Six steps to ensuring brand alignment

Organizational brand
coherence
Six steps towards ensuring brand alignment

For more information contact:
Jean-Pierre Lacroix
President
Shikatani Lacroix
387 Richmond Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 1P6
Telephone: 416-367-1999
Email: jplacroix@sld.com

White paper | July 2013 | Brand Coherence Study | 2

Shikatani Lacroix is a leading branding and design firm
located in Toronto, Canada. The company commissions
assignments from all around the world, across CPG, retail
and service industries, helping clients achieve success within
their operating markets. It does this by enabling its clients’
brands to better connect with their consumers through a
variety of core services including corporate identity and
communication, brand experience design, packaging,
naming and product design.

About the Author
Jean-Pierre Lacroix, R.G.D., President and Founder of
Shikatani Lacroix
Jean-Pierre (JP) Lacroix provides leadership and direction to
his firm, which was founded in 1990. He has spent the last
30 years helping organizations better connect their brands
with consumers in ways that impact the overall
performance of their business. Mr. Lacroix was the first to
coin and trademark the statement “The Blink Factor” in
1990, which today is a cornerstone principle to how brands
succeed in the marketplace. JP has authored several papers,
has been quoted in numerous branding and design articles,
and in 2001 he co-authored the book “The Business of
Graphic Design” which has sold over 10,000 copies. JP can
be reached at jplacroix@sld.com and you can follow his
thought leadership webinars at: www.sldesignlounge.com.

Other Articles and Books
Belonging Experiences...Designing Engaged Brands, 2010
The Business of Graphic Design: The Professional’s
Handbook, 2001


Executive Summary
A study was conducted in the spring of 2013 with over
120 companies participating across the globe.
Representing twenty business sectors, respondents
clearly identified a significant lack of strong brand
cohesion, with only 38% of companies having a high
level of brand integration within their organization.
Adding to the lack of a coherent brand strategy is the
low level of consistency with how companies evaluate
their brand equity. The low brand integration was also
driven by 45% of respondents who had different brand
di
positions, one for their corporation for either their
division or products.
We also identified a gap within the brand positioning
structure with only half of respondents clearly
articulating their company’s brand essence. This
supports our premise regarding effective translation of
the complexity of a brand position, few organizations
are able to distill their brand’s unique value into easy
to remember, simple to understand and focused
messaging. There also exists a second, probably more
critical gap; since brand positioning is predominantly
external, there exists little to no internal focus as part
of employee engagement and on-boarding programs.


The study also highlighted how the process of creating
or reﬁning brand positions is mainly part of a business
review process or established planning cycle driven by
the CEO, who leads both the development and
integration within the organization. The perceived
impact of an organization’s branding initiative are
brand loyalty, execution excellence and lower staff
sta
turnover while the biggest challenge to launching an
effective brand coherence strategy is the lack of
understanding and commitment levels from the
leadership team.
Based on this study and our own experience managing
brand coherence, we have identiﬁed the following
steps:
•

Step #1: Establish Consistent Industry Metrics to
Evaluate the Contribution of Your Brand

•

Step #2: Ensure Master Brand Linkage

•

Step #3: Fill the Brand Essence Gap

•

Step #4: Align All Activities Around the Brand
Coherence Loop

•

Step #5: Brand From the Inside Out Versus the
Outside In

•

Step #6: Clearly Align your Brand Pillars to Key
Strategic Imperatives


The Emergence of Brand Coherence
In 2012, Shikatani Lacroix released a white paper on
the growing importance and need for strong brand
coherence within organizations. The premise of the
paper was the shift towards multichannel strategies
and the need to provide a sustainable, differentiated
and meaningful value proposition. This was driving
brand marketers to put greater emphasis on how both
internal and external stakeholders were aligned behind
one singular compelling brand idea. Companies such
as Kraft and PepsiCo have embraced the concept of
providing a singular point of difference for their brands
which resulted in the restructuring of the organizations
into two separate specialized and focused companies.
As more and more brands succumb to category
commoditization and become threatened by new
emerging, non-related industries, the importance and
relevancy of ensuring all of a brand’s moments-oftruth are effectively aligned towards a common value
becomes paramount.

40.0%

United States

42.00%

Canada
Western Europe

6.00%

Asia

4.00%

Other

4.00%

Oceania
United Kingdom

3.00%
1.00%

12.5% 37.5%
25%
50%
Value Title

To gain stronger fact-based insights on how
organizations are aligned behind a clearly deﬁned
brand coherent strategy, SL conducted an online study
in the spring of 2013 with 120 organizations across
North America, Canada, Western Europe, Asia and
Oceania. The following outlines our ﬁndings and key
steps companies can undertake to ensure they are
getting the most value from their branding and
marketing initiatives. The respondents were invited to
participate by way of an online study with strong
representation of companies from the Institutional,
Retail, Manufacturing, Services and Resource sectors.


Respondent Profile and Portfolio Structure
10.00% 30.00%
20.00% 40.00%
More than half of respondents were companies with

33%

C Suite

global reach while the respondent profile included 42%
representing departments in sales and marketing, 38%

Vice-President Level

15%

in management with an additional 22% in buying,
manufacturing and product development. To better

Director Level

18%

understand how the brand position was being
managed, we ensured the study had a fair

Manager Level

14%

Employee Level

14%

Other, please specify...

representation of positions throughout organizations.
The study respondents consisted of 33% holding CSuite positions while 32% percent had Vice-President
and Director level positions. An additional 14% had

6%

manager level positions with another 20% holding
employee or other positions.
The findings also reflected a fair representation of the
type of brand portfolios within organizations. When
asked about the type of brand portfolio structure,
more than 51% indicated a branded house (i.e. BMW)

3%

structure with the remaining respondents equally split
between a house of brands (i.e. P&G) and branded

23%

divisions (i.e. Apple). When asked how many brands
the organization markets, 47% indicated 2 to 10 while

23%

51%

an additional 26% indicated their portfolio consisted of
only one brand. The remaining respondents (27%)
indicated their portfolio consisted of 11 brands or
more.
The study also had a broad representation of company

Branded House (i.e., BMW)
House of Brands (i.e., P&G)
Branded Divisions (i.e. Apple)

revenues with 21% of respondents under $1 million,
34% from a million to $50 million, 13% between $51
million and a half billion and 24% over a half billion in
sales (8% declined to disclose).


Level of Brand Integration and Evaluation Inconsistent
70%

The study clearly identified that there is no consistency
within organizations as it relates to how they evaluate
their brand equity. The largest percentage (61%) of
respondents determined their brand value through a
market-based analysis, leveraging relative methods

61%

comparable to other firms and their level of profits.
The cost-based evaluation process - which identifies
the value of a brand based on book or replacement

18%
Market Based
Income Based

value - had the lowest percentage of application with

14%
Cost Based

only 14% mentioning their organization used this

8%

system. Another 18% mentioned they used an income-

Other

based method where the value is determined by the
earnings capitalization or discount cash flow methods.
This leads to the need to establish a common form to
evaluate the equity of a brand across global markets,
or within regional boundaries with accepted accounting
norms. Without an industry established evaluation
process, the ability to justify investment, ROI and value
will continue to be undermined.

48%
38%

0.5
Results also identified only 38% of companies had a
high level of brand integration within their
organization consisting of a clearly defined brand
position that is articulated at all levels of the
organization and understood by all employees. The

9%

High

majority of companies ranked their brand integration

Medium
Low

5%
Other

consisting of a common mission, vision and position,
but that these were not linked to marketing initiatives
at a medium (48%) to low (9%) level.


Step #1: Establish Consistent Industry Metrics to
Evaluate the Contribution of Your Brand
From our research findings, we determined that one of
the key factors to why organizations do not put greater
emphasis on creating coherent branding strategies is
based on how they define the financial value of their
brands. Not having clarity on the value of a brand or an
industry-wide accepted practice removes the potential
attention and importance to how it contributes to the
evaluation of organizations. The metrics should also
consider all facets of the Brand Coherence Infinity
Loop, and take into account all elements of an
organization, from marketing to HR, operations,
accounting and manufacturing.
Invest in Singularity
We have noted one of the key reasons for the low
brand integration numbers is the fact that 45% of
respondents had different brand positions, one for
their corporation and another for either their division’s
or product’s brand position. As organizations struggle

12%

to invest in building their brand equities with internal
and external stakeholders, these efforts become

43%

45%

diluted when initiatives are spread across a range of
brands.
Organizations which have a house of brand portfolio

Yes, we have different brand positions
No, we only have one for the entire organization
Not aware if we have a brand position

structure have conflicting needs to sustain both their
corporate and portfolio brand positions which leads to
a higher investment in both efforts and marketing cost.


When asked if their company leadership, employees,
vendors and customers can clearly articulate their
40.0%

brand position, there showed a startling drop-off
drop-o
between each level of stakeholders, starting with the
leadership team (38%), followed by the employees at
19%, customers at 11% and vendors at 10%. As

38%

organizations seek to ensure their brand remains
relevant to both internal and external stakeholders, we
19%

Leadership

recommend they consider their portfolio structure and
brand position linkage to ensure the master brand

11%

position is sustained and integrated as part of their

Employees
Customers

10%
Vendors

product portfolio, allowing greater efficiencies and
e
integration between the two. The inability to support
both a corporate and product position will only lead to
a dilution of efforts and the inability to gain greater
marketing beneﬁts.
Step #2: Ensure Master Brand Linkage
The lack of a strong integration of an organization’s
position is largely due to ﬁrms having both corporate
and brand positions. Additionally, there exists a lack of
awareness and understanding beyond the C-Suite. This
factor adds to a high degree of confusion and lack of
integration which undermines the ability to build
strong differentiation and branding efficiencies.
di
Organizations that have separate corporate versus
product/division positions need to review the linkage
between the two. Serious consideration to leveraging
the corporate brand position as part of the divisions or
products should be undertaken while ensuring a strong
bond between the two at the brand vision, mission and
position levels. The development of a strong brand
essence outlined in Step #1 will go a long way in
ensuring a cohesive link on any position being used
within organizations.


Brand Essence and Execution Gap
Employee Branding

11.00%

The issue regarding brand cohesion is not centered on
having a defined brand position, as the study identified

Employee Brand On-Boarding

8.00%

the majority of companies had a clearly articulated
position (83%), clearly defined core equities and value

Product Innovation

34.00%

Conventional Advertising

39.00%

proposition (79%), vision (74%), pillars and mission
statement (71%). The study did identify a gap within
the brand positioning structure with only half of
respondents reporting a clearly articulated brand

Online Marketing

42.00%

essence (59%). This supports our premise that
organizations must be able to distill their brand’s

Social Media

unique value into easy to remember, simple to

42.00%

understand and focused messaging. This leads to an
Mobile Media

Digital Media

21.00%

Package Design

42.00%

Merchandising

effective translation of the brand position.

21.00%

42.00%

Another key factor in the value and benefits of a brand
position is how they are leveraged at the various brand
touch-points. The study identified the focus on
positioning is predominantly external in nature with
the position most often supported in online marketing
(42%), social media (42%), package design (42%) and
merchandising (42%) followed by conventional

Store Design

advertising (39%) and public relations (37%). Employee

32.00%

branding and on-boarding had the lowest scores with
Public Relations

only 11% and 8%, which identifies a significant gap in

37.00%

how organizations leverage their positioning initiatives.
A focus on external initiatives without strong internal

Apps

8.00%

alignment will translate into a positioning process that
is neither sustainable nor effectively delivered.
e

Gaming
50.0%


A study by Fierce Inc. demonstrated how organizations
that have leveraged their brand position to create
22.500%

45.000%

67.500%

90.000%

stronger employee engagement tend to stimulate 3.5%
higher annual equity returns versus those that do not
make the investment. The study concludes that

Position

83%

engaged employees create stronger organizations,
provide 20% better performance and are 87% less likely
to leave.

Core Equities

79%
Step #3: Fill the Brand Essence Gap

Value Proposition

79%

The research showed that most organizations have a
clearly articulated brand position, however there is a
gap created in the translation from brand position to a

Brand Personality

76%

brand essence. A brand essence is for employees to
remember and can set the tone for organizational
alignment.

Vision

74%
The reality is that most employees or customers focus
on day-to-day tasks and responsibilities and a need to

Pillars

71%

reduce complexity. Brand positions and their
supporting brand card are, by their structured nature,

Mission

Brand Essence

71%
59%

very wordy and complex, making them difficult to
di
remember or somewhat challenging to put into action.
In order to gain alignment and understanding,
distilling the brand position in the fewest number of
words will lead to a higher retention of the information
and direction for the company.
Ownership and Reasons Driving the Brand Strategy
The ownership for the development and articulation of
the various elements of the brand position clearly lives
with the CEO at 37% for the development of the
position, 57% for the crafting of the mission and vision
and another 43% on the development of the brand
essence.


The brand position review and articulation forms part
of a yearly business review with more than 50% of
6%

companies while the other 50% review their position

2%

every three or more years.

9%

In addition, when asked to determine which role within
53%

30%

organizations ensures that manufacturing, marketing,
HR, finance, operations, R&D, buying and distribution
initiatives are aligned with the brand position, close to
20% mention the CEO followed by the Vice-President of
Sales and Marketing at 12%. Although there is

Once a year
Once every five years
Never

Once every three years
Once every ten years

significant value having the CEO own the
organization’s position, it puts too much burden on
their role to ensure each department supports its
effective integration.

Competitive threat

18%

Change of senior leadership

16%

Merger or acquisition

Business review

Business decline

7%
36%
7%

Growth in an emerging sector

13%

Established process

24%

employee-level support and contribution if the brand
position is to be effectively leveraged and integrated
e
throughout the company. Creating brand stewards or
advocates will help drive a strong link between the
overarching brand position direction and how each
employee will effectively live the brand promise.
e

13%

Launch of a new division/business

Organizations should devise stronger director-and-

Our category has been commoditized

13%

The key reasons driving the decision to either review or
establish a clearly articulated brand position was
mainly part of a business review process amongst 36%
of respondents with an additional 24% indicating its
was part of an established process. Other reasons
driving a review, in order of importance, were:

Restructuring of company


N/A

13%
2%
11%

competitive threats (18%), change of senior leadership
(16%), growth in an emerging sector, launch of a new
division/business, restructuring of the company and
commoditization of their category each representing
13%, respectively.


It was interesting that few mentioned mergers or
acquisitions along with business decline as being
factors which drove a review of their position. These
findings support our own experience working with a
wide variety of organizations, where the elaborate
articulation of a company’s direction is not easily
understood or aligned to how the individuals within the
organization live the brand promise.
When asked if their organization’s brand position is
functional or emotional, more than 45% indicated that
their brand position was somewhat functional and
emotional while another 40% mentioned their
company’s position was either very or somewhat
functional. Only 15% of respondents mentioned their
company’s brand position was somewhat or very
emotional.
Step #4: Align All Activities Around the Brand Coherence
Loop
Most organizations positioning process is
focused around marketing initiatives with
less emphasis on the softer side of business,

Foundation

such as employee engagement or even office
wayfinding. It will be critical to the success
Momentum

of any branding initiative to build a strong
cohesive plan that links all the moments-of-

Brand Coherence Infinity Loop

truth with the key brand position elements.
Only when each of these elements work
together as part of a strong chain will efforts
and investments bear fruit. To achieve a strong
cohesive plan, organizations need to reevaluate each
aspect of the Brand Coherence Infinity Loop to
determine where along the link exists incoherent
strategies or missing elements.


Following a thorough review, the senior leadership
needs to assess how best to leverage their position
with those moments of truth which provide the
greatest effect.
Challenges of Branding Initiatives and Effects on
0.175

0.350

0.525

Performance
0.700

The impact of an organization’s branding initiative is
Allows the organization to focus its resources

49%

most felt on brand loyalty, execution excellence and
lower staff turnover (29%, respectfully) . These are
ff
followed by sales performance (27%), market share and

Makes marketing easier

61%

ROI (24%) and finally employee engagement (16%) and
margin contribution (10%). The greatest challenges in
ensuring alignment are a lack of understanding of the

Increases our competitiveness

63%

brand position (19%) and the level of commitment to a
brand position (18%), followed by an understanding of
the importance of a brand position (16%) and

Higher company valuation

39%

Stronger corporate culture

66%

consistency across geographical boundaries (16%).
When asked why an organization would not have a
clearly articulated brand position, 13% of organizations
identified that other priorities are more important

Better business decisions

44%

followed by a lack of resources, time, leadership or
understanding of the importance of branding. It was

Greater pride in the organization

54%

interesting that although branding usage tends to be
external marketing focused, more than 66% of

Ability to better manage brands and product portfolio

Helps me understand my role in the company

41%
24%

respondents indicated the most important benefits of
having a brand position was creating a stronger
corporate culture, followed by an increase in
competitiveness (63%) and making marketing easier
(61%).


Although respondents indicated culture was a very
important beneﬁt of a strong position, only 24%
indicated that it helped them understand their role
within the company, clearly supporting the insight that
positioning and branding applications are focused on
company direction and not on employee behavior.
Step #5: Brand From the Inside Out Versus the
Outside In
A large gap was identiﬁed around how the branding
supports employee engagement. The focus around
external applications of the position came at the cost
of internal employee engagement and on-boarding
processes. It was interesting how respondents put
great value on how an effective positioning program
can reduce staff turnover by building pride but it falls
short of being fully leveraged to build employee
engagement, a key driver for productivity and better
annual operating margins. To gain the most value from
positioning and branding initiatives, organizations
need to start their process from the inside out.
Only when employees truly understand the meaning
and how they can live the brand promise should the
organization consider incorporating the position as
part of external marketing initiatives. If the position is
already well established and currently being leveraged
as part of external marketing, organizations need to
evaluate the level of employee understanding and
support. The resulting analysis may require a shift in
spending to focus a greater percentage of marketing
investments to satisfy internal stakeholders through
HR and on-boarding programs.


Ensure Actions Align to Direction
Branding defines the place and direction of an
organization, however many organizations lack the
support to guide the Why and How for employees. This
external focus is creating a significant gap on how
organizations deliver a cohesive brand strategy. When
asked to select one initiative that would drive a higher
degree of brand integration across the organization,
the primary response was regarding the ability to
demonstrate the value and ROI benefits of branding
initiatives to gain senior leadership commitment.
Additional initiatives identified the ability to build an
infrastructure to include brand training, advocacy and
collaborative cross-department projects. When asked
to identify the potential negative effects that a lack of
brand integration and coherence have on
organizations, the overwhelming response is a lack of
direction leading to confusion, ownership, urgency and
stagnation.
Step #6: Clearly Align Your Brand Pillars to Key
Strategic Imperatives
A key challenge identified in the study is the inability
of employees to align their behavior to support the
brand position. One of the key factors in this lack of
successful alignment is the level of understanding by
employees of the actual brand position meaning,
beyond marketing or corporate speak. An effective tool
is to craft key strategic imperatives, actions and
behaviors employees at all levels of the organization
must exhibit to live the brand promise.


Great organizations who have established a strong
brand coherence strategy have also linked these
imperatives to employee reviews and performance
criteria, ensuring the right brand-supporting behaviors
are rewarded while those that conflict with the
direction of the organization are quickly identified and
corrected.
Conclusion
Brand coherence is a powerful tool that creates greater
alignment towards a common goal and vision for
organizations. Although creating better efficiencies has
been the mantra for corporations weathering the last
recession and providing shareholders greater returns
on investment, leveraging the efficiencies of marketing
and employee engagement seems to have been lost in
the focus. As companies continue to define how they
provide value to the marketplace, it will be important
that greater focus be put on brand coherence and the
steps to ensure brand alignment.


For more information, contact:
Jean-Pierre Lacroix, President
Shikatani Lacroix
387 Richmond Street East
Toronto, Ontario
M5A 1P6
Telephone: 416-367-1999
Email: jplacroix@sld.com


RESEARCH DETAILS
How would you classify your industry?
Percentage

Sectors

Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and
Farming
Communications

4%

Resources

8.00%

Construction

1%

Consulting

12%

Services

24.00%

Consumer Packaged Goods

10%

Education

4%

Electronics

3%

Manufacturing

23.00%

Energy

4%

Engineering

1%

Financial Services

3%

Retail

26.00%

Healthcare

1%

Hospitality & Foodservice

15%

Manufacturing

9%

Institutional

19.00%

Not For Profit

1%

Real Estate

3%

Retail

4%

Sports

1%

Technology

1%

Transportation

1%

Wholesale & Distribution

4%

Other

13%

Response

Chart

10%

100.00%


Where is your head office located?
Response

Chart

Percentage

United
States

40%

Canada

42%

La9n
America

0%

United
Kingdom

1%

Eastern
Europe

0%

Western
Europe

6%

Africa

0%

Asia

4%

Oceania

3%

Other,
please
specify...

4%

Where is your head office located? (Other, please specify...)
#

Response

1.

Kitchener

2.

Toronto

3.

Toronto

What is your geographical coverage?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Local

15%

National

33%

International

52%


In which department do you work?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Management

38%

Accounting and Finance

0%

Sales and Marketing

42%

Manufacturing

2%

Distribution

0%

Human Resources

0%

Purchasing

2%


17%

In which department do you work? (Other, please specify...)
#

Response

1.

Communications

2.

Senior assistant

3.

Packaging Engineering

4.

In-House Design

5.

Communications

6.

Account director

7.

Product development

8.

Owner

9.

Everything

10.

All departments

11.

Development


Which best describes your role within the organization?
Response

Chart

Percentage

C Suite

33%

Vice-President Level

15%

Director Level

18%

Manager Level

14%

Employee Level

14%


6%

Which best describes your role within the organization? (Other, please specify...)
#

Response

1.

Owner

2.

One of three Senior Managers, the Owner, the Operations Manager, and me

3.

Owner

How would you describe your brand portfolio structure?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Branded House (all the products are sold
under one name i.e., BMW)

52%

House of Brands (you have a multitude of
distinctive brands i.e., P&G)

23%

Branded Divisions (you have distinctive
brands under a master brand name i.e. Apple,
Apple iTunes, Apple iPod, etc.)

23%


3%


Please indicate your total annual revenue:

Response

Chart

Percentage

Under $1 million

21%

$1 million - $10 million

17%


18%


5%


8%

$501 million - $1 billion

6%

Over $1 billion

18%

Rather not disclose

8%

How many brands does your organization sell?
Response

Chart

Percentage

1

26%

2 to 10

47%

11 to 20

2%

21 to 50

12%

More than 50

14%


How does your organization determine brand equity?

Response

Chart

Percentage

Cost Based (Book value, replacement value,
liquidation value)

14%

Income Based (Earnings capitalization method,
discounted cash flow method)

18%

Market Based (Relative method, comparable to
other firms, profit based)

61%


8%

How does your organization determine brand equity? (Other, please specify...)
#

Response

1.

We don't

2.

Member feedback

3.

Hasn't been valued yet

4.

NA


How would you describe your organization's overall level of brand integration?

Response

Chart

Percentage

High: we have a clearly defined brand position that
is articulated at all levels of the organization and
understood by all employees

38%

Medium: we have a mission, vision and position
which the company leadership has crafted but it is
not linked to our individual marketing initiatives

48%

Low: we do not have a brand position nor do we
rely on positioning to help market our products

9%


5%

How would you describe your organization's overall level of brand integration? (Other, please
specify...)

#

Response

1.

Varies by client

2.

Recently rebranded

3.

Just completed agency project and understood by upper management and soon to roll out to full
company.


Do you have different brand positions? For example, a corporate brand position in addition to
divisional or product brand positions?

Response

Chart

Percentage

Yes, we have different brand positions

45%

No, we only have one for the entire
organization

43%

Not aware if we have a brand position or how it
applies to our products or company

12%

Please identify if your organization has clearly articulated any of the following elements of your
organization's brand position?

Yes

(79%)

No
(12%)

(71%)

(21%)

(9%)

(79%)

(10%)

(10%)

(76%)

(16%)

(9%)

(83%)

(14%)

(3%)

Mission (how you will achieve your vision)

(71%)

(17%)

(12%)

Vision (long-term aspirational direction of
the organization)
Essence (your brand DNA or Big Idea)

(74%)

(19%)

(7%)

(59%)

(33%)

(9%)

Core Equities (what you own versus
competitors)
Pillars (core strategies that support your
position and initiatives)
Value Proposition (why someone would
pay more for your brand(s))
Brand Personality (defines how you look
and act)
Position (how you want to be perceived)

Unsure
(9%)


Please select if your brand position is functional (what you do) or emotional (how it makes your
customers feel)

Response

Chart

Percentage

Very functional

21%

Somewhat functional

19%

Somewhat functional and emotional

45%

Somewhat emotional

10%

Very emotional

5%

Can your leadership, employees, vendors and customers clearly articulate your brand position?

1 (Not
aware)
(2%)

2
(0%)

(3%)

(5%)

(5%)

(7%)

(16%)

(24%)

10 (Clear
articulation)
(12%) (26%)

(2%)

(5%)

(3%)

(12%)

(16%)

(17%)

(17%)

(9%)

(9%)

(10%)

Vendors

(9%)

(5%)

(10%)

(9%)

(19%)

(14%)

(14%)

(10%)

(5%)

(5%)

Customers

(5%)

(9%)

(5%)

(9%)

(19%)

(14%)

(19%)

(10%)

(9%)

(2%)

Leadership
Team
Employees

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


How often do you review your brand position, regardless if it's a mission, position, or is more
elaborate?

Response

Chart

Percentage

Once a year

53%

Once every three years

30%

Once every five years

9%

Once every ten years

2%

Never

6%

Who owns the development and articulation of the various elements of your brand position?

ChairmanCEO

CFO

COO

CMO

VP of VP of
Sales HR
and
Marketi
ng

VP of VP of
VP of
VP of IT VP of
Directo AdvertisinBrand
Marketing Public
Manage Other
Operati Purchasi Innovatio
Communi r Level g Agency Consultant Firm
Relations ment
ons
ng
n
cations
Firm
Consulta
nt

nsure
U

Position (7%) (37%) (0%) (4%) (13%) (11%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (2%)

(0%)

(2%) (0%) (7%) (7%)

Vision/ (11%) (57%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (7%) (0%) (2%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (2%) (2%) (2%) (0%)
Mission

(0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (2%)

Essenc (7%) (43%)(2%) (0%) (4%) (7%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (0%) (7%) (9%) (0%) (4%)
e/Big
Idea

(0%) (2%) (0%) (7%) (9%)


If you have a position, vision and/or brand portfolio, what drove the decision to create it?

Response

Chart

Percentage

Competitive threat

18%

Change of senior leadership

16%

Merger or acquisition

7%

Business review

36%

Business decline

7%

Growth in an emerging sector

13%

Launch of a new division/business

13%

Established process

24%

Our category has been commoditized

13%

Restructuring of company

13%


2%

N/A

11%


Which role(s) within your organization ensure(s) the initiatives within Manufacturing, Marketing,
HR, Finance, Operations, R&D, Purchasing and Distribution are aligned with the brand position?

Chairman

10

8.26%

CEO

23

19.01%

CFO

4

3.31%

COO

5

4.13%

CMO

5

4.13%

VP of Sales and Marketing

15

12.40%

VP of HR

4

3.31%

VP of Operations

7

5.79%

VP of Purchasing

4

3.31%

VP of Innovation

3

2.48%

VP of IT

3

2.48%

VP of Communications

8

6.61%

Director Level

10

8.26%

Advertising Agency

4

3.31%

Brand Consultant

2

1.65%

Marketing Firm

3

2.48%

Public Relations Firm

3

2.48%

Management Consultant

1

0.83%

Other

4

3.31%

N/A

3

2.48%

TOTAL

121

100.00%


Please indicate the degree to which various marketing and communication tools are used to
support your brand position.
Never
Used

Occasionally Used Used Seasonally Used
Tactically

Used Often
(Integral)

N/A

Employee Branding (13%)

(37%)

(13%)

(21%)

(11%)

(5%)

Employee Brand
On-Boarding

(32%)

(11%)

(13%)

(8%)

(13%)

Product Innovation (3%)

(13%)

(18%)

(29%)

(34%)

(3%)

Conventional
Advertising

(5%)

(24%)

(11%)

(16%)

(39%)

(5%)

Online Marketing

(5%)

(13%)

(13%)

(21%)

(42%)

(5%)

Social Media

(5%)

(5%)

(13%)

(29%)

(42%)

(5%)

Mobile Media

(24%)

(18%)

(11%)

(21%)

(21%)

(5%)

Digital Media

(11%)

(16%)

(8%)

(37%)

(21%)

(8%)

Package Design

(5%)

(16%)

(5%)

(16%)

(42%)

(16%)

Merchandising

(3%)

(16%)

(8%)

(24%)

(42%)

(8%)

Store Design

(24%)

(8%)

(5%)

(8%)

(32%)

(22%)

Public Relations

(3%)

(16%)

(16%)

(21%)

(37%)

(8%)

Apps

(43%)

(14%)

(5%)

(14%)

(8%)

(16%)

Gaming

(51%)

(11%)

(5%)

(3%)

(0%)

(30%)

(24%)


On a scale from 1 (no impact) to 10 (strong impact), to what degree have you been able to
attribute the impact of branding initiatives to the performance of your organization?
1 (No
Impact)

2

(8%)

(3%)

(13%)

(3%)

(13%)

(18%)

(16%)

(11%)

(3%)

(13%)

Sales
(0%)
Performance

(3%)

(3%)

(3%)

(18%)

(18%)

(8%)

(21%)

(11%)

(16%)

Margin
Contribution

(8%)

(3%)

(8%)

(8%)

(14%)

(14%)

(19%)

(16%)

(5%)

(5%)

Market Share (5%)

(3%)

(3%)

(13%)

(11%)

(16%)

(13%)

(13%)

(11%)

(13%)

Brand Loyalty (0%)

(3%)

(0%)

(0%)

(21%)

(13%)

(16%)

(18%)

(18%)

(11%)

Execution
Excellence

(5%)

(5%)

(5%)

(5%)

(11%)

(11%)

(16%)

(13%)

(16%)

(13%)

ROI

(3%)

(13%)

(3%)

(5%)

(13%)

(8%)

(16%)

(16%)

(11%)

(13%)

Low Staff
Turnover

(5%)

(8%)

(8%)

(8%)

(5%)

(5%)

(18%)

(13%)

(13%)

(16%)

Employee
Engagement

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
(Strong
Impact)


What challenges have you faced in your efforts to align your brand position?

1 (No
2
Challenge)

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

(8%)

(5%)

(11%)

(8%)

(13%)

(5%) (16%)

(21%) (5%)

(Major
Challenge)
(8%)

New products and (8%)
R&D

(8%)

(21%)

(5%)

(18%)

(3%) (13%)

(13%) (3%)

(8%)

Human resources

(24%)

(3%)

(8%)

(5%)

(11%)

(8%) (21%)

(8%)

(5%)

(8%)

Marketing

(11%)

(11%)

(5%)

(8%)

(11%)

(24%) (16%)

(8%)

(0%)

(8%)

Consistency across (3%)
geographical
boundaries

(13%)

(11%)

(8%)

(13%)

(8%) (13%)

(16%) (5%)

(11%)

Internal alignment (0%)

(11%)

(16%)

(11%)

(11%)

(0%) (18%)

(29%) (0%)

(5%)

Understanding of (11%)
the brand position

(5%)

(5%)

(5%)

(13%)

(5%) (13%)

(24%) (3%)

(16%)

Commitment to a
brand position

(16%)

(8%)

(5%)

(8%)

(8%) (16%)

(11%)

(5%)

(13%)

Understanding of (11%)
the importance of
a brand position

(5%)

(11%)

(5%)

(16%)

(5%) (16%)

(16%) (5%)

(11%)

C-suite level
commitment

(13%)

(8%)

(3%)

(18%)

(3%) (11%)

(13%) (5%)

(8%)

Consistent brand
messaging

(11%)

(18%)


Please indicate the reasons why your organization may not have a clearly articulated brand
position.
Total
Responses

Percentage

Not
part
of
our
culture

7

6.09%

We
do
not
have
a
formal
branding
process

9

7.83%

Never
thought
that
it
was
required

1

0.87%

It's
all
in
my
head
and
intui9ve

5

4.35%

Do
not
see
the
ﬁnancial
beneﬁts

3

2.61%

We
do
not
have
the
9me
to
develop

7

6.09%

It's
not
a
priority
for
our
leadership
team

7

6.09%

It's
a
waste
of
9me

1

0.87%

It's
not
relevant
to
our
business

0

0.00%

Don't
rely
on
it
for
the
direc9on
of
the
company

8

6.96%

Did
not
know
this
was
required

1

0.87%

Don't
believe
in
brand
posi9on

3

2.61%

Branding
ini9a9ve
was
started
but
put
on
hold

6

5.22%

Other
priori9es
more
important

15

13.04%

Do
not
have
a
long
term
planning
process

8

6.96%

No
one
owns
the
branding
process

8

6.96%

Branding
is
not
understood

9

7.83%

We
do
not
have
the
resources
to
create

9

7.83%

We
do
not
have
the
budget
to
develop

9

7.83%

115

100.00%


In your opinion, what are the most important beneﬁts of having a brand position for your
organization?
Response

Chart

Percentage

Allows the organization to focus its resources

49%

Makes marketing easier

61%

Increases our competitiveness

63%

Higher company valuation

39%

Stronger corporate culture

66%

Better business decisions

44%

Greater pride in the organization

54%

Ability to better manage brands and product
portfolio

41%

Helps me understand my role in the company

24%

If you were to select one initiative that would drive a higher degree of brand integration across
the organization, what would it be and why?
The 26 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.

In your opinion, what are some of the negative effects that a lack of brand integration and
coherence have on your organization?
The 28 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.


Appendix
If you were to select one initiative that would drive a higher degree of brand integration across
the organization, what would it be and why?

#

Response

1.

Strong
sense
of
purpose

2.

Mandatory
uniforms/
identity
on
site
/
corporate
brand
indemnity
de9ined
to
employees

3.

Focus
on
one
9lagship
product

4.

Get
everyone
110%
focused
on
Filter
Queen,
our
core
product

5.

Corporate
identity

6.

Employee
buy
in
to
brand
importance

Quality
Control
Ef9iciencies

7.

Ability
to
better
manage
brands
and
product
portfolio

8.

Brand
advocacy
training

9.

Website
overhaul

10.

Quantify
brand
integration
by
using
methods"
cost
of
poor
quality"

11.

C-‐Suite
endorsement

12.

Value
price
connection
&
rationale

13.

Cross
department
collaborative
projects

14.

More
investment
so
that
it
could
be
afforded

15.

International
online
brand
presence
because
Vietnamese
like
foreign
brands

16.

Communicating
the
why
and
how
properly
to
everyone
in
the
organization

17.

Innovation:
in
the
development
of
new
products

18.

Internal
brand
advocacy

19.

Sales
commitment
and
ownership

20.

Centralize
marketing

21.

Strategic
planning
and
execution

22.

Full
analysis
and
ROI
on
projects

23.

Integrating
local
and
national
marketing

24.

Employee
engagement
inn
the
Brand
Positioning
-‐
they
deliver
the
Brand
promise

25.

Education

26.

Full
company
roll
out
across
entire
company


In your opinion, what are some of the negative effects that a lack of brand integration and
coherence have on your organization?

#

Response

1.

Misdirection
and
confusion
in
execution

2.

N/A

3.

Attitudes
on
site

4.

Confusion,
frustration,
complacency

5.

Confusion,
lack
of
ownership,
lack
of
urgency,
stagnation

6.

People
unsure
of
our
industry
and
position
within
it

7.

Lack
of
coordination
communication
between
departments

8.

N/A

9.

Morale
and
client
base
truly
understanding
the
value

10. Disorientation
in
execution
11. Inconsistent
market
presence
and
client
experience
12. Reluctance
to
accept
product
presentation
13. That
the
goal
of
the
business
will
not
be
clear

14. Inef9icient
PR,
slow
POS
material
development
15. Diffusion
of
people
and
resources
16. No
sense
of
belonging,
lesser
engagement
17. Our
associates
need
gain
a
sense
of
pride
and
accomplishment
for
the
job
they
do
18. Aligned
business
strategy
19. Lack
of
integration
with
sales
and
marketing
20. Customer
sub-‐optimization
21. Not
being
recognized
by
potential
customers
22. Lack
of
direction
to
hit
all
the
key
points
that
are
important
to
customers
23. Multiple
projects
with
no
key
focus,
moving
too
fast
with
no
long
term
end
goal
24. Accuracy
of
analytics
25. It
can
be
zealous
at
times
-‐
cult-‐like
even
26. Message
to
customers,
buyers
27. Not
enough
communication

Six steps to ensuring brand alignment

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (18)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (20)

Ähnlich wie Six steps to ensuring brand alignment

Ähnlich wie Six steps to ensuring brand alignment (20)

Mehr von Jean-Pierre Lacroix, R.G.D.

Mehr von Jean-Pierre Lacroix, R.G.D. (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

Six steps to ensuring brand alignment