ANALYSIS: Corporate Branding - P&G corporate brand is put underspotlight

No one understands the power of a product brand better than Procter

& Gamble. But as John Frank reports, the master marketer is having to

think about the bigger brand picture



Procter & Gamble has had its share of issues in the past few months,

with senior management changes and thousands of layoffs only compounding

disappointing first-quarter results.



Add to this a PR issue that demands immediate attention given P&G's poor

showing in Corporate Branding's 2000 study of corporate brand strength

(PRWeek, April 16): how much effort should a multi-product company put

behind corporate communications and reputation-building as opposed to

marketing and promotion for its individual brands?



Consumer goods companies have traditionally focused more on individual

brands. P&G is perhaps the most famous subscriber to this strategy. 'The

corporate brand is important to us, but we don't spend a lot of money

going out and advertising it,' explains William Dobson, VP of global

external relations at P&G. 'For years here at Procter & Gamble, we've

had a philosophy that says the reputation of our brands really drives

the reputation of our company.'



That view is changing today at many companies. Employees who once

thought only about their plant or the product they make are hearing more

about their parent company on the news and from friends and neighbors.

They're also much more aware that events halfway around the globe could

impact their jobs. 'The silos are getting shallower,' says Ron Culp, VP

of PR and government affairs with Sears Roebuck, in describing the

breakdown of old parochial interests within companies.



Wall Street has also become everyone's concern as retirement funds

heavily invested in stock give Americans reason to wonder about

corporate share performance.



Companies are becoming more aware that they need to form messages to

reach the investment world, employees and the business world, as well as

consumers.



'There are lots of things a strong corporate brand can do - build

employee morale, make joint ventures and alliances easier. Product

brands don't always do that,' says Steven Makadok, Corporate Branding's

group director of brand intelligence. 'Companies absolutely should be

concerned about their corporate reputations.'



His firm has found that a strong corporate brand can add anywhere from

5% to 7% to a company's stock price in a bull market, and can mitigate

losses in a down market. And an Ernst & Young study found corporate

brand knowledge and reputation accounts for 30% of a company's stock

price.



With its current corporate problems, P&G has seen its reputation take a

knock. 'They're a great marketing school, but that imagery has been

lost. They need a mission and they need to communicate how they'll

achieve that,' says one veteran PR firm CEO.



'Are they right to focus so much on brands or should they pay more

attention to corporate-level communications?' asks another agency CEO.

'The answer is, they have to do both.'



P&G reconsiders



P&G's Dobson's says his company has considered whether it should do more

to create a corporate brand and 'sees the value of establishing a

corporate brand among key target audiences,' such as security analysts,

the news media and consumers.



But, already wrestling with staff cuts and stagnate markets, P&G has yet

to formulate a strategic long-term plan to enhance its corporate

reputation. It's far from alone.



Many companies trying to find ways to cut PR expenses in the current

economic downturn have looked first to corporate branding efforts. 'It's

one of those things that unfortunately falls by the wayside when things

get tough,' says Nick Kalm, EVP and general manager of reputation

management with Edelman Public Relations Worldwide. But while companies

cut corporate work, the area is 'least accepting of starts and stops,'

Kalm says. It takes time to build a corporate brand identity. 'The

companies that are really resonating with consumers are those with

strong corporate brands,' he says.



Ellen Ryan Mardiks, worldwide director of marketing and brand strategy

at Golin/Harris International, bristles at companies that think they

should either back brands or create a corporate image. 'It's really not

an either-or discussion,' she says. 'Consumer products companies in

particular wrestle with this issue and I don't know if there's much

wrestling to be done. The value of the corporate brand is increasing and

is showing an increased impact on a company overall.'



Baxter International has wrestled with the branding issue. A

pharmaceutical and healthcare company, Baxter once had to market its

products only to the medical world. Today, the changing nature of

healthcare increasingly means reaching out to consumers and health plan

administrators.



Rather than simply continue to promote individual products, Baxter has

created a corporate message, says Matthew Gonring, VP of corporate

communications. The company's catch phrase has become 'critical therapy

for people with life-threatening conditions,' Gonring says. That

captures the essence of all Baxter offerings and sums up what the

company wants to be.



'There's a difference between product branding to the customer and

positioning by stakeholder,' continues Gonring, who came to Baxter last

year after guiding the former Arthur Anderson through a major

communications program to prepare it for a break with Andersen

Consulting (now Accenture).



Gonring wants Baxter's corporate message to reach anyone who may

interact with the public - from company salespeople to employees'

friends and neighbors. 'One has to think about what's most relevant to

customers' he says.



Fragmentation



Ironically, new ways of reaching customers have been a major factor in

prompting P&G to think more about corporate communications. The company

was long known as a mass-marketer extraordinaire. But the mass market,

in which one TV ad during the former NBC hit show Bonanza could reach

most of the country, is gone. With advertising channels fragmented, P&G

has been trying more grassroots methods of reaching consumers.



'As brands look to alternative media to deliver their messages, there

may be an advantage to recognizing P&G as their parent,' Dobson

says.



If individual brands work through the Web, for example, will they get a

halo effect from being part of the P&G family? Supermarket shoppers

might not care who makes their detergent, but they might take notice if

they see P&G hosting a brand Web site offering them laundry care

advice.



Mardiks believes the Internet has gotten many companies to think more

about the value of corporate communications and corporate image

making.



Web companies in recent years were in a mad dash to establish their

corporate identities so consumers would trust them enough to buy from

them. Old-line companies took notice.



And P&G seems to be among them, having noticed the Web can help it reach

consumers. For example, its Web site helps establish a link between the

parent company and individual brands by inviting consumers to share

their ideas for improving existing brands and creating new ones.



P&G is starting to get the message that it matters what people think

about the company as a company. Whether it translates that understanding

into a corporate communications program anytime soon is an open

question.



The answer could go a long way to determining if P&G can move beyond its

current problems and once again become known as a master communicator,

not just with consumers, but with all its audiences.



Have you registered with us yet?

Register now to enjoy more articles and free email bulletins

Register
Already registered?
Sign in

Would you like to post a comment?

Please Sign in or register.