The concept of Brand Mass & Brand Risk and its impact on change

Audi carefully honed its brand to sheer perfection over the past two decades. From an also ran with little aspiration it is has become the benchmark for top-quality interiors and modern consistent design. A few years ago however it noticed that its reputation was slipping in the polls. The Brand got more and more associated with arrogant and agressive drivers, with similar road manners, an image that belonged more to BMW and some Mercedez Benz drivers. Audi's board then issued the task to its branding and marketing people to turn this around.

The board simply issued a simple brief: Audi should delight customers as a Brand. That's a clear call for more emotion. Through a host of changes in the Corporate Image guidelines, changes in sponsoring programmes and in marketing, the brand transformed itself to the more solid, cool and somewhat understated brand it is today. The excitement was clearly achieved via the R8 and the victories at the 24 Hours of LeMans. In the product marketing, even the faster and more agressive models, such as the RS series, come with descriptions that are not referring to its extreme speed and acceleration capabilities. Instead the focus its on the design details that set the RS5 apart from the standard A5 model.

The interesting aspect of the branding repositioning exercise is not that the fact that every now and then a Brand has to go through such an exercise. These days, a shit-storm in the internet can create more  damage in a few days than a branding department can handle and correct in a few months.

"Vorsprung durch Identity"
What makes Audi an interesting case is the fact that their branding is fairly monolithic. The often called 'Marushka' dolls design principle leads to cars that look alike between series. You need a trained eye to spot the difference between an A4 and an A6, specifically from the back. Audi only does one type of design for a series of cars that sell extremely well, specifically in Asia. The brand has become extremely recognizable but also more one-dimensional and it has also gained substantial global presence.

The associated brand identity works well because with brand promise, 'Vorsprung durch Technik'. The advantage is reflected in the design and in the specifications of the actual cars.

Audi has what I would call substantial Brand Mass. Whether you like it or not, as soon as you get in touch with any Audi product or touchpoint you will meet the same 'Audiness' everywhere. Its comparable to an oil tanker. Once pointed in a certain direction it is hard to change its course and even harder to reverse.

Brand Mass in itself is not bad. Its come with efficiencies that consumer product giants like Nestlé and P&G can only dream of. Yet it also comes with a certain risk. If consumers keep seeing Audi as an arrogant brand for drivers of the single-male-macho kind it could loose its appeal as a whole to a group of consumers that suddenly associate the monolithic brand experience as one big affront.

In other words, increased Brand Mass means increased Brand Risk, specifically in the reputational area.

Is there a way to mitigate this risk? The obvious answer would be, yes through diversification, i.e. the creation of Sub Brands. Toyota and Nissan have done this through the creation of the Infinity and Lexus luxury brands. Although it requires the creation of new Brands it does help spreading reputational risk, specifically if the sub-brand are still subtly but firmly attached to the 'Master' Brand. The Best in Class example here is BMW with their superbly integrated MINI and Rolls Royce Brands.

Audi seems to have taken one step in that direction by acquiring Lamborghini and recently Ducati. But for now this connection is hardly ever highlighted. Its mostly the Automotive Media that refer to this connection. 

Audi remains though a class-act when it comes to the total integration of Corporate, Brand and Product Strategy with a superbly consistent Design and Experience based on the Brand's values.

For further reading:
Audi's Corporate Strategy
A very good Audi SWOT by marketingteacher.com 

Why Brand Strategy should be leading and how to get there

Prof. Uli Mayer-Johanssen, founder and Chairwoman of the Executive Board at MetaDesign, said it loud and clear again during an internal presentation; a lot of businesses today are not organized to deliver their own Brand Strategy, leave alone their own Brand Promise. This is specifically true for large Corporate Structures where the boundaries between departments do not contribute to a thoroughly Brand Focused Organization.

We've stopped counting the number of times we've been trough the following scenario. A client asks us to redefine their Corporate Identity and shape up their Corporate Design. We invite them for a workshop and from the client side a lot of stakeholders turn up. Marketing, Communication, IT and General Management are often among them. Within 30 minutes after the kick-off we discover that these people do not talk to each other although they are very often placed in the same building.

They don't speak the same language and when asked to describe what their own company's Brand Promise is, you get as many different answers as there are people in the room.

As a Branding Agency our role turns in that case into a moderator and integrator. To address the issue of non-communication between departments and to overcome different views on the companies' Corporate Identity we developed the Meta Platform. It provides the framework for a methodology addressing the communication challenge upfront. The methodology relies primarily on workshops, aimed at getting the various viewpoints on the table and deriving a shared View on Brand Strategy as a basis for Corporate Branding and Corporate Identity. I would even drive this one step further, Brand Strategy, not Corporate Strategy, should be the driving force.

Corporate Strategy ≠ Brand Strategy

 

In the classic MBA Programs most of us learn how Corporate Strategy should be exercised. We learn how to position a company as a leader in innovation or as a price-beater or as an exclusive luxury product. That's all fine but very often the strategy remains where it is developed; in the strategy department.

So let's first define the difference between Corporate and Brand Strategy.

Corporate Strategy is defined by analyzing the current and future market situation of a company. Through comparison of market data and through building an understanding of market trends a company defines what its future objectives and targets are and how it could get there. The primary question is basically: where do we go and how do we get there.

Brand Strategy is very much an inward looking exercise where the company imagines what it wants to be to its customers, how it wants to interact and which values its products and services are based on. The primary question is: who are we as a Brand and what kind of relationship do we prefer having with our customers.

But the inward look is important since it will contribute to the potential success of the Corporate Strategy. 

Brand and Corporate Strategy should go hand-in-hand where success is closely related to having a Brand Strategy that is known, shared and lived by all employers.

Why share?

One could say that it is important that the outside world understands a Brand, likes it and incorporates it. As this is the task of the Branding, Marketing & Communication Departments, some companies are satisfied when external surveys show that the Brand is understood and the Brand Message is consistent.

Internally it is however as important, if not more important, that employees have a common and consistent understanding of their own Brand and Brand Strategy and act accordingly.

Only with a shared and consistent Brand Strategy can a company achieve e.g. focused risk taking and consistent Brand Enhancing decision making.

Without consistent Brand Strategy insight there is a real risk that the HR department hires the wrong people. Or the finance department will fight against a far reaching investment decision that is in fact perfectly in line with the Brand Strategy and would contribute immensely to its sustainability. It does even occur that the Communication Department focuses on different aspects of the Brand as the Marketing Department.

 

Aligning on Brand Strategy is the basic condition for e.g.: employer Branding and Corporate Brand Language.

How to

Aligning the various departments throughout a corporate organization, in fact any organization, starts with identifying the gaps. At MetaDesign we use the methodology developed under the MetaPlatform nomer. The primary tool is conducting a number of workshops where the Brand Strategy knowledge is tested against a known or agreed Brand Strategy Framework that is e.g. signed off by the Board.

Once it is clear where the differences occur we can start addressing them first with the departments separately. During the process we bring the departments together and let them work on different cases where we review how well they align in their decision making, using Brand Strategy as a guide.

Why this is important

One more time, the alignment of departments around the Brand Strategy will make a Corporate Organization more efficient and more intelligent when it comes to:

• Design
• Interactions
• Decision making

Think e.g. about Audi incorporating the Ducati Brand. Audi stands for Premium cars that are recognizable through a consistent design and that transmit the premium feel primarily through the look and feel of the interior design and construction.

I can only imagine that the board found little resistance when announcing that they wished to acquire the Ducati Brand. The Finance Department must have thought that this is at first a remarkable decision but that ultimately Ducati is a Brand that is recognizable and could be integrated under the Audi Brand. In fact Audi is already owner of the Lamborghini Brand, which wasn't exactly known for its high quality finish.

For further reading:

Audi buys Ducati

About MetaDesign