superbrands

Starbucks: No. 152

My ‘Guardian’ was recently enlarged by the inclusion of a substantial insert put out by a company called Superbrands UK - see their website here. Their research for this year has produced a list of the UK’s “strongest” brands, based on the opinions of marketing experts, business professionals and British consumers.

Such league tables measure a number of factors, the most prominent being the visibility of the brands and their perception as trustworthy and/or as indications of quality. These elements presumably equal “strength” -- the word that Superbrands UK uses to indicate a real brand winner. They separately survey “Consumer Brands” (B2C) and “Business Brands” (B2B). The impressive newspaper insert and the website do not dwell too much on how exactly these surveys are conducted, but on delving further we find this (for the Consumer Brands survey):

The annual Consumer Superbrands survey is independently administered by The Centre for Brand Analysis (TCBA). Brands do not apply or pay to be considered; rather, the
selection process is conducted as follows: TCBA researchers compile lists of the UK’s leading business-to-consumer brands, drawing on a wide range of sources, from sector reports to blogs to public nominations. From the thousands of brands initially considered a final shortlist is created. For 2012, just over 1,700 brands were shortlisted...The remaining brands are voted on by the consumers of those brands, accessed via a YouGov panel. For Consumer Superbrands, a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 British consumers (aged 18 and above) was surveyed. 

And the definition of  a “Superbrand”? -

‘A Superbrand has established the finest reputation in its field. It offers customers significant emotional and/or tangible advantages over its competitors, which customers want and recognise.’ In addition, the voters are asked to judge brands against the following three factors: Quality. Reliability. Distinction. 

I find the ranking process a little nebulous - “distinction”? However, there is no doubt that a brand is the face of a business, and for it to successfully draw and retain customers it needs to be memorable, attractive and a sign of quality. So congratulations to the Superbrands.

And who were the winners? Superbrands UK were pleased to report that “Nearly half of the top 20 Consumer Superbrands hail from Blighty, while 11 of the top 20 Business Superbrands are British business heroes.”

(“Business heroes”?)

The full lists can be found on Superbrands UK’s website, but here’s a taste:

Consumer Superbrands 2012

Rolex

Coca-Cola

Google

Mercedes-Benz

BBC

BMW

Duracell

Dulux

Jaguar

 Royal Doulton

Business Superbrands 2012

Rolls-Royce Group

Google

GlaxoSmithKline

Apple

British Airways

Virgin Atlantic

London Stock Exchange

Bosch

Visa

PriceWaterhouseCoopers

In possibly the biggest brand come-back, I was interested to note that British Airways was up 43 places on last year, leaping from 48th to 5th. Will there be some bubbly flowing at BA’s marketing and promotions department? Or do these league tables really mean very little?

olympic brands: reputation

A rough road...

I’m often looking out for news stories about brands and trade marks in the daily press. Recently an unfortunate one surfaced.

Headline on a story in The Guardian the other day: “Olympic brands caught up in abuse scandal”. If you’re a brand owner who has paid a hefty sponsorship dollar to sponsor a national team or particular athletes or sports at the London 2012 Olympic Games, the word “scandal” is no doubt not one you’d be happy to see associated with your name. In fact, Olympics or no Olympics, this is not a pretty story.

The Guardian article concerns an investigation into conditions at Bangladeshi sweatshops where underpaid and allegedly abused workers, mainly women, make the expensive and high quality sports clothes and shoes sold under flagship brands such as Adidas, Nike  and Puma. The companies have responded, saying that they have regular audits, monitoring visits, codes of conduct and a hotline for complaints.

The organisation War on Want claims that this is not ensuring fair conditions, and has released its own report on the Bangladeshi situation, entitled ‘Race to the Bottom’. A War on Want spokesman described the companies as “soiling the Olympic flag”, which is rather  melodramatic, but he’s mad as hell. Rightly so, if the allegations are correct, and despite all the Codes of Conduct in the world, women in poverty are being slapped, verbally abused, harrassed, under-paid and over-worked while they make runners and Team GB sports clothes.

This is not the only story around about luxury western products being produced in third world sweat shops. Apple (and Microsoft, Dell and Hewlett Packard) have had to fend off similar allegations about inhumane conditions in the factories in China which manufacturer its iPad and iPhone products.

What a disconnect there is here. Big brand companies spend so much money and effort in trying to ensure their brand is recognised as a symbol of trust, reliability, great design and superb quality. And then their business model of cheap production in China and the Third World shows up this symbol for the lie it is. What is wrong with this picture? Aren’t the manufacturing pipeline people talking to the marketing and PR people? Answer: they are now.

But there’s a bigger picture too. It is possible to be in business profitably and maintain decent ethical standards. Isn’t it? Time for some philosophical thinking and ethical leadership.