Level 5 Blog

Those hospitals in possession of the healthiest standings in their markets enjoy that robust condition largely because their management is being handled by capable CEOs who understand their role in, and the value of, a cohesive brand. So says a newly published report from healthcare advertising and brand strategy firm Smith & Jones.

In acknowledgement of the surfeit of healthcare organizations whose approach to brand management is ailing, the company offers a four-point prescription for hospital CEOs that includes the imperative for a firm grasp of the hospital’s competitive position, an ability to succinctly articulate that to all and sundry, and wholehearted participatory buy-in from every level of the organization.

None of this is a new diagnosis to us at LEVEL5, where corporate management by an informed and enthusiastic CEO, based on a clearly defined brand, is regarded as an essential to success. But we can draw some new lessons from the prescription about the best way to manage your brand’s health to drive growth and profitability:

• Take an outside-in POV.  Too many business people think they know the state of the market, customer and competition but never do the research to confirm.  As a result, they build a brand and business from the inside-out based on their own, often incorrect, bias and opinion, ignoring the facts and the all important feedback from customer experience.
• Partner your outside-in market assessment with an inside-out determination of your vision, mission and values. Many leaders believe that vision, mission and values are just bumpf that offer no value. But in reality they form the foundation for the entire direction and operations of the organization and brand.  Princess Margaret Hospital Foundation’s vision – “To conquer cancer in our lifetime” – doesn’t seem fluffy.  It does sound like a rallying point to focus an organization and a guide to help make strategic decisions  as effective as possible.
• CEO = CBO (for all the reasons mentioned in our previous post). Only the CEO has the viewpoint from on high to manage all aspects of the organization in a coordinated way in alignment with the brand.  Thus, it makes sense that the ultimate responsibility for the brand should lie with that office.

Building a brand and organization with these measures can cure the disease of a poorly managed hospital, and strengthen your brand’s health and wealth.

Anything else is just bad medicine.

A reputation, argues Dr. Paul Temple, a senior lecturer in higher education management at the University of London’s Institute of Education, is built, not bought.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             We would heartily agree with this position, outlined in a recent article in Times Higher Education, a weekly British publication devoted to the subject of post-secondary learning, had he but stopped there. Unfortunately, though, he goes on to illustrate perfectly the prevailing misconceptions about brand and the influence it can wield on said reputation. (Clearly, the guy hasn’t been reading this blog.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             His article, which introduces the very legitimate concept of university as brand, proposes that branding consultants have “almost no effect” on how a school is perceived, and that much of their work is “a waste of time and money.” Poppycock.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              As opposed to merely presenting the university “in an appealing way,” through “superficial manipulations…” and crossing fingers that time will do its work to cement an appealing legacy (as Temple suggests), our idea of brand is different and effective (as we’ve proved in working with one of Canada’s leading universities).  It’s not focused just on communicating a reputation (although that is important) but on the conviction that brand impacts how an institution is managed, and that its fundamentals can be changed for the better through aligning and operating the various departments and functions inside a common ideal (read: brand).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       Taking this management-by-brand approach, universities can move closer to reaching their objectives by addressing questions in four key areas that will inform how they manage and communicate the school/brand:

• What is at the heart of their brand? What promise are they making?  How should the organization be managed to deliver it?
• Why would their students want to attend? What value do they get?  How do the functional, emotional and self-expressive benefits get demonstrated through the university’s words and actions?
• How do they express their promise in the market? What makes them better and different? How do they communicate that in the market? How do professors and administration live that promise every day?
• What measures do they have in place to track their progress and reach their brand and organizational goals? What are the key management metrics that will guide priorities, decisions and actions throughout the university?

When used in the management of the organization, and not just in the marketing, these inquiries, and the answers thereto, demonstrate that brand is not merely “candyfloss,” as Temple so erroneously suggests, but a powerful operating philosophy creating a very real source of competitive advantage.

How easy it is to level a pointy finger at the other guy when things go awry at the shop. A company begins to fail and the organization starts splintering, each department pitting itself against the other. More often than not, the headline matchup is this one: slippery sales guys in it for the buck alone vs. product geeks enamoured with their own brilliance.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                A recent Forbes piece provides a fascinating perspective on the roles that products and sales play in the demise of a company, as per the viewpoint of four business experts – Peggy Noonan from The Wall Street Journal; Steve Jobs; well-known business author and columnist Steve Denning; and the piece’s author, August Turak, a software engineer who’s a founding MTV employee. 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        From where we sit, the trick to solving the contest seems best expressed late in the article, when Turak suggests that “everyone … must share a value system.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           This value system, of course, comes in no better a package than an organization’s brand.  When done well, the brand represents the company’s key essence, the reason customers would buy and the factors that distinguish it from its competition.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        When considered and expressed properly (which, the article rightly points out, happens when it’s benefit oriented, not feature laden), an organization’s brand directs the priorities, decision-making and actions of each department and function, so they’re all aligned toward a common goal.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            That all-on-the-same-pageness is critical during tough times, when it’s the brand that acts as the glue keeping an organization’s various roles working together, helping to smooth over, or even avoid altogether, the disagreements and finger-pointing that stressful times bring.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           And that’s an idea we’re stuck on.

With a new year comes new perspective, a home truth that’s certainly the case for us. 

As always, we’ve been thinking a lot about brand, its application as a management philosophy (not just a marcom effort) and the best way to explain our brand as a business system™ approach (including why it offers so much opportunity to create competitive advantage that, ultimately, drives growth and profitability).

But in talking with both clients and prospects, we’ve come to realize that, as a starting point, the word “brand” is still regularly misunderstood. So donning our thinking caps, we’ve conceived of what we believe to be a much clearer definition of “brand”:

Brand is the value of a promise consistently kept.

Let’s clarify what we mean by each of the three component parts of that definition:

Value

A brand has value that shows up on the balance sheet. In some sectors, the brand has accounted for up to 40% of the enterprise value of an organization, and GAAP rules now clearly indicate that breaking out the brand’s value as its own line item from the goodwill bucket on the balance sheet is prudent accounting practice.

Promise

A brand represents a promise the organization makes to various stakeholders (its customers and employees being but two). When you go to watch Cirque du Soleil or purchase an i-anything from Apple, you have certain expectations of what that experience/product will be like based on the past words and actions of the organization. Whether planned or not, those words and actions make up the promise, and that promise can have a far-reaching impact on the organization’s ability to drive growth and profitability – ultimately affecting the brand’s value.

Consistently kept

The capacity for the brand’s promise to create value is in large part a function of the organization’s ability to consistently keep that promise (assuming it’s strategically developed). This means ensuring that every department and function is aligned with the brand promise and that every employee understands what that promise means to their actions, priorities and decision-making. The ability for an organization to consistently keep its brand — or lack thereof — has a tremendous effect on the brand’s value on the balance sheet.

In other words, a brand is a promise made by an organization to its stakeholders, and that promise creates value for the organization based upon how consistently it is delivered.  A consistently delivered promise creates more value for the organization than a promise inconsistently delivered.

With that new characterization, we hope comes new insight into how brand should be applied to create the most value for the organization. We’ll be spending the rest of this year, and the years to come, putting that definition to work to achieve our vision of driving profitable growth for our clients through the power of their brand.

Good luck to all in 2012 – here’s to a new brand year!