The inexorable rise of brand cynicism
The definition of cynicism, according to an academic journal is:
“An attitude associated with disillusionment and negative feelings towards and distrust of another person or organisation”
Distrust and disillusionment are nothing new, particularly in the UK – some of our once-revered institutions have shown themselves in the past 10 years to be unworthy of people's trust, from the church, the NHS and the police to the government itself, caught in a web of spin over Iraq .
A Henley Centre report in 1999 indicated that the Thatcher years had instilled an “entrepreneurial” spirit which encouraged people to sort out their own lives and look after themselves - for example through personal pensions, private healthcare.
As a result of what many commentators have seen as a betrayal of the public by traditional institutions, brands took on a new role – that of providing trustworthiness.
This might have been all well and good, had it not been for the seeming inability of big business to act ethically. The dawn of the new millennium heralded some spectacular failures of organisations to deliver on their promises and engender the kind of trust relationship the Henley Centre appeared to have in mind.
In a mere ten years, we have seen the collapse of Barings Bank, tobacco companies found guilty of hiding their knowledge of the link between smoking and cancer, the Hatfield and Potters Bar train crashes with disastrous impacts on the reputation of both Railtrack and Jarvis, and a plethora of high profile accounting scandals, beginning with Enron.
Accompanying this was a continuing decline in confidence in public services and public servants. There was a record low in voting turnout across Europe for the recent EU elections and the turnout for the 2001 general election was the lowest since 1918. A YouGov/Sky TV poll asked people to rank their key priorities for the Government – “telling the truth” was cited by nearly a third in their top five.
More recent examples of this phenomena in business include “the world's local bank” outsourcing 4,000 jobs overseas, the happy face of Disney clouded by bitter wrangles at Board level and the squeaky-clean Martha Stewart, home-making guru of America and previously as wholesome as apple pie, indicted on charges of insider trading.
Attention has increased on the disparity between senior management pay and that of the workers – the US Institute of Policy Studies reported that US CEO salaries, on average, rose 571% in the 1990s compared with the increase of 37% for average employees. Perhaps more concerning are the comparisons which indicate that a CEO laying off more than 1,000 workers earned an average of $23.7m, while those CEOs left without the task of sacking employees earned an average of $13.1m.
Put alongside this the unacceptable investment practices of two former chief executives of Allied Irish Bank, and the waters of corporate business look very murky indeed. It's hardly surprising that cynicism in consumers and employees is alive and well.
The implications of this for global brands are starting to become clear. Another report from the Henley Centre indicates an increased brand- savviness among consumers, and an ability to withdraw more easily – taking brands much less seriously. Given the evidence on broken promises above, who can blame them?
But what happens when you break your promises and when stakeholders become cynical about your brand?
Well, people leave, or don't turn up at all. Employees vote with their feet, consumers vote with their purchases and voters vote by staying at home. Organisations work effectively, not because employees deliver their job descriptions, but because they do MORE if they are committed and loyal. If employees are cynical, these sorts of “citizenship behaviours” are withdrawn and may even be replaced by neglect – lateness, absenteeism, and lower productivity.
In addition, organisations have found that breaking promises associated with the brand can have serious implications for their reputation, and their bottom line.
The FT reported that the company associated with Martha Stewart – MSLO – is poised to lose $7m - $9m, or 18-20 cents a share, a dive from earnings of 36 cents a share reported in 2002.
Earlier this month, Jarvis had almost £80m wiped off its value in two trading days as it went into serious reputation overdraft following a hefty fine for its responsibility for a train derailment in Rotherham.
Three remedies for brand cynicism
So, what can be done to stop the apparently inexorable rise in brand cynicism – and we might add, cynicism generally, when it comes for working for, and buying from, organisations?
Often the root causes of brand cynicism are a lack of real understanding about what making promises really entails and the mistaken view that branding is a “solution” to a reputation problem.
Companies have been known to “jump the gun” – produce logos and glossy brochures, new signage and new advertising promises – without really knowing whether or not these can be delivered. Our view is that making the promise realistic is infinitely better – and less damaging to the organisation - than disappointing customers and employees with promises that can't be kept.
So, remedy number 1 - fix the people issues FIRST – ensure people know what they're supposed to do, how they're supposed to act, what sort of service is supposed to be offered to the customer and do this BEFORE the new logo is launched in a hail of publicity. If your employees have started to work in new ways before you make the big announcement, it reduces the chances that your customers' expectations will be disappointed. One anecdotal example of how brand can simply skim the surface is that of the train operating companies – often, on taking over a franchise, their first priority is not to find out what customers want from the service – but to paint the stations and the trains in the new livery. Ex-passengers of Connex, suffering from few, late and overcrowded trains would probably have had a few choice words to say about this type of “rebranding”.
To be secure in the knowledge that companies really CAN deliver what it says on their company tin, entails working with all levels of the organisation to discover and fix what's stopping delivery at the moment. Working with as many employees as possible also helps to build awareness of the “new way” and should help to build ownership. If done well, the consultations should mean that employees shouldn't feel that the “new way” has simply dumped on them another set of undeliverable targets.
Remedy number 2, then is – involve people in the process and let them negotiate some of their targets if you want them to feel enthusiastic rather than resentful about the new brand.
One of the easiest ways to spot a brand- cynical workforce is that the values are a source of great amusement – if people even know what they are. This is often combined with the classic “them and us” language found in such companies and in addition, you'll often see senior managers saying one thing and doing another.
Re-branding is often seen as a signal to the City that change is afoot. To reduce the amount of cynicism in your organisation when re-branding, the adoption of a clear set of values should be seen to be as significant at the top of the organisation as it is at the bottom. Leaders have a significant responsibility to act in line with those brand values. Otherwise, of course the values are undermined, which in turn reinforces the cynicism of your employees.
So, our final remedy is – consider carefully what it means to act within a set of brand values and what this implies for the behaviour of everyone in the organisation. If these demand look too onerous, if you're not capable of delivering these promises, in short, if you're not serious about re-branding from the inside out - don't do it at all.