From Multi National to Global: The 5 Questions to Ensure Your Brand Stretches Without Breaking

From Multi-National to Global:

The 5 questions to ask to ensure your brand stretches around the world without breaking

Many multi-national brands are looking to go ‘global’ to some degree, but what ‘global’ means, and how it’s accomplished can vary significantly, as can the degree of results. Most brands start with similar motivations: to reduce the potential for marketplace confusion created by mixed messages as media crosses borders, as well as to satisfy procurement’s push for efficiencies.

My experience in global branding, which includes Disney and Nissan, among others, has taught me to ask these 5 questions of global brand owners. Answering them correctly will ensure that global branding efforts will result in maximum alignment and value creation.

1.  What is the end game: ‘matching luggage’ or alignment to brand truth?

Certain degrees of consistency are relatively easy to achieve, but in the end, don’t really serve the intended purpose.  For instance, imposing strict standards for global look and feel in communications can create a sense of ‘matching luggage’.  Going only this far, however, can still result in behavioral dissonance across borders. 

Consider the controversial Ford Figo ad that eventually resulted in firings in India.  At first glance, it certainly looks like a Ford ad.  It contains a brightly colored, prominently featured clean looking photograph of the car, and a brand compliant logo and tagline.  But closer inspection reveals the image of former Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi in the back seat, and three women bound and gagged in the trunk.  This set of matching luggage was filled with explosives!

Brand Compliant?

Alignment to a brand truth, on the other hand, will actually give local markets more freedom to bring the brand to life in locally relevant ways, while still delivering a globally consistent customer experience at every touchpoint. 

2. Has the brand been defined in an actionable way that favors clarity over poetry?

Marketers tend to favor brand definitions that wax poetic about the virtues of their brands and sound more like clever advertising slogans than simple, single-minded, actionable statements.  While this makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy, it can create confusion as the brand attempts to cross borders.  Puns, complex emotions, and 3-dollar words usually don’t translate easily, and encourage local markets to create local versions of the global statement. More often than not, these local statements actually wind up redefining the brand and erasing the original intent.

Brand statements must not only be clear, but they should be actionable by identifying brand behaviors that the entire organization can follow to create valuable customer experiences. 

Clarity or Poetry?

Over the years, Avis defined itself with the simply worded, ‘We Try Harder’. Much more than a tagline, it clearly informed all brand behaviors.  Recently, as part of a brand repositioning intended to focus on the customer experience, that iconic line has been replaced with the more poetic, and arguably much more enigmatic, ‘It’s Your Space’.  What does this new line tell the Avis franchisee in Milwaukee to do? Will it drive the same behavior as the franchisee in Dubai?  Probably not, as it is neither clear nor actionable.

3. In seeking local market relevance have we preserved the relevance of our brand?

One of the fundamental rules of global branding is to find local market relevance for your brand. But this philosophy can be easily misapplied.  The key to success lies in leveraging local market insights in service of the brand, rather than pushing the brand beyond credible truths, in service of local market insights. 

Anyone who has ever worked in the Chinese market has heard that Chinese consumers are driven by status. Certainly, ‘bling’ is king for certain consumers, and this has served certain brands well.

Too Far A Stretch? 

Recently, there have been reports of the internal struggles at Volvo regarding the future of their brand. Their new Chinese brand owners, Geely want to follow the bling with a bigger more powerful flagship. Their Swedish management believes Volvo’s value in the China market can be more credibly established by strengthening their current reputation as a safe, understated brand by leveraging their new safety and environmental technologies.  Is bling too far a stretch for Volvo?  Could such a direction be credible in the US and Europe, or is there another Chinese insight that better serves the Volvo brand everywhere? Considering that China has the second highest vehicle fatality rate in the world, and significant air pollution issues, might Volvo forgo the bling and win the future by credibly leveraging its unique strengths?

4. Do I need to centralize the organization in order to ensure consistency?

When moving towards global brand alignment, there is a natural tendency for global headquarters to want to control everything.  Not only is this impractical, it is also ineffective.

The key is not for headquarters to impose their will on the local markets, but rather for roles, responsibilities, and accountability to be clearly identified and tangibly reinforced.

Headquarters should be responsible for providing a strategic framework that is flexible enough to account for cultural nuances, but rigid enough to align all behaviors. When developing this framework, headquarters should consult with local markets, not for strategic advice, but rather to understand how cultural and competitive context might impact activation.

Local markets should be responsible for optimizing activation behaviors within the strategic framework, by leveraging their local market and customer knowledge. 

Many organizations stop there, only to be frustrated by lack of progress.  Perhaps the most critical factor in ensuring success is to make everyone in the organization accountable to the same objectives. Achievement of these objectives should directly tie to their compensation. 

5. Has the obvious been overlooked?

Urban legend has it that the Chevy Nova failed in Spanish speaking countries because ‘No va’, means ‘no go’.  While this is actually just an urban legend, there are many true examples of brands that have overlooked the obvious in committing faux pas when crossing borders.

When I was living in Australia, the Gap was opening its first store in Sydney.  There was much hype surrounding the opening, and as an American ex-pat, I was truly excited about the prospect. I fought my way through the opening day crowds during peak Christmas shopping season…the middle of the Down Under summer.  Imagine my surprise and disappointment when all the merchandise was fall/winter apparel! How such a great brand could overlook such an obvious detail seemed unfathomable!

Don’t take things like local climate, dialects, and taboos for granted.  Make sure that any globally run initiative, no matter how small is vetted with the locals before proceeding. 

The road to global branding is never easy, but properly thought through and executed, the move can bring big rewards for brand owners. 

The American/ US Airways Merger: Is the Justice Department Asking the Wrong Question?

Is It About More Competition, or A Different Kind of Competition?

Last week’s lawsuit filed by the Justice Department to block the merger of American Airlines and US Airways on grounds that it would limit competition, and lead to reduced service and higher prices, may be missing the point.

Consider these facts:

• The biggest mergers have taken place in the last 12 years, with American/TWA in 2001, Delta/Northwest in 2009, and Continental/United in 2010.
• Over that same time period, the airline category American Customer Satisfaction Index, a predictor of consumer spending, pricing power and shareholder value, has trended relatively flat, consistently ranking at the bottom of all 43 categories measured.
• Since 1995, Passenger Revenue per Available Seat (PRASM) has lagged the CPI, suggesting relative airline price deflation.
• Since 2008, there is virtually no difference in PRASM between network carriers (which include all newly merged airlines) and low cost carriers, like Jet Blue and Southwest.

What does all this mean?  Well perhaps it means that consolidation has had no effect on service or price.  And perhaps it really means that airlines’ value equations are broken.

If that is the case, then perhaps what airlines need is not more competition, but a different kind of competition.  A kind of competition that is not driven solely by price and availability; a kind of competition that de-commoditizes one of the most potentially experiential categories in existence; Simply put, a kind of competition that is driven by brand value creation.

Unfortunately, there is little sustainable brand value creation occurring among the network carriers.  Ironically, the exceptions are the low cost carriers, Southwest, Jet Blue and Virgin. 

Southwest pioneered democratized flying 38 years ago, with the vision of getting people to their destinations on time, at a lower price and have fun doing it. It has never strayed from this simple idea. While the amenities may be bare bones, its consistently reliable experience and unique personality earns strong customer satisfaction, fierce loyalty, and higher PRASM than US Air or United.

Jet Blue launched in 2000 with a unique  value proposition of bringing humanity back to air travel. Over the course of time, Jet Blue has not strayed from its core brand proposition.  Its customers know that they will sit in relative comfort, not have to pay for their first checked bag, in-flight entertainment, or in flight snacks, like their signature Terra Blue Chips; that should something go wrong, they are protected by a Passenger Bill of Rights.   

All of this has paid off in real brand value creation. Today, Jet Blue enjoys the highest customer satisfaction index rating, 14 points above category average.  Consequently, Jet Blue has increased PRASM by almost $4 since the year 2000, closing the revenue gap with network carriers from over $2.32 to less than 75 cents.

So what could this mean for network airline brands in the future? Are mergers alone the answer to surviving this changing landscape?  Or do they need to rethink their go to market strategies, with value added brand propositions?

Perhaps the first thing that they need to do is regain a sense of purpose for their newly formed brands.  That sense should drive differentiated, brand behaviors and customer experiences.

For instance, shouldn’t an airline that proclaimed ‘We know why you fly’ be able to track your history, anticipate where and when you will fly next, and pre-reserve a ticket for you?

Shouldn’t an airline that proclaimed ‘We love to fly and it shows’ spread that love to its passengers by offering flying lessons as a frequent flier reward?

Shouldn’t an airline that extolled the virtues of face to face business meetings in its post 9/11 ‘It’s time to fly’ campaign facilitate the arrangement of face to face business meetings with complementary airport business centers and fully wired ground transportation?

Yes, all these ideas would likely raise prices, but they would also enhance the value equation, raise customer satisfaction, and re-establish the network carriers' position in the market.  And isn't that the kind of competition we really need?

Sources: American Customer Satisfaction Survey; MIT Airline Data Project

Publicis Omnicom Group: Gap Inc. or Costco?

Publicis Omnicom Group: Gap Inc. or Costco?

The announced merger between Publicis and Omnicom has dominated business publications and social media over the last few days.  Much of the conversation centers around big, fundamental business issues like regulatory approval and management of client conflicts.  Largely missing from the conversations are big branding issues, which are arguably as critical to a successful outcome.

The new organization brings to market a portfolio of individually valuable brands like BBDO, Digitas, TBWA\, Razorfish, Leo Burnett, etc, that are each uniquely positioned in the marketplace, much like Gap Inc.’s Banana Republic, Gap and Old Navy Brands.  But in today’s world more and more global clients are asking for an integrated holding company model.  Thus, in some cases, there will be a need for the new company to behave more like a big box retail brand, where the agency brands are no longer directly responsible for client services.

Under this hybrid distribution model, Publicis Omnicom Group will need to answer a number of important brand questions like:

• What is the value of the new master brand offering, ‘Publicis-Omnicom Group’ in the marketplace?

• Which brand equities from each holding company should be brought forward, and which may no longer be relevant? 

• Should Publicis Omnicom Group ensure that each individual brand maintains its distinct positioning in the marketplace? 

• Are there brand positioning redundancies and overlap that will need to be rationalized?

• Should new brands be created that define a new model for the agency of the future? 

• As more clients ask for holding company solutions, how does Publicis Omnicom Group prevent the commoditization of their individual brands in the process? 

• Is there a role for a ‘private label’ Publicis Omnicom brand, much like Costco’s Kirkland brand? 

Thus, rather than just being a ‘merger of equals’, in which scale is the driver of value, real value creation may come from a smart, future focused brand portfolio strategy that defines the holding company model of the future.

Brand: Who's Responsibility Is It, Anyway?

Brand: Whose Responsibility is It, Anyway?

A few years ago, on one steamy summer day, I sat across the table from one of the most powerful CEO’s in the automotive world.  My colleagues and I were having a conversation with him about the underleveraged value of his brand.  We suggested that his organization needed someone to champion the brand.  When he asked us who that should be, we told him that he would be the perfect brand champion.  We used the example of Steve Jobs as the ultimate brand champion to support this recommendation.

At that instant, the already warm room got a lot hotter. He was not just taken aback, but actually indignant that we would suggest that he, the CEO should be the brand champion. He told us in no uncertain terms that brand was the responsibility of marketing and, of course, us…the advertising agency. The conversation came to an immediate halt.

Having spent about half of my career in advertising, this was not the first time that someone equated brand with marketing communications. It happens all the time…even with some of the world’s greatest brands. 

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to work with one of the most iconic entertainment brands in the world, on what started out as a ‘branding’ (marketing) project for one of their underperforming theme parks.  As we dug deeper, it became apparent that it was not a marketing issue at all, but rather, a product issue.  Guests arrived at the park with high expectations that were set by the brand name, and left severely disappointed with their experience.  So, to fix it, we took a step back and developed actionable brand guidelines that could be implemented across the organization…from product, to CRM, to pricing, to partnerships, and yes, to marketing as well.  Today, that park is thriving. This positive outcome was only possible because the President of the park had commissioned the project, and thus we were able to move upstream and fix the real issue.

For while marketing communications are important in brand building, marketing communications are most effective when they amplify a coherent and desirable brand experience.

The only way to create that desirable experience is to ensure that everyone in the organization is crystal clear on what the brand stands for, and understands what they need to do to contribute to building that experience.

And who is better poised to drive absolute and coherent operationalizing of the brand, than the CEO?