Did BP fail its brand? Or did the brand fail BP?
In a previous post, Brand lessons from the BP oil disaster, I framed my discussion by asking: Did BP fail its brand; or did the brand fail BP? In this post I’ll explore these two failure modes in greater depth. A brand failure like BP’s might arise from using the wrong brand model, which no amount of execution can save, or by employing a correct brand model but failing to implement it properly, especially at the management level.
What caused the BP brand to go off track?
I’m looking for causal factors that might explain why the BP brand went off track, resulting in the blowout disaster and massive pollution. Future hearings, investigations and court cases should provide us with much more data than available now. This is a preliminary snapshot, nothing more. My goal is to posit some basic brand rules applicable to all brands, in whatever business or organization. I’m using BP as a provisional case study.
(And to those who might argue, “You know, you really can’t separate brand strategy, brand model and brand execution” I’d say I agree philosophically, but I’m forcing such a separation here for analysis purposes.)
How can a brand “fail the company?”
The brand itself can fail the company when it’s the wrong brand approach for the business. This is a brand model/brand strategy issue, as I see it, in which a brand can fail the company in two ways. The first is when the brand model can’t advance the company and its customers beyond the reach of competitors. The brand doesn’t create competitive advantage, and the business suffers as a result. In the second (and far more serious) case, the brand fails to optimize internal operations, and in so doing actually increases business risk. The result may be a quality breakdown, or even a business breakdown. In both the first and second cases, a company has the wrong brand model for the job.
The perils of an “image campaign”
My “sense” is that brands most often fail the company when the brand is positioned as a stylized sales stimulant, in an “image campaign” of advertising and promotion. The resulting brand isn’t part of the meat and bones of the business. When stressed the core business can founder, with notable weak points being innovation and quality.
Signs that a brand might fail the company
Here are some specific signs (as I see them) where a brand might be in danger of failing the company:
- The “brand” is defined as a media campaign that promotes the brand identity. It exists as part of the company’s persuasion and promotion package. (E.g., “Beyond Petroleum.”)
- The brand doesn’t state what it values, and why. (And the brand is no guide to what’s right and what’s wrong inside the company.)
- The brand makes no commitments.
- The brand doesn’t define a clear chain of accountability.
- The brand is largely decoupled from day-to-day operations. As a brand, it’s mostly symbols and slogans. It is not a working brand.
- The brand relies heavily on myths and make believe, further divorcing it from day-to-day realities. (The brand also plays little role in innovation, quality and value creation.)
- There’s nothing visceral in the brand for employees (and customers). It has a “Wizard of Oz” feel to it. Lots of smoke and mirrors, and a very big curtain.
How can a company “fail the brand?”
Let’s now look at the other side of the question: How can a company “fail the brand?” Here we assume a brand that’s properly structured within an effective brand strategy. The brand is OK, but the company prevents it from achieving its objectives.
Signs where a company is in danger of failing its brand
Here are some specific signs (as I see them) where a company might be in danger of failing its brand:
- Management believes that the brand’s sole purpose is to make the company look good. The brand has no internal value beyond the “image appeal” it can generate externally.
- Management positions itself above the brand. It doesn’t exemplify brand values in its actions, nor does it lead the brand by example.
- No one in management is accountable to the brand. (Or accountable to brand values.)
- The brand does not fuel the corporate culture. It’s decoupled from business decisions.
- The brand is treated as a form of communication, rather than a method of optimizing operations. It’s kept as a messaging layer.
- The brand team (if there is one) has no authority. It’s marginalized into a feel-good adjunct of marketing and corporate PR.
- Management treats the brand as a financial “asset.” In this accounting mode the brand loses its position as a core value-set and tool for best practices.
And in BP’s case, perhaps “both”
In my previous post on BP (link above) I suggested that, based on preliminary indications, BP’s brand failure in the Deepwater Horizon blowout was probably a combination of both failure modes: a brand that failed the company, and BP management that failed the brand. Maybe more of the first than the second,. In time more facts will help clarify what actually transpired prior to the blowout, and may reveal other brand issues as well.
Photo credit: Fibonacci Blue — Flickr
