Corporate Identity

Slideshow Transcript

1. Slide 1: Corporate Identity and Reputation Live the Image. 1
2. Slide 2: What do Wipro, Tata Group, Modi Group,  Videocon, Britannia Industries, Aditya Birla Group, Dr. Reddy’s and ICICI have in common with Accenture, Citigroup, Computer Associates, Novartis, Agree GlaxoSimthKline, “Monday” and Pepsico? Disagree Discuss 2 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
3. Slide 3: Format This presentation is intended as an interactive  session. It will frequently posit a number of ‘truisms’ that are not  necessarily true. You are expected to be alert to these, engage with  them, and challenge them whenever & however you Agree like. Disagree The format of engagement is:  Agree Disagree Discuss Discuss 3 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
4. Slide 4: Agree Image After years of denial, virtually every organisation today is Disagree keenly aware of the tremendous impact of image on its immediate and long-term success. Discuss 4 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
5. Slide 5: However, most companies regard image as  frontage & not having any connection with the rest of the organisation. This may give them short-term gains, but  these are rarely sustainable in & of Agree themselves. Disagree Discuss 5 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
6. Slide 6: Today, we know that neglecting the backend  can severely jeopardize the front end, and even sets up the chance of backlash. Agree Disagree Discuss 6 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
7. Slide 7: Hence, Image is not like make-up: it needs to  be ‘true’ through and through. To achieve a desired image (and accrue its  benefits), organisations must “live” it. Agree Disagree Discuss 7 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
8. Slide 8: Positioning For years, companies were happy to fashion  themselves after someone else, usually a leading company in their own field. They were happy to follow. Which is fine,  because there were many customers for Agree follower goods, few companies altogether, and no pressure to grow. Disagree Not any more.  Discuss 8 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
9. Slide 9: Rising competition and picky customers are  forcing them to differentiate themselves from competition in meaningful ways. We now know that finding and building on  one’s own & unique strengths is a faster and Agree easier route to sustainable competitiveness: “Find yourself. Then be yourself.” Disagree Discuss 9 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
10. Slide 10: Analyzing Image Image exists in the minds of an organisation’s  stakeholders. It is best understood by the “Five Blind Men  and the Elephant” story, where random parts define the whole for each ‘audience’. Agree Disagree Discuss 10 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
11. Slide 11: Image is formed from some or many out of  the following: Intended communication (“claims, propaganda”)  Unintended communication (“revealed between the  lines”) Agree Word-of-mouth reputation (“buzz, media reports”)  Transaction and post-transaction experience  Disagree (“expectation versus delivery”) Discuss 11 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
12. Slide 12: The sources of image are many and diverse  —not all can be tracked down. Many of these occur outside our sphere of  control. Agree Disagree Discuss 12 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
13. Slide 13: The only way to ensure a degree of  consistency and predictability is to minimize contradictions between claims, performance and people’s perceptions or experiences. And yet, retain a value that is unique, special  Agree and meaningful to the customer. Disagree Discuss 13 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
14. Slide 14: The starting point of this could well be to Agree  downsize intents &/or claims so as to match Disagree on-the-ground capabilities & performance. Discuss 14 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
15. Slide 15: Find & build your own strengths, but don’t make claims you can’t deliver on. Perform / Deliver better than what your customers Agree expect from you. Let customers perceive your strengths in a memorable & meaningful manner. Disagree Discuss 15 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
16. Slide 16: Corporate Identity Corporate Identity is an enterprise-wide  control process to define, attain & maintain a desired positioning & image in the minds of its internal & external stakeholders. Agree Disagree Discuss 16 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
17. Slide 17: Historically, Corporate Identity originates from  flags, ensigns, emblems, uniforms and heraldry – visual systems (Olins: “traditions”) that signified a specific group of people, their values, beliefs and purpose. Agree It identified “us” and, by implication, “them.”  Disagree Discuss 17 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
18. Slide 18: Today, it still performs essentially the same  function. However, it has moved beyond the purely  visual in its scope & influence. It is slowly expanding into every area &  Agree aspect of an organisation, auditing and aligning it with the stated purpose and Disagree positioning. Discuss 18 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
19. Slide 19: In its early days, CI was an extension of  advertising – and addressed customers, shareholders & the media – i.e. external stakeholders. Today, CI is a strategic consulting discipline  Agree and addresses internal stakeholders as equally critical audiences for & players in the Disagree production of positioning & image. Discuss 19 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
20. Slide 20: Its contemporary end objective remains  exactly the same as in medieval times: winning, retaining & propagating. That is, “achieving the organisation’s  fundamental objectives” and “persuading the Agree world about its value.” Disagree Discuss 20 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
21. Slide 21: Identity in business Globalization: conveying value across cultures  Market shifts: keeping up to speed with the consumer  (if not actually ahead of her) Technological transformations: challenges of new  media & new work paradigms Agree Competition/Differentiation/Positioning shifts:  retaining relevance and distinction Disagree Organisational Restructuring & change: reflecting  new values, unifying & motivating teams Discuss 21 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
22. Slide 22: Consolidation & Diversification: strengthening  equity, providing flexibility for growth Mergers & Acquisitions, Divestments: avoiding  depletion of perceived value Joint ventures & Strategic alliances: creating  synergy between two strong entities Agree Privatization & Deregulation: redefining role &  purpose in changed rules Disagree Increasing costs of communication: getting more  from less Discuss 22 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
23. Slide 23: Some top CI players*… Worldwide:  Landor  Wolff Olins  Lippincott & Marguelies  Enterprise IG (WPP group)  Interbrand  Indian:  Agree NID  R+K  Disagree Preeti Vyas Gianetti  Shining Strategic Design  …not a definitive list!  Discuss 23 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
24. Slide 24: CI in India In the last decade, a number of Indian  organisations have undergone a change in their corporate identities. This coincided with:  globalisation of the Indian economy; and  Agree arrival of foreign advertising agencies via tie-ups  with their Indian counterparts. Disagree The impact of these remains unclear.  Discuss 24 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
25. Slide 25: The case of Air-India In the ’80s, the top management of Air-India  decided to go in for a more international and modern identity. They appointed Landor for the task.  Landor recommended dropping the Maharaja  Agree and adopting a ‘Sun’ emblem. Disagree Discuss 25 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
26. Slide 26: Agree Disagree Discuss 26 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
27. Slide 27: However, this was widely resented by both  employees and passengers, and eventually revoked totally. Agree Disagree Discuss 27 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
28. Slide 28: The case of BA British Airways was facing a barrier to growth  because it was perceived as being too ‘British’ It adopted a new global & multicultural CI  hoping to redress this perception Agree Disagree Discuss 28 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
29. Slide 29: Agree Disagree Discuss 29 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
30. Slide 30: This however led to severe alienation of its  core customers – British businesses They have since settled for a dual mix  Agree Disagree Discuss 30 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
31. Slide 31: Branding India initiative Early in 2002, the Ministry of Tourism  announced a competition to brand India using a logo and a descriptor of not more than 4 words They cited ‘Malaysia: Truly Asia’ and  Agree ‘Amazing Thailand’ as examples of what they hoped to achieve Disagree The ‘Incredible India’ campaign was launched  around 2004 Discuss 31 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
32. Slide 32: Agree Disagree Discuss 32 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
33. Slide 33: Identity & culture: du Guy, Hall et al. identity/difference: identification representation production Agree Disagree regulation consumption Discuss 33 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
34. Slide 34: The Identity Process Visionary/Leadership brief  Market/Competition audit  Communications audit  Stakeholder perceptions audit  Define corporate purpose, values & positioning  Agree Design visual structure, elements & system  Enterprise-wide CI application, systems alignment &  Disagree ownership-building Internal & external launch  Discuss Feedback, fine-tuning and SOP/manual  34 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
35. Slide 35: Audit & benchmark actual performance & value delivered; identify unique competitive attributes & strengths Compile positioning, intents, strategy Is posi- Does posi- Does positioning tioning within scope of tioning exploit unique reflect strategy? delivery? strengths? Audit perceptions Do percep- Do percep- Do perceptions tions reflect posi- tions reflect actual reflect value-add? tioning? quality? Agree Audit communications for efficacy in conveying claims & intents to intended audiences Redefine positioning to reflect performance, unique strengths and intents in the competitive context Disagree Audit organisation for its capability and preparedness to deliver against positioning Discuss Restructure organisation & communications for maximum efficacy in delivery & conveyance of positioning in competitive context 35 END © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
36. Slide 36: Identity tools: EFH’s ORD 2nd-LevelLayer: 1 -Level Inner st External Layer: Visible to Layer: Inner everyone to everyone “CORE Visibleonly to people Visible Agree who SYMBOLS” it “ interacts with it VALUES” who deal closely with “RITUALS” “ROLE MODELS” Disagree Discuss 36 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
37. Slide 37: Agree Disagree In 1997, Hofstede published a controversial but important cross- Discuss cultural comparative study. He later added a fifth dimension to the above four: ‘Long- versus Short-Term Orientation’ 37 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
38. Slide 38: Identity categories Product  Concept/Technology  Ambience/Experience  Communication Media  Agree Personalities  Behaviour  Disagree Discuss 38 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
39. Slide 39: Identity structures Monolithic (fully centralized)  “ABC” universally  Endorsed  “ABC” holding company  “ABC” + “KLM,” “NOP,” etc. division/SBU titles  “ABC” + “DEF,” “GHI,” etc. product/brand lines  Agree Branded/Autonomous (fully decentralized)  Disagree “ABC” holding company  “EFG,” “HIJ,” etc. division/SBU titles  Discuss “PQR,” “STU,” etc. product/brand lines  39 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
40. Slide 40: Identity core constituents Organisational self-definitives:  Shared (global) vision, mission, objectives & values  Strategy & Positioning (internal & external stakeholders)  Name  Descriptor  Style, tone, demeanor, structure – manifested via the  Agree “gestalt” (configuration/arrangement & inter- relationships) of Logo/Symbol, Colours, Fonts, Disagree Graphic elements Structure  Discuss 40 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
41. Slide 41: Perceptions audit  The perceptions audit uses benchmarks drawn from the intents & objectives, and category & generic positioning attributes, such as these: Punctuality/ Speed  Size/ Market Share  Commitment to Customer  Performance/ Quality/  Success Reliability Agree Prestigious/ Exclusive  Knowledge of own domain  Knowledge (of customer’s  Technology Leadership/  business) Disagree Pioneership Global Capability  Innovativeness/ Creativity  Bargain/ Best Price  Discuss Flexibility  Value (price:performance)  41 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
42. Slide 42: Communications Audit Product Division Corporate A,B,C… A,B,C… Literature Promotions Linear & lateral audit: Advertising  Visual Consistency Direct Mail Agree  Narrative Retail/PoS Consistency Stationery Disagree  Credibility Signage Discuss Vehicles … 42 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
43. Slide 43: 5S+2 model: McKinsey Shared Vision, Mission, Values Structure Strategy Agree Skills Systems Disagree Discuss Staff Style 43 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
44. Slide 44: Positioning guidelines Representative of the organization’s  strengths Relevant to its consumers &/or essential  function &/or value delivery Conveyable & conveyed to all relevant  Agree audiences Disagree Sustainable against competitive threats over  time Discuss 44 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
45. Slide 45: Typical identity objectives Improving external image  Improving internal communications  Raising corporate visibility  Strengthening share value  Communicating change/ new strategies  Agree Providing flexibility for growth  Integrating two companies  Disagree Creating goodwill (during troubled times)  Resolving brand structures  Discuss Defining overall positioning  45 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
46. Slide 46: Ensuring effectiveness Strategy is effective only if the organisation  itself is managed effectively to support it. This implies that all elements of the  organisation must support and enhance the competitive advantage that the strategy Agree seeks to achieve. Disagree Discuss 46 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
47. Slide 47: 10 effectiveness tips (Ind) Take a long-term perspective  Set clear, preferably quantified objectives  Ensure CEO & senior management are  committed to the programme Ensure that the identity strategy complements  Agree the corporate strategy Disagree Don’t change for the sake of change – leave  well enough alone Discuss 47 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
48. Slide 48: Involve employees  Pay attention to implementation & details  Put appropriate people & systems in place to  ensure sustainability Propose complementary recommendations  Agree for change Disagree Set up evaluation norms  Discuss 48 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
49. Slide 49: Cynicism Brands have become the pre-dominant  sponsors of all communication we see today, leading to fatigue Consumers are becoming skeptical about  brands, and about big business in general Agree This presents a challenge to big business,  and an opportunity to small business Disagree What will the future of brands be like?  Discuss 49 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
50. Slide 50: On the other hand, ‘identity’ has become an  ever more complex phenomenon, and turned into a fundamental crisis for many individuals The internet has dramatically reconfigured  our ideas about community Agree My recommendation for the future of brands  is: let brands become the hubs of future Disagree communities—in the real sense of the term Discuss 50 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
51. Slide 51: Agree Disagree Brand Communities “a specialized, non-geographically bound community, based on a structured set of social relations among admirers of a brand.” Discuss (Muniz & O’Guinn, 2001) 51 © Arvind Lodaya, 2002
52. Slide 52: Thank you. Arvind Lodaya http://geocities.com/lodaia 52