Creating a brand requires the consistent display of a given set of values over a period of time. This consistency can be achieved, as is often the case, by enlightened business dictators of the likes of Ray Kroc (McDonald's) or Charles Revson (Revlon), because dictators have little trouble enforcing their own set of values as they see them. Employees follow their lead or they're out. The more palatable-and more modern-way to go is to develop a written brand strategy for the entire organization to focus on, and then to ensure that it is implemented consistently.

It helps if, from the very start of the process of developing a brand strategy, one keeps in mind the need for achieving consensus for the final document. In fact, consistency is so important that it outweighs the specifics of the strategy. Consider the "Eggo Waffle" brand, the US's leading brand of frozen waffles. It has used the same advertising mnemonic gimmick, "Leggo my Eggo," for over 25 years, showing two youngsters fighting over the same waffle. If you look at it for its ability to convey brand values, you may find it rather weak. If anything, it conveys the product's desirability in a context of sibling rivalry. That may be OK with the kids who consume the product but may irk the mother who buys it. I recall thinking that the bulk of the brand's positive image came from the Kellogg's endorsement on the package and the quality of the product. Yet, today, after the same line has been used consistently for many years, in a variety of situations, some whimsical, others showing two adults fighting over the waffle, the line "Leggo my Eggo" has acquired its own connotation of positive familiarity. Consistent use has overcome the strategy's initial weakness.

The role of the brand strategist goes beyond writing a strategic document that is complete. He must also ensure that it receives the active commitment of all key individuals within the company. Without that commitment, a brand strategy is just another piece of paper.

It can be difficult to gain consensus and management commitment for a strategy that contains constraints.

Here is a way to go about it.

1/ Root the brand strategy in unassailable legitimacy: Interviewing all the brand's key long-term controllers, particularly the company's president and the senior management team, accomplishes this. These managers may have only very infrequent input into the brand's behavior, but when they do, so goes the brand. A document that's based on their input is less likely to be challenged by day-to-day brand managers. The difficulty here is to get management-particularly non-marketing types-to discuss the somewhat fuzzy aspect of brand values. You may need special interviewing techniques to facilitate the process. The brand's history is also a source of unassailable brand information, and so is its cultural or semiotic context. (Think of agriculture for Green Giant, for example.)

2/ Distribute the document's ownership among key company managers: Interviewing them allows each one to contribute and helps distribute ownership. Acknowledge each contribution in a draft document. Then, go a few steps further by making them work out the details of the final version of the document. At JP Group, we divide our client's management into several work teams. The composition of those teams seeks to have the diverse point of views represented in each team, something we can do because most of them have been previously individually interviewed. We also try to achieve a balanced distribution of authority. Each team is asked to work on a portion of a draft brand strategy and to present its recommendations to the other teams. We keep a low profile, acting as facilitators and word-coiners. During a final session, the entire group slugs it out to arrive at a final wording everyone agrees to, and our role is to ensure that the final document still contains some constraints-a sign of good strategy.

3/ Obtain management's commitment to abide by the document: In the process we've just described-the debating of the wording of the strategy- individual managers will have an opportunity to inject some language of their own. More importantly, the public debate between peers will result in a stronger self-commitment by each individual: Commitments made in front of your peers are more binding. Middle management, which is not involved directly in the development of the strategy, should undergo a similar "commitment in front of peers" process. You could, for instance, ask them to ideate, in a group of peers, on how the strategy will change the way they work, thereby making a public commitment to a course of action.

At this point, you may ask: "What about consumer input in the process? Did you forget something?"

No. Consumer data, which is essential in marketing and positioning a product, is usually not needed to determine brand values, i.e., how the brand views itself. The exceptions are cases where there is no long-term manager, such as may happen after an acquisition and where consumer input is the only unassailable legitimate branding input. But, remember that the specific consumer data you obtain is not as important as its ability to contribute to management consensus and commitment. In most cases, you might as well save your consumer research budget for more fruitful tasks, such as evaluating product positioning or advertising communication.

Remember: Your brand strategy is only worth the commitment of its managers. Even if you feel that your brand strategy can be improved upon, you may be better off keeping it the way it is and letting time give it strength.

Jacques Chevron
(c)2003 Jacques Chevron