The impact of brands on the world and on individuals are well known. But the true harnessing of a company’s foot soldiers- its staff, to passionately live and project brand values is an aspect of brand engagement rarely done well. This excellent article by Alexander Rauch Consulting Director for Interbrand Central and Eastern Europe in Cologne is one I would like to share with you this week.

Brand Engagement: Beyond internal branding
by Alexander Rauch

Brands create value. This fact is now general knowledge among decision makers in companies and organizations. Whereas brands originally served as an indication of the origin and quality of an offering, they now generate added emotional and social value for customers. Strong brands are not only socially relevant, they actually offer meaning to many people’s lives.

When you think about how meaningful brands have become to people, it makes sense to consider not only products and advertising, but also the people who make and advertise the products. After all, if a brand does not mean anything to the brand’s employees, then the employees will have trouble translating the brand’s emotional and social value to the customer. This is especially true of service brands, the value of which often becomes tangible through human interaction. Consider brands like Singapore Airlines, FedEx, and Starbucks, for example.

In light of this, it is important for companies to examine the behavior, attitudes, and values of their employees from the perspective of branding. That’s why many companies have carried out “internal branding” programs in the past few years.

Short-term internal branding measures do not produce sustainable results

From the vantage point of top management, many of these internal branding programs were quite successful. Companies have used internal branding to master the task of integrating business divisions or new acquisitions, and internal branding programs have also succeeded in effectively communicating changes in company strategy. These successes are evidence of the tremendous potential of brands in internal communication. Subsequent tests of the long-term effects of the internal branding programs from the employees’ point of view by means of questionnaires, however, often present a very different picture, as our recent experience shows. Many times, employees remember the initiative and consider it successful. But when asked whether the internal branding program improved their everyday work lives, or even made any noticeable difference at all, many (too many) say no. What’s the reason for this?

Internal communication and guidelines for behavior are not enough

Most internal branding programs center around internal information about the brand identity. They concentrate on establishing behavioral norms and setting out guidelines for “on-brand” behavior. In other words, they want employees to know what their brand stands for, to behave (particularly when interacting with customers) in such a way that customers always experience the brand consistently, and, of course, leave with a favorable impression of the brand. And this is where the problems start.

For one thing, it’s difficult to formulate behavioral norms and rules for employees that are genuinely characteristic of the brand and which exceed the basic requirements of good service (the familiar “hygiene factors”). The second challenge is even greater. Internal branding programs that attempt, above all, to create conformity among employees are merely cementing their current status. They risk resistance from employees who see themselves as individuals and who are living a brand of their own making. The question boils down to this: If a brand is supposed to give customers something to identify with and add meaning to their lives, shouldn’t helping employees express themselves as individuals help the brand as well?

Brand engagement: More than brand-typical conformity

Brands have the power to change the world. This means they can also change the (smaller) world of each individual. Working for a brand can make those who work for a company proud, thereby enhancing personal satisfaction and improving social interaction. Employees intuitively become “brand ambassadors” without ever having to learn a set of guidelines.

However, from the employees’ point of view, this requires more than merely being familiar with the brand and memorizing a few rules. It necessitates comparing their own values and attitudes with those of the brand they represent. It means valuing the “meaning” the brand gives to people’s lives and identifying personally with the brand.

In order to become an authentic advocate for the brand, employees must be ready and willing to help shape and develop the brand identity every day as they go about their tasks. This level of involvement transcends internal branding and becomes “brand engagement”-a true connection with the brand, a relationship based on the principle of give and take. While it’s true the brand demands something of employees, they also get much in return.

It’s necessary to steer dialogue about the brand

Against this backdrop it is important that companies do not become bogged down in information and brand guidelines. Although these are both significant and worthwhile tasks, companies must go a step further. What is needed is an ongoing internal discussion about the values and requirements of the brand. This kind of brand dialogue should be a standard management task. Ultimately it is the responsibility of the company’s leaders to determine the identity and values of the brand. While this discussion can also lead some employees to leave the company because they are not able or willing to identify with the brand, in the final analysis that’s probably best for both parties, despite how cynical this might sound.

Brand engagement is a continuous task

Brand engagement requires organizational change-and it takes time. Consequently, it must be clear to management that a short-term initiative cannot produce long-term results. What’s needed are sustainable measures that align company structures and processes with the brand, thereby shaping the everyday tasks of the company’s employees. In particular, suitable measures include:

• Regular performance reviews from the brand perspective
• The implementation of brand-driven incentive and bonus systems
• Anchoring the brand in recruiting and on-boarding processes, as well as in management grooming programs
• The introduction of brand filters (e.g., for new product development, the selection of co-branding partners, and sponsorships)

In addition, we must not overlook another crucial success factor of brand engagement. Top management, and above all the CEO, must exemplify the brand identity and brand values in their own lives. Unless the brand’s top leaders credibly exemplify the brand, their employees will never sufficiently identify with or trust the brand.

Brand engagement pays off-for both sides

In an era when people are increasingly searching for orientation and meaning, brands become even more significant by offering employees something with which to identify. But employees must be free to decide this for themselves, as individuals. They will only choose to do so if the brand demonstrates that it is capable of creating added value for each individual employee. This will be an important management task in the years to come. More than ever, companies need employees who not only competently represent the brand in their dealings with the outside world, but also show their enthusiasm by remaining loyal to the brand over the long-term.

Alexander Rauch is Consulting Director for Interbrand Central and Eastern Europe in Cologne.. Alexander is an experienced consultant in strategic brand management and brand development

For more Interbrand articles see
www.Interbrand.com

Getting the best talent on board and getting the wrong ones off is one of the most critical factors in sustaining business continuity and success. Thus amidst all this doom and gloom about downsizing and trimming fat, companies need to retain the right people and attract the cream of the crop.

The domino impact of callous people strategies are that, it is always the top talent that walks away, when a system starts tightening screws.

So much too for the freeze on new recruits.

The freeze is a real consideration.  Though it is so much more difficult right now to get employed, talent attraction is the thaw that must come from this winter of discontent. It is what gives a company its competitive edge.

First things first, employment is a two way street. Desirability or the propensity for young recruits to choose a company must be based on some triggers.

As a brand man my particular interest is the question, ‘Does a valuable employee brand impact on this choice? ‘Can the small guys (the SME’s) attract good talent or is it a given that big employer brands get the best?

To answer this, I conducted an online research in which 40 respondents who were tertiary students/job market entrants in Malaysia aged 18-24 reaffirmed a simple truth.

There is a positive if not direct correlation between valuable Brands and their desirability for prospective talents.

In the survey, 87% of the brands these respondents would like to work for, are in the Malaysia’s most valuable brands (MMVB) Top 15 list (2008 ranking). The list as you know is commissioned by the 4A’s in collaboration with The Edge and is conducted by Interbrand.

The top 10 companies mentioned were:

Reasons given amongst others were- how established/ stable the company is, the growth opportunities (personal and career) and employee benefits. Compare that with a recent study done by Jobs .Com in Malaysia that shows that the majority of youth entering the market look at flexi time as a most desired benefit.

What interest me is however, that when we  look at brand preference by category we see a ‘cool ‘, refreshing  and young challenger brand like, DiGi score higher preference over other Telco’s with greater market share.

So it’s not the brand size that only matters - it’s the brand and what it speaks to you. On the other hand one can understand how enterprise brands such as Petronas (oil and gas as a category and as the largest corporate in Malaysia) would attract young people based on its stature, or as would Genting. These are solid secure ‘iron rice bowl” type brands, so they score high when job security is a key motivator.

Threading needles:

In a white paper conducted by Deloitte in collaboration with Forbes, Deloitte talked to top executives of Fortune 500 companies in end 2008 when the recession had hit. It discusses the talent implications facing businesses globally and the importance of employee branding.

I quote, “A common theme emerged from the executive interviews: in order to survive and thrive in these unusually challenging times, companies must “thread the needle” when it comes to talent. That means cutting costs and reducing overall staff levels, while at the same time ensuring that high performers and other critical contributors are taken care of and motivated, and that the long-term strategic needs of the business are being considered and fully addressed. ”

A key finding was that employers were aware of the need to leverage their employer brands to keep the feel good factor strong. Confidence in the company was linked to portfolio brand reputation and often to brand dominance in a sector.

Many companies like Visa Europe and Lenovo were raising the anti as they realised it was a good time to talent search when others were being cautious on HR expenses and many top new recruits were available. Even at other levels general job dissatisfaction was high so it was a good time to poach high flyers from the competition.

What then of SME’s?

Big businesses can pull out the stoppers -give people a bundle of perks and big brand prestige and maybe even a Starbucks in the lobby. How can small businesses compete for top talent? Here’s my “take 5″ on that!

1. Truth is small businesses can offer flexibility, lack of hierarchy and closer relationships between leadership and employees.

2. In many cases, employees typically have more breadth in their jobs than they usually do in big companies, where people tend to specialize more.

3. Many entrepreneurs treat their work force as if it’s an extension of their family.

4. Small companies often offer the possibility of accelerated high growth for those with exceptional talent. And anyway, that type of talent usually can’t operate in complex institutions where power play and turf agendas abound.

5. Above all, the charisma of a SME entrepreneur can be the best inspiration to attract talent. Thus an SME might be better off building its CEO brand over its enterprise brand or manage it so one becomes an extension of the other.

One way or another it is wise to look at the need to play your brand trump in draw in and retaining talent.  A brand is not only an asset that must be invested in for business growth. CEO’s must see the multi-dimensional value of brand building and its ability to attract good talent.

Challenges and opportunities

There is a lot of hype these days about nation-building and the agenda for change. But if truth be told, nation-building will only come about when our leaders and the Rakyat dream the same collective dream and agree to embrace a common destiny.

Seen from this perspective, we will realise that “One Malaysia” or any other vision that we desire to build our consensus on has a long way to go. This is our primary challenge in nation-building.

Fuzzy vision

Despite all the rhetoric, people in this country do not know where the nation is headed and what it is trying to achieve.

I am not writing against the concept of “One Malaysia” as it has much potential as an aspirational goal and is one that I firmly believe will point to the way forward.

It is just that the theme is in danger of being turned into a cliché -  a vague battle cry linked to any aspect of “one” - and, by decree of some consultant, has a glib logo stuck on it.  This powerful dream of  One Nation can easily become like the haze - a recurring event that comes and goes, and in this case, earn political brownie points for those who support the agenda.

One Malaysia must go beyond a catchphrase and a logo.  We need to define oneness and equality in a more meaningful way.

The Power Of One

So what is this powerful dream of One Malaysia?

The One Nation concept accepts diversity based on our commonalities and the idea of unity in diversity.  It accepts that all communities need equal help if they have less access and that if we are not one in spirit, the parts will implode and our nation will be weaker, divided and unable to compete with the rest of the world.

But all these thoughts are now airbrushed in a melee of communication signals.  If a brand is No. 1 in market share, it must now put the One Malaysia logo on its ads.  If a GLC plans to hold a horse show, they must try to link it to the One Malaysia logo and maybe even call the event a One Horse show.  Reductio ad absurdum, as the philosophers say.

But there are more important challenges to grapple with.

Legacy issues

There is a systemic fear of change.  A lack of entrepreneurial spirit.  The institutional machinery is in disarray.  Leadership styles are either too autocratic or too hands-off.  Bureaucrats who often do not lead but just administrate and micro-manage.  Weak leadership development programmes.  The list goes on.

Culture Of Discouragement

Another related challenge that goes beyond legacy issues is that of culture.  This has to do with deep-seated socio-cultural traits that we cannot dismiss but have to work at.

We have no shared values.  What we have is a deep distrust that has grown into a blame culture.  There is a tendency to look for a fall guy when something goes wrong - to focus on the problems, rather than the opportunities that arise as a result of the problems.

Diversity is not celebrated from a multi-ethnic, multi-religious standpoint with institutional support, but rather as a politically-correct token which even children can see through.  Above all, the fondness to berate and undermine the leadership and systems is now a national pastime.

The Trend Of Negativity

It has become trendy to dissent.  To be a rebel with or without a cause.  And the causes for this are plenty. While some people hop on to the bandwagon without rhyme or reason, money politics has become so pervasive that good old-fashioned honour or loyalty can no longer be counted on to deliver.  We see this not only in UMNO but also in equal measure in the MCA and the MIC.  Even the DAP and Keadilan are fraught with the same  issues  in the short time that  they have come into power as manifested in the Pakatan Rakyat government .

The Way Forward

I shall not dwell on the challenges we face lest I too fall victim to the paralysis of negative thinking.  Let’s explore a few opportunities instead.

If we as a nation are to get back on track, the single most important thing must surely be education.

Enhancing our knowledge systems

It is only through education that minds can be opened and, if truth be told, the lack of emphasis on a proper education is what has been holding the Malays back.  All the positive discrimination and subsidised handouts in the world cannot make up for a good education.  This is why language has become such a hot potato in UMNO politics.  Language and education are key to unleashing potential and a true leader will realise he must have the courage to give his people access to a global language like English, whatever the political backlash.

We all know it was the issue of language that put this country back by a generation or two.  We must go forward and not back-pedal under pressure.  The problem is equally alarming amongst the Chinese-educated Chinese.  By and large, it is the 5% English-educated Chinese who have really pulled ahead.

I am all for maintaining Bahasa Malaysia as the medium of instruction in schools, but English must be given equal importance. Each ethnic group will no doubt like to learn in their own mother tongue.  In the case of the Chinese and the Indians, Mandarin and Tamil are spoken by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, which give them more commercial incentive to pursue these languages.  Language defines our identity and also helps us relate across cultures.  We should encourage the learning of multiple languages.

Other than language, growing skills and competencies are critical to economic empowerment.  Again we must review a system that denies the best from gaining access to knowledge.  Whatever the quotas, we must let the most deserving qualify. We have to abandon the old boys club mentality.  The fat elites should not get fatter as the nation grows poorer for its neglect of meritocracy.

With knowledge and meritocracy must come accountability.  I have deliberately left out the issues of transparency, justice and police reform as institutional competencies and effective governance will fall in place once we walk the talk and make meritocracy and accountability the basis of nation-building.

So dream the dream.  Spell it out.  Get everyone on board.  Take the journey and don’t change course under pressure.  It is not easy, but it is not unattainable. It takes grit and leadership.  And courage, of course.

We live in a world of over-gratification.  People who fail to rise to the top of their field are given consolation prizes. All because we do not want under-achievers to feel left out. 

Many psychologists have discussed the societal impact of this on Generation Y and their need for constant compensation, or what the book “I’m OK, You’re OK” described as constant stroking.

But what do we do with grown-ups who think that money can buy them awards they can’t win?  What do brand custodians do with the proliferation of all sorts of brand recognition programmes - some of them questionable - that tarnish the hard-earned reputation of the bona fide awards?

“You can’t buy love.”

I was recently told that a person went all the way to Sulu Island to buy himself an award.  Another guy paid a hefty sum for a PhD from a virtual university in Hawaii.

We know some people will go to extremes to put a title in front of their names to show that they are somebody in society.  It really does not matter to these people that they have done nothing of consequence for their industry or their country to be bestowed such an honour. 

Which reminds me of that famous Beatles song, “Can’t Buy Me Love”.  Like love, dignity, respect and honour cannot be bought. They have to be earned.

Wanna-be-Brand Awards

On the marketing side of the divide, the importance of brand-building is getting its due attention.  Multi-national corporations as well as local companies are investing more money to build brands year on year as they realise the value of brands. 

However, in the wake of this, a whole spectrum of recognition awards for brands has come into the picture.  While creative agencies and media owners are actively paving the way for brands to grow in this country, a handful of pretenders are trying to cash in on the situation by handing out awards indiscriminately.

Clients are bewildered and consumers can no longer tell between brands that have won genuine recognition based on valid market assessment and brands that simply bought an award as a stamp of approval.

Let the buyer beware!

In light of this, one might be tempted to say, “Caveat emptor! or “Let the buyer beware!”  But increasingly, governing bodies like the 4As are being asked for perspective.

To be honest, I have no problems with people making money out of brand events but then again, when it confuses the market and has the potential to tarnish the reputation of a whole industry that comprises creative agencies, media specialists, media owners, film and sound production houses, the 4As have to step in to restore order and clarity.

I have been inundated with calls asking me to check out some brand awards in this region.  Many clients yearn for recognition but are wary of the brand awards.  More so when they are asked to fork out money before they are invited to the award ceremony.  To my knowledge, there are a few brand awards that deserve our support but many others are merely business projects disguised as foundations.

Recognition is a form of flattery, some say, but the extent some people go to in order to “win” awards is beyond comprehension.  Isn’t the buying of awards a form of corruption as it is aimed at deceiving the public into believing that one’s brand is of a certain quality when it is not?

Taking up the challenge

The branding industry was worth a staggering 6 billion ringgit last year though this figure may alter somewhat this year or the next due to the economic climate.

At the Biennial General Meeting of the 4As, I told members that building brands is our blood, sweat and tears. We have given our lives to this business.  The top 30 most valuable public-listed Malaysian brands were valued at 67 billion ringgit last year.  Millions of working hours, billions of watts of brain power have gone into this.  The people who worked on the brands shed tears of joy and sorrow.

We need a proper branding award to reward the true heroes of branding, recognise the brave clients who put their heads on the chopping board and honour the bosses who spent hard-earned money to fulfil a need in the market.

We need to award brand managers for their commitment to brand-building and unwavering faith in brand positioning.  We need to reward brands that truly touch the lives of ordinary folks and brands that put the nation on the map.

We need to protect true brand-builders from pretenders who merely buy their way into the minds of consumers through questionable brand awards.  

We are the guardians of the industry and we need to take up the challenge for the well-being of everyone whose future is linked to it.

By the end of this year, the three industry associations, namely, the 2As, the Media Specialists Association and 4As will come together with a single voice to bestow brand awards to the most deserving brands in the country.  Hopefully, this will be the industry standard that all consumers, corporations and industry stakeholders will look up to.

The creation of a new brand is no quick fix.

We know the challenges and the statistics are quite frightening: nine of 10 new brands fail. Add to this the cost of establishing a brand - to map its whole brand strategy, its values, its positioning, the visual ID, communication campaign, channels of delivery and then its gradual inching through the retail shelf space, etc, - and all of us in the business know it’s a long haul.

In the last decade, market turbulence has manifested a new characteristic that questions the longevity of brand thinking.

Competitive Advantages chief executive officer Dan Herman, for instance, has written in detail the possibility of using short-term brands in tandem with conventional long term brand building strategies and portfolios.

He quotes three reasons for this:

• The shortening of life expectancy of brands, even those successful in terms of sales volume;
• The success of lower priced private labels of retail chains, at the expense of established brands; and
• Shrinking of the “premium” the consumer is willing to pay for an established brand

In children’s entertainment, he notes, characters such as Lilo and Stitch now succeed for one or two seasons in contrast to Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck in the past. In fragrances, most brands are now expected to succeed for two or three seasons, unlike Channel 5 and Poison. In cars, brands such as Clio are supposed to succeed for five to 10 years in contrast to Ford Fiesta or Renault 5.

Brand stick ability and brand fling

It is always said that marriages would never end, or rarely so, if men knew how to make their wives continue to feel like they did as girlfriends or secret lovers.

So too, if short-term brands can be imbedded into a long-term brand architecture.

This trend, however, no longer needs to be seen as market failure but more as market disruption: A necessary stimuli to keep a relationship alive and kicking.

I don’t actually think anyone should look at one-night-stand brands, but a brand fling for a shorter commitment than the whole “till-death-do-us-part” scenario definitely makes sense. It manages the customers’ zest for variety and stimulus. But it will have overriding values that will and must keep customers within the family of the master brand.

These brand flings can contribute a possible “New Path to Customer Loyalty.”

I can see how telecommunications companies can keep the post and prepaid segment strategies on track, or that retailers can stay fresh and relevant.

Handled judiciously, the “fling brand”, like a loss leader, will adopt a strategy of winning consumers’ hearts anew repeatedly by surprising them, exciting and delighting them.

Short-term brand-embedded architecture

In Herman’s analysis of short-term brands (STB), he has found three alternative brand architecture to be very useful:

Pure STB: This is an architecture composed of a series of thematically unrelated STB. Each one of these brands is entirely independent and each succeeds or fails on its won merit. None of them is identified, in any way, with its mutual marketer. Each one has a timely appeal to its target audience.
(Herman gives no example of Coke’s Tab brand introduced for women is one such example.)

The background/foreground architecture: Introduce a short-term brand under the “auspices” of a long-term brand (for example, a corporate brand), which is not at the centre of attention and does not have a rich meaning for the consumer. Its role is simply to alleviate concern over product quality.

This architecture is not to be confused with the familiar hierarchical approach of branding levels. The role of the background brand, the LTB (long-term brand), is to calm, to reduce the perception of risk of the consumer. It is the foreground STB, on which the headlights focus. The STB is the ultimate source of benefit to the consumer. It is its role to command attention, excite and create desire.

Disney’s Monsters, Inc is a good example of this architecture.

The star-satellite architecture: In this architecture, the LTB is the celebrated star and the STB is a satellite. STB is used in the star-satellite architecture to highlight products, service, events, special projects, etc. under the endorsement of the LTB but having a contemporary short-term relevance.

The LTB’s strategic focus remains intact although we sometimes use the STB either to enrich the LTB’s meaning or to divert it toward rebranding.

Calvin Klein’s CK One and CK Be collections of fragrances exemplify this architecture.

New path to customer loyalty

STB helps keep heritage brands contemporary by associated brand architecture.

Some forms in which it may manifest are:

• Branded energiser: Creating a niche product to help energise and bring new life to a brand like the Westin heavenly bed.
• Seasonal, or in-and-out offerings, to create demand through either artist-designed renditions (Coca-Cola, Mountain Dew) or by offering seasonal-based design (Kleenex designer box).

STBs are manifest in many of the food and beverage category due to the novelty wearing off with consumer targets. Wrigley’s chewing gum, for instance, often rotates flavour offerings or introduces innovation to remain relevant to a younger target consumer.

Throw out the rulebook and understand that while LTBs fulfil a need for stability, continuity and security, STBs fulfil the need for renewal and for sensual, emotional and intellectual stimulation.

There has been a lot of talk post the March 8 General Elections and especially after the first African American was made President of the United States of America that it is possible for a Chinese Malaysian to become Prime Minister of this country. 

Frankly, I don’t see this happening in the next fifty years due to the increasingly widening chasm in the country’s ethnic and cultural mix.

The Malaysian brand today is as confused as the country’s political landscape.  After 51 years of independence, the term “Malaysian” still means different things to the different communities.  Every community is becoming more protective of its language and cultural identity, and this isn’t good news. 

I am not sure if the blame should be put squarely on our politicians and so-called community leaders. Nor do I agree with the intellectuals who say this is imperial baggage from the ‘divide-and-rule’ policy of our former colonial masters.

Language and Identity

What really makes for cultural identity?  Is language the differentiator that defines who we are as a community?  Or is a community a group of people with shared affinities that transcend mere language?

I am English-educated and I use the English language in daily discourse. Does this make me less Chinese than a Chinese-educated person who speaks Mandarin?  I don’t think so.  As far as I am concerned, I am a Malaysian of Chinese descent who speaks English.

The Chinese-educated Malaysians rarely mix with their English-educated counterparts and even less so with the Malays.  More often than not, they prefer to live and socialise with their own kind in comfort zones or what brand experts call “affinity sets”.

This is the result of an education system that divides our children at a critical age when their perceptions about race, religion, culture and life in general are just beginning to be formed.

A History Lesson

The continuous call for “mother tongue” education by certain sections of the Chinese community is not conducive to nation-building.  The “Malaysian” brand has to be built from the common values shared by the people, not the differences of each community.

Education is the foundation of nation-building and when a country has many school systems, the different communities will grow up learning different things in different languages and naturally find it difficult to interact with each other and integrate.

China would not be the great nation that it is today had the Emperor Qin Shi Huang not directed his subjects to use Mandarin as the national language of the Middle Kingdom.  The country and its billions of inhabitants would still be divided by dialect.  The learning and usage of Mandarin as the national language made the Chinese people one.

I am by no means calling for the abolition of Chinese or Tamil language education in Malaysia.  Both these languages should continue to be learned, partly because they are part of our rich heritage, but more so because of the growing influence of China and India as global economic powers.  Like Spanish, which is becoming increasingly important in America, Chinese and Tamil should still be taught in Malaysian schools for their commercial value. 

But this should be done in moderation and not at the expense of nation-building.  It would also help if government schools are better run so parents will not be tempted to send their kids to vernacular or private schools.

Reality check

The importance of Bahasa Malaysia as the foundation for nation-building cannot be denied.  The different communities need to speak a common language so we can understand and appreciate one another.  The country cannot afford to spend another fifty years in silos of misunderstanding and distrust.

And whether we like it or not, English is the universal language for commerce, information, science, mathematics, the arts, in fact, everything.  We have no choice but to master the language if we want to stay competitive globally.  

As for Chinese, Tamil, Arabic or even French, every additional language we master gives us an advantage in career advancement, business networking and life in general.  Hence, the learning of languages should be commercially motivated and seen from a rational rather than emotional point of view.

The demands from certain organisations for the propagation of mother tongue education are made at the expense of nation-building.  It is irrational for these groups to refer to Chinese and Tamil as their mother tongues since they claim Malaysia to be their motherland and Malay should as such be their mother tongue.  I suspect these extremist organisations are more politically motivated than political parties. 

Language, race, religion and culture are all sensitive issues that are often played up by unscrupulous people for political mileage.  They are exploited to sow the seeds of discontent, breed suspicion and fear, and create rifts between the different communities.

The Malaysian Brand Vision

To illustrate a point, let’s change the fabric of American society as we know it. Imagine an America where African Americans lived amongst themselves, used their mother tongue exclusively in school and spoke to one another in a language that only they understood. 

Is it conceivable under such circumstances that an African American by the name of Barack Obama would run for office and become the President of the United States of America?  Or would he more likely be entertaining tourists in Time Square adorned in Kenyan tribal headgear?

Cultural diversity is laudable in any country, but the country must first have strong core values to bind the people together.  These values are our national DNA, without which the fabric of our society will be torn apart.

The fuss kicked up by the pro-mother tongue educationists remind me of Macbeth’s soliloquy, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing” or worse, Sun Tzu’s caution of “the noise before the defeat”.  Their conceited demands smack of self-interest and are detrimental to nation-building.  What if, like them, Sabah and Sarawak wanted to go their own way?  What will be left of Malaysia?

Nelson Mandela said, “A vision without action is just a dream.  Action without vision just passes the time.  A vision with action can change the world.“  Great leaders are men of vision, not wishful thinking.  Mandela lived through a seemingly hopeless period of political disparity and chaos, but he understood the need to have a dream for his country.  His determination to make it happen against all odds was what made him a transcendental leader.

What would Mandela do if he were in Barack Obama’s shoes and was given the helm of the United States of America or, more importantly to us, if he were the next leader of Malaysia?  What would he do about managing diversity and the right to cultural identity?

Let’s set aside our demands for mother tongue education for a greater good.  Let’s focus on commonalities instead of differences.  Let’s build on our mutual affinities and collective identity.  Let’s transcend the selfish pursuit of individuality and realise the overarching need for unity.  We have to share a common vision and start living as one people, one nation.  This, my countrymen, is my vision for the Malaysian brand.

Here’s a simple foundation on which the Malaysian brand should be built:

BRAND FOUNDATION FOR MALAYSIANS

1.   Where do we come from?

We came from diverse backgrounds, lived together in one place for over 50 years, but not as one people. 

2.   Where is our world going?

We are not sure.  A part of us looks to the West, a part to China, a part to India, a part to Indonesia.  But a part of us says we must look at ourselves.  We must have an identity to call our own.

3. Who are our advocates?

Our future generations and the world are our advocates. For the good of the future, we need to understand ourselves better.  We need balance and harmony.  We need to think and function as one.  We have to be strong, intelligent and productive.

4. What do we do?

We are a producer of oil and palm oil. We also make and trade things. We live in a competitive world.  We are God-fearing and have to respect Nature more.

5. What are we like?

We are like the food called Rojak.  A mixture of various ingredients that needs a sauce to bind us together.  Bahasa Malaysia is that sauce.

6.  Why are we remarkable?

We are remarkable because, just like a football team, each member of our team has unique strengths.  We must harness the individual strengths and work as one.  Unity in diversity is the key to our being.

7.  What do we fight for?

We fight for a better future as one - one people, one language, one nation.

The old Chinese saying “we live in interesting times” takes on a new meaning these days. We live in turbulent times.

As usual the Greeks had a theory on this too. Heraclitus said everything is in a constant state of flux. He must have had a visionary view on global stock markets, circa 2008!!

But the current chaos in the stock market brings to mind an interesting differentiation made by brand valuation experts on brand valuation as opposed to market capitalisation.

Interbrand the company that pioneered the methodology of establishing brand value puts it like this:

“Brand Valuation is an entirely different process to market capitalisation. Brand Valuation takes an inside-out view, looking at the brand’s contribution to the business’s success. Market capitalization is an outside-in view, where shareholders judge the company’s equity as an investment in relation to the market.

This inside-out view is established through three components: a financial analysis to forecast revenues that are attributable to the brand, a role of brand analysis to determine how important the brand is in influencing choice, and a brand strength analysis that benchmarks the brand’s ability to create ongoing demand.”

I would like to discuss in greater length how brand strength can be built and leveraged at a time of economic downturn and how we can link brand value to brand communication and brand strategy.

Changes in brand value aren’t directly affected by the rise and fall in market capitalisation; the perceived success or failure of a brand creates a chain of events that will affect our confidence to do business with the brand. This can create a compound effect upon the measures of brand value.

Put simply, we need to feel confident of our choices. When a brand runs into trouble and bad news spreads around that brand, confidence dissipates in relationship to the scale and impact of the bad news. Clearly there is a lot of bad news polluting various brands right now and this will be having a knock-on effect on their brand values.

A strong brand that engenders trust and confidence will be a huge asset to its parent organisation at these times.

With this in mind I sat down and looked at some of the key learning by experts on leveraging brands during a downturn.

Here is a shorthand of some of the must do’s identified by these experts. 

1. Keep the Buzz
   Don’t stop communicating with your customers. In a downturn, people don’t stop buying, they just buy more cleverly. This means they make more selective choices. So pitch towards pragmatism. And be honest if things have gone sour.If you are holding out with a stable brand promise that you can deliver on, use the Warren Buffet method in communication strategy. Take the higher ground. Take advantage of the general decrease in marketing spending to grab a larger share of voice and define yourself in a less cluttered marketplace.Other than traditional advertising, now is the time to  also evaluate less traditional ways of communicating with your customers, as you must leverage maximum value on your ad dollar.
2. Know your Customer
   In bad times many companies see research as a waste. However, understanding their customers at this moment is even more critical. If the market place is sick, you need to find the right doctor that can diagnose the malaise. You must use every tool in the book to stay fighting fit.You should protect your budget and keep an eye on the longer-term innovative projects. Your business must know where your customers are going over a time horizon that will allow you to come through the downturn in a better competitive position. You must be there for your customers during the bad times, which may mean cross-subsidising or taking a margin pinch with them.
3. Start Milking a few Cash Cows
   Examine ways in which the stronger brands in the portfolio (or the stronger businesses)could support the marketing efforts of the weaker brands or weaker businesses.Now is a good time to determine if every subtle brand distinction actually matters to customers.
4. Rationalise
   Look at Unilever - how it is one of the few companies showing double digit growth right now, as it has axed so many  of their nice-to-have but not-really-doing-much brands.Take a sharp knife to every unnecessary product brand, sub-brand or program brand. Business units have a habit of creating new brands for reasons other than for the benefit of customers or their bottom line. Each of these costs money to support and distracts attention from core issues.
5. Feed your Cows
   Build on Existing Equities. Identify which brands enjoy the strongest customer loyalty. Companies should explore ways of further leveraging these brands. Product line extensions and licensing can be especially powerful as efficient ways of unlocking brand potential.
6. Don’t dilute your Brand Promise
   There might be temptation to cut back on product quality, and service quality, in order to squeeze a few extra margin points. Don’t do it! If you lose confidence in your brand’s promise, your customers will be the first to know.
7. Don’t cheapen premium Brand Value
   Resist the temptation to use price discounting to maintain volume targets. Take the risk of losing a few customers in the short-term and focus on revenue rather than volume. It will cost much more to reverse the negative impression of “the deep discount” after the event than it accrues your business in the short term.

   As a final call for action, building brands is like nurturing children, companies can’t capitulate on the first sight of sickness. They must administer medicine, they must work at getting well, and they must keep the show going.

What do you get when you roll thinkers, musicians, actors, writers, painters, strategists, film directors, comedians, futurists, psychologists, fashion designers and entrepreneurs all into one? 

Well, it isn’t too much of an exaggeration to say you’ll be looking at an advertising man.

I remember many years ago, when I was a young upstart in an ad agency, how I looked up to the ‘elders’ in my industry. The way they went about their business, the way they presented their ideas – every word they uttered was pure wisdom, every move they made was sheer brilliance. They were very much larger than life.

In their magical hands, unintelligible scribbles on paper towels became poems, incoherent tunes turned into pop music and simple sketches came to life in the form of moving pictures.

In the absence of movie stars back then, these admen were the celebrities of the corporate world. They worked and played hard. They knew how to live and, boy, did they know how to party! Clients lapped up their every word and bought every idea they had to sell. 

They were people of immense talent and much of what they did for a living is still clearly evident in the footprints of the many successful brands we have today. Think tea and we instantly recall the famous Ummph campaign. Adjourn to a watering hole after a long day and we instinctively find comfort in The Long Cool Dane.

These admen also used their talent to change perception. We were once proud owners of the Austin, the Mini, the Fiat and the Morris Minor. Then someone came along and changed the “tin can” image of Japanese cars. Today, Toyota and Honda are symbols of reliability and even prestige to many Malaysians.

Through clever brand positioning, the “So quiet you can hear a feather drop” campaign for National air-conditioners displaced Philco and Carrier as market leaders overnight. In much the same way, Milo overhauled Ovaltine as the chocolate drink of choice and Dreamland overtook Dunlopillo as the preferred night-time companion.

Fast-forward to recent times. 

The much-loved DiGi Yellow Coverage Fellow has become popular culture. An icon that is talked about, written about and even invited to weddings. Not to mention the fact that the lovable fellow has made the cash register ring and won many effectiveness awards for DiGi.

And who could forget Malaysia’s first ever Cannes Grand Prix and D&AD Yellow Pencil triumphs? Our admen have taken on the world and came back with the Olympic Gold Medal and Oscar of advertising.

I could go on and on about our achievements, but the point I would like to make is this – we wouldn’t have great brands without great advertising talents. No Milo, just chocolate drinks. No Carlsberg or Tiger, just beer. No Colgate, just toothpaste. No ASTRO or TV3, just television. And no DiGi, Maxis or Celcom, just tele-communications.

From building brand value to consumer loyalty, some of our advertising greats have spent their entire lives making and crafting brand stories. Their love for their work is perhaps second only to the fervour that one expects from Hollywood.

The admen of yesteryears and today are no different. They are imaginative and artistic in nature. They are proponents of the arts, thinkers, strategists and craftsmen. People who think out of the box, go against the grain and see opportunity when others see adversity. They are people who enjoy work and life to the fullest.

Come 28th November, the advertising industry will honour some of these great thinkers, musicians, actors, writers, painters, strategists, film directors, comedians, futurists, psychologists, fashion designers and entrepreneurs all rolled into one.

To Tan Sri Dato’ Dr Lim Kok Wing, Janet Yeo, Harmandar Singh, Risyha Joseph, Ted Lim, Shukri Rifaie, Edwin Leong, Lau Peng Kai, Yasmin Ahmad, Ali Mohamed, Khairudin Rahim, Paul Loosley, Jennifer Chan, Tony Savarimuthu, Azizul Kallahan, the late Dato’ Jaffar Ali, the late John Machado and the late Peter Beaumont, – you have not only changed the advertising industry but also the way we live.

“The real giants have always been poets, men who jumped from facts into the realms of imagination and ideas,” said Bill Bernbach. We are proud to stand on the shoulders of giants.

I have often repeated the idea in this column that brands are the sum of stories and associations creating reputation and perception. I came across this interesting article from Interbrand that I think has so much relevance right now globally, as we look at shoring up consumer confidence and upholding reputation  not merely in financial markets but in countries as diverse as the US, China and even Iceland.

China is such a great nation and is making such economic progress. Its presentation of the Olympics was the greatest the world has seen, in scale, in artistry, in stature. Yet, it has   immense quality perceptions with a series of inexcusable and debilitating blows to its repute with the several scandals rocking China’s brand equity on its ability to produce quality goods.

The US on the other hand, has had a big bash to its repute by the constant bungling of its political brand CEO George Bush and his administration. The botched financial system that is sending shock waves across the world is only tempered by a huge acceptance that American brands from Coke to Google still create a global mechanism for upholding cultural and informational stimuli that uphold American prestige through depression and reputation loss.

As a Malaysian, watching credibility and confidence erosion in our own political process, I feel we in the private sector, must be aware, that we are the ones who, through our brands and our professionalism, will help hold the flames of reputation that will anchor international perceptions that all is well.

In this context, let me share this strong piece on how Brands Create Nations by Jurgen Hausler-

Brands Create Nations

By Dr Jürgen Häusler,Interbrand.

Brands create nations? Why do we furrow our brows when we read this sentence? Because we usually consider it a law of nature that the cause-and-effect relationship is the other way around: Nations create brands.

What do we mean by “Nations create brands?” Brands leverage their origin to position themselves for more success on the global market. They try to exploit people’s impression or convictions about the special strengths of entire nations. People the world over believe a car “Made in Germany” must be imbued with German engineering expertise. Putting on a suit “Made in Italy” turns normal mortals into passionate lovers. And the luxurious “Swiss made” watch exudes the added aura of exclusivity that its status-hungry wearer longs for.

Indeed, “Made in Switzerland” is a good example, having demonstrated considerable success in the past few years. Now it’s not only marketing experts who know that “Swiss-ness” is on the upswing and has become the central thrust behind any number of brands in diverse sectors. The confidence that offerings, ranging from financial products and airline flights to coffee makers and skin care products, will be perceived by the world as attractive and desirable if they sport a white cross on the red background, preferably with the word “Swiss” in their name and a visual identity dominated by red and white, has long since spread across the borders of the Alpine nation.

What’s actually going on in our heads when we buy into such national, collective claims of quality in products and services provided by individual companies? Evaluated in light of contemporary ideas about rational thought, not much. After all, who among us still hasn’t realized that in the globalized economy – among other things – the epithet “Made in” no longer says much about where essential components of the product were actually manufactured. Who hasn’t observed that personnel are not always natives of the country the brand is tapping for its perceived benefits, even among the so-called premium brands in the airline industry? And by trusting in the alleged cultural traits of the entire population of a given country in the first place, aren’t we ultimately expressing regrettable and obsolete prejudices?

This is the point where we can begin thinking of the cause-and-effect relationship working in the other direction. So it’s not “the Germans” who stand for “Freude am Fahren” (indeed quite the contrary, sometimes) but BMW, Mercedes and Porsche, who are spreading the news around the world that Germanyis the place to go for masculine Fahrfreude, exclusive appearance and technical perfection on four wheels. Francedoesn’t make the best sparkling wine – its Veuve Clicquot that ensures that Champagne enjoys a worldwide reputation for the most exclusive product in its category. “Made in Italy” is not the basis for the success of Italian menswear designers – on the contrary. “Made by Armani, Ermenegildo Zegna or Brioni” gives “Made in Italy” its universal prestige. In other words, these brands influence the perception of “their” nations.

To be historically precise, one should note that this relatively new development may continue to grow in importance. The phenomenon reflects the rise in importance of brands themselves over the past few decades. Our perception of the world is increasingly influenced by the constructs of brand-builders. For example, the Lange brand recently put the long-forgotten town of Glashütteback on the world map. And for the most of the world, the Samsung brand defines people’s image of South Korea. Nations still fighting for one of the top positions among the countries of the world would do well to keep an eye out for homegrown brands that have the potential to capture the world’s attention. After all: Brands create nations.

Biography:

Dr Jürgen Häusler, PHD is CEO Interbrand Central & Eastern Europe.

Interbrand is the worlds leading brand consultancy. He has experience as a social scientist at the Max-Planck-Institute, a doctorate in social sciences, a degree in Business Administration, and has received research grants for work at M.I.T. Jürgen has applied his experience to successful endeavors at Interbrand. He is a Honorary Professor for Strategic Business Communication at the University of Leipzig.

We have heard so many times that if we want to grow a nation, we need to grow her people. A country can be blessed with many natural resources but if it has not nurtured her  most important asset  it will fall behind.

People are not some mere resource; they are like diamonds. It is in the cut and the processing of a diamond that its true worth comes out. So it is with people. They are creative and social beings and an aggressive  sectoral approach to developing human resourcefulness is a priority for socio-economic development. It calls for strategic and integrated public policies, for example in education, health, and employment sectors that promote occupational skills, knowledge and performance enhancement.

Somehow, in Malaysia, the policy framework has intentionally misinterpreted the agenda to grow numbers rather than growing talents. They say we must have a huge population base to create a market.   That’s an economies-of-scale argument that is true for manufacturing efficiencies, not otherwise. If we look at the Nordic countries, for instance, they have a smaller population than us and are yet fully developed and prosperous.

The US is one of the most powerful nations in the world, that ‘borrowed’ or lured the best brains nurtured in other countries through its immigrant policies and its scholarships into its tertiary education system. In fact, the US model is an ambush model that, studies show, had a very bad secondary school system locally and used the human capital that had been nurtured in other countries in its formative years, and then ‘hijacked’ this talent to world class universities. In fact, the US school system was considered to be one of the worst in the league of first world countries. But it compensated by having the world’s best tertiary system and became the centre of opportunity for the best talent globally. 

And we are stuck. Look at the paucity of employable talent in our graduate programmes. We see that the government is churning out hundreds of thousands of graduates, and yet somehow why we are still short of the right talent joining the work force.  We have had some plan to shift our economy from its early low end manufacturing capabilities (assembling electronic components, etc) to a truly competitive nation that pushed its services industry. And of course, we forgot that services are driven by human talent .In the advertising marketing and branding industry for instance, it’s all about intellectual capital. Capital that is acquired by the calibre of minds that generate ideas.

How can our economy grow when the “engines of growth ” is not moving?

Brain drain- in the Ad Industry
At one time we heard that the computer industry was suffering when people moved north to China and Hong Kong. Then the hospitality industry that went into frenzy of losing all sorts of people.

Now it is the communication and ad industry which is bleeding. Its small talent pool is drying up.

The advertising industry could be the most unpredictable business within the gambit of all the creative business. The business structure is not only determined by the market as a whole but by the constant losing and winning of accounts through a process called the “pitch “.

Every win and loss of an account can have a Tsunami effect on the overall job market, not to mention what it does to the salary structure.

Thus, the lure of Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore has drained some of the most talented creative minds in our business. As I always said, if the offer to move is only 30 percent higher, one may think twice to move as they have to think of uprooting the families and so on, but the discrepancies are 100% to 200% now.

As if losing talents to mature markets is not bad enough, we are now the target of emerging markets such as Vietnam and to a lesser extent Cambodia!

Right now, the creative industry is not short of business but short of talent to service the clients. We just don’t have enough people coming in quickly to fill in the gap. So what happens when the situation gets worst?

Brand drain
Brands will suffer the most when clients get average kind of work from their agencies. Chaos will be the order of the day as brand owners move business from one end to the other not knowing it is an industry problem rather than an isolated one. Business will start to fall, markets shrink and some brands may die.

Multinational clients have the simpler task of moving their operation where the money and talents are found. They have no qualms about cutting back on their investments. They are not known to build people and nations. They are just here to build wealth. The end result is simple. The whole economy gets affected, consumer spending reduced to a whimper and what do you think will happen to the economy?

Bank drain
I am not just talking about the financial part of the drain here, obviously it will have a significant impact on the economy, banks will pull back loans and there will be a drop in consumer spending.  The retail sector will be the first to feel the impact. Job insecurity will increase. The better people with job prospects will move offshore and it will become a vicious cycle.

The worst thing is that the “bank of talents “will dry up, the bank of brands maybe reduced.

So what can be done about it?

• Focus on Quality.
  The government can help by churning out real graduates (just like 20 years ago, MARA was the biggest source of talents for the creative industry. Shukri Rafie, CEO of Publicis; Khairuddin Rahim, MD of Lowe; Yasmin Ahmad, executive creative director of Leo Burnett; Azizul Kalahan, chairman of Spencer Azizul Communication and AMPMedia executive director Datuk Borhanuddin Osman, who is also present of Malaysia Association of Commercial Radio Operators; and a whole lot of famous personalities were all great products of the past.)

• Widen the Net and Brand the Pond
  The industry need to look outside our field to attract talents. The Association of Accredited Advertising Agents is launching a recruitment fair next year. Our industry needs a facelift. We must be bold enough to admit that we need to re-brand our industry to convince parents that our industry is not about drinking and partying. It is a serious business that is both rewarding and meaningful. After all, we are the builders of brands. And brands are the stimuli of economic growth. It is our industry that helps shape society at least at the level of perception.

• Focus on training and nurturing talent.
  The international agencies must start their training programmes rather than taking trained staff from local agencies.

• Protect your Ideas.
  Finally, some may not think it is not important but sticking to The Pitch Fee rules will ensure we put a value to our creative ideas. It is about intellectual property. It is about sustainability.

How can a good client trust an agency that gives away free ideas instead of building their own agency brand? No client should engage an agency to guard their brand when it can’t do the same for themselves. No matter how big or small the agency is. Or, how desperate or hungry one is for business.

Let’s romance our talent pool, let’s build prestige into our industry and let’s ensure we stem the outflow. People first must be our mantra.