Integrated corporate and product brand communication (1).

So, there is indeed a brand problem to be solved. From an individual brand perspective, communication needs to integrated, not just at the tactical level, but ultimately in terms of financial and corporate strategy as well. A strategy of communication has to be developed, underpinned by a sound ongoing analysis of consumer behaviors, in terms of returns on investment by behavioral segment is needed. From a corporate perspective, a similar strategy needs to be deployed. But, that strategy must be against internal organizational members, channels, suppliers, retailers, influencers, and analysts. Interactions between the two different types of brand i.e. the corporate brand and individual product brand within its portfolio, are still being analyzed in boardrooms around the world (see Schultz and Kitchen, 2000).

INTEGRATED COMMUNICATION

To many managers, executives, and leading-edge managerial and marketing thinkers (Keegan, 1999) globalization is already a reality. But, as we have indicated in our previous book (Schultz and Kitchen) the driving force of marketing, and branding products, services, and corporations is the marketplace. The 'marketplace' whether local, national, international or global, does not stand alone. It is a direct consequence of market economies bound up in those who 'buy' or 'sell' in it. Sellers, according to Ted Levitt "marshall materials, technologies, people, sentiment, wits, and money to their intended ends, meeting head-on in an amalgamating and unforgiving crucible" (Levitt, 1983, italics added).

Admittedly, Levitt's crucible concerns marketing and exchanges. Marketing and managerial imagination commonly drives initial marketing impetus. And that marketing impetus has to be customer-focused or consumer-orientated. But eventually, consumers start to ask questions and to hold attitudes toward the companies behind the products and services they buy. Note, at this stage, they do not just buy or not buy brands (i.e. usable, functional, or symbolically representative products). They also buy or not buy, support or not support, and carry images (positive or negative) toward companies which they themselves have often created or often have had created for them by various media outlets. The company or corporation has meaning and resonance for consumers and other publics. The question, of course, is whether or not that meaning or resonance or image is beneficial to the firm?

Corporate performance is not just a function of how well its brands are doing, but also on how well the company as brand is doing. Thus, it is insufficient to integrate all communication activities at product brand level only. All communication activities at the level of the business or corporation must be integrated as well. Moreover, there must also be interaction between the two forms of communication in an ongoing, interactive, interdependent, and synergistic manner. There should be no walls or barriers, despite their often different functions, between these types of communication, for both ultimately are needed to drive the business forward.

THE CORPORATE BRAND PERSPECTIVE

Around the world, many individual product or service brands are in trouble. They are being impacted by lack of innovation, excessive trade dealing, confused or non-rationalized brand portfolios, inconsistent brand extensions all of which create customer ambivalence toward the brand. Include then, inadequate services and inconsistency in terms of communication and it is clear that firms are being challenged. All these problems are generated-- not by customers or stakeholders--but by the organization. This raises the important question of the value of the corporate brand in relation to the individual product brands and whether or not the corporate brand should impose structural relevance on what the individual brands could or should do. Thus, by definition we are implying an interrelationship and interaction between corporate and marketing communication in terms of totally integrated communication.

But, just what is the corporate brand supposed to do? Does it help create sales for the product line or is it something that creates value for customers, shareholders and employees? We would argue that trying to measure marketplace sales results from a corporate communication program, at least at the corporate brand level, is generally the wrong approach. The aim of the corporate brand is or should be to supplement, underpin, and reinforce the various product and service marketing activities being used by the product brand(s). Corporate communication should, thus, provide value to customers, publics, stakeholders, shareholders and the like in addition to customers and prospects for the product brand(s). But, it should be noted that those values may not be immediately measurable in terms of increased exchanges. And, that is the measurement challenge for corporate branding. What value? Over what time? With what return on investment?

The purposes of corporate branding have been illustrated by Chernatony and McDonald (1998) and are adapted by us below to indicate what a corporate brand is and what it can potentially accomplish:

* make the company name known, distinct, and credible in the minds of existent and potential customers, consumers, and stakeholders

* facilitate the building of relationships with existing and potential customers, consumers, and stakeholders

* portray, if possible, the benefits offered to buyers and stakeholders that embody the value system of the corporation

To these criteria, we would add the corporate brand also provides value to employees,--shareholders, market analysts, community leaders, and on and on. We focus first, however, on the value the corporate brand can provide to consumers, customers, and other more closely aligned stakeholders.

Many major organizations have done a great deal of work in this area. Many companies divide the corporate brand into three levels:

Trademark--these are the symbols, names, icons and the like the firm owns and can protect. Corporate communication is generally responsible for this through the legal department.

Brands--These are the relationships with customers and consumers and stakeholders that products and services create for the firm through the promises they make and the experiences these stakeholders have.

Trustmarks--These are the quality and experience that are the result of brand activities promised and delivered through the various brands and trademarks. For the most part, these are reliability, trust, consistent dealings and the like that reside within the corporate organization. The corporate communication group is responsible for seeing that the brands and trademarks provide the trust that the organization owns or wants to own.

Building Brand Identities

The senior management of one corporation--Electrolux--believes Corporate Brand Identity is composed of "Familiarity" which comes from the marketplace i.e. from customers, consumers, stakeholders, and the like through their knowledge and experience with the firm's products and services. That's what corporate communication is supposed to do, build familiarity for the trustmark. That is critical. If stakeholders don't know or aren't familiar with the name or brand or the firm, little else matters.

In addition, Brand Identity is also influenced by two other major elements. One is Specialization; that is, what the organization does best, what it is known for, its place in the market. This can be separated into Relevance and Differentiation. In other words, what does the firm do that is relevant to the stakeholders and what makes the organization different from its competitors? These two areas are vital at the market and individual customer level.

The second element is Authority; that is, what is the basis for or the support for the corporate identity? Electrolux believes there are three factors: Quality, which is straightforward, i.e., workmanship, ingredients, construction, distribution, service, etc. Leadership, defined as where and how the organization rates in the world or in certain attributes or activities. For example, are they leaders in various areas such as technology, pricing, intellectual capital, value, and so on? The third factor is Trustworthiness; that is, can the stakeholders trust the company and its management? Has it been honest and fair in its dealings with various publics over time?

Using this approach Electrolux management is then able to construct their Brand Architecture approach; that is, how the various units can or should use the corporate brand in all forms of communication.

Electrolux has created a corporate brand architecture that ranges from Solo where the brand is on its own with little or no corporate identification to Hallmark. Hallmark equates to instances where the corporate brand means authority and a reason why the expertise of the corporate parent enhances or supports the promises of the individual brands. Extensions indicate how or in what ways the corporate or individually supported brands can be extended and expanded into other product and service areas. Finally, there is Family. The firm creates a family of brands under the corporate name as organizations such as Virgin or Nestle have done. All these structures are, of course, dependent on how corporate brand value is created and what it means to customers and prospects.

Creating Corporate Brand Value