Discovering Futures V2


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Premium pricing.
  • Assets & liabilities. Brand personality and values also central. Corporate v Financial views We will look at general and proprietary models to value brand equity.
  • Strong brands have a much higher value that their tangible assets – ie Coca-Cola. Advantages: Premium pricing and consistent volume Easier to recruit and keep staff Creates barriers to competition Makes products easier to find Adds value through associations, values and beliefs. The brand removes the risk.
  • Corporate rather than product branding. Embedded cultural approach including comms, marketing, HR, enrolment, course development, alumni relations. We are all the brand (brand champions). Not just a logo, advertising or taglines. Problems: Funding Leadership changes Lack of internal component Silo culture Product branding. Advantages: Core values and beliefs are sustainable. Clarifies behaviour of staff to deliver of brand promise. Capitalise on importance of staff to HE. Deeper two-way communications. Clarifies what branding really means. Connection with service delivery.
  • Ariadne’s red thread (Greek mythology) Le fil rouge (France Krasnia nit (Russia) Roter faden (Germany) Simple metaphor for what brand value should be about. The power of the team.
  • From the perspective of the stakeholder or customer. Don’t dismiss internal factors though. Easier to define a single compelling brand image. Importance of company culture. Different stakeholders may require different approaches. New markets may require new brands to compete effectively. Adapt to local market conditions with flexible brand architecture.
  • Cost – traditional accounting. Depreciating assets. Not good at accounting for brands accurately. Market – price the owner could sell the brand for. Income – ability to produce income after tax. Including value-added models. The value a consumer will pay over own-brand. Economic use – forecast earnings back to a net present value. Interbrand: Business Week, revenue from the brand. Net Present Value figure. Brand strength assessment – proprietary methods including several factors affecting brand strength. Popular.
  • Financial - to guide investment decisions. Allows brands, segments, markets to be compared. Allows comparison between investment in marketing and other areas of the business. Marketing - Environment impact on brand performance. Brand architecture decisions (corporate, product, subsidiary). Licensing, co-branding etc.
  • Rights - Leases; distribution agreements;employment contracts; covenants; financing arrangements; supply contracts; licenses; certifications; franchises. Relationships - Trained and assembled workforce; customer and distribution relationships. Intellectual Property - Trademarks; patents; copyrights; proprietary technology (e.g. formulas; recipes; specifications; formulations; training programs; marketing strategies; artistic techniques; customer lists; demographic studies; product test results; business knowledge – processes; lead times; cost and pricing data; trade secrets and know-how). Intangible assets that may be recognised on a balance sheet under IAS are typically only a fraction of the total intangible asset value of a business, with the remaining value continuing to be classified as 'goodwill'. Brands if acquired, can be identified under these rules and added to the balance sheet. This results in the unusual situation where internally-generated brands of the acquiree may be recognised on the acquirer's balance sheet but the acquirer's own internally-generated brands may not, because it is thought that without a transaction it is too difficult to or subjective to value brands. That value can only be the same or be revised down year-on-year.
  • Why Carnegie? Links – philanthropy/WP How? Research Mechanics Institute 1824 Carnegie College of Sports & Exercise Science 30s Leeds Polytechnic 70s Leeds Metropolitan University 80s Leeds Carnegie University? Mapping the brand The Carnegie footprint Relative positioning Met – former Poly, undifferentiated, grey, value/cheap Carnegie – endowments, libraries/learning, philanthropy (not sport) Place considered important too
  • Evokes what the brand stands for without explanation. Deliver experience in line intuitively. Consistent with brand promise. Complex branding signals – need to be aligned. Customer journey with moments of magic. Coaching (specifically UKCCE) = catalyst The Coaching University Unique approach
  • Direct response the White Paper on the future of HE. Further articulation of the mission ‘A world-class regional university with world-wide horizons striving to use all our talents to the full” Outlined in the Vision & Character. Describes the differentiation and positioning of the university for stakeholders. Partnership approach has been a very visible aspect with a wide variety of sporting a cultural associations and the development of the Regional University Network of partner colleges. Focus is to ensure that vision is true for all students and to concentrate on the core business of teaching not just extra-curricular activities.
  • Vision & Character Leeds Met Acts
  • Case Study Carnegie Challenge Cup Success factors: Engaged fans involved in product category Substantial budget for activation/promotion Clear message to a target market responsive to the brand Link between product and property Partnership Synergy Adding value through activation Student participation 70% brand awareness in 2007 90% brand awareness 2008 25% increase in applications to Carnegie (12%) overall
  • Partnership approach Unique naming right for biggest cricket club in the world with global reach – particularly India (mention IIFA) Ownership of a premiership rugby union club – international sport, cost tiny compared to football. Partnership with one of the world’s top rugby league clubs – strong for local market, fantastic fit (and with RFL in general). Links to sport & exercise science, wholesome image. Developed stadium to include teaching facilities – the most important international sports facility in the region.
  • Adventure and challenge aspects of brand personified with involvement in the Army expedition to Everest (nutrition/support). My Peak Potential and Alpenrose in Bavaria developed as a result.
  • The world’s greatest athlete - Haile Gebrselassie – honorary degree at the African Athletic Championships. Ambassador role.
  • Kelly Holmes and The UK Centre for Coaching Excellence – in competition with Loughbrough.
  • Student performance. From 24 th to top 5 in BUSA/BUCS in 5 years. Our students will perform at the Olympics, they have sailed around the world and we are at the heart of coaching in the UK.
  • Discovering Futures V2

    1. 1. Branding Carnegie Richard Berry Head of Creative Design
    2. 2. <ul><li>“ Different courses and universities bring different benefits… graduates should make differential contributions to reflect that .” </li></ul><ul><li>“ There is already a great deal of diversity within the sector. But it needs to be acknowledged and celebrated, with institutions both openly identifying and playing to their strengths .” The Future of Higher Education (Department for Education & Skills 2003) </li></ul>
    3. 3. Brand Equity <ul><li>“ A set of assets and liabilities linked to a brand’s name that add or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a firm and/or that firm’s customers.” Aaker (1998) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Advantages <ul><li>Premium pricing </li></ul><ul><li>Customer volume </li></ul><ul><li>Repeat purchases </li></ul><ul><li>Trade efficiencies </li></ul>
    5. 5. Corporate Branding <ul><li>Corporate v Product </li></ul><ul><li>‘Inside out’ approach </li></ul><ul><li>Ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Core values </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainable planning </li></ul>
    6. 6. Corporate Branding <ul><li>“ The ropes of the royal fleet, from the largest to the smallest, are braided so that a red thread runs through them all end to end which cannot be extracted without undoing the whole. Even the smallest fragments may be recognised as belonging to the the Crown.” Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1809) </li></ul>
    7. 7. Brand Architecture <ul><li>‘Outside in’ approach </li></ul><ul><li>Parent/sub brands </li></ul><ul><li>Addressing multiple stakeholders </li></ul><ul><li>Emerging markets </li></ul><ul><li>Global v Local </li></ul>
    8. 8. Approaches to Brand Valuation <ul><li>Cost approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Market approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Income approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Economic use methods </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Interbrand </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Brand strength evaluation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Young & Rubicam </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Landor </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Millward Brown </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Research International </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. Using Brand Equity <ul><li>Financial </li></ul><ul><li>Marketing </li></ul>
    10. 10. Accounting <ul><li>30-70% of market value </li></ul><ul><li>Rights </li></ul><ul><li>Relationships </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property </li></ul><ul><li>Brands? </li></ul><ul><li>IFRS3 (2007) </li></ul>
    11. 11. The Carnegie Brand
    12. 12. Brand Drivers <ul><li>Coaching </li></ul><ul><li>Performance </li></ul><ul><li>Excellence </li></ul><ul><li>Creativity </li></ul><ul><li>Innovation </li></ul>
    13. 13. Brand Values <ul><li>Student-centred </li></ul><ul><li>Pioneering </li></ul><ul><li>Community </li></ul><ul><li>Widening and deepening participation </li></ul><ul><li>Partnerships: local, regional, national, international </li></ul><ul><li>Embedded in and part of the region and Leeds </li></ul><ul><li>World-wide horizons </li></ul><ul><li>Focus on employability </li></ul><ul><li>Ethical and environmentally-friendly </li></ul><ul><li>Career enhancement and professional development </li></ul>
    14. 14. Brand Personality <ul><li>Putting students at the heart of everything we do </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivery </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commitment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Professionalism </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Collaborating, team-working and supporting our community </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Respect </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Co-operation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Communication </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Running streams </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Creativity & innovation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Future Focus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Development </li></ul></ul>
    15. 21. Conclusions <ul><li>Intangible assets are elusive </li></ul><ul><li>Branding is the key intangible </li></ul><ul><li>Branding in HE is in its infancy </li></ul><ul><li>Branding can differentiate </li></ul><ul><li>FSA can’t/won’t evaluate the true contribution of intangibles </li></ul><ul><li>Knowing more about the contribution of brands guides business and investment strategies – much more important than a final figure on a balance sheet </li></ul>