One of the best lines I’ve heard from a CEC member lately was a quote about brand guidelines from their CEO:

“I don’t care what they call us, as long as they call us.” 

It’s not a bad sentiment from executives focused on quarterly profits, but it’s questionable for communicators trying build the long-term value of the brand.

Two issues immediately arise: 1) what’s the point of brand guidelines as long as they “call us”? and 2) if we agree that the brand guidelines have value, then what can Communications do to enforce them—particularly in relatively decentralized organizations?

To the first question, we ultimately need to make an argument that without brand guidelines, they will stop calling us. Perhaps a commenter can share a case study or even academic research that proves this point, but a lot of evidence comes from the definition of the brand itself. CEC research has long held that the best corporate brands drive preference and selection by conveying a differentiated message about a company that is both credible and relevant to stakeholders. A proliferating set of logos, colors, and nomenclature clearly erodes the credibility of that brand message, as (intuitively) it’s hard for many names and images to all represent the same thing.  This also poses a threat to the differentiation conveyed, as a lack of standards can only dilute a brand position already hard enough to keep distinct from those of competitors.

Yet your senior divisional executives will tend to attach to the relevance quotient in arguing for legacy names and/or images. “This is how customers know us” is a common argument made to corporate communicators.  That argument may have carried the day when silos were actively built around product category, customer segment, or geography, but as our customers grow increasingly diverse, global, and networked, silos no longer exist—if they ever did.  For example, a single cohesive set of guidelines would increase the relevance of your brand to a healthcare industry customer in your US division who is now swapping vendor advice with a hospitality industry prospect in your Canadian division over the American Express OPEN Forum. So, standards become fundamental for differentiation, credibility, and relevance—and in the long-term preference and selection from stakeholders.

To the second question, company standards are rarely easy to enforce, and like any compliance issue, the answers typically come down to carrots and sticks.  On the carrot side, I’ve seen some organizations successfully develop brand ambassador networks that appeal to the intrinsically attractive idea of peer-to-peer support. Other organizations have used user-centric brand resource centers, corporate swag, motivational brand talks, and  (most interestingly) co-marketing dollars from a corporate fund to encourage compliance.  That latter idea may also inspire a set of sticks by identifying other types of centralized support from functions such as Recruiting and IT that are contingent upon brand compliance.  It’s reminiscent of how the U.S. federal government can’t quite require states to prevent people under 21 from buying alcohol legally, but they can within hold federal highway dollars to those not in compliance.

This is clearly not an easy problem to solve, but I’m curious to hear if you’ve found other ways to similarly convey and enforce the importance of brand standards at your organization.