By: Ian Dunlop

Beginning my marketing career at Bass in the UK, before moving to the communications side, then brand strategy, and working throughout Europe and the Far East, I was always curious as to why some companies could produce successful brands and others seemingly could not. My journey through the disciplines has produced some interesting observations.

If you ask anyone in the brand communications industry as to what constitutes a brand they will likely respond that it is a blend of rational and emotional perceptions of a product or service in the minds of loyal consumers. At any one moment in time this would seem to be true. There was, after all, the famous case of Persil soap powder remaining brand leader in its category long after the introduction of infinitely more effective detergents. The accepted rationale for this is that the perception of female users was that Persil signalled that they were “caring mothers”, and this was a much more compelling brand attribute than product efficacy alone.

This case, amongst many others, demonstrates the power of emotional perceptions of a brand, compared with purely rational perceptions of product performance.

It seems to me that advances in technology, combined with changing patterns of living, and the aspirations that change with them, are a continuous threat to established brands. These changes though, also serve as the catalyst for creating new brands. To those in the communications industry, the support of existing brands and the creation of new brands is all-consuming. They believe there is a requirement for continuous investment in reinforcing positive brand perceptions and the adapting of brands to ensure they are relevant to changing consumer aspirations. If you ask someone in the brand strategy discipline however, a different outlook on branding emerges. They will express a stronger focus on the brand values that exist within a company itself.

Their emphasis is more directed to identifying and expressing those values that determine a company’s culture. This company culture is regarded as an all- important determinant of a company’s longterm success in whatever market it operates. The importance of this approach has been broadly recognised, and in the 1980s and 1990s there was expansion of companies wrestling with ways to express their corporate brand values.

Many of these expressed themselves in their “mission, vision and values” statements. In many cases the company values stated were a reflection of reality and so constituted a step forward. In other cases the values were “manufactured”, often by CEOs under pressure, and did not reflect the true values held within the company. This created a disconnect within the company and its employees who did not recognise, understand or share the professed values. In such a situation the values are often dismissed as management speak and, crucially, not reflected in company staff behaviour towards either customers or suppliers, who then in turn notice the disconnect between what a company claims to be, and what they actually experience. Such an internally divided company struggles to be successful with its brands.

From a brand strategist’s viewpoint all members of a company need to know which attitudes and behaviour will likely elicit approval (and reward) from their colleagues, and which will likely elicit disapproval. The values that define these attitudes and behaviour are seen as the very essence of the esprit de corps of a company, and a recognisable esprit de corps is one of the most identifiable attributes of a company that has been a successful brand builder over the long-term.

Many companies have had spectacular success in the short-term from a brilliant idea, a breakthrough
technology or an inspirational leader. So many of these companies have had an equally spectacular decline when the idea has lost its shine, the technology has been superceded or the inspirational leader has died. History shows that for a company to prosper in the long-term it has tohave a set of values that guide it beyond the big idea and beyond its founder. These values, if held throughout the company, help to concentrate the efforts of management and employees and prevent efforts being dissipated into actions and activities that do not fit the company competence or ethos.

So it would seem that the communications industry is primarily focused on consumers and their erceptions of a product or service brand, and the brand strategy industry primarily focussed on the values that exist within companies and their employees. But which of these disciplines is more important for a company’s long-term success?

Are they of equal importance? Surprisingly many of the most successful brand marketing companies were formed well over 100 years ago. Nestlè in 1816, Procter & Gamble in 1837, Unilever in 1885, Coca-Cola and J&J in 1886, 3M in 1902, and L’Oréal in 1907. These companies all have identifiable sets of values, a core ideology, that has guided their activities since they started life. Their cultures are very distinctive and well known to those who work with them. They have seen many brands die but have created new brands in their place. They have all been through difficult periods but have survived to be a force in their markets today.

They lost their founders long ago and have experienced many changes of management, but most of these companies were fortunate in having not just a founder, but a founding setof values. These values have been reflected in the products and services they have marketed and seem to have been instrumental in ensuring their companies’ long-term success.So the question as to which marketing discipline is most important for brand success can now be seen in perspective. The question looks academic.

Both disciplines have to strive to understand and express their client company’s values in whatever they do, however difficult that may be. These values also have to be seen to be reflected in the product or service brands that are offered up to consumers, and be reflected in the communication that is directed at these consumers. The values of the company then connect to the values of their customers, and then the platform is set for long-term branding success.

.