Branding and communication strategies in organizational contexts

Branding and Communication

There has been significant criticism leveled against the branding practices of companies, and most particularly those of multinationals, which have been raised. Drawing on the academic literature this work will identify the primary arguments used in these critiques and will critically examine those arguments and discuss their implications for branding in the age of globalization. This study will further answer the question of how branding has changed under the influence of such criticism and how.

The work entitled "Is Marketing Ethical? Is Marketing Socially Responsible? What is the Philosophy of Marketing? Caveat Emptor!" poses the question as to whether marketing is ethical…socially responsible and additionally asks the question of what is the philosophy of marketing? The function and practice of marketing is stated to have been criticized because it is claimed that it "deliberately creates partial truths about products and services and exploits the fears and weaknesses of fellow human beings." (Marketing Ethics and Criticism, 2012) The marketing of ethics is criticized quite frequently since marketing is the only function of business that "sets out to emphasize the gap between a person's reality and their expectations in such a way that people feel lacking in either self-esteem or possessions so that they feel compelled to close the gap by unnecessary spending." (Marketing Ethics and Criticism, 2012)

Often the criticism leveled at practitioners is of a personal nature since they are characterized as "vapid unscrupulous individuals who believe they hold superior knowledge about human behavior, motivation, persuasion, influence." (Marketing Ethics and Criticism, 2012) The marketing profession is criticized from the academic managerial standpoint "because it exists in a state of topic uncriticality…making claims to be a profession when it only attracts self-opinionated gurus and mystics with a lack of intellectual rigor and commercial discipline." (Marketing Ethics and Criticism, 2012) From a philosophical viewpoint, much of the criticism towards marketing comes from a postmodern stance in opposition to what is predominantly positivistic and managerialist of the pro-marketing and academic as well as business management literature. The customer is essentially viewed as a resource in the market that should be exploited for the gain of shareholders with little regard to the systemic problems created by such behavior.

Marketing has sought to acquire scientific credibility for nearly a century. Marketing is stated to "either explicitly or implicitly" endorse the philosophy of Milton Friedman and the accompanying belief that that the end is somehow justification for the means. From this view the only entity to which stakeholders are accountable are shareholders. Marketing is stated to be commonly understood as being "…in the persuasion business and in doing that it naturally presents a biased version of products and services." (Marketing Ethics and Criticism, 2012)

I. The 'Brand'

The work of Grannell (2003) states that it is rare when a new addition to the business vocabulary has been able to "match the impact that 'brand' has had. In a few short years, this word has taken root firmly in the business vernacular. Some people view "brand" with suspicion; they suspect something lightweight a triumph of style over substance, a kind of "flower arranging" for business. And yet, paradoxical though it may seem, these brands (and observations about them) can strike fear into CEOs, knock millions off share prices, and cost people their jobs. So brands are far from inconsequential, but are they cosmetic or indeed malevolent?"

Brands are of key importance and Grannell states it is easy to understand why in light of the consideration of the individual's buying behavior starting with the drinks, magazines and other purchase including where one shops. Brands are reported by Grannell to be "about people's perceptions, which explains why brands are worth so much." (2003) Brand choice is stated to be such that it is "driven by a hunch, but a remembered story, by a perception of good corporate citizenship, by experience, by a thousand little reasons which become important at the second that the decision to purchase is made." (Grannell, 2003)

A brand is therefore "the sum of all the perceptions held by a particular audience about a firm's products or services." (Grannell, 2003) In order to understand what branding really means this study refers the reader to nbstudio.co.uk which states that what the branding and communication studio 'NB' does is comprised by both 'thinking' and 'doing'. Under the heading of 'thinking' listed are words such as "creativity, ideas, naming, brand positioning, branch architecture, brand guardianship, competitor and communications audits, tone of voice, interviews and customer journey. (NB, 2012) Under the heading of the word 'Doing' listed are words such as "brand identity, websites, brand guidelines, literature, packaging, direct mail, annual reports, exhibitions, and campaigns. (NB, 2012) It is clear that marketing of brands is undertaken as a science in terms rigor used in studying what marketing and branding techniques are likely to be more effective.

Parsons (2007) reports in the work entitled "Integrating Ethics with Strategy: Analyzing Disease-Branding" that communication strategies that organizations attempt to use are the focus of public criticism and the example stated is disease-branding which is a 'non-branded approach' in marketing pharmaceuticals directly to customers. Some hold that this is "disease-mongering, this promotion of diseases rather than drugs neatly side-steps the increasing criticism and even legal obstacles that face or threaten to face direct-to-consumer advertising of branded prescription drugs." (Parsons, 2007) Yes, it is innovative according to Parsons however, findings in the study reported show that there is a need for ethical analysis in this endeavor.

II. Ethical Branding and Marketing

Just as in the case previously described in which pharmaceutical companies are marketing directly to consumers persuading them to buy medications for treating a disease, other ethical issues have come to the fore of the public discussion. The work of Ying Fan (2005) entitled "Ethical Branding and Corporate Reputation" states as follows of research on ethics in branding and marketing initiatives:

"Ethics has been studied in almost all business issues except branding. Not a single academic study has been found on branding ethics after an extensive literature search covering the following sources: three online database (ABI Inform Global, Ebsco and Infotrac), three journals (Journal of Business Ethics, Journal of Brand Management and Journal of Product and Brand Management), dozens of books and websites." (Fan, 2005)

Fan states that brands, while existing for many thousands of years, have never been as powerful as in today's society. Brands are stated to be "prevalent in every aspect of human life: production and consumption, food and clothing, personality and lifestyle, and from pop culture to politics. Branding is no longer just about adding value to a product; branding represents and promotes lifestyles and brands themselves become a kind of culture." (Fan, 2005)

The branding and marketing initiative was stated by Hazel Kahan and cite din Hall (1999) as being of the nature that "brands are now gunning for a share of consumers' inner lives, their values, their beliefs, their politics; and yes, their souls." (Fan, 2005) The impacts of branding has traveled far outside the marketing and advertising field and is a "social construct as well as an economic construct. As an economic construct, brands have not yet been fully understood owing to the dearth of academic research in this area. Advertising is probably the most visible element of marketing but branding is at the centre of any marketing communications. Most problems with advertising have their roots in branding strategy." ( )

The work of Ian Cocoran entitled "Brands Get the Blame" states that the concept of brand controversy,

"...has been around for years and perhaps entered its darkest hour in 1984, when a poisonous gas leak from a Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India, killed 8,000 people almost instantly. Since then, the death toll associated with the incident has risen to 16,000 and Greenpeace still classifies the area as a 'Global Toxic Hotspot.' Only 5 years later in 1989, the Exxon Valdez was grounded on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, spilling almost 11-million gallons of crude oil from its hold. The environmental impact was huge, as countless fish, bird and other local wildlife species were lost and the contamination spread 2400 miles along the shoreline of the Kenai Peninsula. Not only were these incidents catastrophic in terms of their loss of human life and their impact on the environment, but the intrinsic damage that was sustained by both the Union Carbide and Exxon brands provided both companies with a legacy that shrouded them in shame. Thankfully though, disasters of this magnitude are rare and although calamitous in their consequences, have served to focus public opinion and tighten legislation, minimizing the risk of further reoccurrence." (Cocoran, 2012)

According to Cocoran underneath the industrial ordinance at the very top tier is a "deeper and more surreptitious layer of corporate malpractice that goes largely unseen by the public eye." (Cocoran, 2012) However, it is stated that while Exxon and Carbide disaster were unaware of the "pathogenic circumstances" the organizations involved in such disasters generally are very aware of the criminal activity they are participating in. The example stated in the work of Cocoran is that of the company 'NIKE'. (2012 ) In 1996, NIKE was accused by CBS staff of "mistreating workers in Vietnam. The report claimed that contracted staff were subjected to a regime of both mental and physical brutality and made to work in appalling conditions in order to fulfill their daily quotas. Although the company tried to play down the story, their attempts were thwarted in when the New York Times ran a front-page narrative concerning a leaked internal inspection document by the global accountancy firm, Ernst and Young, which found that some workers in Vietnam were working in "unsafe conditions." The document declared that tests at a factory near Ho Chi Minh City showed employees were "exposed to carcinogens that exceeded local legal standards by 177 times in parts of the plant and that 77% of the employees suffered from respiratory problems" (New York Times November 1997)." (Cocoran, 2012)

Cocoran relates that Adidas is another sporting brand to be accused of unethical behavior as the company was accused by the UK's Observer to have reported findings that child labor was being used by the Indonesian factors that supply Adidas and that workers only 15 years old were required to work at least 70 hours per week minimum. A worker in Thailand is stated to have reported that working 7 days per week and 12 hours shifts resulted in her earning $1.50 per day. (Cocoran, 2012, paraphrased) Cocoran reports that the companies displayed "cold-blooded capitalism and environmental disregard that eventually turn the frustration of hundreds of protestors into a violent attack on the WTO." Cocoran states that it was the strength of public opinion that resulted in the biggest companies worldwide to rethink their strategies and consider a more ethical bias toward corporate policy." (2012) However, according to Cocoran it was simply too late for some organizations as while those organizations were busy "keeping a close eye on their margins, their competitors were embracing a paradigm shift that was changing the face of how brands were perceived." (2012)

The report states that the most strategically competitive companies had acknowledge the need for change and "had even taken bad publicity and turned it into competitive advantage, enhancing their brand equity in the process." (Cocoran, 2012) Such was the case for De Beers when up against criticism by human rights groups for the company having purchased 'blood' diamonds from African revolutionaries and simultaneously "indirectly funding their respective regimes." ( ) Furthermore, De Beers was also up against a huge overstock of precious gems and this was putting the company at risk "from the inside." (Cocoran, 2012) De Beers solved both problems at the same time through ceasing it purchase of diamonds from "potentially illegal sources" and "it would support embargoes by the UN on diamond sales from countries such as Angola and Sierra Leone. These resolves were made public and the effect reported is one termed dramatic and stated is that De Beers "…was able to reduce the amount of cut-price diamonds being fed into the world's markets and reduce its stock overhang due to the upsurge in demand for "clean" gems. As an added bonus, the company was seen as an ethical champion by the same human rights protestors who were earlier calling for its head." (Cocoran, 2012) While that which motivated De Beers might appear questionable the company's "desire to protect the intrinsic value of its brand disassociating from potential violations of human rights was still a key element of the process." (Cocoran, 2012) There have been various organizations to acknowledge the existing niche in the "current trading environment" and these originations are stated to be "keen to advocate the benefits on philanthropic corporate code." (Cocoran, 2012)

Consciousness Unlimited has organized a group of individuals with specific expertise that is comprised by CEOs and others who represent well-known brands and who frequent other companies and inform them how it is that "today's multinational corporations can improve their ethical profile." (Cocoran, 2012) Cocoran further relates that the Coalition for Environmentally Responsible Economies (CERES). Founded in 1989 and consisting mainly of investment, environmental, religious and social justice groups" additionally supports ethical marketing and branding practices. (2012) Included in those signed on with CERES are such as American Airlines, Ford, General Motors and Polaroid. It is reported that CERES and other such company's growth is witness to the increasing awareness that there is "more to making a profit than maintaining a strong balance sheet. And in today's global markets where freedom of choice has become the democratic right of the world's consumers, it's down to each organization to reflect its values and principles in its brand positioning." (Cocoran, 2012)

Jennifer Bassett reports an interview with Martin Lindstrom, brand futurist and bestselling author who knows "how slick and manipulative (bad) marketing can be." (2012) Linstrom's latest book is entitled "Brandwashed: Tricks Companies Use to Manipulate Our Minds and Persuade Us to Buy." In the interview with Brand Channel Lindstrom talks about his '10 Ethical Brand Guidelines' for companies, why ethics matter in an increasingly 'open' and social world, and how marketing tools can be just as impactful when they are used for good as when they are used simply to convince customers to part with their hard-earned money." (Bassett, 2012) Martin states in the interview when asked to talk about what brought about his change of heart as a marketing and brand expert as follows:

"To make a very long story short, there are two different ways that you can brandwash people: the negative version and positive version. I love brands, myself, and if you read the book, you'll know I have a strong relationship with Lego and a number of other brands. But the difference is that some brands have been going too far, in my mind. What we're seeing is that we're becoming so disparate from this in a rush to make money." (Bassett, 2012)

Lindstrom relates his 10 ethical rules during the interview and states them to include the following:

1. Don't do to kids what you wouldn't do to your own. By extension, don't do to consumers what you wouldn't do to your friends and family.

2. Secure an 'ethical' sign-off from your target group each time a campaign, a new product or a service is about to be launched in the market. Develop your own independent consumer panel (a representative target audience) and disclose the perception of the product, as well as the reality. Let the consumers make the final call.

3. Align perception with reality. Your talents might very well lie in brilliantly creating convincing perceptions, but how do they stack up against the reality? If there's a mismatch, either one must be adjusted in order for them to be in sync.

4. Be 100% transparent. Nothing less. The consumer needs to know what you know about them. Furthermore, they must be told exactly how you intend to use the information. If they don't like what they see, they need a fair and easy way to opt out.