MAKING AND UNMAKING OF A BRAND

There is something very sinister about brand image. The permanency associated with brand image has just about vanished. Products, services and individuals associated with a brand image have to be consistent as well as persistent at labouring to improve brand value. Status quo spells disaster.

 Branding was initially associated with domesticated herd animals. In order to differentiate an animal owned by one individual from another, early humans initiated the custom of branding. The process, painful to the animal, mostly confined to establishing ownership, was a ritual undertaken with due deliberation. The prominent and permanent marking on the animal, said a lot about the brand owner and his clout in the society.

Modern-day branding is an intricate and costly corporate activity. Initially products were branded, then services were included. We recognised them by the unique brand logos and catchy slogans. Celebrities were paid huge sums to be associated with the brand. Now, with celebrities selling anything and everything, celebrity association for qualities and attributes have somehow been relegated to the background or diluted. Celebrities have now become mere product promotion agents. While animal branding was permanent, branding of product and service is all about imaging. Like images, it could be real or virtual! The strength and longevity of a brand image, eventually will depended on how real the constituent elements are and how truly they meet the promises made. It doesn’t take much time for an established brand that soars the skies to plummet to fathomless depths. Creation of brand value is a long drawn, difficult and time-consuming process, whereas, the fall is easy and can be initiated by the product itself or by any one individual associated with the brand.

The trigger forthis article is my experience with a very famous and trusted brand in Kerala.

Different products ranging from stabilisers, geysers, solar water heaters and inverters are sold under the same brand name. A perfect name for its initial product,backed by excellent quality, the product enjoyed a niche associated with trust and solid performance. The firm grew and successfully diversified its operations. The ptomoter of the product is known and appreciated for his bold stand on various social issues. Sure enough, the entire range of products, though priced above competitors, being adequately backed by quality and associated with progressive outlook attained immense brand value. Satisfied with two stabilisers I purchased, and led by brand image, I became, what corporate gurus call “branded loyalist”. That was till now.

I purchased an inverter of this brand, from a showroom of a reputed retail chain. The showroom provided me with all possible help and choices. My first conversation with the service desk of the brand, while I was trying to install the inverter was a shocker and gave me an indication of the likely decay. When I asked for assistance to install the inverter, I was told that it was the responsibility of the client to hire an electrician to install it. the company had nothing to do with it. It is perfectly okay to be told so, but that doesn’t have to be conveyed in a rude and unprofessional manner. That was the starting point.

It took me two days to get an electrician. Three or four hours into operation, the inverter,started beeping very loudly. By then, the electrician who installed it, had also left. I tried to switch off the inverter, but it did not yield. I had to somehow silence the inverter. I immediately called the service desk for help.What shocked me, was the mere apathy and insensitivity of the service desk. All my efforts and explanation, failed to convince the service desk, of the urgency of sending somebody to immediately cut off the inverter from the mains. It took me four hours of self-help activities to save myself from the situation. Phone calls to the electrician, reference on the web and my persistence at finding an immediate remedy finally yielded result. I learned later that the service provider was located not very far away from me. They did not send a technician because it was a Saturday afternoon. the earliest they could send somebody was Monday.

The response I received that day, from the brand service desk has forced me to shun the brand for ever. I also learned how a brand value can be eroded by weakness in quality and how the fall can be accelerated by individuals associated with the brand.

Since the item was guaranteed and I knew one of the partners of the chain, the showroom sent me a replacement the very next day. Nice of the retail chain, for the next 48 working hours, someone kept taking feedback on the performance of the replacement piece.

Since I was a brand loyalist, I send an email to the company hoping that the issue would be localised and contained. The reply I received confirmed that the erosion had set in irrevocably. To an email with my name and address clearly written, the reply asked me to submit my complaint with my name and address in the specified format. It was clear to me, that those responsible had not read the mail. The promoter might or might not know of this degeneration. Either way, it is his folly.

There is sufficient material and expertise available to create a brand and successfully market it. However, sustaining the image is a different matter altogether.Brand image, is an amalgamation of the perception that exist in the minds of the customers. Celebrities could at best, lend their presence to a brand image through association. Brand value however, comes to stay, purely from first and second-hand experience. It is only through the fine print of customer experience that brand image can sustain its growth. Despite large amounts being pumped into advertising a brand, only real-life experience of customers can cement brand image. Good brand managers would take care to absorb all possible inputs about the performance of the brand, it be product or associated services.

One of the key issues missed out by brand managers, is the need to include the company’s staff in the process of creating and sustaining a brand image. Marketing and blitzkrieg in the glitzy world of advertisements may win few eyeballs and a few first-time trials. Continued use of the brand and developing loyalty amongst the customers can happen only through collective and participative efforts of all individuals associated with the brand. Consider the damage a salesman can inflict on a brand, despite the costliest advertisement campaign, when he at the point of sales tells the consumer that he can neither guarantee the performance nor the after sales service. The brand is just as good as the worst salesman. The entire budget spend on brand imaging is as good as flushed down the drain. This is what is happening to an once famous brand.

Decay and degeneration is inherent to existence. Brand image is no exception. Efforts must be focused to identify and prevent its occurrence. As with brand image,decay and degeneration is inherent to any organisation. Thus, progressive organisations must devise means and establish protocols to arrest organisational decay and degeneration. The organisation must spare no efforts to educate all those individuals coming in contact with customers on how to protect and promote the brand image and the brand value.

HOW CAN SOMEBODY BE BAD?

He’s a bad boy. He’s a bad student. These are statements that we heard as we grew up. Often used and heard in schools, these are statements that typecast an individual and templated stimuli and responses. At the workplace, it was “Oh, he doesn’t fit into the team” or “he is a bad worker”. Though profound in its content, intent and impact these are not sparingly used.

 

What makes a person say this? Why should a person be branded as bad? What leads to such a branding? Understanding the causes leading to the statement from both sides can unlock major issues in human resource management.

 

Does anyone really want to be bad? Nobody deliberately tries to become bad. Self-esteem and the need to be recognised and appreciated is inherent to human existence. Said, unsaid, each and every person wants to be the best in whatever situation he or she is in. It is a different fact that he or she may not make such a statement or indicate such an intent, but deep within every individual wants to excel and be recognised. Being bad is against the very grain of human existence. If somebody has become bad he or she has been driven to it or assigned that role.

 

A bad student, is likely to be the manifestation of a large number of contributing factors. It could be a combination of poor teaching, inability of understanding what is being taught, inability to put across or apply what has been understood. It could also be aided by physiological and psychological issues which may need to be addressed by experts. Branding the youngster bad would effectively close the doors of future on the person. A so-called bad worker is, most likely, the result of poor recruitment and selection process or a product of inefficient, ineffective and insensitive human resource management protocols of the organisation. For all we know, we may be having the right man at the wrong place. I’m sure the person branded bad at work, would qualify as the best father, as the best husband, the best friend and such many other bests. A “bad” at one place necessarily need not be “bad” at every place. Such an occurrence is extremely rare and if it happens that individual may require urgent expert care.

 

Having led teams of varying sizes in different locations on different tasks, over 36 years, I have never come across a single individual who was inherently a bad man, bad worker or a misfit by default. It cannot be a coincidence. One cannot stretch the run of luck for 36 years, over varying geographical locations, with people of from all backgrounds and regions. I’m not discounting the innumerable HR problems that I have faced. I have had issues, some of them very major, that required me to pull in all the resources at my disposal. But, these I realised were issues that stemmed from perception differences and interpersonal issues. Dealing with the situation “one on one” with that individual produced amazing results. We have together achieved what people said was impossible. At the end of my career spanning 36 years, I carry with me the satisfaction of having worked with people, each one a genius, giving the team more than his or her best. Commencing our relationships purely on a professional plane we ended up with strongly cemented interpersonal bonding.

 

Despite the hierarchical structure that exists amongst us I still continue to enjoy the warmth regards and respect of my teammates. Since I believed strongly that there is not a single individual intrinsically wanting to be bad, I never took inputs on personal qualities whenever I took charge of a team.  Given the requisite professional and technical wherewithal, I feel that interpersonal relations remain the bedrock on which a team will perform. It is possible for the leader to draw the best from his teammates provided he or she knows the fundamentals of drawing out the best.

 

It is human nature for an individual to be focused on four fundamental aspects. These are “Survival”, “Sustenance”, “Success” and “Sublimation”. Let us call it, the “4S”. These are in line with “Maslow’s hierarchy of needs”.

 

Survival is innate to any living being. Thus, it is natural for the individual to ensure his or her survival whatever be the costs. It will remain the closest and fiercely guarded short-term goal of every individual. There may be exceptions where individuals become unmindful of their survival. I have led men into life-threatening situations while clearing dangerous explosives. I have seen them walking into danger without a second thought. For the uninitiated, it is contrary to survival instincts. It is not so. The individuals involved in clearing explosives were putting their survival at risk for survival of a bigger lot. Everyone in the team understood and knew that individual survival was the output of collective inputs of expertise and commitment. Thus, every individual was assured of his survival due to the efforts of others. As one walked into danger, he was sure that others were worried as much about his survival as he is. Every member of the team subordinated, his or her survival instinct to the need for the team’s survival. In such a scenario, there is no bad team member. The reader must not feel, that every member in the team is equally motivated to begin with. Behavioural issues like jealousy, anger, anxiety, prejudices and so many such parameters do play their role. But these slowly giving way to more exciting and rewarding collective goals. The pace at which teaming is done depends on the leader.

 

Once survival has been assured, individual starts looking for sustenance. Sustenance manifests as accruals that assure him or her of growth within the organisation. The individual will naturally be aware of the differentials in capabilities and potentials amongst the team. Unprejudiced assessment of efforts and rewards considered just an unbiased do not create resentment. It is important to create an atmosphere where an individual is assured of his or her sustenance. There is no magic formula that can be applied to achieve it. The subordinate must feel and sense that he or she is not being discriminated against and someone else is receiving undue preferential treatment.

Success is defined differently by each individual. It is very difficult for the organisation to make an individual feel that he or she is successful. However, the organisation can play a positive and proactive role in an individual’s assessment of his personal success. As soon as the individual feels that the organisation has a significant role in the success achieved so far, he or she would treat the organisation differently. Individual success may not be confined solely to his rise in hierarchy in the organisation. The organisation contributes in so many different ways to an individual’s well-being progress and success. The superior would have to find ways to subtly make an individual realise the positive contributions made by the organisation in the success achieved by the individual.

 

Who doesn’t want to be immortalised? In every human mind, there is a seed of sublimation. It is not without reason that HW Longfellow, in his poem, “Psalm of Life”, said, “we can make our lives sublime”. As soon as the sense of belonging to the cause or organisation overwhelms the individual beyond his personal needs he or she is ready to step into the sublime world. Foot-soldiers, front - line leaders, backstage planners, each and every one can sublime. It just needs the right environment, motivation and appropriate leadership.

 

 

The next time, we feel like calling somebody bad, hold your breath check back whether we have contributed to that individual being branded bad. Nobody in his or her right senses can be bad.

 

THE MIRAGE CALLED EQUALITY

Equality is a fallacy. Nothing was created equal. The concept of equality is propagated by those who have no idea of the efficiency equation. Neither God nor man has found means adequate enough to equalise input and output. Newton’s third law of motion notwithstanding, equality exists only in theory. HR practitioners who advocate treating the workforce with the yardstick of equality is involved in something that actually does not exist and pursuing something detrimental to the growth and health of the organisation.

Consider two individuals holding similar positions, with the same job description and responsibility in the same organisation. The organisation expects both the individuals to put in equal work, with the same expected level of dedication. Since equality of labour and compensation is an accepted norm, both the individuals have to be compensated equally for holding similar job titles or positions. Despite what each individual may contribute, both would end up being remunerated equally unless there is an effective system of performance linked compensation. This is one of the reason that governmental organisations are often infested with incompetent inefficient ineffective staff. Why should one person work and contribute more than the other, when there is no incentive to do so?

Absence of accountability is a common phenomenon in an organisation where equality job positions and remuneration is enforced. Despite differentials in input, if returns are equalised, there is no incentive for an individual to invest more than the other is his job. It goes against the basic tenant of ROI. Highly competitive fields like marketing where performance is monitored by numbers and compensated appropriately, one finds that individuals perform better.

It is difficult, if not impossible, for a person to treat two different individuals equally. How hard one may try, inter personnel relations, organisational dynamics and other unspoken elements dictate how one treats the other. The ability of the superior to handle a subordinate and extract the required quantum and quality of work output would also differ from person to person. Positional authority necessarily may not ensure equal extraction of output. The skill with which situations are handled, subordinates controlled, motivated and monitored will differ from person to person.

It is only when there is a sense of inequality can there be growth, competition and fulfilment. HR practitioners must create a robust system which ensures adequacy in compensation and objective accounting of the job quantum associated to each individual. Superiors must focus on creating a sense of inequality amongst competing individuals. While inequality introduced must create differentials between individuals that spot competition and growth, care must be taken that it does not degenerate into institutional discrimination against some. This is a fine art and cannot be mastered without practice. Superiors must provide subordinates with opportunities for growth and the wherewithal required. The dictum of treating subordinates equally is neither practical nor advisable and necessarily need not be pursued.