9 – brand usability
This exercise will help you to explore the concept of brand usability in a practical way, and to learn to understand the complexity of creating a brand that is sufficiently deep and inspiring, while at the same time offering easy access to all those who need to work with it.
see page 83 of BDI.
my linked in profile
cc
Synergize & Co
In Practice,
Brand usability
The companies analyzed in this exercise have resulted in some very useful insights. It was remarkable to see that most of these companies had either a strong external brand focus, or were more internally focused. The side that did not have this focus was usually a bit neglected. This was for example apparent with Albert Heijn. Their external brand image is very strong. It connects with its customers with gifts and actions, presents itself in an approachable, high service business and offers everyone what he or she wants. It is also easy to relate to in advertisements and with all of this creates a sense of customer loyalty. However, internally it does not create a lot of value for, for example, its employees. They d not feel connected with their work, sometimes even feel a bit ashamed for it, and do usually not linger for long.
The example stated above clearly illustrates a paradox that can be found in many companies. The TU Delft for example shows the same slight neglect of its internal brand. Zara on the other hand works the other way around and has a great internal brand strategy wit a lot of employee loyalty, and uses this to enhance its outward appearance. On the other hand, they forget to improve their outward appearance by creating a really unique and recognizable external brand image and with it a connection with external stakeholders.
Another interesting case is the mode of transparency in companies. We see as an overall trend in our evaluated companies an improvement in internal loyalty and brand connection when communication between management and employees gets better and clearer, in the same way, the stakeholder’s connection with the brand improves with improved communication between the company and its clients and other stakeholders.
The subjects mentioned above are some of our more interesting conclusions. But it is clear from this analysis that a brand can be strengthened in many ways and at many different levels. A focus on core strengths of a company or a focus on customer/user experience are often used to improve this.
Synergize & Co
Oct 11, 2011 @ 4:55 pm
Synergize & Co
Pause for thought:
Reflections on methods
When reading and analyzing the 4 stages in the innovation model, and comparing them to the chapters before, at least the first three stages seemed to be a logical consequence on the theory in the first chapters. However, it also seemed to be surprisingly applied all of a sudden. Where the first chapters are very theoretical, and it is hard to see how they can be applied, this is quite suddenly changed into a very directly applicable method. This transformation of the matter seems to be a logical consequence but is still difficult to understand in its applied state.
Surprising is the fourth stage of the model. It is obviously the most directly applied state of the four, as it is all about creating and operationalizing touchpoints with a company. This has not gotten a lot of attention in the first chapters, but this is quite easily explained by the fact that it is the logical result of the concretisation of the first three stages. These concrete stages need a practical way in which their results are attached to the company.
A further interesting development in the group was the higher recognisability of the first stage (Human Centered Branding), compared to the others. As it turned out, the step from the human centered theory to an applied model was easier in this field, as most of the group has had a lot of human centered education.
The brand driven innovation method is followed by some critical notes on the use of methods in general, and this method in particular. These notes seem very applicable in many situations and are definitely covering the main pitfalls in using methods. On the other hand, as all group members have used many design based methods for some years now, these criticisms on methods are mostly warning for problems that are by now often intuitively avoided. This is a pity, as we assume that most readers of this book will be at least as experienced as this group.
It is a pity that the limitations stated by mr. Roscam Abbing are not always specified into a directly applicable way. It stays a bit unclear where their limits actually are. With a clearer view on the bounderies of this method in particular, it could provide a guideline that would help designers also in those cases that intuition or experience fail to warn them.
Synergize & Co
Oct 11, 2011 @ 4:57 pm
G3
Within the team it was decided to discuss three brands chosen by three members of the team. The chosen brands were personal favorites of the different team members, consisting of Hema, McDonald’s and Saab.
It came immediately to our attention how different perceptions can be towards the different brands. Of course the people within the group have different backgrounds, but we are all of course Industrial Designers, so that should create some overlap. Saab for instance has been interpreted differently throughout the team.
The discussion within the team quickly went from the assignment to how well each brand is coping in presenting itself and delivering to its brand promise. The McDonald’s brand gained a lot of respect within the group. This is due to the global standards that the brand has set and the fact that the company communicates its brand values constantly throughout the globe. Additionally, although our group members are a bit skeptical about the food and McDonald’s intentions, we all eat in the restaurants due to strong brand values that we experienced at a young age which still resonate with us.
Due to the fact the discussed brands were all quite big and successful, we all agreed that the usability of the brands are high. Some might need some work or a change of focus, but due to the fact that most people know the brands, this is a good starting point for human-centered brand development.
Oct 17, 2011 @ 7:11 pm
Team EFCOM
In this exercise we discussed several examples of companies and we thought of some ideas of how the brand usability can work in each specific case. Here we present some examples of a small, a large company and a company which is an umbrella organization for other smaller companies. It was interesting to figure out the differences among the brand usability in each specific case and some examples are given below:
Small company – product for the developing world
We had a discussion about a small company in Sweden with a water purification product targeting families of the third world. Some of the ideas that are clear by all the employees while they develop products from them are cost effectiveness, sustainability and no cultural codes. A conclusion that we got from this example was that in a small company the whole communication goes to the development of this only product but it is also very easy to be communicated by the employees. In this case it comes more natural to communicate your brand.
Large company – Cosmetic natural products
We also discussed an example of a bigger company and the brand usability in this case. There we saw that it is much more difficult and it gets more effort to communicate the values of the company to the others. In the example of a company of natural products we thought that a way to communicate their brand in the employees would be to organize a trip in their farms, where they grow their raw materials (organic herbs) and in general spend some time in nature all together while discussing or brainstorming about their company. Another idea for their everyday life would be to have a lunch room in their company providing organic food/coffee to the employees during their breaks.
Umbrella organization for hi-tech companies
Finally, an example of a mother organization where a company buys smaller companies and puts a lot of effort in shaping them according to their way of working was discussed. This umbrella organization achieves this by going in the new companies and working with them for some time in order to influence their way of working and adjust them to the same culture of the other companies. The time that the managers of the big company spend in each company is the most important element of communicating their brand values and way of thinking.
Oct 20, 2011 @ 7:00 pm
Paradox 20
In order to practice creating a usable brand, firstly two brands are picked that all group members are familiar with: Hema and NS.
Hema is a Dutch retail company that only sells products of their own brand. Their strategy focuses on providing high quality at low price. The brand core of Hema is to design products that make life more fun and make life more comfortable. The company does not try to be a top innovator. Mostly they change already existing products to give it a bit of the Hema-touch.
Hema uses its magazine “Echt” to communicate their strategy and brand promise to her employees, which is released once a month. The company also assigns a product design contest for design students.
In the past Hema released a brochure every two weeks with popular products or products that are hoping up and gives them a special price. Instead of this strategy, Hema just introduced a new strategy concept. At this moment they are producing large volumes of popular products that will be reduced in price continuously and no special temporary prices are announced anymore.
Hema is a very good example of a company that uses brand driven innovation. The company has a very characteristic image that everyone recognizes at one sight at the products or services. The assignment was to compare the internal and external aspects of the company. What is a good thing for Hema is that most internal and external aspects written down on the post it’s are corresponding. This are: typical Dutch, fresh colors, good value for money, fun, comfortable, for everyone, fair products and innovative designs.
Only some of the external issues are not as they wish; those are: old Hema flags, old-fashioned clothes for employees, all shops are arranged differently and the major part of the employees is old (aged 55 to 65). Therefore we advise Hema to try to make a good balance between young and old employees, in order match the communicated image to the kind of customers.
Finally, we could not think of a good suggestion to make Hema more accessible and understandable for their employees, because they are already communicating all important issues through their Echt magazine. The only thing they have to ensure themselves of is that the magazine is being read.
Since we could not think of a brand that everyone is familiar with and that is known from the inside by one of the group members, we took NS to evaluate on their brand usability. This brand was chosen because it was the only brand we all know quite well from daily life. Too keep it short, only the most important outcomes will be discussed below. In assignment 10 we will elaborate further on NS by creating a new research tool.
image
Some of the hidden values of NS we wrote on the post-its are: customer friendly, environmentally friendly, comfortable traveling, punctual and easy accessible.
NS: their image is worse than it actually is.
These internal values are not matching very well with the external visible values. External values that were written on the post-its were: broken promises, bad communication and winter trouble. This is obviously not matching with the things they want to communicate.
The main suggestion for improvement of the brand’s communication to the employees we came up with is that the NS personnel should be taught to be friendly but honest, clear and also quick in their communication to the customers.
Oct 21, 2011 @ 4:05 pm
Team Coffee-break
We chose to analyse the following brands:
Accenture (high performance, attention to detail, nimbleness), H&M (fashion and quality at the best price), KLM (reliability, Dutch pragmatism), L’ORÉAL (making beauty universal, sensitivity to local needs, sustainability) and Suzuki (value for money, exciting).
After discussing these brands, and what each of them stand for, we came to the following conclusion on what it takes for a brand to be used by an organisation (traits:effect):
1. Uniqueness: Differentiating element
2. Making a Difference: Inspiration
3. Excitement: Attraction
4. Smartness: Amusement
5. Clarity: Understandable
On further probing we identified some paradoxes that companies generally face while trying to incorporate these key elements in the brand:
- Dynamic nature of brand image vs Its meaning to the stakeholders:
A brand is a continuously evolving entity. While on one hand the brand has to evolve in accordance to the changing context of the society, on the other hand, it has to be well understood by the stakeholders all the time. For example, in Indian market Suzuki (called Maruti Suzuki) evolved from being a common man’s car brand (Count on us..) to a car brand symbolizing fun and excitement (Way of Life!). The company ensured that the evolved meaning, and the rationale behind its evolution was well understood at all levels of the organization.
- Customer expectation vs Brand performance:
A brand has control over what it promises, but it can’t completely control the expectations of the user. If their expectations are not met, customers will be disappointed, which in turn will result in loss of brand loyalty. For example, Apple’s share price dropped 5pc at one point as Wall Street analysts and investors were left underwhelmed by the technology company’s launch of its new iPhone 4S.
- Access to the same pool of knowledge vs Creating uniqueness:
Today, due to the fast growth of knowledge and the accessibility of that knowledge to a greater percentage of competitors, a brand has to struggle to find a way to use that knowledge in a unique way and to present it like no other competitor has done before. For example, Accenture uses the same set of software as its competitors, but differentiates itself by its approach.
Team Coffee-break (Group 12)
‘get set for fresh perspectives…’
Oct 24, 2011 @ 12:43 am
the TwentyONEs
example
Improve is a lighting company that provides lighting design, reparation services and rental services. The company is customer centered, they care for there employees by not forcing them to work too hard. It also is very consistent in their image during jobs, this is taken care of by taking breaks with the whole crew and often repeating the brand values (be nice to people, if you don’t know something, call for help, etc). Options to improve the company would be to provide training sessions, thus making it possible for employees to specialize in certain areas. Also, more communication in general would improve the way employees look at the company. Lastly, scheduling can be improved, making it possible to plan ahead for the employees.
conclusions
It is important to have clear brand values and it needs to be able to communicate to the working environment as well as the external environment (the customers). It has to be consistent and constantly present. Also it must continually inspire. Every employee must know what the values are and promote these values within each part of their responsibility. The company must treat the employees with respect so they enjoy working there.
the TwentyONEs
Oct 24, 2011 @ 10:26 am
6MINUS1
As the subject of this exercise we used McDonald’s to analyse their brand usages and strategies.
A brand on itself isn’t much. A brand needs something that transfer it, that speak the brand’s language. In the case of McDonald’s you have multiple stakeholders that have to cooperate in this process. From the Board of Directors to the Restaurant Cleaner, they have to be aware of the brand’s values they need to speak and work to.
Being clear and transparent about it is a possibility to achieve this. You have to go to the core value of your brand and adapt to every new feature to stay consistent and clear to the outside world as well as your internal world. As a brand you are in control of your communication, of your promises to the external world. But on the other side you cannot control the way the external world sees you. You can’t control the expectations and feeling of the external world. But not meeting their expectations will create a disappointing brand image.
Looking at McDonald’s we saw a struggle in the company’s brand values. McDonald’s is fast, cheap and easy but also a celebration to go to. For both kids and adults.
The outside world’s view on McDonald’s became more and more a view on unhealthy food, that was only good for cheap and fast food.
Mc Donald’s had to face a lot of pressure from outside (health issues, market share loss) therefore they had to change, but not because they want to but because they had to.
They adapted their core values to new markets and changed menus.
[img]http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/p. 83 exercise.jpg[/img]
To stay competitive they developed a new concept, McCafé, to target business men. They offered free Wifi in every McDonald’s location and changed the look of some locations.
They projected and implemented their core values fast, cheap and easy on a new branch and thereby stayed competitive.
So the company Mc Donald’s is changing to become transparent, also meant for business people, coffee and more sophisticated than just burgers and unhealthy.
But as a brand they still emphasise McDonald’s → Family, consistent, fast and recognizable, Let’s go & enjoy is the feeling that needed to last from it, and that because of their changes still last.
But looking on the internal world of McDonald’s we also saw the struggle of the charisma and impression of the employees towards customers. We perceive them as useless, a bit dump and we feel superior. But they have to feel appreciated to fulfil their tasks well and transfer the brand’s core values to the customer as well. How to do this?
We think it is very important to have clear brand values and that they are communicated to the working environment as well as the external environment. It has to be consistent and constantly present. Also it must continually inspire. But to inspire your employees even on the lowest rank they need to feel in control of their career within McDonald’s and they need to feel involved. Every employee must know what the values are and promote these values within each part of their responsibility, because they know what their responsibility is and what their special value is. The company must treat the employees with respect so they enjoy working there.
A brand starts with core values, but ends with caring the values. A responsibility of every employee.
Oct 24, 2011 @ 6:06 pm
Group 11
Brand usability
We shared several stories on the following companies the members of the group worked: catering Sodexo, coffee retailer Starbucks and outdoor equipment store Bever. Among others, we discussed how they communicated their brand promises within the company, and whether that matches with the image outsides have of the particular company.
We found it most interesting to talk about Starbucks because it is familiar for all of us and has the biggest brand power among them. We could find some of paradoxes from Starbucks. First of all, Starbucks guarantees a quick provision of good quality coffee with affordable price. This sounds paradoxical since it is hard to achieve both at the same time. For example, when we want to buy food quickly and “to-go” we go to, for example, McDonalds, but we do not expect high quality. But, we would say Starbucks somehow successes to achieve those two paradoxical issues through training their new employees (baristas) in a two-week fulltime training, so they become really skilled and professional in offering service and making quality coffee. However, that training system causes another paradox. They try to make their employees to have an “American”-Starbucks like attitude, even though they have stores all over the worlds. Furthermore, they want to make the same taste of coffee all over the world but there are differences; for example, the coffee served in The Netherlands contains more milk then the ones from Korea. In short; on the one hand they want to stick to their American concept, while on the other hand they do adapt to the country they are selling their product.
The paradox rising from inside and outside of the company is not always unhealthy or bad. Sometimes, if the paradox can produce good result at the end, those kinds of paradoxes do not need to be resolved.
Oct 26, 2011 @ 3:10 pm
Group 15
We studied a few corporate brands, among others the Dutch brand Lowlands festival, the Danish brand Bang & Olufsen and the Swedish brand Tork (from SCA Hygiene Proucts).
[img]http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/Blog pic p.83.jpg[/img]
We noticed that these brands have lot of qualities that are reflected both externally and internally.
For example, B&O has a very inspiring quality of being exclusive, which is reflected in their inspiring products to the external market but also with their outstanding headquarters in Struer which might inspire the people within B&O.
[img]http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/B&O headquarters.jpg[/img]
Another example is Tork (selling hygiene products mainly in public washrooms), which is a brand that stands for ‘everyday’, ‘comfort’, ‘safety’ etc. Many of the employees at Tork (or SCA Hygiene Products) have worked for the company for many years but they do not feel the need of switching to another organisation, because SCA offers the comfort of switching tasks/positions within the company. For an employee, this gives them the variety they looked for and also give them comfort.
Regarding Lowlands festival, the brand works for a more sustainable future but connected with fun and openness. This is reflected internally as the organisation’s CEO is a very inspiring and fun person.
All of these organisations try to communicate the brand content with the employees by using documentation of brand vision and mission. To make it even more concrete, some organisations have design guides and inspiring printed materials, such as posters of vision and brand image. These ways to communicate the brand has proved to be successful in terms of making the brand content inspiring and understandable. But of course, there are other ways to apply the brand better and make it even more accessible to the employees. We find it important that the organisation reflect their brands in action, not only visual materials. For example, to make the ‘safety’ of Tork even more tangible, employees could be offered good insurances to feel more safe.
For a brand to be used by the organisation, it is important that it can bring something inspiring and valuable both for external consumers and stakeholders as well as internal employees. What the brand tries to express to the external world, should also be reflected to the internal. For example, if the brand wants to be a high-quality brand, then the interior of the workplace should also reflect this high-quality. If the interior express low-quality, the employees might not be inspired to create something of high-quality and the brand content will be lost. It is hard for an organisation to make a brand work that way, but we have seen examples (like some of the ones mentioned above) and it proves that brand consistency within and outside of the organisation is very important.
Oct 26, 2011 @ 5:49 pm
leCON7
During the discussions about several brands, a number of properties arose which we believe determine whether or not a brand is usable for innovation. Some of these properties are fairly straight forward, e.g., the company has to have a future focus and should be differentiated from competitors. New properties which we came across were for example non-commodity. When discussing whether or not KPN, a dutch telecom company, was usable for brand-driven innovation, we had to conclude that if the company just provides a nearly identical product, a commodity good, the brand values are easily imitated and not reflected in their current products, therefore the brand is not usable.
In the figure we have put the usability-factors in a perceptive map, varying from user to company and from tangible to intangible. The iterative cycle represents the process of determining brand usability, i.e., when reflecting on a brand you have to translate tangible factors to intangible factors and you have to assess both internal and external usability.
Oct 27, 2011 @ 10:22 am
Group 02
For this assignment to focus on three brands: Harley-Davidson, Barilla and Canon.
(pictures included show the process leading to the following conclusions)
The main conclusions
Use company’s product inside company
The usage of own products within a company is an excellent way to involve employees with the brand. If the products are right they should address the company’s brand values clearly. Employees furthermore get to see all the products that they work with/on and it should increase understanding the operation of the products. It also contributes to the next main conclusion.
Practice what you preach
It is important that a brand is consistent (e.g. you cannot promote transparency in the outside world while internally the structure is very opaque). Values should also be clearly practiced within the company (and it’s employees).
Invest in employees
It is good for a company if the employees of a company are more then employees. The employees should in fact be more part of the structure (and brand) in order to get a thoroughly rooted brand perception internally. A company should therefor invest generously in his employees (and thus in it’s brand).
Invest in working environment
The working environment determines how the employees feel in many ways. It’s a perfect medium to communicate a lot of values to those employees as well. We believe that making the working environment correspond with the values of a brand the employees can relate to those more easily. This will presumably create more involved and inspired employees.
Customers visible in working environment
To give the employees a sense of fulfilment, and to get a clearer idea for whom the products they make and the services they deliver are we believe it would be good to have pictures of actual or representative customers explicitly visible in the working environment.
Carefully selected code of conduct
The code of conduct within a company determines how employees function. The values of the brand should be represented well in the code of conduct and the hierarchy of a company. This will make it easier for the employees to actually experience and communicate what the brand dictates.
Oct 27, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
Paradox 20
[img]http://www.branddriveninnovation.com/wp-content/Paradox 20 picture ass.9.png[/img]
Could this picture be added to the text of Paradox 20 at assignment 9?
Oct 28, 2011 @ 1:41 pm
Group 23
Huawei is a leading telecom solutions provider, owned entirely by its employees. Through continuous customer-centric innovation, they have established end-to-end advantages in telecom network infrastructure, application & software, devices and professional services. With comprehensive strengths in wireline, wireless and IP technologies, Huawei has gained a leading position in the All-IP convergence age.
Huawei’s vision is to enrich people’s lives through communication. By leveraging their experience and expertise in telecom sector, they help bridge the digital divide and give people the opportunity to join the information age, regardless of their geographic origin. In order to tackle increasing climate challenges, Huawei has deployed a wide range of green solutions that enable customers to reduce power consumption and carbon emissions, contributing to the sustainable development of the social economy and environment.
VISION
To enrich life through communication.
MISSION
To focus on our customers’ market challenges and needs by providing excellent ICT solutions and services in order to consistently create maximum value for our customers.
CORE VALUES
Customers First
Huawei exists to serve customers, whose demands are the driving forces behind our development. We continuously create long-term value for customers by being responsive to their needs and requirements. We measure our work against how much value we bring to customers, because we can only succeed through our customers’ success.
Dedication
We win customers’ respect and trust primarily through dedication. This includes every effort we make to create value for customers and to improve our capabilities. We value employees’ contributions and reward them accordingly.
Continuous Improvement
Continuous improvement is required for us to become better partners for our customers, improve our company and grow as individuals. This process requires that we actively listen and learn in order to improve.
Openness & Initiative
Driven by customer needs, we passionately pursue customer-centric innovations in an open manner. We believe that business success is the ultimate measure of the value of any technology, product, solution or process improvement.
Integrity
Integrity is our most valuable asset. It drives us to behave honestly and keep our promises, ultimately winning our customers’ trust and respect.
Teamwork
We can only succeed through teamwork. By working closely in both good times and bad, we lay the foundation for successful cross-cultural collaboration, streamlined inter-departmental cooperation and efficient processes.
From inside point of view:
Huawei encourages improvement and innovation, it emphasize integrity and teamwork. It’s brand contains two parts: innovation and unite. The brand provides opportunities to look and the company from an bird view, internally connected people from different departments and it encourages employees to communicate and learn from each other.
It also put customers at a very important place. The branding of Huawei emphasizes customer is the guide of any internal activities.
From outside point of view:
Users derive connection from Huawei’s brand. The branding of Huawei connects external users together with internal company, which makes users feel that they are the boss of the company. Also, the diversity of Huawei’s products enrich users’ using experiences.
To users, Huawei meanings a promise of diversity of products; better technology; young company full of energy; a company has ambitions sell their products all over the world.
Oct 31, 2011 @ 1:33 pm
Team Nine
Brand usability
The brand is representative for a lot of things within a company (internal) or outside a company (external). To drive BDI it is necessary that all employees understand the different aspects of their brand like core competences, key values, vision, structure, etc. Some companies share a very clear brand within the organization. Take Innocent for example; their entire office is showing the brand content and employees are continually confronted with the brand content. Employees should be continually inspired by their environment (events, work space, activities, workshops, etc.). This will support the employers of the organization to keep their innovations close to the brand and stimulate creativity. Furthermore all levels of the company should be involved with the brand. It will not help if just the designers know what the brand is about and the marketers have no clue what the brand is.
Inspiring employees is very important but can be very problematic as well. There is a time when there is room for creativity, but there is also a time when there is need for concrete decisions. To do so, the organization should make a clear document with the key values/ criteria that are connected to the brand. This can simplify decisions and/or idea selection by providing support; e.g. with a checklist. A good idea would be to print these key values on a poster/ mug or mouse-mat, so that the employees are reminded of them every day.
Another option could be a scheduled meeting every two weeks in which employees from every department participate so that they can all have their input on the innovation in order ensure that the innovation fits the brand.
Finally the society has to be reached with the brand. The brand should be unique, without being inaccessible. There are different ways to do this; e.g. creating a bond with the people or use ordinary people in ads (so that the ads are identifiable).
The most important conclusion from doing this exercise is that all internal stakeholders should have a clear understanding of the brand and share the same vision in order to use the brand for innovation and/or project the brand to an external environment.
Nov 02, 2011 @ 5:30 pm
- shiqi -
In this practice we noticed that the values of a brand are not only represented in the product or service it provides, but even more through the employees of the brand.
We found out that if the employees can’t represent the values of the company, it is hard to bring the vibe of the brand to the users. To explain this we use an example of Starbucks.
Being very rational it is easy to see what Starbucks sells: coffee. But coffee is also sold by a lot of other companies. For example the coffee corner at our IDE faculty. If we look at the quality of the product, how it is produced, how it tastes etc. it’s almost the same cup of coffee. But what makes the difference between IDE coffee and Starbucks coffee? There are a lot of reasons to think of but the most important thing is passion we think.
Passion is showed in the way coffee is produced and how it is named. At Starbuck the size of the cup is not called small, medium or large like the meals in the fast food companies. It is named Tall, Grande or Venti to show its (Italian?) passion for the coffee. It’s not a mass product, but a cup of coffee prepared by a person who loves coffee.
That leads to the second important thing: the person who makes that special coffee for you. The employees of Starbucks are very important in representing the brand. They should show what the passion for coffee is about. That’s why workers at Starbucks have to follow training for three months. What is important during that training is not only how to make a nice cup of coffee, but also sharing the values of the company by creating team spirit.
Creating team spirit is done by a variety of several social activities. One of those activities is a reunion with experienced people from Starbucks. That people bring the enthusiasm to the new employees. It also creates a connection through the company. This way a new employee already knows some others from the company before he really starts working. It gives the new employees a lot of affinity with the company itself. That makes employees enthusiastic and proud of the product and the company, which is showed to the end-user.
Because it is so hard to explain the spirit and values of, in this example Starbucks, we especially like the method of the reunion. People not only get useful concrete information about how to deal with customers, but they also ‘copy’ the enthusiasm of the existing employees.
The story proves that a brand is not only important for the people at the design department, but also for the employees which communicate with the end-user.
We found a really nice book on how to put this branding thing through the whole company. It’s called: ‘Internal Branding in de Praktijk’ by Marc van Eck, Niels Willems & Ellen Leenhouts. Although is written in Dutch, it’s worth reading it!
Nov 02, 2011 @ 10:38 pm
[PENTAGON]
BRAND USABILITY
We discussed five brands: Albert Heijn (AH), Nederlandse Spoorwegen (NS), Apple, Bolletje and InVisua.
The one thing that we noticed immediately was the balance between internal and external orientation of a brand. Or actually, the lack of balance in these two. For all the companies there seemed to be an emphasis on one of the two. This results often in the loss of content translation to the employees and thereby the loss of usability, accessibility, inspire and understandability toward the employee.
Also, this imbalance is reflected in some of the paradoxes we encountered. It seemed that when the emphasis was on the external orientation, the paradox revealed the same. Let’s discuss a case for both situations: an internal focused and an external focused company.
// Albert Heijn //
For instance AH: a brand that has a broad target group and thus wants to be accessible at any moment in time and at any place. However, AH is also a brand that wants to project exclusiveness. This can be a paradox: ‘everywhere reachable’ vs. ‘(loss of) exclusiveness’.
When taking a look at the present situation of their employees, there is a rather low bond with the brand. It is often a holiday job and people don’t tend to stay there for very long. This fact becomes apparent in the attitude of a lot of the employees towards the customers: they do not really express the same values of service as AH as a brand does.
It can be said that AH focuses on the consumer to a great extent, providing the full service. They provide products for a wide variety of people; they have different kinds of shops, suitable for every place and time of the day; they have special offers and bond consumers with help of ‘bonus cards’. A clear external orientation which, to come back on the paradox, can be seen as the ‘everywhere reachable’. The low brand bonding of the employees shows the lack of focus on the internal part, called the ‘loss of exclusiveness’. This is something AH can certainly improve. Often AH is the first working experience for teenagers. By making this a very bonding experience for them, you not only improve the present consumers shopping experience, you also might create a bond for life with the employee.
// NS //
The NS has the opposite problem, where the emphasis is far more on the internal orientation. The paradox here can be formulated as: ‘consumer satisfaction’ vs. ‘structured organization’. Being a public transportation company, they have the problem of dealing with a broad consumer group and thus a lot demands and wishes. This is the same reason why there is a need for rules and structure. The last part of the paradox, where the focus is on, results in a lot of rules and guidelines for the employees. This takes away the freedom for personal interaction between the employees and the customer. While the personal social interaction can improve the customers journey experience. NS should therefore not forget to find a balance between the structure of an organization and the customer satisfaction by social interaction. We think this can be done by giving the employees more freedom to interact with people.
Nov 04, 2011 @ 6:54 pm
3 plus 3
In this assignment, we discussed five brands. The five brands come from different fields. Therefore, they have various meanings and diverse ways to make brand content accessible, usable, inspiring and understandable. In the following parts, we will first discuss what these brands stand for, and then how to make brands usable for employees.
1. What does brand stand for?
Bata is a large international shoe company. It is a family company because the current chairman is the founder’s grandson. Bata is caring and friendly since it always participates programs which are helpful to people and environment. As Bata produces shoes for different target groups, it stands for different brands. For employees, Bata means education and housing. It is an International company, so employees need to be trained. Further, Bata treats its staffs in each region equally.
Dove chocolate has different shapes, tastes and packages. Therefore, the price of it is higher than the others. Most consumers think Dove has high quality. Dove is focused on consumers’ emotions by giving different meanings on its products. Employees think it is creative and sympathy since they put their own emotions into product and find new ways to show product’s meaning.
Lush is a company about natural handmade bath and products. Its products are tested on volunteers directly, so that means the ingredients of Lush are friendly to human’s skins. The ingredients are not harmful to the environment and the packages of the products can be reused. Therefore, people think it is sustainable and organic. The brand takes the sense of consumers into products, which stand for human-centred. The shapes of the products are completely different from its competitors’. For consumers, it represents attractiveness and uniqueness; for employees, it stands for creativity.
LV represents luxury, high status, and good quality for consumers. From employees’ standpoints, LV has strict guideline and is good at innovative creating. However, the service of LV is not excellent. Consumers are often ignored by sellers in the stores. As a result, LV is related to those words, such as discriminate, arrogant, limited and timeless.
Virgin is one of the world’s most recognised and respected brands. Its products and services cover many fields ranging from mobile telephony to transportation, travel, financial services, media, music and fitness. Therefore, consumers think the brand is too broad and anything is possible in Virgin. The brand is differential with the prices of various products and services. On the other hand, the employees seem the brand as equality. Virgin group works towards poverty alleviation and treats all individuals fairly.
2. How make the brand understandable to employees?
It is important to have the same core of brand promise and values, especially for the companies which have many business units. The brand promise and values are the final goal of all units. However, each independent unit should have their own brand visions which are the tools to fulfill the brand promise. For example, the brand promise of Bata is to cater customers’ needs. Bata has different units that focus on woman, man and baby. Since each target group has different needs, the unit should form a more detailed brand vision.
For the International companies, they should also consider the differences between global market and local market. The understanding of brand may be different based on the distinctions of culture. Therefore, the ways to show the brand should be various according to culture.
In order to make brand clear, it is necessary to implement brand promise, vision and values in employees. Generally speaking, the brand promise and values are made by executives, so the common staff couldn’t understand the meaning of the brand very well. We can make use of diverse ways to help staff understand the brand. Firstly, company can set up sessions and ask employees to brainstorm. By this way, employees can learn about the brand from different aspects. Another way is to visualize the brand promise and visions. For instance, Dove can show the promise by a video.
The brand bridges the understanding between organization and user. As a result, connecting with consumers also plays a role in helping employees understand brand. For example, employees can think about the brand promise by putting themselves in the consumer’s shoes. It helps them to understand why the executives make the certain promise and values. By this way, employees can also find new opportunities.
3. Paradox
From the discussion, we think there are two main paradoxes that have to be solved. The first one is insightful vs. accessible. Organization must make the brand vision and values deep and rare to make the brand unique. On the other hand, the brand promise should be accepted by consumers easily. Only those values come from consumers are accessible. However, those values are mostly not rare.
The second paradox is abstract vs. concrete. In the internal organization, the brand promise should be made as broad as possible. The abstract promise can inspire more innovations. Nevertheless, the organization must present a concrete vision to the external consumers. Only by the concrete visions, can users understand the brand promise.
Nov 05, 2011 @ 7:13 pm
Group 18
The corporate brands a nationally very well-known department store (Hema), a top of the line consulting firm (McKinsey&Company) and a Turkish beer brewery (EFS Pilsen) were analyzed from an internal and external point of view. When we thought about the tools these companies use to internalize their values in their employees, we ran into paradox that is also mentioned in the exercise: How can brand values be inspiring, without being directive and steering – quelling all original ideas in the process.
We found a way in which this paradox is – and can be solved.
Instead of thinking about the communication of brand-values to employees, we looked at activities that could internalize the values. Instead of teaching abstract values to employees in all sorts of programs, companies could offer their workers a change to experience what they stand for in other ways.
We propose that companies organize activities that relate to their vision and values, but take place in the external environment. These activities could range from helping the homeless (if internalizing social responsibility is the value strived for) to organizing a mountain hiking trip (when your company is about performance and teamwork).
In this way, employees are submersed in the company values, without being presented with oppressive guidelines that can only result in a tunnel-vision of the company’s values and capabilities. As an extra bonus, companies could use these activities to generate goodwill and free publicity, showing that what their company stands for is also what their employees do.
We already see some companies that have been doing this. For example, the EFS Pilsen Corporation organizes an annual blues event every year. Apparently, the committee that organizes the festival are otherwise working as employees at the brewery. These employees get a sense of what their brand stands for, whilst showing that same value to the consumers.
Nov 08, 2011 @ 2:32 am
Four
Adidas:
Identifying the brand as a true sports brand, while at the same time aiming for a broad target group in consumer fashion.
Philips:
Aiming for a broad group of consumers with a soft, non-outspoken identity while attracting enough attention around the brand.
Audi:
Establishing business values, maintaining a high class German identity, while at the same time extending market share to middle class.
H&M:
Keeping up a very broad target group with many different styles, while still protecting an own identity and differentiating from competitors, not only in price.
Senz:
Establishing a completely new brand in order of sales point, as well as price and fashion, while being in a very traditional market.
To conclude:
All of the chosen brands face a struggle between reaching a diverged group of consumers, while maintaining a certain image or identity. The fact that most brands succeed more or less in both fields shows that this paradox can be solved. The main difference between Philips and the other brands is that one could easily imagine an ‘Audi-user’ or a ‘Adidas-endorser’. But what would a ‘Philips-user’ look like or what will he/she express?
Therefore we come to the following conclusion:
A brand can appeal to a broad group of users, as long as it remains the ability of giving the users a way to express themselves. Therefore it is important as a brand to maintain an identity, but it is even more vital to focus on the identity that the user can acquire and express through endorsing the brand.
Nov 08, 2011 @ 7:00 pm
Group 13 - Paper Planes
ROCA
Roca is a company that develops bathroom products and they have spent more than 50 years developing efficient products that save water. However, during the last years they have started developing a new vision. Probably due to the fact that Brand-driven innovation (BDI) has become extremely important nowadays, and to come up with new products is not only about good designers.
As they mention, their sustainable vision has also allowed them to create surprising and innovative products that have broken the mould, proving that you can always be more efficient and make better use of resources. Faucets, Cisterns, Washbasins and toilets are the main products of the portfolio. Innovating in sustainable products has resulted in the saving of billions of litres of water across the world. Thus, their results spur them on to continue seeking new ways to save water and thus help the environment.
To make the brand content accessible, usable, inspiring and understandable to the organization’s employees they have integrated their global and environmental vision into their production processes, calling it the Eco-Roca Project. Since one of our members has worked there, we have realized that they really care about his strategy and do not only do it for commercial reasons. However, we think that this information does not reach all the levels at the company.
A key factor in this is the Roca Innovation Lab which is a multidisciplinary and multicultural department, whose purpose is to innovate and being a step ahead of social changes and consumer trends. They look for new concepts and product solutions for the near future bathroom environment. Some designers and researchers work there, but the problem lies in the fact that there is a separation between departments and they do not know what the others are doing because of bad coordination. Personnel members are not aware in which direction the company is headed and there is a need to involve them. So, they should first make sure that it works internally and only then move to the external side.
To conclude this case we can say that as a big company they are taking advantage of BDI. Thus, to solve the mentioned problem, they have an organization called “We are Water Foundation”. Most importantly, what they pretend is to show that their commitment to the planet goes beyond their production processes or their products. They want to debate and raise the awareness of the public and authorities alike of the need to create a new culture of water that permits fair development and sustainable management of the world’s water resources. Hence, with the creation of the “We Are Water Foundation” they are reinforcing their commitment to sustainability and position themselves as a company of reference in this sphere.
BLACKBERRY
Research in Motion (Blackberry) started out with a businessphone and its uniqueness lay in the fact that they provided a network platform for enterprises. This software package was their strong suit and allowed employees to connect to company resources etc. The phones were usually given to its employees so everyone would be connected to the company network. The phones then also became very popular in the regular retail market, because consumers liked the functionality they offered.
But with the technological advancements of the last decade and the introduction of smartphones, Blackberry’s enterprise platform became obsolete. Rather than having the company provide them with a workphone, employees prefer to be able to use their own phone and connect it to the company network. Especially because the smartphones started to match and even exceed the Blackberry’s functionality. So one could say that the whole foundation of the brand has been diminishing over the last couple of years.
Blackberry’s biggest mistake, in our opinion, was trying to hold on to their trusted methods and staying in their comfort zone. Where most of the other phonemakers quickly jumped at the opportunity to join the fast growing smartphone segment, Blackberry failed to innovate. Last year they finally introduced their first touchscreen model, but it was just not as sophisticated as some of its competitors because Blackberry lacked behind with their knowledge of this technology.
We think they learned from their mistake, because when the tablet market suddenly emerged and rapidly grew, Blackberry was quicker to react than with the smartphones. If you look at their brand this is not really consistent, since they didn’t have laptops yet. We think that they saw that in the future these segments will more and more overlap and that they needed to invest in this area to stay competitive. They have also opened up their platform for third party developers like Apple and Andriod, because these parties offered endlessly more applications than Blackberry could. In other words, Blackberry is re-branding itself and trying to stay afloat in the highly competitive markets.
From a brand-driven innovation perspective, we think Blackberry should have stayed true to their brand values. They offered a lot of value to enterprises before, but never innovated this part of their business, or at least not enough. In our opinion they should have come up with innovations that would make work and doing business easier and more pleasant. Then they could have maintained a larger share of their original market and when they introduced smartphones they would have probably been valued more. Since the beginning of the year their shares have dropped more than 50%, so let’s hope it’s not too late for them.
ZEEMAN
Zeeman always had a clear brand image among the dutch population; cheap clothes. Their stores reflected this, their assortment, their staff, everything was branded blue and yellow which became synonym to “cheap”. And this was actually also the brand identity so they did a very good job of conveying it because all touchpoints clearly showed that Zeeman offered cheap clothing.
Lately though, they made a change in strategy. They still stayed true to their core business of offering cheap clothes, but they set out to completely turn around the image around that core business. Rather than saying we offer clothes at the lowest possible prices, they now say good clothes don’t have to be expensive.
What they did splendidly in communicating this new brand identity to the outside world, is making use of their old image in combination with guerrilla-type marketing. They saw that tight, bright colored boxers were very popular among fashion-minded people, both male and female. So they used their typical brand colors blue and yellow, which were formally associated with cheap, and made very hip boxers with them. They clearly showed the “Zeeman” brand name and you could purchase them online for no more than the shipping costs of about €1. So through these free and fashionable boxers Zeeman suddenly became cool.
Another impressive stunt to reinforce their statement “Good clothes don’t have to be expensive” was a fashion show. They set up a fashion show, only invited very important people from the fashion world and made it all very exclusive. The trick was that they didn’t tell anyone who the designer was so it was all very mysterious and everybody was very anxious to know. After the show everybody had seen the outfits and was nothing short of lyrical about the designs and all the fashion gurus agreed that it had to be someone very good and probably famous. When they finally showed the “Zeeman”-logo everyone was in shock and could not believe it. And then of course no one could deny anymore that good clothing can indeed be inexpensive.
We really enjoy the strategy Zeeman has adopted and the way they chose to communicate this to the outside world. Considering their cheap old image they knew it would be almost impossible to convince people of the quality of their clothes. They cleverly chose shock therapy as the treatment for this and it really worked. They have stayed true to their brand and brand values, but they are taking big steps in turning around the public perception of this. We love them for it and can’t wait to see the future steps they are going to take.
Nov 09, 2011 @ 12:43 am
Peer2Peer
Nov 09, 2011 @ 10:24 pm
Powers of Ten
The brand we picked for this exercise was a cosmetic Greek brand called Korres. One of the team members had worked in the factory, so she knew the brand pretty well. Korres is a brand that combines: natural ingredients + high end technology + local community cooperatives. Their vision is to bring natural aspects to the cosmetic world.
The following concepts are the core of the brand’s values and are used to attract and build costumer relationship: tradition, honesty and transparency. For example, on the packages the consumer besides seeing all the ingredients that are in the product, is especially made aware when there is an ingredient that isn’t considered so healthy by some people.
The office’s interior design follows the brand’s values: there is a lot of wood and a sort of “natural look”.
The brand is strongly represented by its original owner, a pharmacist, even after he made a partnership with the 2 other partners: a designer and an architect.
But as a new employee one lacks a clear guideline for the brand usability. This kind of knowledge is distributed in the minds of the more experienced employees. We believe an efficient way to solve this would be creating a brand book with the core values of the brand, deeper insights, history, and so on. This would avoid the trial and error approach employees need to have when dealing with the brand . A nice example is Holland’s brand book below.
Korres faced a recent problem when people started to loose faith in the brand since it was starting to get too big and with a too wide variety of products, making consumers lost and lacking focus.
This led us to 2 paradoxical questions:
1. How to innovate but still the keep the tradition, the faith people have in this tradition?
2. How can a company still be friendly, trustworthy, locally based while becoming a huge corporation?
Consumers start loosing trust, as well as employees, since the daily routines end up changing.
A brand needs to be inspiring, based on stable values, coherent and above all clear for all those involved with the brand. That way when these paradoxes arise they are easier to handle.
Nov 10, 2011 @ 2:25 am
group 14
Brand usability – SONY
Sony is in our opinion deep and inspiring and in the same time still easy accessible for people. Therefore the brand we used for input in this brand usability exercise.
Sony – in the discussion, we came up with first impressions and thoughts about Sony:
Global leader in electronics, Japan sophisticated technology, powerful, music and film, fun and global manufacturer.
Some keywords about their product portfolio:
Sound, Music, Video, Playstation, Media, Sony walkman, televisions, electronics and entertainment.
What does the organization communicate?
External image: ‘a more or less guy image’, strongly trying to keep their brand image, do they realize what feeling the brand provokes and the communication depends largely in which country the company dependence is based. The company states their culture as follows on their website:
More internal: ‘Sony culture emphasizes “a spirit of freedom and open-mindedness,” and a fighting spirit to innovate. Founder Masaru Ibuka crafted this vision in Sony’s Founding Prospectus, and the philosophy is embedded in our company DNA, embodied in our employees, and seen throughout our history.
Boldness, strength and a fighting spirit corresponds to the somewhat manly character of the company.
In order to make this brand more usable and accessible for employees we came up with a couple ideas:
Main findings in this brainstorm are the fact that the brand is multinational and therefore employees could be at risk that they lose involvement with the corporate brand identity. As well as it should become more interesting for women to work in such an environment because balance between muscularity and femininity is good for humor and the work atmosphere. To canalize the ferocious characteristics women would do amazing in design teams to give the brand, products and work-atmosphere more jus.
So in order to be very useful the following paradoxes have to be solved:
Conclusions:
A large and big organization versus involvement and a personal work environment for a employee is a big paradox to overcome for a company like Sony.
Sony although very big has to strive to innovate all the time. Such a big product portfolio needs to be updated all the time.
A big and manly character while more femininity could bring the swung they probably look for.
Nov 14, 2011 @ 2:55 pm