Brand your house – transparently

How does being a “house of brands” rather than a “branded house” impact your approach towards corporate reputation management?

Research released today by Weber Shandwick polled 575 executives from a spread of corporates in Brazil, China, the UK and the US. Somewhat unsurprisingly, it indicates that those of single-brand firms are significantly more likely to feel that enhancing their corporate reputation is equally important to enhancing the standing of their goods – 92% agree, versus just 75% of their counterparts at house-of-brand companies.

But could this be about to change? 79% of all those surveyed agree that buyers are increasingly checking product labels to find out which company made them, and 77% think shoppers are now doing more research into the manufacturers of the things they buy.

This Friday, during the opening ceremony of the 2012 London Olympics, P&G will premier the TV broadcast of its cross-brand ‘kids’ advert to millions – highlighting the role of mums around the world and bringing to life a positive brand message for the parent company of Ariel, Fairy, Pampers, Olay and the like – brands united by ‘making mums happy’, the company says. This follows hard on the heels of the newly branded P&G Capital Clean Up campaign, calling on ‘community champions’ to transform London ahead of the Games. These social brand campaigns aren’t a sideline project – P&G’s current corporate tag line is touching lives, improving life.

We’ve recently seen similar efforts to unite house-of-brands corporate reputations from Diageo and Unilever. Like P&G, there’s a very clear theme here of demonstrating the positive social role of the brands united.

Multi-brand reputation management is increasingly important as consumers become more informed and pro-active. But it’s interesting to note that 65% of executives pursuing corporate branding strategies cite their main motivation as the “halo effect” on their goods. Carrot and stick are incentivising and necessitating greater communication about what a company stands for – but if it doesn’t stand for much, or if there are skeletons in the corporate responsibility closet, it risks being found out.

Whether a house of brands or a branded house, getting your house in order before you communicate your house’s values is key. The media, NGOs and social media are at the door. Transparency is the name of the game.

Culture-gate

It’s getting a bit annoying – ever since Libor-gate happened, people have been (quite smugly) asking me what I think about corporate responsibility now eh?! Comments not dissimilar to what I had to endure when there was the BP oil spill a couple of years ago – the event that, at the time, apparently spelled the end of CR as we know it. What has happened at Barclays shows that it – and it’s not alone in this – has a way to go before it can claim to be a truly responsible company. In fact, and now this is going to sound a bit smug, it vindicates the Good Business view that, to be a truly responsible business, an organisation has to have these values embedded across the entire organisation; it can’t be championed by a few individuals or wrapped up in a side-line community investment or employee volunteering initiative – it’s got to be at the core of all business activity.

What’s been interesting to watch is the demonization of Bob Diamond. He hasn’t really helped himself. His refusal to accept any responsibility for what happened because he was unaware of what was happening isn’t endearing him to anyone; he’d have been much better to apologise and take responsibility for the misdeeds done on his watch, whether he saw it or not. The word that I think is important in relation to Bob Diamond and Barclays is ‘culture’. Corporate culture is the collective way of doing things within an organisation and it’s pretty important because it affects the way people and groups in the organisation interact with each other, with clients, and with stakeholders. However, it’s also not something that can be dictated or artificially created; it’s moulded and shaped through the values, visions, systems and language of an organisation. And, what’s crucial is that there’s a genuine belief in the importance of building and leading this culture from the top of the business – that’s what makes it authentic. This doesn’t mean that you have to do a Steve Ballmer and run around the stage screaming about how much you love the company or, for that matter, make evangelical statements about your organisation during a Treasury Select Committee hearing; it’s about genuine, sustained and sometimes quite understated activity that embodies the values at the heart of the business. And when things go wrong that expose a failing or breakdown in the organisation’s culture, the people at the top should recognise their part in the problem. Oh and to all business leaders out there, it might help to know the founding principles of the business – I have a feeling the words ‘honesty, integrity and plain dealing’ will not be easily forgotten by 'Bob' in the future.

Start with the consumer and work backwards

Read Giles' contribution to the Base London report, outlining his thoughts on what will motivate the public to change their travel behaviours – to use different forms of transport or drive different vehicles or travel at different times or drive differently.