Company types: Originals & Professionals
The previous outline dealt with the concept of (brand) personality. Not only the personality of a brand is important to mention. The personality of the company is a big factor. The management of (visual) branding, the way this is organised throughout the company, the nature of the ambitions, the feasability of ambitions, the results; these strategic factors are profoundly under the influence of the culture and structure of a company. There have been many people before me that have given their vision on how to typecast certain companies. I will mention these typologies when they are relevant for my case.
Let me be so bold to give you my perception of the truth. I divide companies into four categories: originals, professionals, wanters and dreamers. In this outline you will find a brief profile of the first two mentioned. I will elaborate on the other two categories in the fourth outline, to be published in a fortnight. Let me be straight with you: the outline you are about to read is limited in the number of words I use. In the book I will go more into detail about the company-types and what a certain ‘personality’ entails when it comes to (visual) branding). For now, I am curious whether you will recognise what I describe in this outline and if you agree with my view up to a certain point.
Parameters
There are five basic parameters that determine to which category a company will belong:
1. Position of the brand(s) in the Management Board
2. The way the discipline Brand Management is structured
3. Relationship of the brand(s) v. business targets and results (profit & loss)
4. Internal governance of the brand(s)
5. The quality of the output and the results
Originals
Originals are companies that are strongly influenced by a charismatic leadership, this is the phrase commonly used in management literature. A charismatic leader is in my view a unique and strong personality who combines a specific combination of character traits. He or she is a dominant figure, who is involved in all the major decisions. This person determines to a large extent the company culture, the strategy of the company, the identity, the targets, the company and of course the brand(s). I would go so far as to say that the character of the leader determines the character of the company. Indeed, the genetical sets are identical.
Companies who can be described as Originals have a specific, distinguished nature. Yet there are originals in all sizes and shapes. What I can say is that we dont know a lot of these type of companies, since they went bankrupt in the course of their existence. The reason being that companies often fail who mostly work from an identity, which is strongly determined by one person. Just because the laws of the market are not obeyed or even ignored. But when there is sign of a commercial success, this can be very powerful.
What I see is that these type of companies are driven by personal goals, with respect to content. The ceo/president follows his own intuition and beliefs. Business and marketing expertise is added to help to maximize the talents, but they will never be determining factors. The culture can be described as ‘inside-out’, according to the classical identity model. Strategy is a result of identity.
Long term future
The Management Board ideally contains people who can deal with the strong character of the leader. They have complementary qualities which safeguards the long term future of the company. Skills like marketing, human resources development, operational excellence and financial expertise. There is a certain amount of risk involved when the colleagues do not supplement the leader, do not compensate his weaknesses and his ideas are not counterbalanced.
The original is often seen as a beacon for other companies in the bloody sea called competition. The power of the brand is taken as a benchmark. Their is a great consistency in the manner the brand personality is conveyed, in the breadth (the way it manifests itself in every shape or mediaform) as well as in the length of time. Even though the dynamically developed brand does not behave in a static manner, the consistency is large. A client/consumer experiences a strong bond with the brand. Based on the theory of Kevin Roberts called Lovemarks1.
Apple
Originals are closely related to what Andy Mosmans describes as ‘Legendaries’2 and what Jim Collins and Jerry Porras call ‘visionary companies’ in their bestseller Built to last3. For me the best known example is Apple. The company Apple Inc. has a very strong culture which clearly defines in what manner a product of Apple should function, how it should look like, what the requirements are, and on which points there can be no room for compromise. The staff does not need to consult bulky brand manuals. Every product is a fully fledged representation of the personality of the brand Apple. The way the company functions can be best described as inside-out; the market follows the brand. It is part of the success of the company, on the other hand this way of thinking almost led to its downfall in the early Nineties of the last century. Companies like Apple take a far greater risk, the very nature of Originals dictates this approach.
If you look at Visual Branding I can tell you that Apple is by far the best example of my vision. Apple stays extremely dynamic in every manifestation (communication, materials, products, packaging, retail, et cetera). Everything is designed with a specific purpose. Taking into account that there is no uniform, corporate Apple style with strict rules and guidelines. On many products the Apple logo is hardly visible. Yet, the personality is omnipresent.
This is what Visual Branding is all about: a brand personality with a permanent visual and tangible presence, without the brand being forced in a straitjacket of uniformity. This requires a strong company culture and equally strong leadership.
Steve Jobs and the iPhone, source; Flickr, Jojomine75s, All rights reserved.
1 Title: THE LOVEMARKS EFFECT: WINNING IN THE CONSUMER REVOLUTION AND LOVEMARKS: THE FUTURE BEYOND BRANDS. Author: Kevin Roberts, CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi. Lovemarks transcend brands. They deliver beyond your expectations of great performance. Like great brands, they sit on top of high levels of respect - but there the similarities end. Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just cant live without. Ever. Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You dont just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. Thats why you never want to let go. Put simply, Lovemarks inspire
2 Title: ONDERNEMINGSSUCCES, HOE ORGANISATIES HUN EIGEN TOEKOMST CREËREN. Author: Andy Mosmans. Mosmans talks in his book about three types of companies: Legendaries, Laggards and Losers. Legendaries have a strongly developed and vital companybrand. On a day to day basis they possess an excellent reputation: clients like to buy there, talents wants to work there, financials are keen to invest, the press is positive and society is inclined to accept the company as a ‘good citizen’. Legendaries have a strong sense of identity and a strongly developed ability to adapt, change and innovate. Legendaries create ‘share of future’, they grow autonomously, even in economically hard times.
3 Title: BUILT TO LAST, SUCCESFUL HABITS OF VISIONARY COMPANIES. Authors: Jim Collins and Jerry Porras. The book defines 18 visionary companies. The core myth is that visionary companies must start with a great product and be pushed into the future by charismatic leaders. Only a few fit the model, and not all are started by visionary leaders. What the listed companies do have in common is an almost cult like devotion to a ‘core ideology’ or identity, and active indoctrination of employees into ‘idealogically commitment’ to the company.
Professionals
The second category of companies I like to describe as ‘Professionals’. They are guided by strategic leadership. The Management Board is a team of professionals who have divided the portfolio in a logical manner. The business strategy results from a strategic/analytical vision on the market, the organisation and the brand. One of the boardmembers is responsible for the brand, usually being part of marketing & communications. Sometimes the brand is his main task, marketing or brandmanagement is part of the professional background. Sometimes the brand is one of his many priorities, the boardmember has no previous experience with branding and marketing.
There is a high level of professionalism and budgeting of marketingactivities. Marketing is of vital importance for the company policy. Throughout the company professionals consult each other and use a set of instruments (guidelines and manuals) to keep the brand on track. These companies work methodically on the brand and the company culture. Identity is a result of strategy.
Commercial
‘Professionals’ have a strong businesslike attitude. In this category less companies fail because their working methodology (strategic and analytical) avoids taking too many risks. Professionals are relatively more succesful than Originals, if you take into account their succesrate as well as their overall performance. It makes sense because these companies base their decisions on the market, instead of being led by intuition and personal beliefs. Their professional convictions tell them to look at the feasability of their plans. The number and size of failures is therefore much smaller, the same applies to the number and beauty of wonderful successes.
The companies and the brand(s) often reach a dominate market position. In the previously mentioned model of Kevin Roberts they score better on the parameter ‘respect then on love’. There are much more Professionals then Originals.
Having said this, it is possible that a company can migrate from one category to another or stays in a grey area between both categories. Retailer Body Shop is a good example of an Original that has migrated to become a Professional, especially since the takeover in 2006 by manufacturer L’Oréal. And Orange is an example of a borderline case; as a company it has all the marks of a Professional, in its (visual) branding the telecom giant behaves like an Original.
Having read with must interest your third outline on company types, the first thing I had to think of was indeed Built to Last. It appears you also read the book. I think an important nuance you should take into consideration is that, although great brands are driven by one person (the founder/ceo), according to Collins & Porras on the long run (think of companies like GE) another factor plays an crucial role. The role of culture is indeed deeply rooted in these organisations. But besides this companies with a long history are also able to change all the time. witregel schrappen.
They can afford to change their strategy because of the strong underlying structure. This must have consequences for Visual Branding. TNT as a rather young brand might not have a strong company culture yet, but I have noticed that the strong Dutch brand ‘PTT’ has been able to afford to change its name and strategy. I believe that you can fairly say that the rebranding in 2006 has seen a soft landing in the minds of stake holders.
You care to mention four categories. You described in a convincing manner the difference between the first two types. Still it would be interesting to see if your descriptions do fit with a number of companies. Where do you plot for example TNT Post? And where the tileproducer Royal Tichelaar Makkum? And Royal VKB, a company that hopes to achieve consistency by assigning designers to develop products along several aspects, set apart from the rather boring assortment of pots and pans under the label BK and other labels. I am curious what the result would be of this analysis. The (company) brands I have mentioned differ from brands like Heineken, that to my taste you would have to place in the category Professionals. The brewery and beerbrand does something with design but the focus of the company is clearly on conventional marketing.
almost every successfull company will go through 3 phases:
- pioneering phase (based on passion+creativity>magic)
- professionalizing phase (based on process+business rules>logic)
often this phase also brings in bureaucracy,
challenge therefore is to get quickly into the
- synthezising phase (best of both, strengthening each other)
the originals are often in the pioneering phase, where professionals can phase the danger of becomming too bureaucratic.
Challenge is then how to get the magic back and strengthen it with the logic (guided creativity).
Tom,
Antoine Achten has a good point: Steve Jobs is not only visionary but managed to implement his thoughts and drivers into every fiber of the company. And we all know how difficult this is.
But above all I’m curious about your vision how designers should make the translation from a brand personality to a visual statement (differentiated for the four types of companies?). I truly hope this topic is within the scope of the book!
J
Thanks Tom for sharing your vision with us. Like Steve Jobs and many other CEO’s they all started as ‘Dreamers’ hunting for the ‘Wanted’ succes. These stages towards success are in a series of creative professionality like ‘working’ or ‘mainatance’ etcetera. All big Brands work together with visually likewise ‘wanters’: service-adding-companies who maintain a Brands sucess. Those ‘Techno-Co’s’ behind the scenes all look quite the same by their logo, picking a grain giving their service to the Brand they serve. They share ‘their vision’ also in visual appearance. So they appear like ‘one’. Originality (likewise: a dream), comes after knowledge in the wheel of (Maya-) life cycles, which is known to be the start-off-stage of every single object or rather non-object in this galaxy. I hope to find some of these galactic rules back in your book to get a full picture of your blueprint and goals reflecting visual branding in relation to the stages of different Branding agencies throughout the world.