The word ʻcommunityʼ has been used a lot since the this Augustʼs UK riots. The biggest targets were undoubtedly retailers, some large, some small - targeted regardless of their political or financial beliefs.

Brands are nothing without community. Strong brands cultivate a community of good suppliers, good workers and good customers. In 1900 the Cadbury corporation under the helm of George and Richard Cadbury made the ultimate community and developed the Bourneville city. The idea was simple. They wanted to give something back to the community that had allowed them to enjoy their success. They understood that their brand was privileged to be in the position it was in. Ultimately, the brothers understood that community was at the heart of a strong society and sought to ensure that the Cadburys brand was a part of this stronger society they dreamed of. The concept went well beyond any regulations and expectations at that time or indeed today, it was simply groundbreaking.

Fast-forward to today and we see that some experts think that CSR or CR is dead. The truth is it's just a term. A term used to describe what some did naturally over 100 years ago and what others have always done. There are 2 things we can be sure of. Firstly that terms/ phrases and acronyms come and go so CR/ CSR or any other title has a finite lifespan. Secondly, that the concept of community and business will never die because without it there can be no truly strong brands.

Corporate responsibility is in part concerned with the interaction of brands and communities. I think there is a delineation between business and brand but the business of brands is community.

In his blog last month my colleague, Haroun, outlined the fact that there is room for innovation within community involvement from the corporate world - I think this is correct.

Our work with Land Securities at the W12 Shopping Centre and Healthy Planet highlights this innovation with their pioneering books for free initiative. This initiative aims to take books that are destined for landfill and redistribute them to members of the community, for free. It is an excellent example of how a simple idea can have a massive impact.

Another initiative we are involved in sees the first outdoor Futsal pitch in the UK being given to NEETS (those not in education, employment, or training) via corporate sponsorship. These ideas are powerful and are part of the next phase of CSR that is surely going to take over.

Sometimes we forget that it is a privilege to own, manage or work on a successful brand. We might think it's a right and that hard work alone is what took us there. This simply isn't true. We need people to make a leap of faith and believe in our brands for them to flourish.

Whatever the cause of the UK riots one thing is clear. The engagement of the business world is vital if we wish to build a robust society that all of us can believe in. 

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 13 09 2011

The art of storytelling has been around for millennia in many forms, from spoken word round the campfire to written word, theatre and film. The idea that storytelling is important from a brand perspective may not have been around quite as long, but is by no means a new concept. Whilst our love for stories seems unchanging the ways we share and hear them is constantly evolving.

Not only has social media changed the way we interact, it has also affected the ways consumers seek out and share stories. Experiences of a brand are shared instantaneously and stories of a brand are as much in the hands of the consumer as the brand itself. A recent study showed 60% of content shared on the Internet mentioned a brand or product; so managed correctly consumers can become the positive storytellers of your brand.

There are many guidelines for telling a good brand story, but a certain point crops up often: ‘your story must be meaningful’. A story that has no direct impact, either emotionally or provoking immediate action, will be quickly forgotten.

With this in mind there is a strong argument that if you embed your brand in a community, it can become an ideal storytelling environment.

Firstly, the members of the community come into contact with your brand in a meaningful way. What you’re doing effects them positively, therefore they’re likely to share this experience.

Secondly, a community is built around people who interact with each other in person. Word of mouth, needless to say, is the most powerful way for a brand story to be shared. An individual will identify with a strong brand, not only because of their interaction with it, but because their peers positive experience too.

And finally when people understand your ideology outside of the business environment it is seen as more genuine, you become real and seen as someone who cares about real life issues. It is this authenticity that will convert your consumers into your storytellers.

Of course this practice does not solely benefit your business, but first and foremost it should improve communities. When brands engage in community initiatives it can be a platform for truly unique and innovative ideas to come into fruition. Brands strive for differentiation, and this could be positive when applied to community initiatives. When a community is improved by positive experiences, everyone lives a happily ever after.

Written by Haroun Al-Shaater
Date: 15 08 2011

As advertising opportunities evolve away from traditional ideas of captive audiences and we become ever more desensitised to the daily bombardment of media messages; the idea of branded content becomes a popular way for brands to get closer to their target audiences. Brands are no longer advertising either side of content but merging with it to create stronger associations with the content their audiences enjoy.

There are different levels of exposure to the brand within the content, from a subtle credit to the brand with little or no reference throughout, through to more blatant brand-funded content plastered with the brand’s iconography.

A great example of innovative merging of content and marketing is Vice Media, a company reputed for its youth alternative magazines and websites, they also offer a communications service for companies like Intel and MTV, creating focused branded content across a range of media.

The Huffington Post also encourages brands to talk directly with customers through their website. As Taylor Gray, their senior vice president of Marketing says “We make them part of the conversation”, “...our advertisers become part of the communities”. The Huffington Post have certainly seen the benefits with over £2m generated through what they call “sponsor-generated content”.

Whilst this is a great technique from a brand awareness perspective, there are limits to the convergence of editorial and marketing that must be considered. In situations where brands have a say on editorial content that viewers expect to be unbiased, there is some question of credibility. To be ethical, the brand’s interests should be transparent, but what does this mean in this situation?

Perhaps the answer lies in the considerations of a related field: Product placement - another technique that sees the brand ever closer to content. Recently the ban on paid-for product placement was lifted in the UK but is tightly regulated by Ofcom and a a specially designed logo must be shown in the programme. For product placement to have ever have been banned suggests that there are certainly those who believe clear lines between editorial and marketing should be observed. Now it is allowed, the tight requirements that need to be met suggest that it is unethical for a viewer to be ‘sold to’ without being aware of it.

So applying this to branded content, it suggests it’s only ethical if the viewer understands the role of the brand. Whether this knowledge is gained through a logo or warning on each example, or though general increased awareness. Just as magazine ads that take the form of an article always have a warning: ‘this is an advertisement’ should branded content be explicitly clear about its purpose, or does this contradict the essence of branded content? 

Written by Haroun Al-Shaater
Date: 17 06 2011

I went to a recent talk given by Marcus Benz about sustainability at the Walter Knoll organisation.

Benz covered many interesting ideas but one comment stayed with me - it was almost throw-away yet summed up an aspiration I admire. When it came to the Walter Knoll product line, Benz said that ‘obviously no products is best but as humans needed things to sit on and eat off, we need to have well considered products that use less materials’. It got me thinking 'How many businesses start from a position of ‘no products is best’? I would argue very few, if any. The aspiration is almost Zen like and reminiscent of the philosophies of the Ninja or Shinobi but very relevant to today.

The three Rs of sustainability have been with us for many years but the first in the list 'reduce' seems to go against the mantra of business productivity - in fact business success is measured in terms of output. Most organisations strive to increase output and thus increase revenue. Is the old mantra of increased output sustainable though? Businesses may need to lead not just by setting goals for CSR but by adopting a transformative philosophy when it comes to measuring output. In short, find other ways of valuing what they bring to market.

The case for reduction is usually supported by a financial argument i.e. If we reduce our waste or our consumables we can increase the bottom line - but we need to move beyond this. If the research, development, design and manufacturing process takes longer and enables better, more sustainable products, we may end up paying more in the future for what is now cheap - the ultimate question is - does the consumer want to pay more, for less?

One of the design team at epitype commented that maybe the future means that products become more expensive but experiences become cheaper. If we count the web as an experience then this certainly holds true - at least in the near future anyway.

If this does echo a possible future then we must ask who will educate the consumer? Paying more for products is already a western phenomenon experienced in the UK as more of the world becomes middle class but this would be much more acute if we were to look to a truly sustainable future with better products that we need less of.

Walter Knoll seem to have embedded sustainability into their overall reason for being - ‘good design’. Others will need to understand the currency of ‘sustainability’ and embed it into processes that are relevant to them whilst looking to a transformative philosophy.

The truth is we do have too much stuff and the future will mean that we may have less stuff - but it will be the right stuff, the question is, who is going to lead the race to be the ultimate Ninja?  

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 20 05 2011

This was the question I posed during a lecture session at Goldsmiths for the MA Branding course. Its a question I have asked myself over the years. I borrowed it from Noam Chomsky [the linguist and political commentator] who said in 1967: It is the responsibility of intellectuals to speak the truth and to expose lies. His proposal came amidst a backdrop of perceived government lies and when people were questioning why exactly was America in Vietnam. The commercial backdrop we have now is also interesting. The power of a brand is extremely acute right now because money is tight. People want to know the truth about the brand they adopt.

The students within the lecture were divided as to whether this statement was correct for brands. Some felt that it was not the place of brands to tell the truth but to sell. Others felt that although brands were not exclusively about truth it would be Ok if they did not tell the truth as long as they did not lie. Then there were those who felt that telling the truth was the business of brands as this was part of the brand promise.

The problem that we have with this question (as was quickly picked up by the students) is that we have to define truth and ultimately if truth exists at all. Philosophers have discussed the notion of absolute truth for a long time. I believe these arguments can be applied to brand. So ultimately the debate revolves around two key themes: are you going to tell the truth always because it is a right thing to do, regardless of reward? - this is the Kantian view proposed by 18th Century philosopher Immanuel Kant, or are you going to tell the truth when it is for the greatest good for the greatest amount of people? - this view would be championed by Jeremy Bentham the 18th Century English philosopher.

As a brand strategist and designer I would like to think that I adopt the Kantian view when it comes to my work. I think the role of brands is purely to say what an organisation stands for within a product or service. If the brand is not truthful it voids the covenant on which it exists, in other words, the very premise as to why one would create a brand has been taken away. This means that there is an inherent difference between the promise a business offers and one that a brand gives although legally they may be one and the same, psychologically they are very different.

One problem with my view is that many brands tell a version of the truth that is aspirational - I would argue that most do. This means that it may not be true right now and may never come to fruition. So an example would be the brand that says drinking X will help you become an extraordinary athlete. The truth might in fact be to say look, if you drink this you would still need to train very hard, reduce alcohol intake, no parties, eat the right foods etc - but who wants to hear that truth? We would much rather hear what the possibilities could be and in turn accept that as the truth.

The second problem is that brands work on an emotional level. Logic at some point must give way to this ‘higher’ power. If that is true, is it right to take a logical approach as we see within the Kantian view and apply it to branding?

I would still argue yes because a marketing world without this kind of framework would be a one in which I would not wish to inhabit. Aspirations must be realistic and claims must be founded in research. By trying to attain the almost impossible - truth - we can create brands that are based in reality and which ultimately serve the purpose on which they were created.

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 14 04 2011

During a shoot this weekend I began thinking about the idea of truth and representation in the media of film. Whilst the event I was filming was not controversial or particularly susceptible to misinterpretation I was often aware of my own attempts to manipulate how the viewer would see the end results. I would try to make the crowd look bigger, the colours brighter and the people happier. It led me to the question does truth exist in film?

Many would say yes, due to the fact the camera can only record what is really placed in front of it, and therefore it can only show (a perspective of) what has really happened. And the term ‘non-fiction’ film by definition suggests it is true.

However, to me the instinctive answer is no, truth cannot exist because every film is a product of at least one person’s unique interpretation of a situation. Every decision made throughout the process gives it a perspective that others may not have, and therefore doesn’t show an absolute truth. The most it can be is the filmmaker’s truth, because truth and reality are subjective.

Assuming an absolute truth is unattainable, what reality should the non-fiction filmmaker try to convey? They have a responsibility to the client to show them in a positive light, but in turn a responsibility to the audience not to deceive or lie. There will always be three interests to balance - the audience, the client and the filmmaker.

This is where a client’s brand can actually help the filmmaker tell a truth. If a company has a strong and accurate brand image, the decisions the filmmaker comes to will be informed by this brand. This is useful for the client for obvious reasons. It is also useful to the audience because they are able to recognise the brand through the film. When they come to interacting with it in other ways, they are met with the same story that was conveyed through the film. I do not claim that this eliminates interpretation, but at this level it is a step towards having the three parties sharing the same understanding, just as a brand identity does across other media.

Whether truth is possible or not in the media film, the ethical filmmaker can only strive towards an approach they feel is honest to themselves, the client and their brand, and most importantly, the viewer.

Written by Haroun Al-Shaater
Date: 11 04 2011

The recent comments by Brian True-May, one of the creators of Midsomer murders has seen him suspended from his role. The story has been well documented in our media with some agreeing with his views and not seeing any problem with them through to others voicing their disbelief at what was said.

For those who have missed the media coverage, Midsomer murders is a police drama. Each episode sees a murder take place in the sleepy English village it is set. To recap, Brian True-May told Radio Times that ‘We just don’t have ethnic minorities involved.’ That ‘It wouldn’t be the English village with them.’ He went on to say ‘It just wouldn’t work. Suddenly we might be in Slough.’ and finally ‘We’re the last bastion of Englishness, I want to keep it that way."

I think it important to distinguish some of what was was said from other parts because it is easy to miss the salient points of the arguments. One could argue that there are few ethnic minorities in the countryside and that to feature them would be distorting the truth. I tend to agree that we do not wish to distort the truth. Indeed I believe that transparency and honesty are the cornerstone of communications whether it be on screen or in print. So it is not a matter of should there be any ethnics within the shot and more a case of is this a true portrayal or not.

Whilst the media have been consumed with questions like ‘are there any black people in the countryside’ I think there is a much more pressing debate to be had.

What I do think is wrong is the belief that Midsommer murders is the last bastion of Englishness. This implies that Englishness is a predominantly ‘white’ affair. It simply isn’t. Many countries around the world have embraced a notion of Englishness through their customs and have embedded it into their culture. Schooling in the West Indies will include much on the works of Shakespeare and sometimes we forget where tea is actually from. Yes, Englishness is much more than Shakespeare and tea but it is also much more than colour. The brand England thrives, I believe, because it has adapted time and again and has had the framework to assimilate other cultures. Any notion of national identity hangs within a framework and I believe that it is the robustness of this framework that allows it to move forward and innovate.

This innovation is why the brand English is so appealing to others from around the world and is why it is not seen as a white or a black thing but as a right thing. 

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 17 03 2011

Last weekend I made it to the Design Museum to catch the ‘Brit Insurance Design awards 2011’ It was an inspiring exhibition on many levels, not least because of my perspective as a designer. I very quickly noticed a popular theme in the nominated work, which was that there were many designs that had some form of ethical purpose.

The kind of considerations ranged from products that are created primarily to be an ethical alternative, designs that simply served their purpose in a thoughtful way, through to designs that had their ethical credentials seemingly as an afterthought (though importantly they were still mentioned). My favourites included the winner: Plumen 001 (a beautiful lightbulb intending to make energy efficient lighting more desirable) and the Branca chair (a nature inspired chair made with minimal waste).

Looking through the nominations it became evident that ethical and sustainable considerations have become, to an extent, the mark of good design. If looked at skeptically, it’s just another box that designers will tick for brownie points, but it could also be argued that ethical design has been thrown into the forefront of the majority of designers’ minds, and by either cause or effect into the minds of the public. Either way, it’s a positive result.

This year’s awards are claimed to have lacked passionate design for change. Looking back to 2009 the winner was a graphic design piece by Shepherd Fairey, the iconic Obama poster that encapsulated the spirit of the moment. But this passion for political engagement has faded much like the support for Obama himself. The truth is design activism comes in waves, but sustainability, whilst less exciting, should be constantly considered. And there is also the argument that sustainable and ethical design, passionate or not, is design for change. For me it is this sway towards these priorities that is the real change, not a short-lived passion.

As the Chair of the jury, Stephen Bayley suggests ‘Never more than this year: there’s a strong sense of austerity, responsibility and realism here. 2011 will be remembered for thoughtfulness rather than exuberance.’ Perhaps it is a trend, and 2012 will be remembered for something entirely different, but one would hope it is a taste of the future direction of design. Whilst I will welcome exuberance back with open arms, hopefully it will return with the same thoughtfulness that this year has displayed. 

Written by Haroun Al-Shaater
Date: 14 03 2011

There's a myth in communications. The myth is that you need to make information easy to understand because people are lazy. You might wonder what the problem with this myth is as making information easy to understand is a good thing, right? Well, although there isn't a problem with making information easy to understand, there is a problem with thinking that it is a cure for 'lazy' people. If someone doesn’t interact with your brand there is more at play than just laziness.

Psychologists have shown us that the decisions we make are firstly at an emotional level and then ratified at a logical level. This means we are programmed to look for something that is deeper than most offerings by brand owners. It's similar to the way we see faces in clouds, we want to make a connection beyond what we can see.

If that’s true, seeing people as lazy doesn’t just cause a moral dilemma, it causes a marketing one. I think that people want to be engaged not given dumbed down information. If you create information for people who need to be engaged rather than for people who are lazy you begin to understand who your customers are and that’s a different ball game.

The average time someone spends on a website is estimated to be anything from 30 to 56 seconds [depending on what research you take as accurate]. Although this information isn't new, it's amazing how many times we fail to remember it. Most people don’t spend long digesting information. I know I don’t. It's not because I'm lazy it's because I'm looking for a connection. If I can find a connection I will invest time in the service/ product/ website. If I cannot find a connection then I will move on. This behavior is actually the antithesis of lazy behavior. If someone searches and looks at a range of providers for a service or product that's actually making a proactive attempt to research. The brands that stay with me are the ones that have made that connection.

So how do you make the connection? You need to know why you exist and to be bold enough to say why. If you are in the business of being the cheapest then that's what your brand is about, that's the connection you make. But what if you compete on something else? For brands within the ethical space their existence is linked to their ability to create and harness connections that go beyond price.

Ethical brands arguably deliver a choice to the consumer that is actively being sought as we look for this connection. It’s true that at some level price will be a factor but if we can understand what the premium is for a company that competes on other emotive triggers then we can create a longer, stronger connection. This should be the business of the ethical brand manager.

Don't dumb down, be brave and compete on the ground that you were intended to. 

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 28 02 2011

I remember when I used to wait for a train on the London Underground as a student back in the Nineties. As with today, the announcer would inform the commuters of the lines that had disruptions on them within the Network. The District line was suspended or their was an electrical fault on the Central line. The information was crucial to journey planning. Then one day the messages changed. As well as being kept informed of the 'problems' on the line, the announcer started to tell us what was right with the Network. Announcements proclaiming that there was a good service on the Underground Network would punctuate the air. Someone, somewhere within the organisation realised that ALL the messages up to that point had been negative.

Whilst these negative messages were accurate and appreciated (especially if the line you planned to travel on was not affected) they didn't instill much confidence. After all, if all you hear about something is that it doesn't work, you begin to think it's a bit crap. It did however instill a sense of trust. It meant that you could rely on the objectivity of the information even though you may have felt the network was crumbling before you.

Since then, London Transport has done even more to be transparent about their service. Drivers now keep us informed of the signaling issues whilst we wait between stations.

The original lesson learned by London Transport and subsequently by other brand managers is sometimes the driving force behind declaring the good aspects of ones organisation. It is important to instill confidence in what we do. That is, however, only part of the picture.

The lesson that must be remembered is that you can also instill trust by having the systems in place to alert your staff or customers of what is wrong. Not enough brand communications managers tell of what is wrong first. There are 'sandwich' techniques for this where you place the negative message in between two positive ones.

I believe that to be a truly transparent brand you have to explain what is wrong sometimes even before you tell of what is right. That's the kind of culture that will strive to be more customer focussed. That's the kind of culture where trust is earned and confidence is built. That’s the kind of brand that can, on a good day, say ‘there is a good service on all lines’ and the message will be believed.

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 03 02 2011

A recent Today programme on Radio 4 (13th January) highlighted a piece of research promoted by Jonah Lehrer within Wired magazine that claimed that it is easier to remember information that is difficult to read than it is to remember information that is easy to read. In other words non fluid fonts such as Comic Sans were better in terms of information retention than the likes of Helvetica. The idea is that the brain works harder to decipher what's going on and thus retains more of the content. Dr Lehrer claimed that the new research went against the history of typography which was to create clearer fonts.

There are three reasons why this information is interesting at a brand level.

Firstly, we know that children can read familiar words in unfamiliar typefaces (research conducted by Vera Coghil in 1979) we also know from further research by Coghill that children can read text in both serif and sans serif text with no apparent difference in legibility. Assuming it does not lead to a great loss of comprehension, can we then assume that this could be a new technique to get children to absorb larger, complex chunks of information? The ultimate challenge would obviously be to keep the typefaces ‘intriguing’ by rotating them because as the child became used to it the brain would not need to work as hard. The natural progression would be to then ask how does this apply to adults - a marketing message could run the risk of being ignored if not comprehended but there would surely be a percentage of take up by those who were intrigued.

Secondly, I question whether this does actually go against the grain of typographic design as assumed on the radio programme. There is a huge difference between clear public information which needs to be quickly processed (road signs for example) and an annual report which is transient. Most designers understand that they need to traverse both legibility and style to capture the imagination of the reader.

Thirdly, I wonder about the ethical application of this information. Is it right to make things harder to read so that it is remembered? How much information do we really need to remember and how much is transient and not very important. Should brand owners be clambering to 'mash up' their messages. Some would argue that this is an approach already used by some marketing execs.

The research will certainly enthuse a debate amongst brand owners and marketing folk and I'm sure it will be responsible for more research. For now though we need to keep things simple and memorable which may mean keeping people awake with arresting techniques such as post modernist fonts - but of course, the public are never that far behind and what was new will quickly become the norm leading to ever more complex messaging conventions.

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 20 01 2011

The almost deafening buzz around social media has become so inescapable it feels we’ll be left with a ringing in our ears well into the new decade. And it seems that many brands have enthusiastically discovered this low-cost way of gaining exposure and perpetuating their brand image. However, I’m left wondering how much thought is given to the tone of voice, before hitting return and sending another tweet or status into the ever-rising ocean of information. 

Social media is, in the larger part, about individuals engaging in dialogue and sharing personal information in a conversational way. It is easy for individuals to connect and to gain an idea of each other’s personality. However the idea of interacting with a faceless brand is more difficult, what personal information can a brand share? Equally what information do people want to share with a brand?

Perhaps it is necessary for brands to work harder on their personality.

One approach, adopted by Starbucks (@Starbucks) on Twitter, is to be personified in the form of Brad, who has such regular coffees with friends it’s a surprise he manages to sleep at all. With 1,186,359 followers (and counting) it seems the technique of interacting as a person works well for them.

Conversely, Whole Foods Market (@WholeFoods) is a brand whose ‘tweeter’ is anonymous, yet they have near to 2 million followers. The page advertises itself as a resource for customer questions, though only during working hours, which reminds the follower that this is work, not enjoyment. However their success seems to be in pairing direct responses and conversations with users and potential customers with expert recommendations such as recipes and guidance; all delivered in a casual yet informed tone of voice. Their Twitter account becomes both a resource and a friend to many users.

There is one charity that stands out for its original use of personality. Prostate Research have created an account for the late Bob Monkhouse (@Bob_Monkhouse), who died from prostate cancer. His tweets from beyond the grave engage people in conversation whilst occasionally reiterating the organisations message. It is a brilliant combination of celebrity endorsement and use of a human personality to convey a brand’s message, and results in a truly original and memorable Twitter user.

These are not the only organisations giving thought to their personalities, but it is true that the majority of brand owned Twitter pages are much less memorable, entertaining or most importantly representative of their brand values. Whether a brand decides to be a human representation of a brand, a famous figure or just speak as itself, one thing is certain, personality is a must. 

Written by Haroun Al-Shaater
Date: 10 01 2011

I was contacted a few days ago by a PhD student who was researching marketing and brand practices within the third sector. During our telephone exchange we discussed different strategies and brand models that could be adopted by organisations. As our conversation drew to a close I was asked the one question that divides marketing and brand managers within the third sector: should third sector organisations market themselves in the same way that commercial organisations do? I answered with a hesitant yes. My answer wasn't wrong but it's not exactly right either.

The problem is there are a lot of marketing channels that can be used with the assumption that there is a one size fits all marketing strategy. The question is not whether the third sector and the commercial sector should do the same thing but rather what's different between a third sector organisation and a commercial business in terms of its brand.

I believe the answer is simply that commercial businesses strive to obtain the brand credit that third sector organisations can enjoy. Businesses try to give a deeper meaning to their brands through association, for example, Coke will make you feel great or Lynx is the scent for real men which in turn can help you achieve your dreams. This deeper meaning is inherent in brands that do good, whereas it has to be injected post production in commercial brands. After all it's hard to trump helping at a soup kitchen by buying an aftershave in terms of doing good.

How then can this be translated into a brand strategy and ultimately a marketing strategy for third sector organisations? Yes third sector brands need to be as professional and as astute as commercial brands but their visual language and messages can be something different altogether because their reason for existence is different. If that is true, then how they use the traditional channels can also alter marketing strategies and innovate in interesting ways. This is even more poignant as some third Sector organisations strive to be more like commercial organisations while commercial organisations try to give their brand an essence thats more like a third sector brand.

As more and more businesses use third sector techniques to win customers by creating communities and giving a sense of belonging, third sector brands will need to look at conventions that go beyond this. In the next decade the key will lie with the volunteer and their brand experience. Organisations that survive will remember that they are different and will innovate through their relationship with the volunteer – the ability to stimulate from the grass roots up will determine the success of many third sector organisations. 

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 17 12 2010

Knowing when to build a brand and when to enforce a brand is sometimes quite tricky. What is certain is that building and enforcing a brand are two very separate activities that can easily be confused by even the most seasoned brand manager.

Brand enforcement however requires a selfless diligence and a religious like belief in the brand's existence and essence. The brand guardian is, in many ways, the personification of the brand. In the instance where he is required to deliver the verdict as to whether we are on or off brand, he is not talking as himself but as a man possessed by the spirit of the brand. In short you enforce the idea that the bean bag guys have generated by making sure it is joined up, sustainable and on message. 

The question is why is brand building and brand enforcement sometimes not understood. The answer is that brand managers believe that they should always be brand building. In essence this may be correct - if an organisation isn't building it's dying - but brands are a bit cleverer than that. The point is you can't be sitting on the bean bag all of the time, at some point you need the brand message to deliver, at some point you need to enforce to build. 

To do this you need a process that delivers new exciting ideas in a controlled manner. In a way that means that it has been squeezed through the brand enforcement filter. It's hard to enforce and build at the same time so don't. The process needs to have the defined stages if the results are to be tangible and on brand. 

This means that sometimes you need to stop brand building to move forward. One idea may literally have hundreds of permutations as it rattles around an organisation. The last thing you need at that point is a new idea to join it. Knowing how to build on one idea and then enforce it is key to the strategic development of your brand.

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 02 11 2010

A movement by Kiran Bir Sethi calls for more consideration of children when constructing our urban environments and asks for due consideration to be paid to this undervalued group’s input

Based in Ahmedabad, India, A protagonist in every child is an attempt to remodel the way the city works to be more inclusive for young people and looks to the children themselves for the solutions.

The belief behind the movement is that a society’s values are not only transmitted from generation to generation through home life and education but through the structure of our cities - the world we build around us reflects our nature;

‘A city organized for the convenience of the automobile and trivial consumption tells young people more about our real values than anything taught in school’

To counter this, Aproch works with the children to develop initiatives like Street Smart; For one day every month the streets close for traffic and children are allowed to inhabit the streets, set up stalls, create play areas and meet with other members of the community.

I think this is a brilliant example of an inclusive approach to design and there are  strategies here which are transferrable to design work of any nature. How can we go beyond a consideration of the needs of people and directly involve them in the design process? Are we recognising and valuing the innovation of users? How do we confront the diversity of our potential users and engineer solutions that allow for them all?

Most importantly however, the scheme reminds us to maintain a self aware approach to design that consistently checks that we are not reflecting or perpetuating the alienation that our society is capable of.

Written by Nick Ritchie
Date: 20 05 2010

I attended the Green Mondays event last night which tackled the issue of green innovation and disruption. The concept of disruptive innovation has been around for some time, attributed to Harvard professor Clayton Christensen so I suppose the aim was to look at this concept and its relevance to green markets and technology.

Ramon Arratia from a firm called Interface spoke of the need for leadership to deliver true innovation which makes sense, leadership is important in all levels of business. I think though, it was his next statement that made me think. He said that incumbents rarely delivered true innovation and that innovation usually comes when you look at adjacent markets. This concept was echoed by Hugo Spowers, an entrepreneur working in the automotive sector who claimed that that particular sector rarely produced innovation from within.

Does this challenge the idea that organisations should stick to what they know to increase profit and market share? Probably, I think more importantly though, it shows that the investment in new markets and products not only helps organisations move forward, it allows them to innovate existing services and products in ways that were previously unthinkable.

Written by Martin Roach
Date: 11 05 2010