Do individual brand strategies need a re-think?

Think of Unilever, Whitbread, Procter & Gamble. Nothing much comes to mind, does it? These companies feel like large, shadowy corporations to the consumer who has little handle on who they are and what they do. This makes it easy to be suspicious of their goals and motives and makes their reputations vulnerable to criticisms and attack from others. Whereas Ben & Jerry’s, Bovril, Dove and Pampers – we know them don’t we? Consumers have a relationship to those brands and receive information about them from various sources on a regular basis.

So if a strong product brand helps in marketing, it might also have a negative impact on the company’s reputation. In light of increasing evidence that reputation affects share prices, companies are putting in place all manner of communications and stakeholder strategies to protect and improve their reputations. But with evidence showing a continued trend in society of a loss of trust in large companies, perhaps they ought to be considering again the costs and benefits of their chosen brand strategies. These have often been in place for decades and haven’t kept pace with social change.

Time to stop talking about patients

The pharmaceutical industry tries hard to communicate how it works to the benefit of patients.  There is a constant desire to be, and appear to be, 'patient-centred' or 'patient-focused' which can be seen in much of the industry's communications, both verbal and written.

Author: Offical US Navy Imagery
http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnavy/5759131308/

In my experience advising in this sector, this comes from a genuine commitment to improving people's lives rather than anything cynical, though of course it is recognised that there is a potential benefit to companies' images.  There is a great sense of teamwork in pursuit of this worthy goal which makes working in pharmaceuticals uniquely rewarding and that feeling would not be there if such communications were merely spinning.

Nonetheless, I have a criticism to make of this language - talking about patients misses out the public.

Now, you might be thinking, patients are the part of the public that benefit from medicines.  Well yes, but this misses out a fundamental point.  Patients are members of the public that happen to be ill at a particular point in time.  The rest of the time they are just members of the public, and don't think of themselves as patients.  In fact, most people don't like to think of themselves as potentially ill at all.

So, apart from those who suffer from long-term or chronic illnesses, communications from the pharmaceutical industry about patients are just not relevant to people.  And yet when they do fall ill, they will benefit enormously from the industry's products.  Even without falling ill, the public purchases those products through the taxes that support the NHS so they are a significant stakeholder group whichever way you look at it.  And pharmaceutical companies generally don't talk to them.

My prescription?  Start talking about the general public.  And to the general public, within the bounds of the regulations that apply.

Who made the NHS an issue and will the government be able to make it go away?

The latest Ipsos MORI issues poll is out and Political Betting have covered it, headlining with the economy.  However after over a week of media coverage of the NHS reforms and the government's change of heart over its proposals, what leaps out at me is that the NHS as an issue has not moved up or down in the poll.


Nick Clegg, David Cameron and the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, meet nurses and doctors at Guys hospital in London. Photograph: Paul Rogers/The Times/PA



The 26% of people who did mention the NHS as a top issue facing the country is no change since last month but an increase on the 20% figure in the April poll.  If we look back over 2010 as well the NHS as an issue has hovered around or just under 20% since the election.  What happened in May is that Nick Clegg made an NHS pledge following the Lib Dems' losses in the local elections leading to a slew of newspaper and TV coverage.

It is pure speculation, but I wonder if the NHS reform announcements of the last two weeks are simply too bureaucratic and boring for it to have had much of an impact above the May increase which will have represented the high-point of public concern.  What the government's announcements haven't yet achieved is any reassurance on the issue - next month's figures will be interesting to watch for any downward movement.

In the meantime, it is interesting to note how effective the Lib Dems' communications were in significantly raising public concern on the NHS.

Back at a later date

Apologies for the lack of posts.  I've become too busy to keep up with the blog unfortunately.  Hopefully I will be able to return to regular posting at a later date but in the meantime- thanks for reading so far.

Women and AV

According to this poll, 45% of women are undecided as to whether they support or oppose the Alternative Vote system for UK general elections, which is the subject of a forthcoming referendum.

The only group polled with a greater proportion of undecided voters - at 47% - is the 25-39 age group.

What tactics will the two campaigns adopt to reach female voters in particular?

Macchiavelli revisited

Can readers suggest modern politicians this passage could apply to?

"...he never consulted anybody and never did things as he wanted to; this happened because he did the opposite of what I said above.  [He] is a secretive man, he does not tell anyone of his plans, and he accepts no advice.  But as soon as he puts his plans into effect, and they come to be known, they meet with opposition from those around him; and then he is only too easily diverted from his purpose.  The result is that whatever he does one day is undone the next, what he wants or plans to do is never clear, and no reliance can be placed on his decisions"

Lobbying, but not as we know it

I would like to point readers to this Bagehot article over at the Economist about the complexities of coalition politics.  Its key point is that the ambiguous nature of the coalition government's democratic mandate for its policies (because the two parties' manifestoes were ditched to form the coalition agreement) is going to make law-making in Parliament more complex.  This is particularly the case with regards to the House of Lords and the conventions it operates under, whereby peers are more timid about interfering with manifesto commitments and primary legislation from the elected government.

This had me thinking about the ramifications for those of us on the outside who interact with Parliament.  The nature of the coalition combined with reform of the House of Lords which will increase its democratic legitimacy, will make for a much more powerful upper chamber.  What will some of the major consequences be?  I would like to venture the following:

• Diffusion of power among a greater number of players - meaning much more lobbying effort to reach the same result due to a greater number of stakeholders to talk to, and in order to build more support than was previously necessary in order to effect change
• More checks and balances - the House of Lords will present a greater hurdle than it used to, so new legislation can be more easily amended or stopped; governing will be made more difficult but legislation will also be more carefully drafted and thought through
• Greater complexity - as Bagehot points out, politics will become more complex, meaning shifting alliances and clever use of parliamentary procedure will be more important; the need for procedural understanding and knowledge of those shifting alliances will increase also (think the West Wing)
• Peers will become more important in our media and our politics - they will more often be Ministers, be more prominent in the media and think tanks and also more subject to scrutiny of both the constructive and the scurrilous kind
• Parliament will be more important to lobbyists - as a whole, the legislature will become a more important feature of our politics and lobbyists will pay it greater regard both strategically and tactically; parliamentary relations will be a more important function of external/public affairs than it is now