 |
Identifying,
Understanding and Remedying Brand Gap
By Jim Bodoh and Robert Mighall,Citigate Lloyd Northover
September 2002
|
|
 |
|
 |
| Jim Bodoh |
Robert Mighall |
What is Brand Gap?
Brand Gap is the name we have given to a worrying phenomenon we
discovered when conducting research into corporate branding with
the Design Council of Great Britain and research specialists Citigate
DVL Smith. We sought the insights of 100 marketing and branding
professionals into the scope and direction of corporate branding.
It became clear that there were some significant misunderstandings,
misalignments, and mismanagements in corporate branding. And the
gaps were beginning to show—the result of failures on the
part of brands to deliver what they promised, leaving a rift between
corporate claims and the reality as experienced by consumer, client,
or stakeholder.
Three main gaps appeared.
A “performance gap,” when brand promise and brand
delivery fail to match. A “boardroom gap,” where there is a failure at the
highest level to support brand strategy in a holistic and comprehensive
way. - An “understanding gap.”
This last gap refers to a largely UK phenomenon where media coverage
of branding issues is at odds with industry ambitions and public
expectations. The media are obsessed with—and highly scornful
of—new logos and name changes, consistently failing to represent
branding on anything but the most superficial level. As one respondent
put it, the word “brand” may need re-branding, having
a real image problem with the UK press.
The other gaps were perhaps more significant, intriguing and potentially
problematic. Intriguing because when we started the research we
had not expected to find so much consistency in understandings of
corporate branding. But most respondents appeared to share a holistic
and deep-seated view of what corporate branding involved: one claiming
that brand is “everything you do and everything you say.”
The responses also suggested similar expectations from the public,
putting pressure on brands to deliver on their promises as never
before. But was this happening?
Over-claiming but under-performing
A brand can promise the earth, make claims about what makes it
unique, and spend a small fortune on reinforcing its presence in
the market, but so often, and especially with service brands, the
reality falls short of the hype. Why? The obvious answer is that
service brands rely on people, and are, in reality, only as strong
as their least motivated, unfocused and uninformed employee. A lack
of understanding about what the brand means, where it is going and
how it can be backed up by clear, tangible and practical behavioral
policy, can cause a lack of credibility that can soon undermine
a brand. As one respondent put it: “A brand is what people
say about you when your back is turned.” Brands also have
a tendency to over-claim, and perhaps need to place their feet more
firmly on the ground if their promises and the performance they
are measured by are to be more closely aligned.
Boardroom block
The reason for these problems can perhaps be traced to what we
are calling the “boardroom gap,” suggesting more deep-seated
causes for concern. It certainly struck a chord with a good many
of the participants of a seminar we held to explore the Brand Gap
phenomenon. Here we found that the relationship between the board
and those responsible for articulating and protecting the corporate
brand was not always as supportive as it might be. As one respondent
put it: “The problem with having an internal brand management
department is that responsibility for brand tends to get focused
with a small group of people, rather than throughout the company.”
Or, “boardrooms think bottom line, brand guardians think above,
below and through it.” It is seen as a ‘marketing issue’,
and the support needed to make a real difference to brand direction
is often lacking where it is needed most. This leads to fragmented
approaches to brand strategy and piecemeal solutions to corporate
branding needs.
Bridging the gaps
Thus both top-down and bottom-up, cracks are appearing in what
should be integrated, consistent, and focused. What is needed? Ownership;
understanding; integration. The board needs to acknowledge that
the corporate brand is a valuable asset, a financial resource, and
not the preserve of marketing or corporate relations. Integrity
actually means a holding together of parts. Brand integrity, built
on a shared understanding, strategic vision and implementation,
can help to communicate and encourage corporate integrity and the
fundamentals of trust and belief. The practice of brand management
needs to go beyond the statutes of the “logo cops.”
If a brand is failing on behavior, then ensure that there is understanding
of the brand’s values, and implement practical procedures
for meeting the expectations the brand has set up with its promises.
Brand management should be a regimen of holistic ownership, empowerment
and understanding. Intranets, brand books and newsletters, workshops
and training sessions can help provide clarity and momentum, and
build holistic and integrated approaches to healing any gaps.
But above all, what is needed is commitment from the highest level.
It shouldn’t need to take an Enron, and the Andersen fallout,
to reinforce the importance of reputation, and the intimate connection
between boardroom policy, public image, and basic survival.
Jim Bodoh is a director and Robert Mighall
is a consultant at international branding consultancy Citigate
Lloyd Northover.
BrandGap is the result of a three phase research
project, comprising a series of interviews, a seminar and an online
forum, involving over 100 branding and marketing professionals from
a broad sector of UK and international companies and bodies. The
project was conducted between 2001 and 2002 by Citigate
Lloyd Northover,
Citigate DVLSmith, and the Design
Council of Great Britain
Anyone interested in learning more about the
research findings should write to brandgapinfo@citigateln.com
|
