"Traditional values in a modern setting"

John Prescott is an unlikely brand and marketing expert, but I find myself often quoting his definition of New Labour (see above) as a way of explaining what all British institutions need to do to survive.

This morning during the newspaper review on Murnaghan there was a discussion about the current popularity of the Royal Family and Gyles Brandreth (another unlikely brand expert until you remember his success with knitted jumpers) said the Royal Family had shown “brand consistency” and therefore enjoyed “brand loyalty”.   Dermot Murnaghan then quipped, (because Sir Stuart Rose ex-Chairman & CEO of M&S was also in the studio reviewing the papers): “just like Marks & Spencer!”

And he was absolutely right.  Indeed it’s precisely because Marks & Spencer and the Royal Family have followed the Prescott and Brandreth approach to brand strategy that they have not just survived but are thriving. 

All other long-established British institutions struggling with modernity need to do exactly the same.

FIFA, the Banks, John Lewis, a bit of Wayne Rooney, and image problems

Sepp Blatter says FIFA’s got one (and he's hired Placido Domingo to help him with it), some banks have gone as far as "admitting” they have one, and on Sunday I read – to my surprise – that John Lewis thinks it’s got one too. They call it an image problem. Until John Lewis joined in, every time I heard someone say that I screamed: “but that’s not why we don’t like you”.

To be honest, it’s never clear to me if the leaders of these organisations really believe the only problem they have is their image (which is worrying), or if they know things are much worse but they don’t think we’ve noticed (which is stupid). Either way, when things go wrong seemingly clever and well-paid people too often mumble a few things about their corporate image or - rather insultingly - our perception of it, don't specify what the problem is they need to fix, never mind actually do something to fix it, and then wonder why things don’t get better and we still don’t like them.  

Pop-stars, sportsmen (btw, forget Wayne Rooney and his hair because I think he's done that for his own sake as I can't believe he's done it for ours), celebrities and sensible politicians and salesmen of any type take image seriously because part of their instant appeal to us as a fan, voter or shopper is whether we like the look of them. If we do, we might be willing to hang around and listen, watch, vote for or buy what they've got on offer. But if their songs are rubbish, they never score a goal, they sell duff stuff, or promise to let criminals out of jail (for example), what they look like won't matter very much.  

In fact, the only saving grace if you are good-looking but not very good is your critics are less likely to exaggerate one of your physical imperfections to explain why they don't like you. Because they don't have to: it's obvious what's wrong.  

But surprisingly, this is where people start to get confused between image vs real problem.  

Let's take politicians as an example. People's perception of them for a long time could broadly have been described as "they're in it for themselves". Arguably, that was an image problem because that's what came to people's minds when they thought about politicians. But when the expenses scandal broke, it became a real problem because finally people had the evidence to prove what they had suspected all along.   

Sometimes the opposite happens. An audience (voter, shopper, fan, shareholder… insert whichever best suits your needs) will know they don't like something or someone and say it's because of their appearance, but in fact that's not really what's wrong at all. They just do this because it is easier for them to focus on something they can see and it is not their job to work out what is really wrong.  

For example, after the Conservative Party wipe-out in 1997, a common explanation from voters who said they would not vote Conservative at the 2001 General Election was they didn’t like the look of the Tories and some mentioned things like William Hague's voice or his [lack of] hair to justify their view. The Conservative Party got through two more leaders and another election humiliation in 2005 before working out the real problem that needed fixing (it had become out of touch with too many people on too many issues) and it is still working to put it right. (The Tories would have won the 2010 General Election outright if they had completed the job...)  

If the problem is so deeply rooted it is effectively “who you are” a makeover won’t work.  To use the corporate jargon rather than human English, when it gets this bad, it’s time to rethink your brand. 

Brand is not the same as logo.  Arguably, (though some design agencies might beg to differ with me on this) Apple could have been just as successful if Steve Jobs had decided to call it Pear and adopted the relevant symbol to go with that name.

Brand is shorthand for who you are.  It’s definitely your identity, but it’s less about style and more about soul because it’s identity based on a few important, carefully considered decisions that are used to drive actions and behaviours: why you exist (your purpose); what you are trying to achieve (your objective or your vision); where you’ve been and what you are doing to get there (your strategy); and how you are doing it (your tactics, style, values). 

Businesses like Apple, Nike, Google are successful and have a great image because the services and products they supply are very carefully and systematically designed in line with the component parts of their brand. It’s clear to me that they: 

1.   know who they are and why people use/want them (purpose)

2.   are very clear what they are trying to achieve (objective)

3.   know what to do to get there (strategy)

4.   don’t do anything which could dilute any of the above.  

Which brings me back to the so-called image problems of FIFA, the UK banks and John Lewis.  This is where I think they need to look for their real problem. 

The UK banks have a problem with their “purpose” because they think they exist to make money and we think they exist to provide us with a service.  They have a problem with "objective" because 'them getting rich' doesn't work for us.  And they have a problem with "strategy" because we're not willing to pay for their failures again. 

FIFA has a problem with its “strategy”.  They understand their purpose (world football tournaments) they have a compelling vision (for everyone to love football and for the world cup to lift our spirits – or something like that….), but they need to sort out what they do to achieve their purpose and vision (ie, the corruption thing). 

As for John Lewis, they just need to believe that their “purpose” (the shop we trust for quality, service and price) really is what makes us love them.  

‘Shared Value’ has got to be better than ‘Corporate Social Responsibility’

I’ve read Andrew Hill’s column in today’s FT three times now and I’m still not sure whether he thinks this new thing called ‘shared value’ is good or bad. 

I had not heard the term before this morning and I’m naturally sceptical about anything which sounds like another new gimmick, but if you read beyond the label I do think this has merit.

In fact, it gives greater meaning to the point I tried to make in an earlier post (‘make yourself useful’) about a TLG pamphlet covering the same topic.

Basically, what the main protagonists of this approach argue is this: ‘shared value’ means finding ways to run your business which will ensure you achieve your core purpose, make a profit and contribute to society all at the same time.

The reason why I think it has merit is because it is not a ‘bolt-on’ do-good kind of thing; it’s about using the central purpose and goal of the organisation to drive change.  And, as the TLG pamphlet and associated Populus research showed, doing this improves an organisation’s corporate reputation and all other associated benefits because it is action which is authentic.       

Andrew Hill refers to a Harvard Business Review article by Michael Porter and Mark Kramer (authors of this neologism [am adding link to Wikipedia on neologism only because I don't mind admitting I had to look it up myself…].   I’m not a subscriber to HBR, but the short intro available for free gives enough of a gist of what follows.  I particularly like this quote:

“Shared value is not social responsibility, philanthropy, or even sustainability, but a new way to achieve economic success. It is not on the margin of what companies do but at the center.”

Of course any effort to get involved in local communities or to improve the environment is a good thing and shouldn’t be discouraged.  But I’ve never been convinced about the long-term benefits of corporate activity carried out under the heading ‘corporate social responsibility’ because too often it lacks meaning and feels like a PR stunt (and at it’s worse, something to make companies and/or their execs feel better rather than to actually achieve anything useful). 

Far better if that contribution to society is hard-wired into corporate strategy and is central to delivering the purpose of the organisation:  that’s what makes it real.

I agree with Andrew Hill’s conclusion:  “More companies are learning to reap commercial benefits from strategies that have a wider social value. That’s great. But the basic job of coaxing capitalism in the right direction is the same as it always has been: find ways to harness society’s needs to companies’ self-interest and hope the two stay together.”

But the ‘shared value’ approach has got to be better than corporate social responsibility for everyone’s benefit, surely? 

Wrong to give people a chance to decide, but to not really mean it…

This morning in the House of Lords we have been considering ‘Commons amendments and reasons’ on our amendments to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (aka the AV Bill). (Stick with me on this….)

There were three amendments for our consideration, other Lords amendments having been accepted by the Commons.  (Fyi – I’ve been a member now for a whole 5 weeks and if one of my Noble Friends happens to read this post, forgive me if at any point I haven't used the right lingo, but I’m still learning…)

The Government was defeated by a majority of 62 votes on one of those amendments and the Bill has now gone back to the Commons.  This is what is called ping-pong (or wiff-waff maybe?!)

I won’t go into all the detail (check out the BBC website if you need more info), but basically Lord Rooker won an amendment which introduces a 40% threshold on turnout for the referendum on AV. In other words, if less than 40% of the electorate turn out to vote, their decision (yes or no) is not binding, but becomes indicative and then Parliament gets to decide whether or not to change the voting system used to elect MPs.

The debate on this one amendment alone lasted over an hour and all the speeches were very compelling.  Even so, I voted against the amendment. 

As I’m not yet confident enough to wade in to debates in the Chamber when the likes of Lords Lamont, Lawson and Forsyth are in full flow (God, they were good), never mind those on the other side, I thought I’d do a post here instead to explain why.

So here goes:

The principle behind my objection to Lord Rooker’s amendment is that I believe it is wrong to give people a chance to decide something, but to not really mean it… 

Let me be clear:  I am not in favour of changing our electoral voting system.  Furthermore, I do not believe that changing our voting system per se will restore the public’s confidence in our system of politics; which is what some politicians (Labour as well as LibDems) have argued.

But I nonetheless accept the Coalition’s decision to put this to a referendum. 

And, having done so, I believe the way in which this matter is put to the public is very important if we are not to reinforce their negative view of our political system.  Indeed a genuine referendum, where we give people the chance to decide whether to retain our tried-and-tested electoral system or to change it, might even be a first step to restoring public confidence: a goal which unites us all. 

I believe acheiving that goal - by whichever means different parties or politicians might believe best - is only possible if we keep in mind that public opinion is influenced not just by what we say, but by what we do and how we do it.  Or to be blunt, for us to be taken seriously and for confidence to be restored, we must not say one thing and do another. 

Therefore, and quite simply in my mind, if we are to offer a referendum on the voting system we must be genuine in providing the public the opportunity to decide. 

Introducing a threshold so Parliament has a ‘get-out card' and can reject the will of those who bother to turn out and vote is not a genuine offer. 

A genuine offer is politicians accepting responsibility – whether in the No or Yes camps – for making a compelling case, for encouraging people to vote and to making sure they understand it really is up to the public to decide.  And then providing them the opportunity to do so.

As I write, the amendment has gone back to the Commons and – if they reject it – it will be back with us again in the Lords sometime after 10pm tonight. 

If the the same amendment is put to another vote, my position will remain unchanged.

A press secretary isn’t much use if he’s only a messenger

The Times concludes that Alan Johnson’s departure as Shadow Chancellor (and the consequent arrival of Ed Balls in that post) is more significant politically than Andy Coulson’s departure from Number 10.  I agree.  However, I do not agree with the Times’ view of the limited influence of a press secretary, expressed in the penultimate paragraph of their leader:

The Conservatives will struggle to find someone to replace Mr Coulson, but ultimately this will determine the way that they convey their message rather than the choice of message itself. By contrast, the arrival of Ed Balls in the post of Shadow Chancellor is an important statement about Labour’s economic policy and its offer to voters at the next election will be shaped by it.

Any communications chief – wherever they work and for whomever they speak – is only any good if they (and their boss) understand they have a responsibility to influence the strategy/policy which informs the message they are responsible for delivering. 

And that’s because we – the people the organisation wants to influence – are more likely to base our views on what that organisation does than on what it says and we can spot when an organisation says and does different things.   

The comms director of any organisation is an incredibly important post with massive responsibilities for corporate reputation.  He/she must be part of the team developing the strategy which they and their team will be ultimately responsible for communicating. And quite frankly, if they are not, they're not much use to anyone.