

This message coincided with the announcement that Irene Rosenfeld, Kraft’s chairman and chief executive has been awarded a $26m (£17.2m) pay and bonus pot in part for the company’s “exceptional” acquisition of Cadbury, a much criticized deal. It also coincided with public unrest over shrinking Easter eggs. Add this to the recent revelation that Lehman Brothers had a fantasy balance sheet and that investors in Northern Rock will get nothing for their shares, and it is easy to understand why public respect for even the most venerable institutions is at rock bottom.

Deeds rather than words have always mattered most. We all understand this. But what deeds? The Kraft/Cadbury deal was all about shareholder value: Kraft shareholders picked up “exceptional” Cadbury; Cadbury shareholders—particularly the hedge funds who piled into the stock when the initial bid was made—fared very well. Never at any time was there mentioned the benefits which might accrue to consumers; all those further down the food chain got for their trouble was the unheralded closure of Cadbury’s Somerdale factory.

Corporate priorities over the next few years will be about re-building trust. But trust with whom? Start with customers and employees because you will get nowhere without their goodwill; look after them “and the profits”, in the words of the sage, “will look after themselves”. Promise and deliver: deeds—the right deeds for the right stakeholders—will be those that will matter.

In recent years the gap between ‘brand promise’ and ‘brand delivery’ has widened. Consultants have been great at “talking the walk”. Now they need to be great at “walking the talk”. Forgive these awful clichés but the Americans with their unmatchable felicity, have a word (or two) for everything.

Corporate brands are being held to account. You can run but you can’t hide.

Tom Blackett is the non-executive chairman for the Siegel+Gale London office.

Add Comment.

Permalink

tags: blog

Nov 20th, 2009 by Tom Blackett

The Evolution of the Customer Experience in Financial Services

This white paper is based on comments made by Tom Blackett, Non-Executive Chairman, Siegel+Gale UK, for the Financial Services Forum on October 13, 2009.

Blackett discussed how to make the customer experience count, opening with thoughts on the long road the financial services industry has taken toward competitiveness and the acknowledgement that customers really matter. Blackett later addressed the concept of ‘touch points’–specifically the experience customers have at these touch points and how they affect brand loyalty and customers’ willingness to recommend products or service to others. He concluded with an introduction to simplicity – arguing that the more accessible companies make things like statements, application forms, customer agreements and contracts, the more likely they’ll have happy and trusting customers.

Click here to view the white paper.

Add Comment.

Permalink

tags: whitepapers