In his book A New Brand World: Eight principles for brand leadership in the twenty-first century, Scott Bedbury (former Starbuck’s marketing head and Nike advertising director) says:
“I can think of no better organizing principle for a company than the brand itself.”
What do you think — true or untrue?
In general true. The rally cry, condensed mission statement, and brand message should be one and the same.
But what does “organizing principle” mean? The mission/brand statement should be something solid for at least 4-5 years. However, I think management and employees can rally internally around a principle or quotation that reflects a unique direction for the company over an 18 month period, as changes in the marketplace and company performance are observed. The “organizing principle” at that point would be a tactic, to connect employees back with the mission statement.
I believe that a brand can be the core of a company’s culture and business strategy. Everything revolves around keeping the brand promise, so business decisions are made, based on if they align with that goal.
I think, using Jim Collin’s language, we need to establish shorter term goals or base camps to shoot for. Those are the 12-18 month targets that change as new heights are reached or the marketplace shifts.
Does that connect with how you see it?
I see employees embracing what the brand means on an macro level, while
Messages and short term goals act on a sub level to connect with the brand over its lifecycle.
I agree completely. While is it important to have the “big picture” employees/teams need shorter, achievable goals to shoot for too.
Sort of the best of both worlds.