When I was a youth I knew all about brands – there was Cadbury’s chocolate, Fry’s chocolate and Nestles Milky Bars. Then came Galaxy and various assorted Mars, Milky Ways, Crunchies, Picnics, Curly Wurlys etc. Oh yes, I knew about brands all right.
These days, of course, the whole brand issue seems to be a lot more complicated. Not least because the marketing boys have made sure that everything and everybody has one.
We have the Olympic brand (if I am allowed to even mention it without being sued) the UK brand, Conservative Party brand, Gordon Brown brand, Russell Brand brand and no doubt even the Church of England brand somewhere. Protection of brand value in a financial as well as ‘image’ dimension is a normal topic of debate.
The railway is caught up in this same brand value and branding exercise – there is no reason why we should escape. Indeed, the railways were one of the earliest exponents of brand promotion, even if they didn’t call it that.
Great Western was unmistakably a brand – likewise LNER. The ‘old’ railways differentiated themselves with all the trappings of branding that we are very familiar with today – colour schemes, lettering styles, logos, all to mark themselves as different, and better, than their competitors.
In nationalised industry days I remember the debates inside Intercity – which became Intercity, which became InterCity – about brand values, criteria, differentiators from ‘the rest’ of BR and ‘design bibles’ to ensure that no-one transgressed.
| 'Defining brand values feels a bit academic and pie in the sky... but the value of it afterwards can be immense' |
We now have private railway companies again, but with the added entertainment that they can swap assets and services from time to time as franchise ownership changes – what sport.
The demise of the GNER brand and the advent of a ‘new’ National Express brand is a classic example of where the branding game is very direct, very obvious and sometimes a bit controversial.
Controversial? Yes definitely – ask any ticket purchaser. The thought that their loot is being used to change colour schemes and logos for the apparent self-aggrandisement of the incoming franchise is not wholly popular. And if these costs are affecting the ‘bid’ price it indirectly is affecting taxpayer funds too – outrageous.
But does it matter? Should we be spending money re-branding? Does the punter give a flying fig about the branding? Well, I think the answer is ‘yes’ to all three.
Firstly, there is no doubt that some brands do have intrinsic value – Richard Branson has made a career and a squillion squids out of applying the word Virgin to any number of things – even trains.
But does it matter with the rather more prosaic and less ‘sexy’ brands? They are all striving to create the value-enhancing brand that some, but not many, achieve.
Whether they are succeeding or not is, in many ways, less relevant than the importance of trying. Defining the brand values and what it stands for is like the ‘vision’ thing – it all feels a bit academic and pie in the sky when you sit down to do it, but the value of it afterwards can be immense.
It is most certainly the case that you can sure as hell feel the lack of vision if it isn’t there, or has disappeared.
The sense of purpose, the coherence, the unity of direction and the alignment of ideas are all important consequences that are felt firstly by the leadership team, then the wider management team, then the staff and ultimately by the customer.
If an organisation isn’t working like this then it is probably disappearing fast in front of your eyes.
So yes, it does matter – the actions taken to try to live up to the ideals set out in the vision and values definitely work in favour of the customer.
But should we, as railway companies, be spending money on this stuff? Well yes, for all the reasons above.
You simply have to create the physical manifestation of what you stand for and you can’t be seen to be pretending to be someone else.
Even after the demise of Connex we found it necessary to apply new branding to South East Trains – to break from the past and re-invigorate the operation.
But wouldn’t customers rather the money was spent making the trains more reliable? They will say so, just like they will tell you that trains are dirty, unpunctual, over-priced and badly managed. But the fact is that the great British public is more acutely aware of brand and its pervasive influence than ever.
As is often the case, it is often the negative that proves it – if you don’t brand and re-brand then your train company will rapidly be described, by those very same customers, as ‘lacking coherence’, ‘hotchpotch’ and ‘second-hand’. All far more damaging in the long run than any flack surrounding the cost of new logos.
So should brands like GNER be preserved and passed on? Of course not. Why would any self-respecting company happily pay to wear the badge of someone else? Show me a self-respecting company that hasn’t addressed its vision and brand values. All definitely for the customers benefit in my book.