To sustainability, and beyond. By any means possible.
- January 2015
- July 2014
- March 2012
- December 2011
- April 2011
- February 2011
- November 2010
- March 2010
- April 2009
- January 2009
- November 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- September 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- May 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
Archive for the ‘branding’ Category
Since I first alighted on Michael Cayley's innovative prescription for the measurement of brand value, he and I have bee...
November 18, 2008
Since I first alighted on Michael Cayley’s innovative prescription for the measurement of brand value, he and I have been talking privately about different models for linking social capital theory to current brand practice…
We thought it might be fun to have ‘that chat’ out loud in a public forum…
So here goes…
Brand Valuation is already a well established industry, driven principally by the need to explain the fluctuating gap between stock market valuation and underlying assets. As such it is a retrospective explanation of shareholder behaviour. It seeks to explain how this estimated likehood of generating a return to shareholders may actually have arisen in the stockmarket.
Now personally, I think it’s high debatable whether the speculations of the stock market need to have any meaningful correlation to underlying value (ultimately what we see is just a side-effect of capital chasing an outlet). But if you believe in the sanctity (or even the usefulness) of capital markets, then you do kind of have to accept this in some shape or form. Plus, pragmatically, people sometimes need to buy brands and need a way of valuing them.
So brand valuation was constructed as a way of explaining this disparity of value…
In all models of brand valuation companies ultimately try to link their goodwill acquired to a future earnings expectation, which is a measure of their confidence that customers will keep buying a product. For those trying to explain intangible value on the balance sheet, the challenge is to create a discounted cash-flow of the customer earnings they anticipate, and then attribute some of that value to a ‘brand quotient’.
There is an alternative approach to the shareholder-value driven model, of course, which is to say that you fundamentally believe that brand loyalty drives future purchase and build your valuation ‘customer-back’.
In many ways this is more in tune with traditional marketing thinking. However, in this case you have the converse problem of explaining how much of this putation market-appetite a company may be able to actually convert. Brand Value may, in principle exceed corporate value on this model, and where this happens a brand should seek a new home. WPP’s BRANDZ Valuation model comes closest to adopting this approach, using in-market loyalty indicators (actual customer brand bonding, in their language) to drive a bottom-up brand valuation.
The question is: “So what’s wrong with all this? And how could understanding social capital create a better way?”
1. Well we can (and will) debate the useability of these metrics for brandstewards – i.e. should you really run your business around driving brand loyalty?
2. We can (and will) debate the basis of calculation – i.e. looking beyond revenue, how are you undertanding your brand’s contribution to risk, to cost-reduction and productivity?
3. We can (and will) debate the cash-centric nature of these models – where are natural capital and human capital reflected in these valuations? And should they be?
4. We can (and will) debate the merits of the single-stakeholder view embodied in these models – where is brand value for employees, NGOs, government and communities? Does all this complexity really just convert into customer share of wallet?
Ultimately, I’d prefer to start by measuring brand value from the same place I’d start managing a brand, from understanding the utility it provides to the brand user – enabling them to better access and utilise their own and others’ resources, and receive personal and social benefits which would not be available if the brand did not exist.
At root, brand value is not just a psychological phenomenon, but a social phenomenon. Brands disrupt the norms, networks, reciprocities and trust which inhere in social networks. They bring about novel social ideas, stories, cues and symbols which connect communities together, filling structural holes.
Brands do not have direct relationships with people; but they do enable relationships between people – and these relationships have value as social capital.
Taking a normative view, (which one probably shouldn’t – the Oklahoma bomber had great social capital, as does Ku Klux Klan) brands create or destroy the social capital for the collective, and affect its useability for the individual. This social capital impact will not necessarily affect ‘repeat purchase’ for an individual customer in the near term, but it will absolutely leave a semiotic footprint within a social network…creating something akin to ‘social pathway’, a path that new ideas, propositions and narratives can track in due course…in both directions.
To conclude – right at the heart of brand valuation’s ‘partial success’ and at the heart of the need to improve the model, lies a fundamental change in the way that brands drive value value as social artefacts – a shift from purely symbolic, solidarity-forming (‘expressive’) role of brands, to a more holistic, systematic view which values the ‘social footprint’ that brands leave behind them – what Michael refers to a ‘memetic brand’.
Over to you, Michael…
The rather reductionistically-named discipline of VRM (Vendor Relationship Management) continues t...
I'm obsessed with social capital at present. So here's a little post-medinge 'train dump' prior t...
I enjoy Dragons Den, and think they generally have good business and marketing judgement.So I was su...
Funny things words. All those years spent with Alan Mitchell, Iain Henderson, Graham Sadd, Peter M...
If you haven't seen it, check out the core video at GIRL effect. Just words, to music...but be...
So Josh Silverman has joined Skype as CEO. Josh's first blogpost is a commitment to listen. St...
James Farrar of SAP offers a great and critique of IBM's latest CSR thinking over at ZDNet. No mud...
Not only are the major coffee houses revenues dropping; not only are they getting slammed for unlab...
Starbucks has looked shaky of late, as competition caught up with its 'coffee as social institution'...
The Medinge Group have pointed me to this gorgeous webcast presentation on the REAL state of global ...
Just finished 'art incorporated', by Julian Stallabrass, a senior lecturer at Glasshouse client: Th...
The Northern Rock fiasco is enough to shake anyone's confidence, but recent developments in the mini...