ARTICLE TEXT:
ARTICLE
TEXT:
"RESPECT
THE BIRTHMARK"
“It
was (is) the best of times, it was (is) the worst of times”
As
suggested by the creatively adapted quote above, the current
marketplace has many of the elements and characteristics
of a Charles Dickens novel. Only in this instance it is
not a “Tale of Two Cities”, but rather a tale of two paradigms.
In
the period since the onset of the Global Financial Crisis
(GFC) there is an accumulative amount of evidence that confirms
many entities, regions, cities, products and services have
suffered from the consequences of the poor “Brand Management”.
That rather than price discounting, lack of consumer confidence,
higher interest charges and globalism is the cause of individual
suboptimal performance.
The
images and market presence of numerous former market leaders
are fractured, seemingly, because of neglect, ignorance
or naivety... I know not which, in most specific circumstances.
Conversely,
in the same marketplace other entities, products and services
are enjoying the fruits of “the best of times”.
The
case studies are very conspicuous, the lessons telling and
all too often the brand names are well known, formerly respected
and the inherent integrity valued.
Take
Coles and its related brands are as case in point. For the
calendar year 2010 and the early months of 2011 Coles supermarkets
enjoyed better performance achievements in measures of growth
and productivity enhancement than its major competitor,
Woolworths.
An
initiative to discount the price of housebrand milk to just
$1.00 per litre was bold and supported by a well funded,
aggressive advertising campaign. The strategy was soon extended
to other dairy products. Contemplation was given to including
bread and chickens in the marketing thrust.
Significantly,
the responses from the Australian and individual regional
dairy industries were immediate, voluble and personal. Regional
communities and individual dairy farming families were identified
and labelled in the mass media as “collateral damage”. The
term, concept and images did not sit well with the broader
consuming public, particularly when young teenagers were
interviewed and made references to two, three and four generation
family histories in dairy farming. Somethings just cannot
and should not be discounted.
Coles
quickly became the focus, the message if you will, rather
than the messenger of good news for the consuming public.
Let
me be emphatic. A time series of national attitudinal research
has revealed that from day one of the milk discounting strategies
a majority of Australians stated that the image of Coles
was not improved or upgraded by the campaign.
Moreover,
a similar percentage of research respondents confirmed that
they did not foresee themselves being more loyal to Coles
or to being more frequent customers of the branded outlets.
The
most telling findings centred on consumers recognising that
they had and would continue to buy the discounted $1.00
per litre housebrand milk “opportunistically”. That is,
yes, consumers would buy, save and enjoy the personal financial
benefits of the cheaper dairy products. However, the brand
Coles may well be that which was discounted most.
It
is a reasonable and understandable set of emotions, responses
and perceptions, reflecting the nature of relationship marketing.
Coles could have, or indeed, should have asked the question:
“If
you take advantage of me today, will you respect me in the
morning?”
The
general answer is now self evident.
Sadly,
sometimes, perhaps all too often, lessons are not learnt
and are repeated.
More
recently, the Coles owned, “1 st Choice” and Woolworths'
“Dan Murphy” retail liquor outlets have been aggressively
marketing, advertising and selling leading brand packaged
beer at, reportedly, below cost.
Foster's,
one of Australia's two major brewers made the decision to
withdraw supply of certain of its beer brands to the two
chains, albeit for a short period, as a means of respecting
and protecting the integrity of the brands.
It
was a bold, courageous decision, because the two major supermarket
chains and their retail operations control close to 50%
of national retail liquor sales.
The
media has been quick to take up the running on this emotional
story.
Profiles
of family owned, smaller liquor store owners have been prominently
featured, along with community based service clubs which
are reliant for their survival on ongoing local social patronage.
Harsh
judgements have been passed on the two major retailers and
endorsements given to the actions of Fosters.
The
widespread coverage has put the two retailers on their back
feet. How could this happen so close to the milk discounting
disaster?
Concepts
like “Emotional Intelligence” are laudable. However, the
effectiveness of such is dependent on its execution. The
word execution is used advisedly. Some people simply kill
the underlying principles and values.
All
business owners, managers and executives need to recognise
and respect the importance of effective, consistent brand
management. It has short, intermediate and long term benefits
and implications for companies, products, services, sectors,
regions and communities.
A
tainted brand can be and often is a substantial millstone
to bear. It puts to question the integrity of the brand
and the degree of trust which can be placed in those who
represent it.
Most
important, it is intangible attributes, qualities and values
of a brand which must be adhered to.
Imagine
the competitive disadvantages being endured by the packing
brand names of Visy and Amcor following the legal actions
taken by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC) on the cartel activities by and between these two
dominant forces. The fine paid by Visy was substantial.
However, the civil actions by a large number of clients
against both entities is a festering sore, which will need
extensive and intensive remedial action for some period
of time.
It
is doubtful whether the companies of certain individual
corporate executives will ever recover their integrity standings.
David
Jones is still bearing the costs of the alleged sexual harassment
allegations against its former Chief Executive. The brand
was noticeably damaged among the company's primary target
audiences of females.
On
a different tangent, public statements by business owners
and senior executives can and do impact on the currency
of a brand. The recent concerted efforts of Gerry Harvey
of the electrical retail chain Harvey Norman and Bernie
Brookes, Managing Director of Myer, among others, about
the supposed inequity of Australian consumers buying on-line
and not having to pay the 10% Goods and Services Tax did
not endear them or their respective brands to most consumers.
There
was little sympathy and support emanating from “little Aussie
battlers” to billionaires and to executives with multimillion
dollar annual salary packages.
Indeed,
one by-product of the highly visible media campaign by major
retail groups was the fostering of greater confidence in
buying on-line and the education of previous non-users of
internet purchases.
The
ability and benefits of saving money and not paying GST
on purchases were minor and secondary considerations to
most Australians.
What
was damaged were the brands of a diverse range of entities
which participated in the campaign.
There
are and were many lessons to be learnt.
“Brand
Management” extends well beyond the labelling, graphics
and physical presentations of entities, products and services.
Consistency and continuity of values, philosophies, beliefs
and understandings are unimpeachable attributes.
For
those who do and do not recognise and respect those imperative,
the consequences can be the difference between the best
of times and the worst of times.
