Attention:  fast food marketers – you’re wasting half of your advertising!

But I’m not talking about the waste that John Wanamaker was referring to in his famous quip about not knowing which half of his advertising was being wasted.  I’m talking about the average of 48% of people who say there’s a big difference between what you promise in your advertising and what they experience at your restaurants.

This gap between your brand promise and your brand reality is one of the findings from research I recently conducted on QSRs*.

It’s no surprise that the everyday fast food experience doesn’t measure up to the fresh food, friendly service, and fun environment depicted in category advertising — but a disconnect of this degree is disturbing.  Even more troubling is that up to 66% of customers report a gap between the brand promise and brand reality for some chains!

I’ll keep the names of the worst offenders confidential, but I will reveal that the list includes a company which recently undertook a “rebranding” effort (i.e., new logo and visual identity) and another which recently announced plans to roll-out a value promotion.  While these changes might have been important, I can’t help but wonder if the effectiveness of these efforts will be limited because their in-restaurant experience isn’t delivering on the brand promise.

The findings from my research have serious implications for marketers in the fast food category and beyond.  Given that 64% of CMOs and brand managers at a wide range of organizations say their brands do not influence decisions made at their companies (see a previous post of mine on this shocking finding), it’s likely there’s a disconnect between the brand aspirations and operational reality at most companies.

The brand promise:reality gap suggests that instead of fretting over brand campaigns, companies’ brand-building efforts might be more successful if they were directed toward the actual customer experience.

Sure, the company’s ops department is responsible for ensuring operational excellence in the customer experience – but for most chains, competitive advantage is largely dependent upon the values and attributes which differentiate the brand.  So, operations must be about more than delivering efficiency and quality.  Aligning the customer experience with the brand vision is critical to establishing and sustaining a strong brand.

Furthermore actions speak louder than words and the research findings make it clear companies need help putting brand values and attributes into action.

One way to do this is to use a brand toolbox to inspire, inform, and instruct everyone in your organization how to interpret and reinforce your brand.

A brand toolbox is a collection of tools such as:

• a brand strategy users’ manual which explains the brand essence and positioning and the rationale behind them
• principles and guidelines for delivering brand values and attributes in day-to-day situations
• decision guides and process outlines to facilitate on-brand decision-making and behaviors
• virtual reality platforms which enable employees to practice using brand principles to deliver customer experiences consistent with the brand promise
• a forum through which employees can share their insights about how to bring the brand to life

Importantly a brand toolbox isn’t some yay-rah-rah feel good “invertising” effort which simply promotes the brand to employees. Nor is it a dense training manual which collects dust on a shelf.  It’s a dynamic resource integrated into the company’s standard operating procedures.

It requires active engagement and consistent updating – and an investment of time and money.  Come to think of it, developing and managing a brand toolbox is similar to developing and managing a brand campaign. But instead of simply promoting an image, it helps translate that image into remarkable customer experiences.

In today’s resource-constrained environment, a company cannot afford to spend its precious marketing dollars on a brand campaign only to see them wasted when the customer walks through the door.  Closing the brand vision:promise gap needs to be a top priority.

p.s.  A brand toolbox is only one of several ways to close the brand vision:promise gap.  Please contact me to learn about others:  mail AT deniseleeyohn DOT com.

* survey was fielded among over 200 moms with kids

related posts:

• invertising
• what’s a brand for

I’m working with a client to develop a new brand platform and thought I’d share one of the tools I used in my engagement – Brand Obituaries.

the background
The client lacks a clear brand identity and their brand seems “forgettable.”  The problem is not that they don’t have good products – it’s that they no longer know what they stand for, and so neither do consumers.

The first step in my engagement was a Discovery — a diagnostic evaluation to assess the current performance of and future opportunities for the brand.   As a matter of course, I conducted stakeholder interviews to learn (among other things) individual perceptions and beliefs about what the brand currently stands for and aspirations of what they want it to stand for.

Although this process was helpful, I found people were more likely to define the brand by what it isn’t, as opposed to what it is, or could be.  As such, I wanted to generate more perspectives about the potential identity for the brand.

the objective
I decided I needed to do something in the first project team worksession to spark a dialogue about the brand’s “reason for being” – generating rich discussion and revealing points of consensus and disagreement – which I could use as inputs to our work on crafting a new brand platform.

I often use projective techniques in consumer qualitative research in order to uncover underlying attitudes and beliefs.  They also help less-verbal people articulate their ideas.  I decided to use such a tool with the project team.

the process
Prior to the worksession, I asked the participants to complete the assignment described in “the tool” section below.

During the worksession, I divided the group into small groups and asked them to share their completed assignments with each other — and then to incorporate the best of each into a composite to share with the large group.

the tool
People were asked to write a Brand Obituary:

Think about the brand as a person – not necessarily the type of customer that shops at the brand, but rather the type of person the brand would be if it came to life.

Also think about the brand today when it’s at its best – not some idealized future – and think about it as a whole – all that the brand entails.

Pretend that upon waking today, you learn that the person “the brand” has passed away.  As a reporter for the local newspaper, your job is to write an obituary for the brand as if it were an actual person who has died.  Please jot/type your thoughts in the space provided below.

In doing so, think about describing the salient points of the brand’s life, as well what is different now that the brand is gone.

Some of the type of things you should include are:

• the cause of death – given how the brand is “living” today, what might be the reason he/she would die?  Was his/her death unexpected?  Did anyone (competitors or trends) contribute to his/her demise?

• who/what the brand left behind – who will mourn or miss the brand – and why?

• what was the brand’s biggest accomplishment in life? What will he/she be remembered for?

• what lessons can be learned from the brand’s life? – and from his/her death?

• who will take the brand’s place now that the brand is gone?

the outcome

This exercise was a real success on several different fronts:

1.  Participation in the assignment – Given that the project team is comprised mostly of the company’s executive team, including the CEO, CFO, and head merchant, I wasn’t sure how much cooperation I would get with a “homework” assignment.   But I was pleasantly surprised that 12 out of the 14 participants completed the assignment and it was clear many of them had spent a lot of time on it.

2.  Tone – I was also a little concerned that I was asking people to think about something quite unpleasant – the brand’s death.  I even included a note on the assignment to offset any potential negativity:

“Please note this is intended to be a fun exercise, to get you thinking out of the box.  Although the approach seems to come from a negative place, the results will be quite positive!”

This turned out to be a non-issue.  People did indeed have fun with the exercise — some of the obituaries were quite creatively written and the small groups had animated discussions, sometimes punctuated with laughter.

3.  Participation in the discussion — The exercise seemed to break the ice and get people really talking.  After engaging with each other over the obituaries, the participants seemed more willing to speak up and speak openly.  As one person explained to me in a follow-up note, “Exercises outside of our normal routine can and should serve as important learning experiences that are fun.”

4.    Group buy-in — Some of the issues revealed by the obituaries were the same as those that I had presented as having learned from my stakeholder interviews – but they seemed much more powerful and persuasive coming from the participants.   Actually I think the exercise gave my assessment and recommendations more credibility because many of my points were reinforced by the obituary outcomes.

5.    Rich insights – Above all else, the tool accomplished its objectives.  From the reactions in the small and large group discussions, it was obvious that the obituaries revealed thoughts that people had not shared with others before.  People were surprised to learn what others really thought about the brand – and in some cases, I suspect, they aren’t aware of all they had thought or communicated themselves.

I definitely have rich fodder from which to craft a “strawman” brand identity for our next worksession!

Let me know if you’re interested in learning more about this tool or other approaches I use in my Discovery process.

related posts:

• strategic brand platforms
• brand documentaries

Later today I will be presenting the new strategic brand platform to the Board of Directors for an organization I’ve been working with.  I thought I’d take this opportunity to share my approach to brand strategy.

Why do you need a brand strategy?

I believe a brand is a driver and compass for the organization – it focus and aligns all decision-making and it guides what we do/don’t do and what we say/don’t say.  Having a clearly articulated brand strategy ensures everyone who works on our brand shares one clear, consistent, common understanding of what our brand stands for and how it competes.  And this, in turn, helps them align their behaviors and decision-making with the brand so that it is delivered through every touchpoint with the outside world.

Simply put, if we are clear about our brand, so will our customers be.

The brand strategy should be clearly articulated and written down.  Whether your organization has 5 employees or 500,000 – whether you’re just starting the business or it’s been around for decades — it’s dangerous to assume everyone knows what your brand platform is or to rely only on informal means for sharing it.  Particularly in these times of so much change, it’s easy for efforts to become unfocused or focused on the wrong things.  Your brand strategy should be codified.

Also, with so much buzz about customer co-creation and the power of word of mouth vs. traditional one-way brand communication, some pundits have proffered, “Your brand is whatever your customers say it is.”  This would suggest that there is little value in defining and articulating your brand strategy – I completely disagree.

An organization must know and make clear what it wants its brand to stand for and how it wants it to be positioned.  There is definitely a place for collaboration and integration with customers on how the brand manifests itself and how it is expressed (see 2 great presentations 1, 2 on this topic from German agency nouve, but I believe a brand strategy is as valuable a tool for business leaders today as it ever has been – if not more.

What is a brand strategy?

A strong brand strategy is really comprised of a complete strategic platform:

• brand identity – what your brand stands for – the values and attributes that define your brand
• competitive brand positioning – how your brand compares to existing options – this includes your target customers, the frame of reference in which they consider your brand, and the unique benefit or value you provide to them

An example I came across years ago is Campbell’s.

The two parts of the platform are integrated and interdependent. The brand identity explains who/what the brand is; the competitive brand positioning explains how the brand does what it does.  The brand identity tends to be more timeless, serving as the constant foundation of the brand; while the competitive brand positioning can change as the competitive context and target audiences change.

Your brand understanding is incomplete if you only have one part.  Without a brand identity, your company lack beliefs and principles to guide its market activity. You define yourself more by your context and less by your organization’s strategic intent.  Particularly in categories in which the products have become commoditized (fast food, for example) or in which the distinctions between competitors is difficult to ascertain (healthcare), the who and the what of the brand is the basis for most of a brand’s differentiation.

Without a brand positioning, the business orientation of the brand platform is missing. In isolation, a brand identity can seem only conceptual.  You need a brand positioning to reference who you are selling to, what your business scope is, and what you do to create value for your customers.  If the brand is defined separately from the business strategy, often the two aren’t aligned — and so when conflicts arise, the brand takes a back seat to the business.

Together the brand identity and competitive brand positioning function symbiotically – complementing and supporting each other.

A strategic brand platform is intended to provide richness and depth, not complexity.  Some of the best brands can be summarized in a single word or idea (Southwest Airlines = fun; Disney = family magic).  But in order to fulfill its potential as a business driver, leaders must expound on the brand and dimensionalize it into a full platform.

There are many frameworks that can be used to communicate the brand identity and competitive brand positioning.  Building blocks, circles/wheels, four-boxes, etc. — each is relevant to a different type of brand.  Storytelling, images, and videos are often helpful approaches to expressing a brand strategy.

What makes a brand strategy good?

The strength and integrity of a brand platform can be judged by several criteria.

1. Is it meaningful? – is it relevant and compelling to our target customers?  Some brands create new desires; others simply meet existing demand – either way, people must value what the brand stands for and delivers.
2. Is it believable? – does it over-promise or set up false expectations, or does it pass muster among even the most skeptical of customers?
3. Is it differentiating? – does it give us a distinct advantage over competitors?  The advantage must be noticeable, understood, and appreciated by your target customers.
4. Is it feasible? – does it accurately reflect our organization’s capabilities?  A brand platform can be aspirational but it must be possible.
5. Is it sustainable? – does it enable us to provide value and compete now and in the future?  The brand should be an enduring proposition which drives continuous improvement and innovation, not a fad-dependent or short-lived idea.

How is a brand strategy used?

As I explained earlier, the brand drives everything the organization does.  So it guides and influences R&D, product/service development, manufacturing, operations, sales, distribution, employee recruitment/training/development, stakeholder engagement, strategic planning – oh, and also marketing.

In the case of the organization I’m meeting with today, the new brand platform is of particular interest to the staff, who see it being particularly helpful in their prospective employee interviewing/screening process (“The brand personality explains the exact kind of employee we’re looking for,” said one manager).

Also it’s serving as a guide for the website re-design they’re undertaking, ensuring that the experience of using the website is aligned with the brand attributes we’ve developed.
—-
I hope this information has been helpful.  I haven’t done a post like this in awhile — I’ve been doing more observation and analysis lately.  So if you’d like to see more posts like these, please let me know.  Also if you or someone you know wants to know more about engaging me to develop a strategic brand platform, here’s an overview of my Brand Platform service offering.

related posts:

• brand documentaries
• simple brand tools

While you are reading this, I’m attending the Consumer Electronics Show.  I’ll be meeting with clients and prospects, attending educational sessions, and walking the show floor — the last activity is one that I always find both exciting and frustrating.  Exciting because there always so many new and cool gadgets and technologies to check out; frustrating because so many of these new items tend to blend together into one big, indistinguishable, unmemorable morass of technology.  The brands suffer from the lack of remarkable and sustainable differentiation.

A couple of years ago after attending CES, I wrote an article called “How to Differentiate.”  It introduced a tool for carving out a differentiating competitive position.  The tool is a framework which indicates six possible levers of differentiation.  I’ve decided to re-post it now, since I believe the need to differentiate is as important — if not more important — than it was then.

Although the article talks about the consumer electronics category, business leaders and brand managers in all categories struggle with differentiation and so I hope all of you find it helpful.  Please read it and give me feedback — thanks!

(if by chance you’re also attending CES and would like to meet up, ping me on Twitter.)

As 2009 draws to a close, I thought I’d take a quick look back at significant developments of the past year.  And what a year it’s been, hasn’t it?!

Last January, I don’t think any of us could have predicted how bad things would get (the economic downtown, collapse of the automotive industry, Adam Lambert’s American Music Awards performance – to name a few of the year’s downers) – nor what the bright spots would end up being (Twitter adoption, explosion of iPhone Apps, and Glee – some of my picks for highlights!)

A stroll through the past year’s brand as business bites ™ posts reveals some of 2009’s more memorable moments and movements:

January 5th – “no money, no problem”  I started the year with an optimistic outlook, calling the “brand as business” approach “the biggest opportunity for brands” because it transforms brand-building from a discrete, costly, and subjective activity into the most critical way of managing and growing a business.  Little did I know how many leaders would end up completely neglecting their brands for the year.

February 6th – “brand you?”  Thanks to the tanking economy, many people found themselves looking for work.  Pundits pounced on their misfortunes, promoting personal branding as a way for folks to package and sell themselves.  I became concerned that this development might trivialize brands in general, so I wrote this post to remind everyone that brand-building, whether for individuals or brands, depends on increasing the value you deliver and how you do it.

May 3rd – “5 brands we would miss: a series”  Kicking off Q2, 24/7 Wall ran an article outlining twelve brands that were likely to see their demise in the year’s downturn.  I started a blog series which highlighted a few brands from the list and explained on why I would miss them.  It’s interesting to note that only one of the five I wrote about (Saturn) ended up disappearing.

July 9th – “free to be free”  As introduced by Chris Anderson in his  book “Free,” the “free economy” took off this year and commerce will never be the same.  We’re witnesses to tectonic shifts in the way businesses make money and the innovation of brand new business models.  This post outlines my thoughts on how Free should and shouldn’t be used.

September 1st – “starbucks went changin’ — best blogpost revisited”  Starbucks made the headlines several times this year.  From starting the year off on shaky ground, to testing an unbranded re-brand (15th Avenue Coffee and Tea), to introducing VIA an instant coffee product, the venerable coffee chain sparked many a conversation.  Perhaps the most exciting for me came from this post in my best blogpost contest in which the winner stated, “Rather than trying to be all coffee shops to all people, it makes more sense for Starbucks to focus on the core of their brand, and then to make sure that they always do that well.”

October 22nd – “brand documentaries”   This post outlined an idea for a new brand tool (brand documentaries which would be used by all brand stakeholders to enhance their brand understanding) and sparked great feedback and new ideas on my blog and on Twitter – and the discussion even continues on today on LinkedIn.  And that’s what’s so remarkable.  It’s encouraging to see the widespread interest in new tools for use in today’s brand context as well as the willingness to collaborate and share ideas in order to create them.  And it’s amazing that we now have the social Web to facilitate this kind of collaboration and dialogue.

October 26th – “the business reset button”  Early signs of a recovery emerged in Q3 and as business leaders started returning their attention to growth, I returned to advocating for a new management strategy – one that’s more in tune with the changing market and optimizes the company’s core operating system in meeting demand.  I wrote a paper and introduced a new keynote presentation on “brand as business” ™ the ultimate business reset button.

November 30th – “ode to black friday”  Given the dismal results retailers posted for most of the year, many started this holiday season desperate for sales. I wrote this ditty to express my personal fatigue with their emphasis on deep discounts and deals.  We now know that business has come back at a moderate clip, but I remain concerned about the long-term damage caused by retailers’ over-reliance of sales and discounts.

And this is where we find ourselves now — on a slow and bumpy road to recovery, but a recovery nonetheless.  I hope this recap has shown that, although there was a lot in 2009 that we’d like to forget about or do over, there have been some glimmers of hope and new ways of working have emerged which will propel us forward.  As we close the books on the past year, let’s preserve the best and reinvent the rest.

Hope you are enjoying a wonderful holiday season!  (brand as business bites will resume on January 4th.)

I read with great interest an article in SmartBusiness about Red Mango and the yummy yogurt chain’s founder, president, and CEO of Red Mango, Dan Kim.  I’m fascinated by the frozen yogurt chains that have emerged on the cultural landscape in last 5 years.  Pinkberry has probably gotten the most coverage in the press, with its high design aesthetic and celebrity fans, but there are plenty of others in the game including Red Mango.  The category is very crowded with operators of all sizes competing in a relatively small niche with punch cards and discount days.  Building brand awareness and shoring up a loyal customer base are particular challenges, which is in part why I’m so interested in the category (liking fro yo also has something to do with it too!)

In the SB piece, Dan explains his thinking and approach to building the Red Mango brand.  Clearly, this is a guy who gets it.  He believes in the power of his brand and he actively nurtures and protects it.  Here are my reactions to his comments, along with some suggestions for how he might ensure his brand-building efforts continue to be successful as the chain grows.

Good stuff
Dan’s commitment to the Red Mango brand is remarkable:

• It’s his primary focus. He says, “We always start with, ‘Who do we want to be when we grow up and who are we as a brand?’…We always keep that top of mind in terms of everything we do.”  And he keeps his focus on it.  “If you constantly change who you want to become, the strength of your brand goes away.  If you try to do too much and address too many things, you stretch yourself too thin and really can’t accomplish anything.”
• He’s clearly articulated what the brand stands for and has documented it in a digestible, memorable form.  Unlike many entrepreneurs, he didn’t just assume that his employees would know what is in his head – nor that explaining it once is enough. He created a “brand trifecta” that outlines the brand’s core values and there’s a “MangoFesto” in the form of a poster in each store that explains to employees what the goals and philosophy are.  Dan says, “The thing that you can do that’s not cool is you write [a brand manifesto] once, and you never come back to it, and it gets lost.  You have to make that part of the cultural fabric of your organization.”
• He also uses the brand as a filter for decision-making.  In other words, he operationalizes the brand platform in key decisions about what the company should or should not do.  Frozen yogurt in cones didn’t pass the brand test but papaya as a new topping did.

The next level
Dan’s brand-building efforts have paid off.  Last year, the company received a $12 million cash infusion and they’ve been successful enough to recently launch an aggressive franchise push with the goal of opening 550 locations over the next five years.  That kind of growth will present a host of challenges, not the least of which is maintaining the priority on the brand.

It’s a common problem.  When a company is smaller, there are fewer players who need to “get” the brand.  And as long as the founder (or whatever role the brand champion might play) is actively involved in the daily operations of the business and as accessible to employees, it’s fairly easy to stay on track.  But issues arise as growth inherently brings more people to inculcate, more opportunities to assess, and more touchpoints to align.

A couple of tools and approaches will help Red Mango and other companies aspiring to grow their brands and their businesses:

Competitive positioning. I’ve found the best brand strategies are actually brand platforms comprised of a brand identity (what the brand stands for) and a competitive brand positioning (how the brand compares).  The brand identity is based on the key values and attributes of the brand – including the brand essence or core belief.  The competitive brand positioning outlines the target, the competitive frame of reference and how the brand is optimally positioned in that frame, and the unique benefit of the brand.

Some companies only outline one part of the brand platform but both are important.  You must understand the defining values and attributes of your brand (brand identity) but without a competitive positioning, you aren’t indicating how you will use those core elements to establish competitive advantage.  And you must outline how you compare with other options, but without a solid brand identity, you won’t have the foundation that drives consistency and focus.  Furthermore, the brand identity should remain constant; the competitive brand positioning might change over time as the target audience or the competitive landscape changes.  The two parts of the platform are complementary and symbiotic.

The Red Mango brand essence is outlined in the SB article:  it’s the convergence of health, taste and style.  The piece, however, didn’t speak to the chain’s competitive strategy.  Perhaps a competitive brand positioning exists, but if it doesn’t, I would encourage Dan to clearly articulate one.  And in particular, getting the competitive frame of reference (i.e., the mental file folder that the target puts your brand in) is key.  I’m guessing it’s not simply other fro yo brands (although carving out a unique position in that category is important) – but also other quick serves as well as buy/make at home options.

Empowering stakeholders. In explaining the aforementioned no-go decision on the cone idea, Dan relayed that it was a franchisee who suggested the idea and it was Dan and his executive team that assessed the opportunity.   As the chain grows, it will become increasingly important for others including franchisees to be able to make their own assessments.  Otherwise the executive committee will become a bottleneck for decision-making and a barrier to growth.

I suggest an effort to inspire, inform, and instruct everyone about the brand and how they should interpret and reinforce it in their daily decision-making.   A brand toolbox is an effective way to do so. The collection of tools in a brand toolbox:

• relays the brand identity and positioning along with the background and rationale to increase understanding and buy-in, and outline principles and examples to guide appropriate brand execution
• connects people to a purpose and values bigger than themselves, get them excited about working on the brand, and motivate them to adopt behaviors which support it
• helps people make decisions and take actions that are “on brand” through interactive exercises and decision guides

A brand toolbox can take a variety of forms – workbooks, videos, website, downloads, or a combination of these – the important thing is to develop one that engages everyone who works on the brand.

Aligning stakeholders. A brand toolbox can also be helpful in aligning all stakeholders and their expectations.  At one point, Dan laments, “…you have a lot of outsiders or board members or executive managers who don’t understand how the strategy is executed in regards to having the right resources, then you’re in a situation where you just constantly want to do more and more things without people understanding why you can’t do them.”

He’s talking about brand stakeholders and the real need to align them in order to garner their support.  Board members for example significantly influence the value the organization delivers and the way it does business through their strategic, high-level guidance on things like resource allocation and M&A activity. The businesses a company works with to develop, make, distribute, and sell the product — vendors, strategic alliances, distribution channels, service providers, franchisees/affiliates, etc.– are stakeholders in the brand. The number and range of stakeholders only grows as your business grows.

By fleshing out what the brand is and how it is used, a brand toolbox facilitates brand understanding among these audiences.

Imagine your brand as a source of light. In an ideal world, the light of your brand would shine strongly and directly on its intended target. However the current marketplace is far from ideal and so your brand’s light becomes quite diffused and unfocused in the clutter and competition that exists between your brand and its target.

Brand stakeholders actually function as filters for your brand light. Essentially your stakeholders are situated between your brand and its target. Each stakeholder bends and directs the light in their respective roles.

Problems arise when different stakeholders bend and direct the light in different ways. The result? A mess of light rays all pointed in different directions and none focused on the target.

Your stakeholders need to be aligned so that you end up with a laser-like beam of brand value delivered to your target. While it may seem that the people and groups who comprise your brand stakeholders are independently-operating entities fulfilling a specific function or playing a particular role, a more accurate picture is that they are linked together in a brand value delivery chain.

A brand toolbox is a great way to reinforce this linkage.  Sometimes there is a need to protect or segment some parts of a brand toolbox, but generally speaking the more transparent you can be about what your brand is all about and how you’re operationalizing it, the better.

I hope these suggestions are helpful not only to Dan and his team at Red Mango, but to all business leaders who are passionate about their brands and about growth.

related posts:

• simple brand tools
• if a brand has something to say, say it

Recently I met with the folks in Cisco’s brand group and was delighted to find a few simple brand tools sitting in the place where a person’s business cards are usually found.

The first tool is a brand platform “cheat sheet” in the form factor of an i.d. badge. The front spells out the Cisco “Brand Aspirations”:

I like the simplicity and digest-ability of this. A succinct sentence conveys the Brand Promise and Position. Three words comprise the Brand Personality and six comprise Brand Behaviors. The use of bulls-eye clearly communicates that the Brand Promise and Position are the core of the Brand. And the background image supports the written concepts well.

The back of the “cheat sheet” complements the front of it, by indicating how the Cisco brand communicates:

I like the Is/Is Not approach, as I think understanding what a brand is not is often more instructive than learning what it is – especially for a business like Cisco which is already so expansive and continues to evolve.

Moreover, this tool is clearly intended for employees to insert into their i.d. badge holders so they have it with them at all times. This tactic is not new but I found the simplicity of the content and design to be quite compelling — and if I were a Cisco employee, I think I would actually want to look at and use the tool.

The other tool seems like a recruiting piece, but it speaks volumes about the brand as well. It’s actually a series of business card-like cards – the front conveys a welcoming message:

On the back of each card is one of several images and quotes from a Cisco staffer:

Neither the messages, images, or quotes are remarkable on their own, but as a whole, they represent the humanity, diversity, and energy of the brand – things that are important to communicate to potential employees, and anyone who works on or with Cisco.  I’m not sure how these cards are intended to be used, but they make me think about Cisco differently despite not being a potential recruit.  And I find them more memorable than most corporate brochure-ware.

Some companies draw a distinction between their “customer brand” and their “employer brand” — I’ve never really bought into such a delineation because I think the value you deliver and the way you do business (your brand) should be the same for customers and employees.  Seeing these Cisco tools together reinforces my view — they facilitate understanding of the brand from multiple perspectives.

Finally, I like how both of these tools are available for anybody to take. The “cheat sheet” was sitting in a dispenser on the desk of one of the people I was meeting with, right next to her business cards. The recruiting cards were prominently displayed in a business card dispenser at the reception desk.

Instead of guarding their brand strategy like a piece of corporate i.p., Cisco makes it accessible and interesting. Instead of silo-ing off their recruiting efforts, they share a taste of the employment experience with everyone. Cisco, it seems, understands the value of engaging internal and external folks with their brand – after all, we’re all brand stakeholders in some way and every touchpoint is a brand touchpoint.