The definition of brand needs to go one step deeper because those attributes that make a product or company stand out from others stems from something beyond image and below the surface of what we see – that part of the iceberg that lays underneath the waterline.  These are normally considered core values.  That is, those values that help us create a relationship with products, services and companies so we then grow to know and trust them.

The lines between image and brand were recently blurred when QANTAS launched a campaign over Twitter asking customers what their dream luxury in-flight experience would be.  Whether the timing of this campaign was intentional or not, QANTAS customers used the medium as a platform to comment on the airlines current operational and industrial dispute issues.  The attempt to garner some support and goodwill towards the company was entirely misdirected.  Instead of creating a polished image of QANTAS the campaign really exacerbated the internal issues and drew attention away from QANTAS’ key brand message.  Evidently, this exercise has been dubbed “the Hindenburg of social media” but goes to show that when something is not right at your core, where your brand draws its meaning from, then no amount of “image polishing” that can fix it.

Another example of how image and brand are interrelated is shown in the current plight of Kyle Sandilands.  Love him or hate his brand message is about sensationalism and as such in his need to be “sensational” he can go very awry.  His recent public outburst cost Austereo 60% of their sponsors which estimated to be worth $8 million.  The bankable image of the man has truly tanked and we are seeing glimpses of what he truly values.  It was reported that Holden was the first sponsor to leave Austereo citing disconnect in values of the shows and the Holden brand.  Next to follow were The Good Guys.  What sponsors are starting to see is Kyle Sandilands brand, and values. Sponsors are then making judgement calls on whether his brand is congruent with theirs.

So whereas QANTAS tried to use a competition campaign to polish its image in an attempt to gloss over what was happening in the company on an operational level, the sentiment felt by its customers did not change – customers wanted more.  How was QANTAS going to address the issues the company faces whilst still being “the spirit of Australia.  The opposite occurred with Kyle Sandilands.  His real and overtly sensational self bubbled to the surface from his core and tarnished his incredibly bankable image.  These examples highlight the very tenuous but also very real link between image and brand because really the two cannot be separated; your brand is your image is your brand….

Taking this further many organisations appoint brand ambassadors or spokespeople that represent the attributes that they would like consumers to associate with their product or organisation. A good example of this was Gillette who associated themselves with the world’s best performing athletes. In 2009 Tiger Woods, Roger Federer and Thierry Henry were Gillette’s global ambassadors. Securing these three ambassadors cost Gillette millions!

The strategy was simple Gillette wanted to have their brand associated with the world’s best performing athletes, they wanted to be viewed as the best performing, clean cut, international, multi-racial, multi-sport, global superstars. Through association many of the characteristics of the brand ambassadors were projected onto their products. As the tag line stated “Gillette the best a man can get”

This approach works wonderfully well when your ambassadors are viewed positively. It is however a two edged sword. Interestingly, two of three global ambassadors for Gillette fell from grace within a very short period of time. Tiger Woods ran into a fire hydrant outside his home and was soon exposed as a sex obsessed philander. Weeks later Thierry Henry found himself in the center of a storm of negative publicity after using his left hand – his shaving hand – to illegally propel France into the World Cup Finals.

Using an ambassador to endorse your product is not without risk and the Gillette experience highlights how closely aligned a brand’s fortunes are to their chosen ambassador.

Very recently we have had situations where undesirable people (people not chosen as ambassadors) have decided to support, wear or endorse a company’s brand.  In the USA Abercrombie & Fitch (a popular clothing brand) have offered to pay the cast of “Jersey Shore” to stop wearing their clothes on their television show.

The clothing company says in a news release that it’s concerned that having the people on this television program seen wearing its clothing could cause “significant damage” to the company’s image.

This kind of unwanted endorsement potentially creates an entire new revenue stream for people of undesirable profile. Mangers may well exploit their client’s negative image and deliberately associate them with desirable brands. It is entirely possible that we may well see more people being paid not to associate with brands than people paid for their positive endorsement.

Social media and reality television mean that there will be more people with negative images who will enjoy their 15minutes of fame. Having an undesirable brand ambassador attach themselves to your brand creates a raft of new issues for you and your brand.

For sometime now, The Right Group has advocated that companies should get their brand in order internally before they communicate externally. This point of view has often been met with resistance, particularly as traditionally the development of brands has been focused on external advertising and promotion and has been driven by the marketing and communication departments.

However, our research indicates that many employees not only fail to identify with the company they work for, they become unsure of how to uphold the company’s brand promise. Our advice is to avoid “bait and switch” branding messages, whereby companies espouse promises to their customer, but fail to deliver on these. 

Banks appear to be experts in “bait and switch” branding.  Branding themes around understanding customers, putting customers first and acting on customer feedback leads to customer disappointment.  Not because customers do not want such outcomes, far from the case.  More to the point, banks have failed to align their businesses with their brand.   Customers are reeled in and tossed back out to sea!

But it appears that the tide of business opinion is turning. Increasingly, senior management is recognising that there is little value in investing large sums in advertising and design, if the reality of employee behaviour undermines those well-honed external messages of product and service superiority. The imperative to align and manage a company’s brand internally before external communication is now being widely accepted and embraced.

The return on investment of an aligned workforce, coupled with the competitive advantage that can be gained through the recruitment and retention of the best people in the market through the development of a strong Employee Value Proposition (EVP), has led to a refocusing of effort and investment from the external to the internal.

Brand should and must be seen as a ‘whole of business’ concern and in particular, a human resources activity. It is about selecting the right people, developing their skills, building commitment and nurturing talent within the organisation.

Many of the companies we work with view their brands as central to the development of organisational value, and with assistance from The Right Group, are developing their brand alignment and ‘living the brand’ programs, which focus on integrating communications, human resources and other functions. When this is done effectively the brand becomes valuable for both employees and customers.

Being able to clearly differentiate your brand is essential to continual business growth and profitability. By differentiating your brand you are basically capturing the hearts and minds of your customers by creating a preference for your brand over a competitor. It is this preference that translates to increased value. A consumer’s preference for one product or service over another is reflected in the way they think, feel and act with respect to your brand, and this can also be affected by the price, market share and profitability the brand derives for your company. It is this interaction and the value endowed onto your product or service by the consumer that is known as your brand’s equity.

It is important to make the distinction between brand equity and brand valuation. The later is about estimating the total financial value of a brand and on average can equal approximately half of a company’s market capitalisation. Brand equity is a measure of perception whereas valuation attempts to translate this in dollar terms.

Brand equity, however, is just not limited to your consumer. A true, and more holistic, measure of brand equity will also take into account how your brand interacts with employees, suppliers, investors and other stakeholders (community groups and government for example). So realistically, brand equity is a function of all the interactions and touchpoints your company has with its internal and external environment.  In other words, creating brand alignment.

As a company’s major enduring asset, measuring brand equity is fundamentally essential for any business. It provides a health check to better understand how the brand is positioned in the mind of your stakeholders. In this regard, your brand should be treated like any other asset of the business – measure its performance and impact on profitability. There are many elements that can measure the health of your brand. The main components (or pillars) of brand equity include:

• Association – the degree to which your brand is seen as different from others and the breadth of its appeal. Do people see your brand as unique and hold it “top of mind”?
• Loyalty – are your constituents a brand advocate?  In other words, this measures whether or not they recommend you product or service to other people.
• Trust – measures how well your brand is regarded and respected.
• Recall – measures how familiar and intimate people are with your brand which aids repeat purchase.

It is usual to engage in external market research to go to field and collect responses from both consumers and non-consumers of you product and service. Sometimes it is the views and opinions of the non-consumers that can be most valuable. Intercept and telephone are the most effectively method of collecting this type of data because it can generate the greatest opt in form survey respondents. Online survey, whilst more cost effective, can have lower response rates because consumers will have to want to complete the survey.

Looking at the best global brands for 2010, five or more of the top 10 brands have been brand leaders for decades. Companies like Coca Cola, IBM, GE, McDonalds and Disney stay leaders because they invest the time to accurately measure and understand the perceptions around their brands; and not just with consumers. These companies will regularly use the information they gain from measuring brand equity to continually reinforce and revitalise their brands so they stay relevant in peoples mind. Moreover, the information will provide insights for creating strategies that seek to continue the positive associations, create and maintain brand advocates, establish stronger trust, and easily recall company’s brands by individuals. Actions like these become increasing important for companies who are faced with brand degrading situations. Companies like BP and QANTAS may find great value in measuring their brand equity especially within the context of safety, trust and customer service.

Therefore, if your company is looking to increase its brand equity start by measuring where and how the brand currently sits today. Then look to take action by consistently conveying the brands meaning by focusing on what the brand represents, the benefits it bring individuals, the needs the brand can (and does) satisfy, and how the brand’s products and services are superior to that of competitors.

Differentiated sustainable brands invariably are founded upon strong organisational values. True strategic branding, we believe, must be an ‘inside out’ approach. After all, employees are the primary brand audience, the ones who will deliver the brand to customers. Brand Alignment between the internal and external is the lifeblood of brand-based organisational culture. If your people accurately know and understand ‘what your brand stands for’, this begets appropriate customer expectation.  

Strategic branding must be communicated and understand internally before being executed externally. Employees carry the brand and therefore must understand that what they do on a day-to-day basis can significantly affect the brand position and purpose.  Harvard Business Review was recently quoted that “95% of employees on average don’t know or understand their company’s strategy”.

Internal brand alignment is about each and every member of a company ‘living and breathing the brand’ across service levels, development of products, messages and experiences. Basically, achieving brand alignment starts with the organisation and its employees crafting experiences which cultivate the brand that consumers know and love. 

Brand Alignment externally involves managing your organisation’s brand assets, communicating congruent brand messages and delivering products, services which gel with the anticipated experience in the mind of the customer. The brand’s activity must genuinely deliver on the claims it makes when communicating internally to staff, or externally across marketing, advertising and customer deliverables. Importantly, organisations should avoid creating consumer expectations that they’re unable, or for that matter, unwilling to fulfil. 

Positive and memorable consumer experiences mean that these people will not only buy or use your products/services again; they’ll also endorse them which then perpetuates consistent brand perceptions and builds overarching brand equity.