six steps to ensuring brand alignment

Organizational brand coherence Six steps towards ensuring brand alignment

For more information contact:

Jean-Pierre Lacroix

President

Shikatani Lacroix

387 Richmond Street East

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 1P6

Telephone: 416-367-1999

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Shikatani Lacroix is a leading branding and design firm located in Toronto, Canada. The company commissions assignments from all around the world, across CPG, retail and service industries, helping clients achieve success within their operating markets. It does this by enabling its clients’ brands to better connect with their consumers through a variety of core services including corporate identity and communication, brand experience design, packaging, naming and product design.

About the AuthorJean-Pierre Lacroix, R.G.D., President and Founder of Shikatani Lacroix Jean-Pierre (JP) Lacroix provides leadership and direction to his firm, which was founded in 1990. He has spent the last 30 years helping organizations better connect their brands with consumers in ways that impact the overall performance of their business. Mr. Lacroix was the first to coin and trademark the statement “The Blink Factor” in 1990, which today is a cornerstone principle to how brands succeed in the marketplace. JP has authored several papers, has been quoted in numerous branding and design articles, and in 2001 he co-authored the book “The Business of Graphic Design” which has sold over 10,000 copies. JP can be reached at [email protected] and you can follow his thought leadership webinars at: www.sldesignlounge.com.

Other Articles and Books

Belonging Experiences...Designing Engaged Brands, 2010

The Business of Graphic Design: The Professional’s Handbook, 2001

White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 2

Executive SummaryA study was conducted in the spring of 2013 with over 120 companies participating across the globe. Representing twenty business sectors, respondents clearly identified a significant lack of strong brand cohesion, with only 38% of companies having a high level of brand integration within their organization. Adding to the lack of a coherent brand strategy is the low level of consistency with how companies evaluate their brand equity. The low brand integration was also driven by 45% of respondents who had different brand positions, one for their corporation for either their division or products.

We also identified a gap within the brand positioning structure with only half of respondents clearly articulating their company’s brand essence. This supports our premise regarding effective translation of the complexity of a brand position, few organizations are able to distill their brand’s unique value into easy to remember, simple to understand and focused messaging. There also exists a second, probably more critical gap; since brand positioning is predominantly external, there exists little to no internal focus as part of employee engagement and on-boarding programs.


120 companies participating across the globe. Representing twenty business sectors, respondents clearly identified a significant lack of strong brand cohesion, with only 38% of companies having a high level of brand integration within their organization. Adding to the lack of a coherent brand strategy is the low level of consistency with how companies evaluate their brand equity. The low brand integration was also driven by 45% of respondents who had dipositions, one for their corporation for either their division or products.

The study also highlighted how the process of creating or refining brand positions is mainly part of a business review process or established planning cycle driven by the CEO, who leads both the development and integration within the organization. The perceived impact of an organization’s branding initiative are brand loyalty, execution excellence and lower staff turnover while the biggest challenge to launching an effective brand coherence strategy is the lack of understanding and commitment levels from the leadership team.

Based on this study and our own experience managing brand coherence, we have identified the following steps:

• Step #1: Establish Consistent Industry Metrics to Evaluate the Contribution of Your Brand

• Step #2: Ensure Master Brand Linkage

• Step #3: Fill the Brand Essence Gap

• Step #4: Align All Activities Around the Brand Coherence Loop

• Step #5: Brand From the Inside Out Versus the Outside In

• Step #6: Clearly Align your Brand Pillars to Key Strategic Imperatives


The study also highlighted how the process of creating or refining brand positions is mainly part of a business review process or established planning cycle driven by the CEO, who leads both the development and integration within the organization. The perceived impact of an organization’s branding initiative are brand loyalty, execution excellence and lower staturnover while the biggest challenge to launching an effective brand coherence strategy is the lack of understanding and commitment levels from the leadership team.

The Emergence of Brand Coherence

In 2012, Shikatani Lacroix released a white paper on the growing importance and need for strong brand coherence within organizations. The premise of the paper was the shift towards multichannel strategies and the need to provide a sustainable, differentiated and meaningful value proposition. This was driving brand marketers to put greater emphasis on how both internal and external stakeholders were aligned behind one singular compelling brand idea. Companies such as Kraft and PepsiCo have embraced the concept of providing a singular point of difference for their brands which resulted in the restructuring of the organizations into two separate specialized and focused companies. As more and more brands succumb to category commoditization and become threatened by new emerging, non-related industries, the importance and relevancy of ensuring all of a brand’s moments-of-truth are effectively aligned towards a common value becomes paramount.

To gain stronger fact-based insights on how organizations are aligned behind a clearly defined brand coherent strategy, SL conducted an online study in the spring of 2013 with 120 organizations across North America, Canada, Western Europe, Asia and Oceania. The following outlines our findings and key steps companies can undertake to ensure they are getting the most value from their branding and marketing initiatives. The respondents were invited to participate by way of an online study with strong representation of companies from the Institutional, Retail, Manufacturing, Services and Resource sectors.


12.5%25%37.5%50%

becomes paramount.

To gain stronger fact-based insights on how organizations are aligned behind a clearly defined brand coherent strategy, SL conducted an online study in the spring of 2013 with 120 organizations across North America, Canada, Western Europe, Asia and Oceania. The following outlines our findings and key steps companies can undertake to ensure they are getting the most value from their branding and marketing initiatives. The respondents were invited to participate by way of an online study with strong representation of companies from the Institutional, Retail, Manufacturing, Services and Resource sectors.

12.5%25%12.5%25%12.5% 37.5%25%37.5%25% 50%37.5%50%37.5%Value Title

40.0%

42.00%

6.00%

4.00%

4.00%

3.00%

1.00%

United States

Canada

Western Europe

Asia

Other

Oceania

United Kingdom

Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure

More than half of respondents were companies with global reach while the respondent profile included 42% representing departments in sales and marketing, 38% in management with an additional 22% in buying, manufacturing and product development. To better understand how the brand position was being managed, we ensured the study had a fair representation of positions throughout organizations. The study respondents consisted of 33% holding C-Suite positions while 32% percent had Vice-President and Director level positions. An additional 14% had manager level positions with another 20% holding employee or other positions.

The findings also reflected a fair representation of the type of brand portfolios within organizations. When asked about the type of brand portfolio structure, more than 51% indicated a branded house (i.e. BMW) structure with the remaining respondents equally split between a house of brands (i.e. P&G) and branded divisions (i.e. Apple). When asked how many brands the organization markets, 47% indicated 2 to 10 while an additional 26% indicated their portfolio consisted of only one brand. The remaining respondents (27%) indicated their portfolio consisted of 11 brands or more.

The study also had a broad representation of company revenues with 21% of respondents under $1 million, 34% from a million to $50 million, 13% between $51 million and a half billion and 24% over a half billion in sales (8% declined to disclose).


10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure

More than half of respondents were companies with global reach while the respondent profile included 42% representing departments in sales and marketing, 38% in management with an additional 22% in buying, manufacturing and product development. To better understand how the brand position was being managed, we ensured the study had a fair representation of positions throughout organizations. The study respondents consisted of 33% holding C-Suite positions while 32% percent had Vice-President and Director level positions. An additional 14% had manager level positions with another 20% holding employee or other positions.

10.00%20.00%10.00%20.00%10.00% 30.00%20.00%30.00%20.00% 40.00%Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure

40.00%Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure

30.00%40.00%30.00%

33%

15%

18%

14%

14%

6%

C Suite

Vice-President Level

Director Level

Manager Level

Employee Level

Other, please specify...

51%23%

23%

3%

Branded House (i.e., BMW)House of Brands (i.e., P&G)Branded Divisions (i.e. Apple)Other, please specify...

Level of Brand Integration and Evaluation Inconsistent

The study clearly identified that there is no consistency within organizations as it relates to how they evaluate their brand equity. The largest percentage (61%) of respondents determined their brand value through a market-based analysis, leveraging relative methods comparable to other firms and their level of profits. The cost-based evaluation process - which identifies the value of a brand based on book or replacement value - had the lowest percentage of application with only 14% mentioning their organization used this system. Another 18% mentioned they used an income-based method where the value is determined by the earnings capitalization or discount cash flow methods. This leads to the need to establish a common form to evaluate the equity of a brand across global markets, or within regional boundaries with accepted accounting norms. Without an industry established evaluation process, the ability to justify investment, ROI and value will continue to be undermined.

Results also identified only 38% of companies had a high level of brand integration within their organization consisting of a clearly defined brand position that is articulated at all levels of the organization and understood by all employees. The majority of companies ranked their brand integration consisting of a common mission, vision and position, but that these were not linked to marketing initiatives at a medium (48%) to low (9%) level.


70%

The study clearly identified that there is no consistency within organizations as it relates to how they evaluate their brand equity. The largest percentage (61%) of respondents determined their brand value through a market-based analysis, leveraging relative methods comparable to other firms and their level of profits. The cost-based evaluation process - which identifies the value of a brand based on book or replacement value - had the lowest percentage of application with only 14% mentioning their organization used this system. Another 18% mentioned they used an income-based method where the value is determined by the

70%

61%

18%14%

8%Market Based

Income Based Cost Based

Other

0.5

process, the ability to justify investment, ROI and value will continue to be undermined.

Results also identified only 38% of companies had a high level of brand integration within their organization consisting of a clearly defined brand position that is articulated at all levels of the organization and understood by all employees. The majority of companies ranked their brand integration consisting of but that these were not linked to marketing initiativesat a medium (48%) to low (9%) level.

0.538%48%

9%

5%

High

Medium

Low

Other

Step #1: Establish Consistent Industry Metrics to Evaluate the Contribution of Your Brand

From our research findings, we determined that one of the key factors to why organizations do not put greater emphasis on creating coherent branding strategies is based on how they define the financial value of their brands. Not having clarity on the value of a brand or an industry-wide accepted practice removes the potential attention and importance to how it contributes to the evaluation of organizations. The metrics should also consider all facets of the Brand Coherence Infinity Loop, and take into account all elements of an organization, from marketing to HR, operations, accounting and manufacturing.

Invest in Singularity

We have noted one of the key reasons for the low brand integration numbers is the fact that 45% of respondents had different brand positions, one for their corporation and another for either their division’s or product’s brand position. As organizations struggle to invest in building their brand equities with internal and external stakeholders, these efforts become diluted when initiatives are spread across a range of brands.

Organizations which have a house of brand portfolio structure have conflicting needs to sustain both their corporate and portfolio brand positions which leads to a higher investment in both efforts and marketing cost.


45%43%

12%

Yes, we have different brand positionsNo, we only have one for the entire organizationNot aware if we have a brand position

When asked if their company leadership, employees, vendors and customers can clearly articulate their brand position, there showed a startling drop-off between each level of stakeholders, starting with the leadership team (38%), followed by the employees at 19%, customers at 11% and vendors at 10%. As organizations seek to ensure their brand remains relevant to both internal and external stakeholders, we recommend they consider their portfolio structure and brand position linkage to ensure the master brand position is sustained and integrated as part of their product portfolio, allowing greater efficiencies and integration between the two. The inability to support both a corporate and product position will only lead to a dilution of efforts and the inability to gain greater marketing benefits.

Step #2: Ensure Master Brand Linkage

The lack of a strong integration of an organization’s position is largely due to firms having both corporate and brand positions. Additionally, there exists a lack of awareness and understanding beyond the C-Suite. This factor adds to a high degree of confusion and lack of integration which undermines the ability to build strong differentiation and branding efficiencies. Organizations that have separate corporate versus product/division positions need to review the linkage between the two. Serious consideration to leveraging the corporate brand position as part of the divisions or products should be undertaken while ensuring a strong bond between the two at the brand vision, mission and position levels. The development of a strong brand essence outlined in Step #1 will go a long way in ensuring a cohesive link on any position being used within organizations.


40.0%

When asked if their company leadership, employees, vendors and customers can clearly articulate their brand position, there showed a startling drop-obetween each level of stakeholders, starting with the leadership team (38%), followed by the employees at 19%, customers at 11% and vendors at 10%. As organizations seek to ensure their brand remains relevant to both internal and external stakeholders, we recommend they consider their portfolio structure and brand position linkage to ensure the master brand position is sustained and integrated as part of their product portfolio, allowing greater eintegration between the two. The inability to support both a corporate and product position will only lead to a dilution of efforts and the inability to gain greater

40.0%

38%

19%

11%

10%

Leadership

Employees

Customers

Vendors

awareness and understanding beyond the C-Suite. This factor adds to a high degree of confusion and lack of integration which undermines the ability to build strong diOrganizations that have separate corporate versus product/division positions need to review the linkage between the two. Serious consideration to leveraging the corporate brand position as part of the divisions or products should be undertaken while ensuring a strong

Brand Essence and Execution Gap

The issue regarding brand cohesion is not centered on having a defined brand position, as the study identified the majority of companies had a clearly articulated position (83%), clearly defined core equities and value proposition (79%), vision (74%), pillars and mission statement (71%). The study did identify a gap within the brand positioning structure with only half of respondents reporting a clearly articulated brand essence (59%). This supports our premise that organizations must be able to distill their brand’s unique value into easy to remember, simple to understand and focused messaging. This leads to an effective translation of the brand position.

Another key factor in the value and benefits of a brand position is how they are leveraged at the various brand touch-points. The study identified the focus on positioning is predominantly external in nature with the position most often supported in online marketing (42%), social media (42%), package design (42%) and merchandising (42%) followed by conventional advertising (39%) and public relations (37%). Employee branding and on-boarding had the lowest scores with only 11% and 8%, which identifies a significant gap in how organizations leverage their positioning initiatives. A focus on external initiatives without strong internal alignment will translate into a positioning process that is neither sustainable nor effectively delivered.


50.0%

Brand Essence and Execution Gap

The issue regarding brand cohesion is not centered on having a defined brand position, as the study identified the majority of companies had a clearly articulated position (83%), clearly defined core equities and value proposition (79%), vision (74%), pillars and mission statement (71%). The study did identify a gap within the brand positioning structure with only half of respondents reporting a clearly articulated brand essence (59%). This supports our premise that organizations must be able to distill their brand’s unique value into easy to remember, simple to understand and focused messaging. This leads to an effective translation of the brand position.

Another key factor in the value and benefits of a brand position is how they are leveraged at the various brand touch-points. The study identified the focus on positioning is predominantly external in nature with the position most often supported in online marketing (42%), social media (42%), package design (42%) and merchandising (42%) followed by conventional advertising (39%) and public relations (37%). Employee branding and on-boarding had the lowest scores with only 11% and 8%, which identifies a significant gap in how organizations leverage their positioning initiatives. A focus on external initiatives without strong internal alignment will translate into a positioning process that is neither sustainable nor e

50.0%

11.00%

8.00%

34.00%

39.00%

42.00%

42.00%

21.00%

21.00%

42.00%

42.00%

32.00%

37.00%

8.00%

Employee Branding

Employee Brand On-Boarding

Product Innovation

Conventional Advertising

Online Marketing

Social Media

Mobile Media

Digital Media

Package Design

Merchandising

Store Design

Public Relations

Apps

Gaming

A study by Fierce Inc. demonstrated how organizations that have leveraged their brand position to create stronger employee engagement tend to stimulate 3.5% higher annual equity returns versus those that do not make the investment. The study concludes that engaged employees create stronger organizations, provide 20% better performance and are 87% less likely to leave.

Step #3: Fill the Brand Essence Gap

The research showed that most organizations have a clearly articulated brand position, however there is a gap created in the translation from brand position to a brand essence. A brand essence is for employees to remember and can set the tone for organizational alignment.

The reality is that most employees or customers focus on day-to-day tasks and responsibilities and a need to reduce complexity. Brand positions and their supporting brand card are, by their structured nature, very wordy and complex, making them difficult to remember or somewhat challenging to put into action. In order to gain alignment and understanding, distilling the brand position in the fewest number of words will lead to a higher retention of the information and direction for the company.

Ownership and Reasons Driving the Brand Strategy

The ownership for the development and articulation of the various elements of the brand position clearly lives with the CEO at 37% for the development of the position, 57% for the crafting of the mission and vision and another 43% on the development of the brand essence.


22.500% 45.000% 67.500% 90.000% stronger employee engagement tend to stimulate 3.5% higher annual equity returns versus those that do not make the investment. The study concludes that engaged employees create stronger organizations, provide 20% better performance and are 87% less likely to leave.

Step #3: Fill the Brand Essence Gap

The research showed that most organizations have a clearly articulated brand position, however there is a gap created in the translation from brand position to a brand essence. A brand essence is for employees to remember and can set the tone for organizational alignment.

The reality is that most employees or customers focus on day-to-day tasks and responsibilities and a need to reduce complexity. Brand positions and their supporting brand card are, by their structured nature, very wordy and complex, making them diremember or somewhat challenging to put into action. In order to gain alignment and understanding, distilling the brand position in the fewest number of words will lead to a higher retention of the information and direction for the company.

22.500% 45.000% 67.500% 90.000%

83%

79%

79%

76%

74%

71%

71%

59%

Position

Core Equities

Value Proposition

Brand Personality

Vision

Pillars

Mission

Brand Essence

The brand position review and articulation forms part of a yearly business review with more than 50% of companies while the other 50% review their position every three or more years.

In addition, when asked to determine which role within organizations ensures that manufacturing, marketing, HR, finance, operations, R&D, buying and distribution initiatives are aligned with the brand position, close to 20% mention the CEO followed by the Vice-President of Sales and Marketing at 12%. Although there is significant value having the CEO own the organization’s position, it puts too much burden on their role to ensure each department supports its effective integration.

Organizations should devise stronger director-and-employee-level support and contribution if the brand position is to be effectively leveraged and integrated throughout the company. Creating brand stewards or advocates will help drive a strong link between the overarching brand position direction and how each employee will effectively live the brand promise.

The key reasons driving the decision to either review or establish a clearly articulated brand position was mainly part of a business review process amongst 36% of respondents with an additional 24% indicating its was part of an established process. Other reasons driving a review, in order of importance, were: competitive threats (18%), change of senior leadership (16%), growth in an emerging sector, launch of a new division/business, restructuring of the company and commoditization of their category each representing 13%, respectively.


53%30%

9%

2%

6%

Once a year Once every three yearsOnce every five years Once every ten yearsNever

their role to ensure each department supports its effective integration.

Organizations should devise stronger director-and-employee-level support and contribution if the brand position is to be ethroughout the company. Creating brand stewards or advocates will help drive a strong link between the overarching brand position direction and how each employee will e

The key reasons driving the decision to either review or establish a clearly articulated brand position was mainly part of a business review process amongst 36% of respondents with an additional 24% indicating its was part of an established process. Other reasons driving a review, in order of importance, were: competitive threats (18%), change of senior leadership (16%), growth in an emerging sector, launch of a new division/business, restructuring of the company and commoditization of their category each representing 13%, respectively.

18%

16%

7%

36%

7%

13%

13%

24%

13%

13%

2%

11%

Competitive threat

Change of senior leadership

Merger or acquisition

Business review

Business decline

Growth in an emerging sector

Launch of a new division/business

Established process

Our category has been commoditized

Restructuring of company

Other, please specify...

N/A

It was interesting that few mentioned mergers or acquisitions along with business decline as being factors which drove a review of their position. These findings support our own experience working with a wide variety of organizations, where the elaborate articulation of a company’s direction is not easily understood or aligned to how the individuals within the organization live the brand promise.

When asked if their organization’s brand position is functional or emotional, more than 45% indicated that their brand position was somewhat functional and emotional while another 40% mentioned their company’s position was either very or somewhat functional. Only 15% of respondents mentioned their company’s brand position was somewhat or very emotional.

Step #4: Align All Activities Around the Brand Coherence Loop

Most organizations positioning process is focused around marketing initiatives with less emphasis on the softer side of business, such as employee engagement or even office wayfinding. It will be critical to the success of any branding initiative to build a strong cohesive plan that links all the moments-of-truth with the key brand position elements. Only when each of these elements work together as part of a strong chain will efforts

and investments bear fruit. To achieve a strong cohesive plan, organizations need to reevaluate each aspect of the Brand Coherence Infinity Loop to determine where along the link exists incoherent strategies or missing elements.


Brand Coherence Infinity Loop

Foundation

Momentum

Following a thorough review, the senior leadership needs to assess how best to leverage their position with those moments of truth which provide the greatest effect.

Challenges of Branding Initiatives and Effects on Performance

The impact of an organization’s branding initiative is most felt on brand loyalty, execution excellence and lower staff turnover (29%, respectfully) . These are followed by sales performance (27%), market share and ROI (24%) and finally employee engagement (16%) and margin contribution (10%). The greatest challenges in ensuring alignment are a lack of understanding of the brand position (19%) and the level of commitment to a brand position (18%), followed by an understanding of the importance of a brand position (16%) and consistency across geographical boundaries (16%).

When asked why an organization would not have a clearly articulated brand position, 13% of organizations identified that other priorities are more important followed by a lack of resources, time, leadership or understanding of the importance of branding. It was interesting that although branding usage tends to be external marketing focused, more than 66% of respondents indicated the most important benefits of having a brand position was creating a stronger corporate culture, followed by an increase in competitiveness (63%) and making marketing easier (61%).


0.175 0.350 0.525 0.700Performance

The impact of an organization’s branding initiative is most felt on brand loyalty, execution excellence and lower staff turnover (29%, respectfully) . These are ff turnover (29%, respectfully) . These are fffollowed by sales performance (27%), market share and ROI (24%) and finally employee engagement (16%) and margin contribution (10%). The greatest challenges in ensuring alignment are a lack of understanding of the brand position (19%) and the level of commitment to a brand position (18%), followed by an understanding of the importance of a brand position (16%) and consistency across geographical boundaries (16%).

When asked why an organization would not have a clearly articulated brand position, 13% of organizations identified that other priorities are more important followed by a lack of resources, time, leadership or understanding of the importance of branding. It was interesting that although branding usage tends to be external marketing focused, more than 66% of respondents indicated the most important benefits of having a brand position was creating a stronger corporate culture, followed by an increase in competitiveness (63%) and making marketing easier (61%).

0.175 0.350 0.525 Performance0.700Performance

49%

61%

63%

39%

66%

44%

54%

41%

24%

Allows the organization to focus its resources

Makes marketing easier

Increases our competitiveness

Higher company valuation

Stronger corporate culture

Better business decisions

Greater pride in the organization

Ability to better manage brands and product portfolio

Helps me understand my role in the company

Although respondents indicated culture was a very important benefit of a strong position, only 24% indicated that it helped them understand their role within the company, clearly supporting the insight that positioning and branding applications are focused on company direction and not on employee behavior.

Step #5: Brand From the Inside Out Versus the Outside In

A large gap was identified around how the branding supports employee engagement. The focus around external applications of the position came at the cost of internal employee engagement and on-boarding processes. It was interesting how respondents put great value on how an effective positioning program can reduce staff turnover by building pride but it falls short of being fully leveraged to build employee engagement, a key driver for productivity and better annual operating margins. To gain the most value from positioning and branding initiatives, organizations need to start their process from the inside out.

Only when employees truly understand the meaning and how they can live the brand promise should the organization consider incorporating the position as part of external marketing initiatives. If the position is already well established and currently being leveraged as part of external marketing, organizations need to evaluate the level of employee understanding and support. The resulting analysis may require a shift in spending to focus a greater percentage of marketing investments to satisfy internal stakeholders through HR and on-boarding programs.


Ensure Actions Align to Direction

Branding defines the place and direction of an organization, however many organizations lack the support to guide the Why and How for employees. This external focus is creating a significant gap on how organizations deliver a cohesive brand strategy. When asked to select one initiative that would drive a higher degree of brand integration across the organization, the primary response was regarding the ability to demonstrate the value and ROI benefits of branding initiatives to gain senior leadership commitment.

Additional initiatives identified the ability to build an infrastructure to include brand training, advocacy and collaborative cross-department projects. When asked to identify the potential negative effects that a lack of brand integration and coherence have on organizations, the overwhelming response is a lack of direction leading to confusion, ownership, urgency and stagnation.

Step #6: Clearly Align Your Brand Pillars to Key Strategic Imperatives

A key challenge identified in the study is the inability of employees to align their behavior to support the brand position. One of the key factors in this lack of successful alignment is the level of understanding by employees of the actual brand position meaning, beyond marketing or corporate speak. An effective tool is to craft key strategic imperatives, actions and behaviors employees at all levels of the organization must exhibit to live the brand promise.


Great organizations who have established a strong brand coherence strategy have also linked these imperatives to employee reviews and performance criteria, ensuring the right brand-supporting behaviors are rewarded while those that conflict with the direction of the organization are quickly identified and corrected.

Conclusion

Brand coherence is a powerful tool that creates greater alignment towards a common goal and vision for organizations. Although creating better efficiencies has been the mantra for corporations weathering the last recession and providing shareholders greater returns on investment, leveraging the efficiencies of marketing and employee engagement seems to have been lost in the focus. As companies continue to define how they provide value to the marketplace, it will be important that greater focus be put on brand coherence and the steps to ensure brand alignment.


For more information, contact:

Jean-Pierre Lacroix, President

Shikatani Lacroix 387 Richmond Street EastToronto, OntarioM5A 1P6Telephone: 416-367-1999Email: [email protected]


RESEARCH DETAILSHow would you classify your industry?Response ChartChartChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage Sectors

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Farming

4% Resources 8.00%

Communications 10%

Construction 1%

Consulting 12% Services 24.00%

Consumer Packaged Goods 10%

Education 4%

Electronics 3% Manufacturing 23.00%

Energy 4%

Engineering 1%

Financial Services 3% Retail 26.00%

Healthcare 1%

Hospitality & Foodservice 15%

Manufacturing 9% Institutional 19.00%

Not For Profit 1%

Real Estate 3%

Retail 4%

Sports 1%

Technology 1%

Transportation 1%

Wholesale & Distribution 4%

Other 13% 100.00%


Where is your head office located?Response ChartChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

United States 40%

Canada 42%

La9n America 0%

United Kingdom 1%

Eastern Europe 0%

Western Europe 6%

Africa 0%

Asia 4%

Oceania 3%

Other, please specify... 4%

Where is your head office located? (Other, please specify...)# Response

1. Kitchener

2. Toronto

3. Toronto

What is your geographical coverage?Response ChartChartChartChart Percentage

Local 15%

National 33%

International 52%


In which department do you work?Response ChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

Management 38%

Accounting and Finance 0%

Sales and Marketing 42%

Manufacturing 2%

Distribution 0%

Human Resources 0%

Purchasing 2%


In which department do you work? (Other, please specify...)

# Response

1. Communications

2. Senior assistant

3. Packaging Engineering

4. In-House Design

5. Communications

6. Account director

7. Product development

8. Owner

9. Everything

10. All departments

11. Development


Which best describes your role within the organization?

Response ChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

C Suite 33%

Vice-President Level 15%

Director Level 18%

Manager Level 14%

Employee Level 14%


Which best describes your role within the organization? (Other, please specify...)

# Response

1. Owner

2. One of three Senior Managers, the Owner, the Operations Manager, and me

3. Owner

How would you describe your brand portfolio structure?

Response ChartChartChartChart Percentage

Branded House (all the products are sold under one name i.e., BMW)

52%

House of Brands (you have a multitude of distinctive brands i.e., P&G)

23%

Branded Divisions (you have distinctive brands under a master brand name i.e. Apple, Apple iTunes, Apple iPod, etc.)

23%



Please indicate your total annual revenue: Response ChartChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

Under $1 million 21%

$1 million - $10 million 17%




$501 million - $1 billion 6%

Over $1 billion 18%

Rather not disclose 8%

How many brands does your organization sell?


1 26%

2 to 10 47%

11 to 20 2%

21 to 50 12%

More than 50 14%


How does your organization determine brand equity?

Response ChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

Cost Based (Book value, replacement value, liquidation value)

14%

Income Based (Earnings capitalization method, discounted cash flow method)

18%

Market Based (Relative method, comparable to other firms, profit based)

61%


How does your organization determine brand equity? (Other, please specify...)

# Response

1. We don't

2. Member feedback

3. Hasn't been valued yet

4. NA


How would you describe your organization's overall level of brand integration?

Response ChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

High: we have a clearly defined brand position that is articulated at all levels of the organization and understood by all employees

38%

Medium: we have a mission, vision and position which the company leadership has crafted but it is not linked to our individual marketing initiatives

48%

Low: we do not have a brand position nor do we rely on positioning to help market our products

9%


How would you describe your organization's overall level of brand integration? (Other, please specify...)

# Response

1. Varies by client

2. Recently rebranded

3. Just completed agency project and understood by upper management and soon to roll out to full company.


Do you have different brand positions? For example, a corporate brand position in addition to divisional or product brand positions?

Response ChartChartChartChart Percentage

Yes, we have different brand positions 45%

No, we only have one for the entire organization

43%

Not aware if we have a brand position or how it applies to our products or company

12%

Please identify if your organization has clearly articulated any of the following elements of your organization's brand position?

Yes No Unsure

Core Equities (what you own versus competitors)

(79%) (12%) (9%)

Pillars (core strategies that support your position and initiatives)

(71%) (21%) (9%)

Value Proposition (why someone would pay more for your brand(s))

(79%) (10%) (10%)

Brand Personality (defines how you look and act)

(76%) (16%) (9%)

Position (how you want to be perceived) (83%) (14%) (3%)

Mission (how you will achieve your vision) (71%) (17%) (12%)

Vision (long-term aspirational direction of the organization)

(74%) (19%) (7%)

Essence (your brand DNA or Big Idea) (59%) (33%) (9%)


Please select if your brand position is functional (what you do) or emotional (how it makes your customers feel)


Very functional 21%

Somewhat functional 19%

Somewhat functional and emotional 45%

Somewhat emotional 10%

Very emotional 5%

Can your leadership, employees, vendors and customers clearly articulate your brand position?

1 (Not aware)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Clear articulation)

Leadership Team

(2%) (0%) (3%) (5%) (5%) (7%) (16%) (24%) (12%) (26%)

Employees (2%) (5%) (3%) (12%) (16%) (17%) (17%) (9%) (9%) (10%)

Vendors (9%) (5%) (10%) (9%) (19%) (14%) (14%) (10%) (5%) (5%)

Customers (5%) (9%) (5%) (9%) (19%) (14%) (19%) (10%) (9%) (2%)


How often do you review your brand position, regardless if it's a mission, position, or is more elaborate?


Once a year 53%

Once every three years 30%

Once every five years 9%

Once every ten years 2%

Never 6%

Who owns the development and articulation of the various elements of your brand position?

Chairman CEO CFO COO CMO VP of

Sales and Marketing

VP of HR

VP of Operations

VP of Purchasing

VP of Innovation

VP of IT VP of Communications

Director Level

Advertising Agency

Brand Consultant

Marketing Firm

Public Relations Firm

Management Consultant

Other Unsure

Position (7%) (37%) (0%)(4%) (13%) (11%)(0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (7%)

Vision/Mission

(11%) (57%) (0%)(0%) (7%) (7%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (2%)

Essence/Big Idea

(7%) (43%)(2%) (0%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (0%) (4%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (9%)


If you have a position, vision and/or brand portfolio, what drove the decision to create it?

Response ChartChartChartChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

Competitive threat 18%

Change of senior leadership 16%

Merger or acquisition 7%

Business review 36%

Business decline 7%

Growth in an emerging sector 13%

Launch of a new division/business 13%

Established process 24%

Our category has been commoditized 13%

Restructuring of company 13%


N/A 11%


Which role(s) within your organization ensure(s) the initiatives within Manufacturing, Marketing, HR, Finance, Operations, R&D, Purchasing and Distribution are aligned with the brand position?

Chairman 10 8.26%

CEO 23 19.01%

CFO 4 3.31%

COO 5 4.13%

CMO 5 4.13%

VP of Sales and Marketing 15 12.40%

VP of HR 4 3.31%

VP of Operations 7 5.79%

VP of Purchasing 4 3.31%

VP of Innovation 3 2.48%

VP of IT 3 2.48%

VP of Communications 8 6.61%

Director Level 10 8.26%

Advertising Agency 4 3.31%

Brand Consultant 2 1.65%

Marketing Firm 3 2.48%

Public Relations Firm 3 2.48%

Management Consultant 1 0.83%

Other 4 3.31%

N/A 3 2.48%

TOTAL 121 100.00%


Please indicate the degree to which various marketing and communication tools are used to support your brand position.

Never Used

Occasionally Used Used SeasonallyUsed Tactically

Used Often (Integral)

N/A

Employee Branding (13%) (37%) (13%) (21%) (11%) (5%)

Employee Brand On-Boarding

(24%) (32%) (11%) (13%) (8%) (13%)

Product Innovation (3%) (13%) (18%) (29%) (34%) (3%)

Conventional Advertising

(5%) (24%) (11%) (16%) (39%) (5%)

Online Marketing (5%) (13%) (13%) (21%) (42%) (5%)

Social Media (5%) (5%) (13%) (29%) (42%) (5%)

Mobile Media (24%) (18%) (11%) (21%) (21%) (5%)

Digital Media (11%) (16%) (8%) (37%) (21%) (8%)

Package Design (5%) (16%) (5%) (16%) (42%) (16%)

Merchandising (3%) (16%) (8%) (24%) (42%) (8%)

Store Design (24%) (8%) (5%) (8%) (32%) (22%)

Public Relations (3%) (16%) (16%) (21%) (37%) (8%)

Apps (43%) (14%) (5%) (14%) (8%) (16%)

Gaming (51%) (11%) (5%) (3%) (0%) (30%)


On a scale from 1 (no impact) to 10 (strong impact), to what degree have you been able to attribute the impact of branding initiatives to the performance of your organization?

1 (No Impact)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (Strong Impact)

Employee Engagement

(8%) (3%) (13%) (3%) (13%) (18%) (16%) (11%) (3%) (13%)

Sales Performance

(0%) (3%) (3%) (3%) (18%) (18%) (8%) (21%) (11%) (16%)

Margin Contribution

(8%) (3%) (8%) (8%) (14%) (14%) (19%) (16%) (5%) (5%)

Market Share (5%) (3%) (3%) (13%) (11%) (16%) (13%) (13%) (11%) (13%)

Brand Loyalty (0%) (3%) (0%) (0%) (21%) (13%) (16%) (18%) (18%) (11%)

Execution Excellence

(5%) (5%) (5%) (5%) (11%) (11%) (16%) (13%) (16%) (13%)

ROI (3%) (13%) (3%) (5%) (13%) (8%) (16%) (16%) (11%) (13%)

Low Staff Turnover

(5%) (8%) (8%) (8%) (5%) (5%) (18%) (13%) (13%) (16%)


What challenges have you faced in your efforts to align your brand position?

1 (No Challenge)

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

(Major Challenge)

Consistent brand messaging

(8%) (5%) (11%) (8%) (13%) (5%) (16%) (21%) (5%) (8%)

New products and R&D

(8%) (8%) (21%) (5%) (18%) (3%) (13%) (13%) (3%) (8%)

Human resources (24%) (3%) (8%) (5%) (11%) (8%) (21%) (8%) (5%) (8%)

Marketing (11%) (11%) (5%) (8%) (11%) (24%) (16%) (8%) (0%) (8%)

Consistency across geographical boundaries

(3%) (13%) (11%) (8%) (13%) (8%) (13%) (16%) (5%) (11%)

Internal alignment (0%) (11%) (16%) (11%) (11%) (0%) (18%) (29%) (0%) (5%)

Understanding of the brand position

(11%) (5%) (5%) (5%) (13%) (5%) (13%) (24%) (3%) (16%)

Commitment to a brand position

(11%) (16%) (8%) (5%) (8%) (8%) (16%) (11%) (5%) (13%)

Understanding of the importance of a brand position

(11%) (5%) (11%) (5%) (16%) (5%) (16%) (16%) (5%) (11%)

C-suite level commitment

(18%) (13%) (8%) (3%) (18%) (3%) (11%) (13%) (5%) (8%)


Please indicate the reasons why your organization may not have a clearly articulated brand position.

Total Responses Percentage

Not part of our culture 7 6.09%

We do not have a formal branding process 9 7.83%

Never thought that it was required 1 0.87%

It's all in my head and intui9ve 5 4.35%

Do not see the financial benefits 3 2.61%

We do not have the 9me to develop 7 6.09%

It's not a priority for our leadership team 7 6.09%

It's a waste of 9me 1 0.87%

It's not relevant to our business 0 0.00%

Don't rely on it for the direc9on of the company 8 6.96%

Did not know this was required 1 0.87%

Don't believe in brand posi9on 3 2.61%

Branding ini9a9ve was started but put on hold 6 5.22%

Other priori9es more important 15 13.04%

Do not have a long term planning process 8 6.96%

No one owns the branding process 8 6.96%

Branding is not understood 9 7.83%

We do not have the resources to create 9 7.83%

We do not have the budget to develop 9 7.83%

115 100.00%


In your opinion, what are the most important benefits of having a brand position for your organization?

Response ChartChartChartChartChartChartChartChartChartChart Percentage

Allows the organization to focus its resources 49%

Makes marketing easier 61%

Increases our competitiveness 63%

Higher company valuation 39%

Stronger corporate culture 66%

Better business decisions 44%

Greater pride in the organization 54%

Ability to better manage brands and product portfolio

41%

Helps me understand my role in the company 24%

If you were to select one initiative that would drive a higher degree of brand integration across the organization, what would it be and why?The 26 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.

In your opinion, what are some of the negative effects that a lack of brand integration and coherence have on your organization? The 28 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.


AppendixIf you were to select one initiative that would drive a higher degree of brand integration across the organization, what would it be and why?

# Response

1. Strong sense of purpose

2. Mandatory uniforms/ identity on site / corporate brand indemnity de9ined to employees

3. Focus on one 9lagship product

4. Get everyone 110% focused on Filter Queen, our core product

5. Corporate identity

6. Employee buy in to brand importance Quality Control Ef9iciencies

7. Ability to better manage brands and product portfolio

8. Brand advocacy training

9. Website overhaul

10. Quantify brand integration by using methods" cost of poor quality"

11. C-‐Suite endorsement

12. Value price connection & rationale

13. Cross department collaborative projects

14. More investment so that it could be afforded

15. International online brand presence because Vietnamese like foreign brands

16. Communicating the why and how properly to everyone in the organization

17. Innovation: in the development of new products

18. Internal brand advocacy

19. Sales commitment and ownership

20. Centralize marketing

21. Strategic planning and execution

22. Full analysis and ROI on projects

23. Integrating local and national marketing

24. Employee engagement inn the Brand Positioning -‐ they deliver the Brand promise

25. Education

26. Full company roll out across entire company


In your opinion, what are some of the negative effects that a lack of brand integration and coherence have on your organization? # Response

1. Misdirection and confusion in execution

2. N/A

3. Attitudes on site

4. Confusion, frustration, complacency

5. Confusion, lack of ownership, lack of urgency, stagnation

6. People unsure of our industry and position within it

7. Lack of coordination communication between departments

8. N/A

9. Morale and client base truly understanding the value

10. Disorientation in execution

11. Inconsistent market presence and client experience

12. Reluctance to accept product presentation

13. That the goal of the business will not be clear

14. Inef9icient PR, slow POS material development

15. Diffusion of people and resources

16. No sense of belonging, lesser engagement

17. Our associates need gain a sense of pride and accomplishment for the job they do

18. Aligned business strategy

19. Lack of integration with sales and marketing

20. Customer sub-‐optimization

21. Not being recognized by potential customers

22. Lack of direction to hit all the key points that are important to customers

23. Multiple projects with no key focus, moving too fast with no long term end goal

24. Accuracy of analytics

25. It can be zealous at times -‐ cult-‐like even

26. Message to customers, buyers

27. Not enough communication


six steps to ensuring brand alignment

Marketing

brand coherence study

brand loyalty

brand pillars

brand marketers

different brand

brand alignment

brand equity

strong brand coherence