|
These days, it seems, brands are everywhere. Yet paradoxically, the more popular branding gets, the fuzzier its boundaries seem to become - particularly in relation to reputation management. In this article we discuss the relationship between brand and reputation, highlighting the similarities and differences. First, what is a brand? To us, a brand is the sum total of all perceived functional and emotional aspects of a product or service. Branding is about adding a higher level of meaning to a product or service, thereby increasing its value to customers and other stakeholders. A brand's value is positively related, then, to the extent of stakeholders' emotional attachment to it. We argue that everything, and everyone, is "branded" (whether they like it or not) because all actions communicate a meaning of some kind. Those who elect to brand themselves pro-actively, we argue, will find success only by operationalizing its essence throughout the business. The brand must be communicated consistently and holistically--not only in advertising, but also in human resources, packaging, customer service, technical support, design-and of course, the product or service itself! Corporate reputation is related to brand. It is also intangible, and it also suffuses all areas of the business-at least insofar as every action taken affects the reputation of the firm. More, in the sense that ultimately reputation reflects not only the message sent but the message received, reputation and brand are strikingly similar. However, there are key differences. Whereas brand success depends on accurate and consistent perception of a highly confined meaning by one's various constituencies (e.g. that "Disney" = "magic"), as well as demand for that meaning (people have to want the magic), reputation success depends on more broadly managing their expectations, which include the brand but also extend to the business. Amazon.com disappeared from the Financial Times/Price Waterhouse Coopers list of top-50 "world's most respected companies" list this year, primarily because the respondents were concerned about "its future as a company"-its financial outlook. (Source: The Financial Times, 17 December 2001) This is not to say that a winning reputation and a winning brand cannot go hand in hand. Usually, they do: four of the top six companies in this fourth annual survey also appeared on Interbrand's list of top-ranked global brands for 2001: Coca-Cola, Microsoft, IBM, and GE. Indeed, a strong brand supports a strong reputation by creating a foundation for the things that people admire in companies. As the FT notes, these include "being themselves.(and) having a culture that they understand and act on, and which is successful." Moreover, reputation is generally an easier concept to grasp than brand, which has so many "fuzzy" meanings and definitions. We have often found it helpful, in fact, to use the term "reputation" rather than "brand" when working to unify employees around a new organizational positioning. Not only is it a term that everyone can understand intuitively, it's also a strong personal motivator for positive change: nobody likes to have "a bad reputation". At the same time, relying solely on one's reputation, and favoring it over the brand, is risky. Culture and brand, and financial success and brand, may go together--but then again they may not. Microsoft, says FT, is respected because it has been "successful in monopolising the market"--a strategy that has brought it financial rewards until now. Yet there have also been negative repercussions (most notably, U.S. vs. Microsoft.) From a brand perspective, it is (to put it mildly) questionable whether "the drive to dominate" is a desirable brand essence for the long haul. Similarly, it is foolish to rely on accumulated brand strength when functional missteps threaten to damage one's reputation. Ford is a good example. As Businessweek (August 6, 2001) notes, "the Firestone tire fiasco and a series of embarrassing quality gaffes" have hurt the company's reputation enormously, and by extension the brand: Interbrand calculates that the financial value of the Ford name is down $6.3 billion since 2000. In sum, reputation and brand are closely related - but distinct - corporate assets. Each requires careful supervision if their potential is to be fully realized. Though the task may seem daunting - how does one measure and control the perceptions of others? - there is ample evidence that both brand and reputation are positively correlated with financial success. Especially in today's unpredictable, competitive global marketplace, it pays to be prudent about managing them.
|
