DIFFUSION for national adoption brands.

DIFFUSION have been appointed to develop the brands of Orphan Angels and Australia's National Adoption Awareness Week.

National Adoption Awareness Week, which will be held this year from November 16-22, aims to encourage, listen and acknowledge all adoption-related journeys and experiences.

Orphan Angels, founded by Deborra-lee Furness and Janine Weir, focuses on assisting global orphan projects and improving Australia 's adoption practices. One of its major projects is the National Adoption Awareness Week.

Orphan Angels President Janine Weir said the group was excited to be working with DIFFUSION as it looked to develop both Orphan Angels and the National Adoption Awareness Week brands.

“This year we’re looking to create even more connections between Australians who are touched by adoption. DIFFUSION’s appointment will enables us to better understand how we can use brand to leverage it and encourage more participation in this year’s event,” she said.

DIFFUSION strategy director Stephen Byrne said the agency was excited with the appointment, given the group’s work was high profile and the agency was continuing to expand its work with organisations that had both national and international reach as well as important social agendas.

DIFFUSION was recently appointed to develop the brand strategy for the Lowy Cancer Research Centre at the University of NSW.

Questionable identity: what General Motors can learn from adaptive instability.

Anticipating and mitigating the dramatic impact of organisational inertia on transformational brand programs can help companies better cope with a constantly shifting economic environment. Just ask US car makers.

It’s a key finding from a recent study by Harvard Business School’s Mary Tripsas on the interplay of “Technology, Identity and Inertia” within a new technology company.

While there is a wealth of knowledge around the brand dynamics that contribute to forming identity, Tripsas believes the specific relationships between brand, change and technology and the impact of inertia remain unexplored.

Tripsas’ study challenges the existing zeitgeist by arguing broader brand identities impose fewer constraints on how people view organisations. She believes those with more generic brands are better able to weather a range of changing external conditions because they can align with our wider expectations of what their brands mean.

Broader brand identities and brand architecture create flexibility for a company since they enable a form of adaptive instability.

Adaptive instability works when the external labelling of a company’s brand is fairly constant but enables an internal self label which can reflect internal shifts in a brand. BHP Billiton might be “a mining company” to all of us but it currently self identifies as “a global leader in the resources industry”, reflecting a dynamic strategy. Often it is no more than rhetoric but if a brand is internally viewed as both instable and adaptive, it is able to better respond and adapt to external environmental shifts without having to make major brand changes.

While Tripsas doesn’t say how this can be achieved, there’s been plenty of evidence to support how I believe a robustly formed brand identity supported by broader purpose and positioning statements can. For example, News Corporation has been able to better adapt to the changes wrought by the internet by positioning itself as “a diversified global media company”, rather than as a single media source company.
The same approach has been taken by oil companies such as BP and Chevron in the past few years as they moved away from external “oil company” to more generic “energy company” labels. Conversely, the American car makers such as General Motors (self label: the world's largest automaker) and Chrysler (self label: we build cars and trucks) would have done well to think about how they could be morphing their brands from their focus on pure manufacturing labels to offering broader “transport” options. The prescient Honda already self labels itself as a "mobility" company.

However, Tripsas warns if a brand is too diverse it also runs the risk of not aligning with external stakeholder understanding. It’s why the UK’s EasyGroup is such a great example of what NOT to do. Unlike the diverse Virgin group of companies, which operates against well articulated brand values and personality, I struggle to understand the fundamentals of the Easy brand beyond its ability to apply an Easy prefix to any business category from rental cars to pizza. Does anyone think Coles’ owner Wesfarmers actually has a brand? As an agricultural company it probably did but now its ambit stretches from retail supermarkets to coal mines, its even rendered label-less by its own description as “a diversified corporation”.

Even the brand essence of a company can direct and constrain action and generate inertia. Tripsas defines essence as a company’s “routines, procedures, information filters, capabilities, knowledge base and beliefs” but I call it core self belief. So when an economic downturn challenges an organisation and when pursuing change to meet that challenge violates core brand beliefs, organisations often pull up short rather than face the need for what Tripsas calls “systemic, major reorientations”. You only need to look at Woolworths bungled rebranding to see this in action.

But brand and strategy are not mutually exclusive. Unfortunately most firms have aligned brand to their marketing rather than to their strategy and subsequently ahve limited capacity for change. If a firm’s brand is expressed through elements of its strategy, does this mean a change in strategy necessarily then implies a change in brand and vice versa?

Tripsas concludes brand is not just one more factor to consider when unravelling sources of internal inertia during changing circumstances. A brand is a guidepost. Where a new dynamic such a global recession requires changes to the brand, simply altering routines, capabilities or beliefs without acknowledging the broader implications can be problematic and, in some cases (back to the US car makers), devastating.

This blog was also published in Marketing Magazine Australia on 8 December 2009.

The battle of the brands: the contest for the best brand surveys in the world.

Dr Hunter S Thompson must be smiling. The Hells Angels are Australia's number one brand, if yet another brand popularity survey is to be believed.

Brand rankings, brand affinity, brand preference, brand valuation studies - dress them up as global and national rankings and name them the World's Best Brands, the World's Most Valuable Brands, the World's Most Recognised Brands, the World's Most Powerful Brands, the World's Most Loved Brands and you get some sense of the beauty contest that is going on for companies claiming authority in battle of brands.

Advertising agency the Belong Group's Australian study of national brand awareness, appears just another example of yet another advertising agency trying to climb onto the brand popularity surveys bandwagon, with what can best be described as a very "independent" study.

According to Belong, the top five brands in Australia are the Hells Angels, Apple, Star Wars and the diary and stationery manufacturer, Moleskine!

While there is little detail on the study methodology, it seems that a 1000 consumers were polled on the basis of what a brand stood for, if there was a clearly articulated belief and whether the brand elucidated a particular type of behaviour in people. A panel of, what Belong describes as, "industry experts" then ranked and shortlisted 20 brands.

It's not too dissimilar to advertising agency Saatchi and Saatchi's Lovemarks project.

A love mark is a product, service, person or place a consumer can’t imagine living without, has a specific name that is identifiable by others and is based on a personal experience.

Lovemarks is about consumer's identifying a small, everyday product or brand that embraces and infuses people's live to make them a little better via the Lovemarks' website listing.

Interestingly there is some affinity with Belong top 20, Lovemarks contributors rank Apple at 4 and Moleskine at 6 among their top 200 and also Nike at 87 and Star Wars at 148.

Belong's top five of the top 20 brands (Alannah Hill, Free Hugs, Peter Alexander, T2 and the Bra Boys) are Sydney based, would suggest that either Belong are looking for new clients (Saatchi and Saatchi reportedly won US$430 million JC Penney contract because of Lovemarks) or that the brand menu was very selective and the research net wasn't cast too widely outside of Sydney.

Compare this to the top five in last years The World's Best Brands, an annual global study published Business Week for the last seven years, which lists CocaCola, Microsoft, IBM, General Electric and Nokia and you'll see why things must have gone a little awry over at Belong.

In the Business Week study, Nike which ranked 12th on Belong's list slips in at 29th, Harley Davidson motors in at 45th and Apple manages to get 33rd. No mention of Smiggle, The Body Shop and shoe brand, Ecko.

Unlike the Belong study, this ranking uses a combination of analysts’ projections, company financial documents, and own qualitative and quantitative analysis to arrive at a net present value of company earnings to establish the brand value.

To even qualify for this list, brands must make at least a third of their earnings outside the home country, be recognisable outside of its customer base and have publicly available marketing and financial information.

Global brand valuation agency Brand Finance's Top 100 Australian Brands, published in June this year, lists National Australia Bank, Woolworths, Commonwealth Bank, Telstra and the Foster's Group in the top five. Coca Cola is listed at number seven.

Happily for Belong - Seven Network, which screens Sunrise (ranked 18th) is ranked 28th by Brand Finance and one of the licensees of the Virgin brand (ranked eight by Belong) Virgin Blue scrapes in at 45.

Brand Finance's rankings are based on the brand portfolios of Australian Stock Exchange listed companies, in terms of their absolute dollar value, and also the percentage contribution that the brands make to enterprise value.

Brand Finance defines a brand portfolio as the value of trade marks and trade mark licenses, together with associated goodwill.

Global marketing research agency Millward Brown's World's Most Powerful Brands or BrandZ Study published in April this year lists Google, General Electric, Microsoft, Coca Cola and China Mobile in their top five.

In their list Apple comes in at seven, Nike at 53 and Harley Davidson at 72. No listing for Dove or Star Wars here though surprisingly Unilever, which does own the Dove brand, (perhaps no one knows who they are in Australia) is unranked but McDonalds ranking eigth and Subway (73) are.

Millward Brown's annual BrandZ Study measures the brand equity of 50,000 global “consumer facing” brands and interviews over 1 million consumers globally (though this is probably across numerous studies of unspecified nature). The Top 100 ranking assesses brand value using market and consumer research, in combination with financial data from Bloomberg and Datamonitor, to calculate and break-down intangible earnings), brand contribution (the brand’s effectiveness in driving business earnings and what they call Brand Momentum (an index of expected short-term brand growth).

The Millward Brown ranking takes into account regional variations since even for truly global brands measures of brand contribution might differ substantially across countries.

The Belong study is based on consumer sentiment with an "expert" filter and provides a simplistic but popularist ranking of the "top" brands in Australia. Alongside Lovemarks, it proves there's a long way to go before we get a more accurate measure of the relevance and influence these brands have on consumers. While the global brand ranking studies do provide a substantial degree of homogeneity in their brand rankings because of common financial inputs, the degree to which they measure power and recognition is something recognisable consumer input could make a significant contribution to.

Cadbury's purple passage.

Cadbury Schweppes is enjoying a purple passage after the Australian Federal Court this week handed it a win over some allegedly deceptive pratices by competitor Darrell Lea (see DIFFUSIONblog:Cadbury appeal short of a glass and a half 20/7/06).

Cadbury accused Darrell Lea of misleading and deceptive conduct by using a shade of purple which it claims bears "a striking and obvious" resemblance to its own "Cadbury Purple". All very strange because when DIFFUSION walked past the store on Thursday it seemed decidedly blue in colour.

In the original April 2006 hearing, a Federal Court judge dismissed Cadbury's claim, probably because it was more reliant on Cadbury’s claim of ownership of Pantone 2685C and Pantones that are very close to it.

In the disputed hearing the court ruled Cadbury did not “own” the colour purple and that Darrell Lea's use was not likely to convey to a” reasonable consumer” that it was associated with its rival.

However, three Federal Court justices disagreed with the previous finding and allowed Cadbury's appeal, ordering a new trial at the same court to be set (see: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2007/70.html)

The Court ruled that in dismissing expert evidence from three witnesses presented by Cadbury, the trial judge had erred.

Interestingly the three experts, Brian Gibbs, an Associate Professor of Marketing and Behavioural Science in the Melbourne Business School at the University of Melbourne, Constantino Stavros, a Senior Lecturer in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing of RMIT University, Melbourne; and Timothy Riches, the managing director of FutureBrand were all called by Cadbury and presented with photo evidence it had accumulated on it's competitor's activites (let's also note that Cadbury operates no retail stores in Australia, while Darrel Lea has done so since 1927 with more than 1000 stores).

In particular, weight was attached to Gibbs’ evidence which drew attention to such factors as brand concept and brand equity, the nature and storage of brand associations in memory, the role of packaging in marketing communication and the importance and impact of colour in brand.

"It cannot be said that the disputed evidence is of so little weight that it could not influence the result of a new trial, so as to produce a different result," they said in their judgment.

Cadbury claims that since 1995 it has achieved a substantial, exclusive and valuable reputation and goodwill throughout Australia through the colour purple.

It alleges that since 2001, Darrell Lea has consistently used a colour bearing a "striking and obvious" likeness to Cadbury's purple in its signage, badging, wrapping, store fit-out and point of sale facilities.

Cadbury also claimed that Darrell Lea’s conduct constitutes passing off of its chocolate confectionary business and products as a business or products of, or connected or associated with, Cadbury.

DIFFUSION believes Cadbury has taken the route of attempting to prove passing off and by dint of this assume ownership of colour Pantone 2685C, something which it has up to now failed to do.