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
M5...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 2

Shikatani Lacroix is a leading branding and design firm
located in Tor...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 3

Executive Summary
A study was conducted in the spring of 2013 with ov...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 4

The study also highlighted how the process of creating
or refining bra...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 5

The Emergence of Brand Coherence
In 2012, Shikatani Lacroix released ...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 6

Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure
10.00% 30.00%
20.00% 40.00%...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 7

Level of Brand Integration and Evaluation Inconsistent
70%

The study...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 8

Step #1: Establish Consistent Industry Metrics to
Evaluate the Contri...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 9

When asked if their company leadership, employees,
vendors and custom...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 10

Brand Essence and Execution Gap
Employee Branding

11.00%

The issue...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 11

A study by Fierce Inc. demonstrated how organizations
that have leve...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 12

The brand position review and articulation forms part
of a yearly bu...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 13

It was interesting that few mentioned mergers or
acquisitions along ...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 14

Following a thorough review, the senior leadership
needs to assess h...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 15

Although respondents indicated culture was a very
important benefit o...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 16

Ensure Actions Align to Direction
Branding defines the place and dire...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 17

Great organizations who have established a strong
brand coherence st...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 18

For more information, contact:
Jean-Pierre Lacroix, President
Shikat...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 19

RESEARCH DETAILS
How would you classify your industry?
Percentage

S...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 20

Where is your head office located?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Unit...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 21

In which department do you work?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Manage...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 22

Which best describes your role within the organization? 
Response

C...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 23

Please indicate your total annual revenue:
 
Response

Chart

Percen...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 24

How does your organization determine brand equity?

Response

Chart
...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 25

How would you describe your organization's overall level of brand in...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 26

Do you have different brand positions? For example, a corporate bran...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 27

Please select if your brand position is functional (what you do) or ...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 28

How often do you review your brand position, regardless if it's a mi...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 29

If you have a position, vision and/or brand portfolio, what drove th...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 30

Which role(s) within your organization ensure(s) the initiatives wit...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 31

Please indicate the degree to which various marketing and communicat...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 32

On a scale from 1 (no impact) to 10 (strong impact), to what degree ...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 33

What challenges have you faced in your efforts to align your brand p...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 34

Please indicate the reasons why your organization may not have a cle...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 35

In your opinion, what are the most important benefits of having a bra...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 36

Appendix
If you were to select one initiative that would drive a hig...
White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 37

In your opinion, what are some of the negative effects that a lack o...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Six steps to ensuring brand alignment

1,251 views

Published on

Shikatani Lacroix conducted a study in the spring of 2013 with over 120 companies participating across the globe. It identified a gap within the brand positioning structure with only half of respondents clearly articulating their company’s brand essence. 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.

Published in: Marketing, Business
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,251
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
9
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
45
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Six steps to ensuring brand alignment

  1. 1. Organizational brand coherence Six steps towards ensuring brand alignment
  2. 2. For more information contact: Jean-Pierre Lacroix President Shikatani Lacroix 387 Richmond Street East Toronto, Ontario M5A 1P6 Telephone: 416-367-1999 Email: jplacroix@sld.com
  3. 3. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 2 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 Author Jean-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 jplacroix@sld.com 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
  4. 4. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 3 Executive Summary A 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 di 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.
  5. 5. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 4 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 sta 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
  6. 6. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 5 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-oftruth are effectively aligned towards a common value becomes paramount. 40.0% United States 42.00% Canada Western Europe 6.00% Asia 4.00% Other 4.00% Oceania United Kingdom 3.00% 1.00% 12.5% 37.5% 25% 50% Value Title 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.
  7. 7. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 6 Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure 10.00% 30.00% 20.00% 40.00% More than half of respondents were companies with 33% C Suite global reach while the respondent profile included 42% representing departments in sales and marketing, 38% Vice-President Level 15% in management with an additional 22% in buying, manufacturing and product development. To better Director Level 18% understand how the brand position was being managed, we ensured the study had a fair Manager Level 14% Employee Level 14% Other, please specify... representation of positions throughout organizations. The study respondents consisted of 33% holding CSuite positions while 32% percent had Vice-President and Director level positions. An additional 14% had 6% 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) 3% structure with the remaining respondents equally split between a house of brands (i.e. P&G) and branded 23% divisions (i.e. Apple). When asked how many brands the organization markets, 47% indicated 2 to 10 while 23% 51% 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 Branded House (i.e., BMW) House of Brands (i.e., P&G) Branded Divisions (i.e. Apple) Other, please specify... 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).
  8. 8. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 7 Level of Brand Integration and Evaluation Inconsistent 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 61% 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 18% Market Based Income Based value - had the lowest percentage of application with 14% Cost Based only 14% mentioning their organization used this 8% system. Another 18% mentioned they used an income- Other 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. 48% 38% 0.5 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 9% High majority of companies ranked their brand integration Medium Low 5% Other 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.
  9. 9. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 8 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 12% to invest in building their brand equities with internal and external stakeholders, these efforts become 43% 45% diluted when initiatives are spread across a range of brands. Organizations which have a house of brand portfolio Yes, we have different brand positions No, we only have one for the entire organization Not aware if we have a brand position 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.
  10. 10. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 9 When asked if their company leadership, employees, vendors and customers can clearly articulate their 40.0% brand position, there showed a startling drop-off drop-o 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 38% organizations seek to ensure their brand remains relevant to both internal and external stakeholders, we 19% Leadership recommend they consider their portfolio structure and brand position linkage to ensure the master brand 11% position is sustained and integrated as part of their Employees Customers 10% Vendors product portfolio, allowing greater efficiencies and e 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. di 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.
  11. 11. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 10 Brand Essence and Execution Gap Employee Branding 11.00% The issue regarding brand cohesion is not centered on having a defined brand position, as the study identified Employee Brand On-Boarding 8.00% the majority of companies had a clearly articulated position (83%), clearly defined core equities and value Product Innovation 34.00% Conventional Advertising 39.00% 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 Online Marketing 42.00% essence (59%). This supports our premise that organizations must be able to distill their brand’s Social Media unique value into easy to remember, simple to 42.00% understand and focused messaging. This leads to an Mobile Media Digital Media 21.00% Package Design 42.00% Merchandising effective translation of the brand position. 21.00% 42.00% 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 Store Design advertising (39%) and public relations (37%). Employee 32.00% branding and on-boarding had the lowest scores with Public Relations only 11% and 8%, which identifies a significant gap in 37.00% how organizations leverage their positioning initiatives. A focus on external initiatives without strong internal Apps 8.00% alignment will translate into a positioning process that is neither sustainable nor effectively delivered. e Gaming 50.0%
  12. 12. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 11 A study by Fierce Inc. demonstrated how organizations that have leveraged their brand position to create 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 Position 83% engaged employees create stronger organizations, provide 20% better performance and are 87% less likely to leave. Core Equities 79% Step #3: Fill the Brand Essence Gap Value Proposition 79% 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 Personality 76% brand essence. A brand essence is for employees to remember and can set the tone for organizational alignment. Vision 74% The reality is that most employees or customers focus on day-to-day tasks and responsibilities and a need to Pillars 71% reduce complexity. Brand positions and their supporting brand card are, by their structured nature, Mission Brand Essence 71% 59% very wordy and complex, making them difficult to di 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.
  13. 13. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 12 The brand position review and articulation forms part of a yearly business review with more than 50% of 6% companies while the other 50% review their position 2% every three or more years. 9% In addition, when asked to determine which role within 53% 30% 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 Once a year Once every five years Never Once every three years Once every ten years 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. Competitive threat 18% Change of senior leadership 16% Merger or acquisition Business review Business decline 7% 36% 7% Growth in an emerging sector 13% Established process 24% employee-level support and contribution if the brand position is to be effectively leveraged and integrated e 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. e 13% Launch of a new division/business Organizations should devise stronger director-and- Our category has been commoditized 13% 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: Restructuring of company Other, please specify... N/A 13% 2% 11% 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.
  14. 14. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 13 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, Foundation such as employee engagement or even office wayfinding. It will be critical to the success Momentum of any branding initiative to build a strong cohesive plan that links all the moments-of- Brand Coherence Infinity Loop 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.
  15. 15. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 14 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 0.175 0.350 0.525 Performance 0.700 The impact of an organization’s branding initiative is Allows the organization to focus its resources 49% most felt on brand loyalty, execution excellence and lower staff turnover (29%, respectfully) . These are ff followed by sales performance (27%), market share and Makes marketing easier 61% ROI (24%) and finally employee engagement (16%) and margin contribution (10%). The greatest challenges in ensuring alignment are a lack of understanding of the Increases our competitiveness 63% 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 Higher company valuation 39% Stronger corporate culture 66% 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 Better business decisions 44% followed by a lack of resources, time, leadership or understanding of the importance of branding. It was Greater pride in the organization 54% interesting that although branding usage tends to be external marketing focused, more than 66% of Ability to better manage brands and product portfolio Helps me understand my role in the company 41% 24% 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%).
  16. 16. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 15 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.
  17. 17. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 16 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.
  18. 18. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 17 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.
  19. 19. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 18 For more information, contact: Jean-Pierre Lacroix, President Shikatani Lacroix 387 Richmond Street East Toronto, Ontario M5A 1P6 Telephone: 416-367-1999 Email: jplacroix@sld.com
  20. 20. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 19 RESEARCH DETAILS How would you classify your industry? Percentage Sectors Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Farming Communications 4% Resources 8.00% 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% Response Chart 10% 100.00%
  21. 21. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 20 Where is your head office located? Response Chart 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 Chart Percentage Local 15% National  33% International  52%
  22. 22. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 21 In which department do you work? Response Chart Percentage Management 38% Accounting and Finance 0% Sales and Marketing 42% Manufacturing 2% Distribution 0% Human Resources 0% Purchasing 2% Other, please specify... 17% 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
  23. 23. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 22 Which best describes your role within the organization?  Response Chart Percentage C Suite 33% Vice-President Level 15% Director Level 18% Manager Level 14% Employee Level 14% Other, please specify... 6% 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 Chart 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% Other, please specify... 3%
  24. 24. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 23 Please indicate your total annual revenue:   Response Chart Percentage Under $1 million 21% $1 million - $10 million 17% $11 million - $50 million 18% $51 million - $100 million 5% $101 million - $500 million 8% $501 million - $1 billion 6% Over $1 billion 18% Rather not disclose  8% How many brands does your organization sell? Response Chart Percentage 1 26% 2 to 10 47% 11 to 20 2% 21 to 50 12% More than 50 14%
  25. 25. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 24 How does your organization determine brand equity? Response Chart 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% Other, please specify... 8% 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
  26. 26. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 25 How would you describe your organization's overall level of brand integration? Response Chart 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% Other, please specify... 5% 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. 
  27. 27. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 26 Do you have different brand positions? For example, a corporate brand position in addition to divisional or product brand positions? Response Chart 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   (79%) No (12%) (71%) (21%) (9%) (79%) (10%) (10%) (76%) (16%) (9%) (83%) (14%) (3%) Mission (how you will achieve your vision) (71%) (17%) (12%) Vision (long-term aspirational direction of the organization) Essence (your brand DNA or Big Idea) (74%) (19%) (7%) (59%) (33%) (9%) Core Equities (what you own versus competitors) Pillars (core strategies that support your position and initiatives) Value Proposition (why someone would pay more for your brand(s)) Brand Personality (defines how you look and act) Position (how you want to be perceived)   Unsure (9%)  
  28. 28. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 27 Please select if your brand position is functional (what you do) or emotional (how it makes your customers feel) Response Chart Percentage 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%) 2 (0%) (3%) (5%) (5%) (7%) (16%) (24%)   10 (Clear articulation) (12%) (26%) (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%) Leadership Team Employees   3   4   5   6   7   8   9
  29. 29. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 28 How often do you review your brand position, regardless if it's a mission, position, or is more elaborate? Response Chart Percentage 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?   ChairmanCEO     CFO COO   CMO    VP of VP of Sales HR   and Marketi ng VP of VP of VP of VP of IT  VP of Directo AdvertisinBrand Marketing Public Manage Other Operati Purchasi Innovatio Communi r Level g Agency Consultant Firm Relations ment ons ng n cations Firm Consulta nt   nsure U Position (7%) (37%) (0%) (4%) (13%) (11%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (7%) Vision/ (11%) (57%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (7%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (0%) Mission (0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (2%) Essenc (7%) (43%)(2%) (0%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (0%) (4%) e/Big Idea (0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (9%)  
  30. 30. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 29 If you have a position, vision and/or brand portfolio, what drove the decision to create it? Response Chart 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% Other, please specify... 2% N/A 11%
  31. 31. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 30 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%
  32. 32. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 31 Please indicate the degree to which various marketing and communication tools are used to support your brand position. Never Used  Occasionally Used Used Seasonally Used Tactically Used Often (Integral) N/A Employee Branding (13%) (37%) (13%) (21%) (11%) (5%) Employee Brand On-Boarding (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%) (24%)  
  33. 33. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 32 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 (8%) (3%) (13%) (3%) (13%) (18%) (16%) (11%) (3%) (13%) Sales (0%) Performance (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%) Employee Engagement   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10 (Strong Impact)
  34. 34. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 33 What challenges have you faced in your efforts to align your brand position? 1 (No 2 Challenge)   3   4   5   6   7   8  9  10 (8%) (5%) (11%) (8%) (13%) (5%) (16%) (21%) (5%) (Major Challenge) (8%) New products and (8%) R&D (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 (3%) geographical boundaries (13%) (11%) (8%) (13%) (8%) (13%) (16%) (5%) (11%) Internal alignment (0%) (11%) (16%) (11%) (11%) (0%) (18%) (29%) (0%) (5%) Understanding of (11%) the brand position (5%) (5%) (5%) (13%) (5%) (13%) (24%) (3%) (16%) Commitment to a brand position (16%) (8%) (5%) (8%) (8%) (16%) (11%) (5%) (13%) Understanding of (11%) the importance of a brand position (5%) (11%) (5%) (16%) (5%) (16%) (16%) (5%) (11%) C-suite level commitment (13%) (8%) (3%) (18%) (3%) (11%) (13%) (5%) (8%) Consistent brand messaging (11%) (18%)
  35. 35. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 34 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%
  36. 36. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 35 In your opinion, what are the most important benefits of having a brand position for your organization? Response Chart 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.
  37. 37. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 36 Appendix 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? # 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
  38. 38. White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 37 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

×