kdanish emba thesis final draft
TRANSCRIPT
Imperial College Business School
Imperial College London
DO SOCIAL ENTERPRISES NEED TO BRAND?
INVESTIGATING THE IMPORTANCE OF BRANDING FOR SOCIAL ENTERPRISE
By
Kerem Danish
A report submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the MBA degree and
the Diploma of Imperial College London
December 2009
SYNOPSIS
This project brings together the concept of branding and the social enterprise sector.
More specifically, if and how social enterprise could benefit from a clear, well
planned branding strategy.
The investigation includes a literature review covering both branding and social
enterprise individually and then looks at literature written specifically on branding for
social enterprise, particularly, non-profit organisations and ethical companies. The
literature review is followed by qualitative research; a case study on Cafedirect, the
UK’s leading fair-trade coffee, followed by a qualitative study analysing seven expert
witness interviews from the fields of branding and social enterprise.
The research asks fundamental questions of whether social enterprises understand
and value branding. It also analyses whether or not social enterprises should use
the tools of commercial firms or whether a new set of rules and methods need to be
created.
The research shows that while appreciation for branding and other marketing tools
is increasing by social enterprises, there is still some scepticism. Although, it shows
that social enterprises have some significant differences to traditional firms, they do
not require a new set of rules, but can adopt existing branding methods on a case
by case basis.
It sums up by recommending that social enterprises must make certain that the core
values run throughout the organisation. This will ensure authenticity and credibility,
vital for consumers to trust the brand. These are the fundamental elements to
increasing brand loyalty and thereby create brand equity.
I
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my supervisor Colin Love, EMBA programme Director Ebrahim
Mohammed and the entire ICBS staff for their support and guidance throughout the
MBA course.
Thank you to all who participated in my research. Your input and advice was
invaluable and inspiring.
I would also like to take the opportunity to thank my cohort but particularly my MBA
‘family’ – Emma, Phil, Andrew, Alon, Theresa, Iosifina, Heather, Jeannette, Thomas
and Ziba – for helping me through the tough times and celebrating the good times, I
will never forget them.
A special thanks to my family for their support throughout the two years and
especially to my wife to be, Saba, who has put up with me throughout the last two
years and has been waiting patiently for me to finish.
Finally, to my grandfather, who passed away in September, you will always be
remembered.
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SYNOPSIS...................................................................................................................I
ACKOWLEDGEMENTS..............................................................................................II
TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................III
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................1
1.1 Aims and Objectives..........................................................................................2
2. LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................4
2.1 Branding............................................................................................................4
2.1.1 What Is A Brand?........................................................................................4
2.1.2 Why Do Brands Matter?.............................................................................6
2.1.3 Brand Equity...............................................................................................9
2.1.4 Brand Positioning......................................................................................16
2.1.5 Key Observations.....................................................................................17
2.2 Social Enterprise..............................................................................................18
2.2.1 What Is Social Enterprise?.......................................................................18
2.2.2 Social Enterprise in the UK.......................................................................22
2.3 Branding and Social Enterprise.......................................................................24
2.3.1 Key Observations.....................................................................................30
3. METHODOLOGY..............................................................................................32
3.1 Research Approach.........................................................................................32
3.2 Literature Review.............................................................................................33
3.2.1 Branding...................................................................................................33
3.2.2 Social Enterprise.......................................................................................33
3.2.3 Branding of Social Enterprise...................................................................34
3.3 Qualitative Research.......................................................................................34
III
3.3.1 Case Study...............................................................................................34
3.3.2 Expert Witness Interviews........................................................................36
4. CASE STUDY - Cafédirect................................................................................38
4.1 Background......................................................................................................38
4.2 Products...........................................................................................................39
4.3 Brand Values...................................................................................................40
4.4 The Consumer-Based Brand Equity Model.....................................................41
4.5 Key Observations............................................................................................49
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION...............................................................51
5.1 Analysis of Expert Witness Interviews.............................................................51
5.2 Key Observations............................................................................................58
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS....................................................59
6.1 Summary and Conclusions..............................................................................59
6.2 Recommendations...........................................................................................64
6.3 Reflections.......................................................................................................66
7. REFERENCES.....................................................................................................67
8. APPENDICES..........................................................................................................i
Appendix 1: Online Survey posting on Cafedirect’s Facebook fan page..................i
Appendix 2: Cafedirect Online Survey questions and results..................................ii
Appendix 3: Cafedirect Interview Questions...........................................................vi
Appendix 4: List of seven expert interviews...........................................................vii
Appendix 5: Expert Witness Interview Questions..................................................viii
Appendix 6: Evolution of Cafedirect’s brand packaging..........................................ix
IV
1. INTRODUCTION
“Once upon a time, branding was something that cowboys did to identify their
cattle…Today the word is part of our everyday language, and we now rely on
branding to help us choose between different products and services” (The Social
Enterprise Partnership)
It is clear today that branding has an important, some may argue vital, role in our
consumer market. Apart from allowing us to differentiate one product from another,
it enables us to make informed purchase decisions, reduce the time making them
and creates a bond of trust between consumer and brand. For the firms, it acts as a
source of intellectual property, creates an identity and crucially, brand loyalty which
maintains sales and increases value and equity to the brand.
Some have argued that the proliferation of brands and their symbols have decayed
society (Klein, 2000), but nonetheless, in an age of consumerism, for businesses,
whether they are small or medium sized enterprises (SME’s) or large multi-national
firms, commercial or social enterprises, there is no better strategy to increase their
awareness or promote their causes.
One significant paradigm shift occurring in the last twenty years is the rise of
awareness for social and environmental causes; citizens of the planet are asking
serious questions about our health, poverty, well-being, and environment. Social
enterprises have been filling the vacuum left by traditional enterprises to encourage
and enable those who want to make a difference. As Kim Alter of Virtue Ventures
LLC put it:
“The growing practice of social enterprise is fuelled by non-profit organisations’
quest for sustainability, particularly in current times when support from traditional,
philanthropic, and government sources is declining and competition for available
funds is increasing” (Alter, 2007, p.1).
Traditional commercial firms have certainly embraced the value of branding and
believe that by focussing on a good brand strategy it will increase the firm’s brand
awareness leading to financial success and brand equity. However, it is evident that
only a few firms from the third sector (sector of the economy which includes
1
charities, non-profit organisations and social enterprises) have taken a cue and
successfully utilised key branding strategies.
Why has this been the case? Some believe the reason for such a low uptake is
simply the financial burden of a branding project, a problem traditional SME’s have,
but more so social enterprises due to limited funds and a greater number of
stakeholders. Others argue it’s an attitudinal issue, an arrogant belief that their
cause should be reason enough for consumers to engage. Or it’s simply as a result
of cynicism of using ‘corporate tools.’ Whatever the reason, many social enterprises
have lacked a clear strategy to convey their values, goals and missions. In fact, it is
suggested that social enterprises should pay more attention to their brand than
commercial firms because of the social and environmental implications.
Furthermore, the very nature of these organisations gives them an advantage in
creating powerful brands that people could support because their ethos and mission
can potentially be very evocative (Deatherage, 2009).
This investigation will look at some of the key issues with branding social enterprises
today and look at how successful social enterprise brands have adopted it. The
findings will culminate in recommendations for other enterprises to adopt.
1.1 Aims and Objectives
.The aim of this research is in five parts:
1. To review the concept of branding and analyse ways of building brand equity
2. Understand the complex dynamics of social enterprise and their aims and
objectives
3. Investigate the relationship between branding and social enterprise
4. Investigate successful social enterprise brands
5. Use the investigation to provide guidance and recommendations to social
enterprises
2
This will be done in a five stage process:
1. Branding literature review; branding scholars including Aaker and Keller will
be critically analysed to ascertain what branding is and what strategies
successful brands are using
2. A review of social enterprise will be made to establish how they operate and
what their goals are
3. A literature review on the relationship between branding and social
enterprise
4. A case study on Cafedirect to analyse their branding strategy
5. Primary research to investigate key issues of branding for social enterprise
Key research questions:
1. What is branding and brand equity? How important are they?
2. What are the goals and objectives of social enterprises?
3. Can brand management help social enterprises and If so, how?
4. Is branding more or less important for social enterprises?
5. Are there any differences in branding strategy for traditional and
social enterprises?
6. What lessons can be learnt from successful examples of branding for
social enterprises?
3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Branding
2.1.1 What Is A Brand?
“A brand is only a brand when it is in somebody else’s mind”
Thomas Gad
The concept of branding is about as old as man can remember, and branding
principles apply to about everything that bears a name: products, companies, states
and nations, celebrities, politicians, families (Grimaldi, 2001). Originally, the
motivation for branding was for craftsmen and others to identify the fruits of their
labour so that customers could easily recognise them (Keller, 2008). In ancient
times, it was common to find stonemason and pottery marks on products to identify
the source, while customers looked for the stamps of reliable potters as a guide to
quality (Keller, 2008). Today, consumers still look at the products mark or brand for
a sign of quality.
According to the American Marketing Association (AMA), a brand is a “name, term,
sign, symbol, or design, or a combination of them, intended to identify the goods and
services of one seller or group of sellers and to differentiate them from those of
competition” (Keller, 2008, p.2).
Scholars believe however that this definition is oversimplifying something that is
both psychological as well as something which is simply a new name or logo. Keller
states that “many practicing managers refer to a brand as more than that – as
something that has actually created a certain amount of awareness, reputation,
prominence, and so on in the market place” (Keller, 2008, p.2). He goes on to
describe the idea that these two varying definitions can be signified simply by using
different cases – a lower cased brand to represent AMA’s definition and Brand for
the industry’s concept of the definition (Keller, 2008).
For a product or service to stand out from its competitors, it can use the power of its
brand to add value above its core features or basic attributes; in essence, the
intangible elements which can be based on emotion. This is what differentiates a
brand from a product. “A product is anything we can offer to a market for attention,
4
acquisition, use, or consumption that might satisfy a need or want” (Keller, 2008,
p.3). Simply explained, there are three fundamental layers of meaning for a product:
1) The Core layer - fundamental want or need consumer satisfies with that product
2) The Expected Layer – set of attributes or characteristics that consumers expect
and agree to when they purchase a product
3) The Augmented Layer – the additional product attributes, benefits or related
services that distinguish the product from competitors
Figure 1 – Brand’s Dimension of Differentiation, Omar Merlo, Imperial College MBA,
Brand Management Elective
The diagram above illustrates that in most markets, competition between firms occur
as you get to the augmented layer because most firms can build adequate products
at the expected product level (Keller, 2008, p.3). Competition occurs not at the
product but at the value added stage, e.g. advertising, services etc (Keller, 2008).
“A brand is therefore more than a product, because it can have dimensions that
differentiate it in some way from other products designed to satisfy the same need”
(Keller, 2008, p.5). As Stephen King of WPP Group once said very eloquently:
“A product is something that is made in a factory; a brand is something that is
bought by a customer. A product can be copied by a competitor; a brand is unique.
A product can be quickly outdated; a successful brand is timeless.” (Aaker, 1991,
p.1)
5
2.1.2 Why Do Brands Matter?
It is clear branding is important to differentiate one product from another, but there
are many other advantages, both from the consumer’s perspective as well as the
firm’s. The combined effect creates the value to the brand.
For the consumer
To consumers, the brand has a function on a number of different levels. They
identify the manufacturer or source of the product; they allow consumers to assign
responsibility to a particular manufacturer (Keller, 2008, p.6). Keller summarises
seven reasons how brands are important for consumers:
1. Signal of quality
2. A risk reducer (functional, physical, financial, social, psychological or time
risks)
3. Search cost reducer
4. Identification of source of product
5. Assignment of responsibility to product maker
6. Symbolic device
7. Promise, bond, or pact with producer
Take for example ‘search cost reducer’ which improves consumer interaction; if you
know and trust the brand, you would be more inclined to think less at the point of
purchase, therefore, simplifying the decision making, reducing engagement and
lowering search costs and speeding up the process. This in itself increases loyalty
as a result of past experiences and interactions with the brand. For ‘promise, bond
or pact’ the impact is deeper and more psychological; as Keller put it “consumers
offer their trust and loyalty with the implicit understanding that the brand will behave
in certain ways and provide them with utility” (Keller, 2008, p.8). Therefore, if the
brand does not ‘fail’ the consumer in any attribute or desired want or need from the
product, then a relationship or bond can grow between them.
Keller points out that the utility can certainly be symbolic as well as functional,
“allowing consumers to project their self-image” (Keller, 2008, p.8). Brands become 6
associated with different types of people with different values attached to them. To
understand this further, one needs to investigate the concepts of consumer
behaviour; an area which in itself is worthy of its own research, but is appropriate to
briefly explain some key elements.
How consumers make decisions is a “…question at the core of much marketing
examination over the past sixty or seventy years” (Richarme, 2005, p.1) and one of
much importance (Bettman et al, 1991).
Take a look at a typical consumer behaviour model:
Figure 2 – Consumer Behaviour Model, Omar Merlo, MBA Elective, Brand
Management
Illustrated are some of the typical behavioural patterns of a decision making
process, and the elements which affect choices and outcomes. The important thing
to note is that consumers are influenced my many factors, such as attitudes,
opinions and perception of the consumer, along with external influences such as
peer groups, culture and marketing activities of the firm such as advertising. The
importance of consumer research, to understand behaviour, according to Keller,
“has perhaps never been higher as managers struggle to adapt to a fast-changing
marketing environment, characterised by savvier consumers and increased
7
competition, as well as the decreased effectiveness of traditional marketing tactics”
(Keller, 2003, p.595).
Kuksov (2006) shares Keller’s view, pointing out that in addition to the functional
benefits of branding, such as product origin or characteristic identifying, he points
out that elements of branding such as brand images are increasingly used as forms
of personal statements and cites the literature of Marketing News in 2003 as
example:
“The vast majority of Americans feel that at least some of the things they own or do
say something about who they are. A majority also feel that the causes they care
about (65 percent), what they wear (60 percent), and the car they drive (53 percent)
says something about who they are” (Kuksov, 2006, p.1634).
Therefore, to understand the importance of branding, we must analyse closely
consumer motivations and behaviour.
For the firm
For many, the brand value of the firm can make up the majority of its firm’s value
(table 1). This intangible valuation based on brand equity can add billions to the firm
and the shareholders value. For example, Interbrand’s 2009 brand value rankings
rank Coca-Cola number one with a brand value of $68.7 Billion (Interbrand website)
or 52% of the firm’s market capitalisation of $132 billion, as at December 2009
(Google Finance).
Keller attributes six occasions where a brand adds value to a firm:
1. Identification to simplify handling and tracing
2. Legally protecting unique features
3. Signal of quality level to satisfy customers
4. Endowing products with unique associations
5. Source of competitive advantage
6. Source of financial returns
8
Successful brands, like Coca-Cola, have managed to utilise the value of the brand in
all six instances, for example, securing competitive advantage as consumers have
grown up with them (Keller, 2008). Intellectual property rights also add an intangible
value to the brand, and quality and unique associations both differentiate the
product which improves brand loyalty which in turn, provides security and
predictability for the firm creating barriers of entry for other firms to enter the market
(Keller, 2008).
Table 1 – Relative importance of brands and other assets. Source - Shareholder
value based brand strategies, Peter Doyle
2.1.3 Brand Equity
One of the most popular concepts to arise in the 1980’s was brand equity (Keller,
2008, p.37). Consequentially, there are a myriad of scholars who have investigated
what it is and how it can be used. In general there are three perspectives: financial,
customer-based and a combined perspective (Kim et al, 2004). Fill (2002) for
example simply describes brand equity as a measure of a number of different
elements including core associations, images, beliefs that consumers have about a
brand; while Wood (2000) sees it simply as companies seeking to establish a long-
term relationship with their customers. Simon and Sullivan (1993) take a purely
financial approach and define brand equity as the “incremental cash flows which
accrue to branded products over and above the cash flows which would result from
the sale of unbranded products” (Simon et al, 1993, p.29).
Aaker (1991) and Keller (2008) take a customer-based approach; Aaker describes
brand equity as a “set of brand assets and liabilities linked to a brand, its name and
9
symbol, that add to or subtract from the value provided by a product or service to a
firm and/or to that firm’s customers” (Aaker, 1991, p.15). For Keller, Brand Equity is
“the differential effect that brand knowledge has on consumer response to the
marketing of that brand” (Keller, 2008, p.48).
Dyson et al (1996) combines the financial and customer-based perspective to create
the ‘Consumer value model’ to “bridge[s] the gap between the intangible perceptions
of a brand and the revenues realised from it” (Dyson et al, 1996, p.10). For Dyson
et al, a brand can command a price based on how it is perceived by the consumer
and attitudes towards the brand affect whether or not they continue to by it. By
predicting transactions, they could identify and measured the value of brand
associations.
It is evident from the literature that there are a number of themes that often make it
difficult for scholars and brand consultants to agree on strategies. For the purposes
of this research however, I shall review in depth the concepts of brand equity from
Aaker and Keller’s Customer-based perspective.
Aaker’s interpretation sees the assets to brand equity broken down in the following
four concepts:
1. Brand Loyalty
2. Brand Awareness
3. Perceived Quality
4. Brand Associations
10
The relationship of these four categories and how they create value are illustrated
below:
Figure 3 – Managing Brand Equity. Source - Capitalising on the value of a Brand,
David Aaker
The seventeen elements of brand value creation which are borne out of the five
categories are relatively self explanatory. For example, if the brand has a perceived
quality, consumers will be more inclined to accept a price premium for the product.
Although for other scholars, perceived quality is just another brand association,
Aaker, elevates it to the status of a brand asset in his brand equity model (Aaker,
2002). He has three reasons for this:
1. Only perceived quality has been shown to drive financial performance
2. It is often a major, if not the principal, strategic thrust of the business
3. It is linked to and often drives other aspects of how a brand is perceived
Aaker’s strong belief is that “perceived quality will directly influence purchase
decisions and brand loyalty, especially when a buyer is not motivated or able to
conduct a detailed analysis” (Aaker, 1991, p.19).
11
Keller’s interpretation of brand equity takes a similar line, introducing the idea of the
Customer-Based Brand Equity (CBBE) Model. He believes that there are three
key ingredients to the definition:
1. Differential effect
2. Brand knowledge
3. Consumer response to marketing
Thus, brand equity is created if consumers respond differently from one another.
After all, if no differences occur, the product is simply a generic product and the
market would compete simply on price. What’s key in this concept is that the
differences in response are as a consequence of consumers’ knowledge about the
brand (Keller, 2008, p.49), “that is, what they have learned, felt, seen and heard
about the brand as a result of their experience over time” (Keller, 2008, p.49). The
various responses which constitute the brand equity “are reflected in perceptions,
preferences and behaviour [which] relate to all aspects of brand marketing” (Keller,
2008, p.49).
For generating brand knowledge there are two key elements: Brand Awareness and
Brand Image.
Brand Awareness
Building brand awareness refers to the customers’ ability to recall and recognize the
brand (Keller, 2008; Aaker, 1991). The firm’s goal is to create an association to the
name, logo or symbol. It is generally believed that this awareness is distinguished in
terms of two key dimensions (Keller, 2008):
1. Depth of the brand – how easily the brand is recalled or recognised
2. Breadth of the brand – the range of purchase and consumption scenarios in
which the brand comes to mind
Brand recognition is related to the idea that a consumer can confirm prior exposure
to the brand and brand recall is the unaided retrieval of the brand from memory
(Keller, 2008). The key issue here is consumer decisions at the point of purchase;
brand recognition is important if many consumers make the decision then, where the
brand name, logo and packaging are physically present. But if the decisions are
12
made away from the point of purchase, brand recall is more important, for example
for online brands and services.
Firms can create awareness by increasing the frequency that a consumer
experiences the brand; by hearing, seeing or thinking it; in doing so, the more likely
the consumer is to register the brand to memory (Keller, 2008). Typical strategies
include advertising, promotion, sponsorship, product placement. To aid the ease to
which a brand can be remembered, using distinctive logo’s or symbols, along with a
brand name and distinct colour scheme and slogans.
Brand Image
Although an important concept, it has been difficult for all marketers to agree on how
to measure it (Keller, 2008). But one generally accepted view is that brand image
“is [the] consumers perceptions about a brand, as reflected by the brand
associations held in consumer memory” (Keller, 2008, p.51). In other words “the
associations that came to your mind make up the brand image” (Keller 2008, p.52).
Keller uses the example of Apple computers where their marketing campaigns
create associations such as ‘user friendly’, ‘innovative’ ‘cool’ ‘iPod’ ‘apple logo’ in the
minds of consumers. Another example is the Body Shop which created a global
brand without using conventional advertising (Keller, 2008). Instead it created
strong associations with personal care, and environmental concerns, by
concentrating on its natural ingredients, recyclable and simple packaging, point of
sale advertising, staff, sourcing policies, social action program and public relations
programs (Keller, 2008). Both examples show how unique and rich associations are
the real differentiators, making the company more memorable and more
competitive.
How does this relate to the CBBE Model? Well, put simply, “customer-based brand
equity occurs when the consumer has a high level of awareness and familiarity with
the brand and holds some strong, favourable and unique brand associations in
memory” (Keller, 2008, p.53). But how much awareness and image does a firm
need? In some cases awareness alone is enough, particularly for low-involvement
decisions. In other cases, “strength, familiarity, favourability and uniqueness of
brand associations play a critical role in determining the differential response that
makes up brand equity” (Keller, 2008, p.53).
13
Building brand equity
Keller’s CBBE model looks at building a brand as a sequence of steps, each of
which is contingent on successfully achieving the objectives of the previous one
(Keller, 2008):
1. Ensure identification of the brand with customers and an association of the
brand in customers’ minds with a specific class or customer need
2. Firmly establish the totality of brand meaning in the minds of customers by
strategically
3. Elicit the proper customer responses to this brand identification and brand
meaning
4. Convert brand response to create an intense, active loyalty relationship
between customers and brand
To achieve this, Keller devised the CBBE Brand Equity Pyramid made up of six
‘brand building blocks’ with customers (Keller, 2008):
Figure 4 – CBBE Brand Equity Pyramid. Source - Strategic Brand Management, K
Keller, 2008
14
Identity
Meaning
Response
Relationship
Brand ‘salience’ measures the awareness of the brand i.e. how often and how easily
the brand is evoked. A highly salient brand has both depth and breadth of
awareness. Brand ‘performance’ describes how successfully the customers’
functional needs are met. Imagery depends on the “extrinsic properties of the
product or service, including the ways in which the brand attempts to meet
customers’ psychological or social needs” (Keller, 2008, p.65).
As the consumers evaluate the brands performance and imagery they begin to
make personal opinions or brand ‘judgements’ based on factors such as perceived
quality or credibility (in terms of perceived expertise, trustworthiness and likability).
Brand ‘feelings’ are the emotional reactions to a brand. And finally, brand
‘resonance’ which, as Keller describes, is “the extent to which customers feel that
they are ‘in sync’ with the brand” (Keller, 2008, p.72). Loyalty, described as ‘how
often do customers purchase a brand and how much do they purchase’ is vital for a
firms brand value. The lifetime value of behaviourally loyal consumers can be
enormous (Keller, 2008). But this is not necessarily enough for resonance to occur
(Chaudhuri et al, 2001). It does require some personal attachment; we’ve seen
those with a lot of attachment state that they ‘love the brand’ (Keller, 2008). A
sense of community is also vital “in which consumers feel a kinship or affiliation with
other people associated with the brand” (Keller, 2008, p.72). Finally, consumers
need to be engaged, where a consumer is willing to invest time, energy, money and
other resources in the brand, beyond what is expected (Keller, 2008). For example,
by joining a club involved in the activities of the brand. This is becoming more and
more accessible in the digital age where chat rooms and forums are readily
available.
From this brief overview of brand equity from Keller and Aaker’s perspective, it’s
clear that brand awareness, quality, image and loyalty are vital for a successful
brand. The key difference is that they approach it from a slightly different
perspective; where Keller’s ultimate goal is to create brand loyalty, Aaker believes
that brand loyalty has an equal importance with image and perceived quality and
awareness to achieve brand equity. Other commentators highlight that both Keller
and Aaker have a multidimensional perception of brands. Low et al (2000) for
example believe that many of the dimensions seem to be very similar and not gone
through any rigorous testing. Furthermore, somewhat critically, they believe it is
difficult to ascertain whether certain elements such as perceived quality, are in fact
just indicators of brand association rather than separate dimensions of brand 15
associations. Additionally Krishnan et al (2001) believe that Keller’s approach is a
more direct measurement of brand equity compared to that of Aaker who adopts an
indirect measurement. In Keller’s model the value added by the brand to the
product is assessed, compared to Aaker who focuses on the identification of the
potential sources of brand equity.
2.1.4 Brand Positioning
The concepts of brand positioning develops the ideas borne out of understanding
how to build brand equity, or as Keller puts it “it is the heart of marketing strategy…
the act of designing the company’s offer and image so that it occupies a distinct and
valued place in the target customer’s minds” (Keller, 2008, p.98).
According to Aaker, “positioning is closely related to the association and image
concepts except that it implies a frame of reference, the reference point usually
competition” (Aaker, 1992, p.110). This is mirrored in Keller’s CBBE model, where
“deciding on a positioning requires determining a frame of reference (by identifying
the target market and the nature of competition and the ideal points of parity and
points of difference brand associations” (Keller, 2008, p.98 – 99).
Briefly, it is necessary to identify the target market because of the potentially varied
perceptions and preferences consumers may have (Keller, 2008). A tactic to
indentify is market segmentation which “divides the market into distinct groups of
homogenous consumers who have similar needs and consumer behaviour who thus
require similar marketing mixes” (Keller, 2008, p.99). Segmentation takes
knowledge from consumer behaviour studies (mentioned previously) and groups
according to behaviour (loyalty, usage occasion, usage rate), demographic (income,
age, sex, race), psychographic (values, opinions, attitudes and lifestyles) and
geographic (regional, international). This topic alone could be the basis of a thesis,
but suffice it to say, “a brand position does reflect how people perceive a brand.
However, ‘positioning’ or a ‘position strategy’ can also be used to reflect how a firm
is trying to be perceived” (Keller, 2008, p100). In my opinion the brand must
minimise the gap between perception and reality of the brand; only this will mitigate
the risk of losing brand value. Or to put it in another way, if the gap is minimal, the
degree at which brand value will increase will be higher. Checco summed it up very
16
succinctly when saying that “your brand should be your story, not your fairy tale”
(AMA, 2007, p.12). Reis shares Aaker and Keller’s opinion about the critical nature
of positioning, where “marketing used to be about sending out communications but
positioning flipped that. Instead, we have to start with the consumer” (AMA, 2006,
p.8) inferring that the market is won and lost inside the mind of the consumer.
2.1.5 Key Observations
It seems that differentiation of products by creating a strong brand is fundamentally
important and to achieve this, firms must brand their products to add value to what is
often an identical product to their competitors’. Although there are many schools of
thought on how to create and maintain a good brand, there are a plethora of
elements which overlap between them. Certainly, one could research and
investigate branding continuously, as new scholars introduce new methods.
For the basis of this investigation, Keller’s CBBE Model provides a road map for
brand building, and a yard stick to assess progress of a brand, based on a brand’s
identity and values (Keller, 2008). Keller stresses that at the base of brand equity is
awareness and as you go up the pyramid, the strategies to increase that awareness
are clear. Fundamentally, a good brand has good performance. Your product and
organisation must perform to the highest standards possible to encourage
engagement with consumers. Additionally, psychological elements of the brand are
vitally important. Imagery and feelings must evoke the behaviour and attitudes of
the target audience. This will assist in determining a frame of reference i.e.
identifying the target market by conveying the ideal points of parity and difference
and creating favourable judgements on the brand. Finally, we reach the goal, brand
loyalty, where all the efforts of positioning and communication should come to
realisation in the form of loyal customers.
2.2 Social Enterprise17
2.2.1 What Is Social Enterprise?
“Social enterprise has a lengthy private history, but a short public one. Non-profit
organisations have long engaged in income generation and businesses to either
supplement or complement their mission activities” (Alter, 2007, p.1). In recent
times, particularly the last ten years, we have witnessed a proliferation of social
enterprises; from non-profit charities, to fair-trade and ethical brands. Consequently
this has meant that it is a new field of scholarly inquiry (Galera, 2007) which has led
to a lack of clarity in defining what a social enterprise is, where “definitions and
descriptions range a great deal and are themselves worthy of protracted
deliberation” (Dart, 2004, p.413). This view is shared by Galera (2007) who points
out that it is “an ill-defined concept that can take on a variety of meanings, with
considerable differences between countries, that are partially ascribable to the
specific context in which concepts were constructed” (Galera, 2007, p.3). Professor
Spear, at conference held jointly by the OECD LEED programme and the Romanian
government in 2007, explains that social enterprises “include both traditional
organisations that are refashioned by a new dynamic, and newly established entities
that manage to combine a social and an economic dimension...both taking place
inside the third sector and involve organisations that are engaged in various sectors,
including welfare services, work-integration, and the supply of value based good and
services (e.g. fair-trade)” (Galera, 2007, p.4).
In its simplest terms:
“Social enterprises often break with conventional business models to find new and
more sustainable ways of improving the world around them. Wherever there's a
social or environmental need, social enterprises are working on solutions.” (Social
Enterprise Coalition, 2009)
But this definition does not go far enough in elaborating how the business may run,
or how success may be measured for the enterprise. A more detailed definition was
offered by the OECD in 1999:
“Any private activity conducted in the public interest, organised with an
entrepreneurial strategy but whose main purpose is not the maximisation of profit
but the attainment of certain economic and social goals, and which has a capacity of 18
bringing innovative solutions to the problems of social exclusion and
unemployment”. (OECD, 1999, p.10)
Chell (2007) makes the distinction between social and traditional enterprises
explaining that “the current discourse distinguishes social enterprise and the
entrepreneurially led enterprise by the intended outcomes: purportedly not for profit
and ‘for profit’” (Chell, 2007, p.11). Her definition would suggest that these
enterprises prioritise social outcomes at the expense of a surplus (profit) that may
be reinvested to ensure its sustainability, thereby supporting the definition of the
majority of commentators.
In contrast, Dees (1998) has seen that recently, social enterprises are scrambling to
find commercial opportunities for a number of reasons and looking at for-profit
models because “new pro-business zeitgeist has made for profit initiatives more
acceptable” (Dees, 1998, p.3) as well as many leaders are looking to deliver social
goods that do not create a dependency to their constituencies (Dees, 2008).
Linklaters, a UK based Law firm, in a report about social entrepreneurship, point out
that most social enterprises are ‘hybrid organisations’, contrary to both Dees (1998)
and Chell (2007). In other words, “they operate along business lines and may
indeed aim to make a profit, but their primary goal is to promote social change.”
Linklaters also highlight the care in which one defines social enterprise and take into
account the often blurred distinctions between them. Essentially, social enterprise is
about “empowering people who are socially disadvantaged to improve their
financial, social and moral status and well-being” (Linklaters, 2006, p.3).
Clearly it is accepted that the essence of a social enterprise is to tackle social and/or
environmental needs. It is also apparent that recently they are adopting various
business models. Critically however is the misconception that all social enterprises
are non-profit. Venturesome (2008), a social enterprise investment fund based in
the UK, pick up on this point by saying that “within the emerging social investment
market, the same words frequently mean different things to different people.” They
go on to say that “the label ‘social enterprise’ can be especially problematic…in
part…because there is no shared understanding of the underlying business models
beneath the ‘social enterprise’ umbrella.” Because of this confusion, they created
the ‘Three models framework’ to distinguish the three main types of social
enterprise:
19
1. Profit Generator – the trading activity itself is primarily seeking a financial
return only. As such, it is deemed to have no direct social impact. Only after
a profit is made is social impact possible e.g. for profit businesses with CSR
programmes, ‘ethical’ bottled water companies which give a percentage of
their profits to developing charitable projects (e.g. Belu Water, Thirsty
Planet),
2. Trade-Off - the trading activity itself does have direct social impact, but a
balance is struck between generating financial returns and creating social
impact; an increase in social impact is made by decreasing financial returns,
or vice versa. Social impact is integral to the very nature of the enterprise;
even if there is no financial return, there is social impact due to the nature of
the trading activity (e.g. Fair-trade, microfinance institutions)
3. Lock-Step - Trading activity has direct social impact and, social impact
increases or decreases in lock-step and in parallel with financial returns.
Such organisations operate in competitive markets, both with other model
three firms and with substitute products (e.g. cooperatives, wind farms, Abel
& Cole Organic Food, FareShare)
The ‘Social Enterprise Foundation’ (2007), a leading body in the UK categories
social enterprises along similar lines:
1. The social element is the use to which the profit
2. The social element is the purpose of the business (e.g. by providing a fair-
trade product)
3. The social element is the process (e.g. employment for the disadvantaged)
Cleary the social impact of Venturesome’s models two and three are integral to the
business models and therefore are fundamentally different to model one. They will
still have some social impact, despite failing to make a profit, by virtue of their
trading activity. Furthermore, many enterprises can have more than one of the
characteristics for example, a recycling company could employ disadvantaged or
disabled adults helping both people and planet; by having a purpose and process.
20
Internationally, there are numerous well known examples of social enterprises, both
non-profit and for-profit. For example, Grameen Bank is a typical example cited by
many commentators when describing social enterprise. Others examples include
well known charities such as the Red Cross or Oxfam and fair-trade and ethical food
retailers such as the Wholefoods market.
It is clear that social enterprises aim to achieve financial stability to meet their social
objectives. Because of their measures of success, terms of ‘triple bottom line’ or
‘people, planet, profit’ have become synonymous with social enterprises. Overall
however, despite the varied options and definitions, all social enterprises do
converge to the same goals. The IFF in their research in 2005 summed up the
goals of social enterprise as follows:
Figure 5 – Goals of Social Enterprise. Source – FF Research (2005)
Regardless of the specific product or service, adopting a ‘lockstep’ or ‘trade-off’
model (venturesome, 2008), all social enterprises attempt to tackle at least one of
the two main goals either by mitigating poverty or homelessness like the Grameen
bank in Bangladesh or tackling climate change like Greenpeace, or supporting
coffee producers like Cafedirect. Given the rise in social needs in today’s society, it
is quite apt how the importance of social enterprise is summed up by Dart saying
“scholars are reporting that social enterprise is being accorded a status of – if not
quite a panacea – then at least a significantly important emergence in the societal
management of key social needs” (Dart, 2004, p.413).
21
2.2.2 Social Enterprise in the UK
Compared to Europe and the US, the UK has taken special attention to social
enterprise, culminating into a policy framework and the creation of the Social
Enterprise Unit in 2001, now within the Cabinet Office, “with the goals of creating an
enabling environment...making social enterprises better businesses, and
establishing the value of social enterprise” (Galera, 2007, p.5). The official definition
presented by the Department of Trade and Industry in 2002 is:
“A business with primarily social objectives whose surpluses are principally
reinvested for that purpose in the business or in the community, rather than being
driven by the need to maximise profit for shareholders and owners” (DTI, 2002, p.7)
The government’s strategic vision for social enterprise is fivefold:
1. Helping to drive up productivity and competitiveness
2. Contributing to socially inclusive wealth creation
3. Enabling individuals and communities to work towards regenerating their
local neighborhoods
4. Showing new ways to deliver and reform public services
5. Helping to develop an inclusive society and active citizenship
To achieve this the government planned to establish a knowledge base, raising
awareness and recognising success and make social enterprises clearly identified
and trusted (Cabinet Office, 2002). In the UK, it works in four dimensions:
22
Figure 6 – Dimensions of Social Enterprise in the UK. Source – Cabinet Office
(2006)
The results of their initiatives have been promising. In 2005, social enterprises were
divided up as follows:
Figure 7 – UK social enterprise sector, from social enterprises in London – GLA
By 2009 the Cabinet Office estimated 62,000 social enterprises in the UK
contributing £24 billion, a significant proportion to UK output (cabinet office,
website).
23
2.3 Branding and Social Enterprise
“It is only been in the last fifteen or twenty years that academics, practitioners and
donors have been studying and recording cases of non-profits [social enterprises]
adopting market based approaches o achieve their missions” (Alter, 2007, p.1).
Consequentially, little literature has been written about the relationship between
social enterprise and branding. Up until now, scholars have investigated branding
within the non-profit sector and although this lies within the social or third economy,
as discussed in the previous section, non-profit organisations only represent one
model of social enterprise. However, for the purposes of this part of the literature
review, the terms ‘social enterprise’ and ‘non-profit’, ‘ethical brand’ and fair-trade’
can be used interchangeably as the goals and objectives of both are almost
identical.
For social enterprise, a strong brand is fundamentally important; whether it be for
increasing turnover and/or profit, or for successful fund raising for a charity
(Zimmerman, 2008). Social enterprises are competing in a market with many large,
well established commercial entities, often with unlimited resources and marketing
capabilities. Social enterprises on the other hand, have limited resources and are
often trying to help impacted communities and build new markets with a complex
message.
Zimmerman (2008) believes that most organisations are branded passively; i.e. the
opinions are formed almost by accident or from stories heard by volunteers of an
enterprise. He encourages organisations to take on a more active role to create a
brand, by evaluating key areas of the organisation such as the concept, the target
audience, the needs of that audience, what that organisation can offer and how.
In contrast, Quelch (2005) and Kylander et al (2009) believe that a “substantial
differences exist between non-profits and for profits” suggesting that “non-profits
may build brand equity differently than for profit organisations” (Kylander, 2009,
p.58). Oster (1995) points out that, non-profits have five key differentials from a for
profit organisation:
24
1. Organisational culture
2. Human resources
3. Collaborative rather than competitive approaches
4. Complexity of their customers
5. Importance of mission
While this may be true for non-profits, do firms with a triple bottom line such as a fair
trade or ethical firm have the same issues as non-profit? I would agree except with
point three due to the recent increase in competition in the social sector. Laio et al
argue that “competition has less relevance in the non-profit arena, in essence
because demand for goods and services are “insatiable” (Laio et al, 2000, p.254).
Although, as Oxfam or Cancer Research spend thousands on a re-branding
campaign, this would suggest that they too are in a competitive environment, vying
for customers support and donations, particularly during tough economic conditions.
For Zimmerman (2008), it is their brand that their appeal for funds successful.
The general consensus that social enterprises have more stakeholders than
traditional firms is certainly founded; Letts et al (1999) believe that, to manage a
non- profit organisation is more complex due to the broader spectrum of
stakeholders and brand audiences, such as consumers, philanthropists, volunteers
and the government. Oster (1995) points to the fundamental importance of a
mission for a social enterprise; while the mission is indeed important for all types of
enterprises; social enterprises must create ‘trust’ among their consumers through
their mission, as well as motivate staff. Quelch and Laidler-Kylander (2009) share
the views of Oster (1995) and Letts et al (1999) and recognise that social
enterprises have missions and constituencies that add to the complexity of brand
management. They point out that “non-profit brands have a dual objective: the
enhance fundraising and to ensure the implementation of the organisation” (Harvard
Business School, 2005, website) while trust is essential because the reputation of
the non profit is relied upon (Harvard Business School, 2005, website).
Quelch et al also insists that “it is important for any organisation, for profit or non
profit, to know the value of their brand so that they can allocate adequate resources
to nurturing, building, and protecting it. For many non profit organisations and
25
consumer goods companies, their brand is, along with their people, the most
important asset they have” (Harvard Business School, 2005, website).
Deatherage (2009), highlights the lack of knowledge and clarity of branding within
the social enterprise sector, pointing out that during a re-branding project with fairly
large and long-established company, “it was clear that only a handful of people
within the organisation really understood what ‘brand’ is”” (Deatherage, 2009,
website). What is apparent from her experience is that the concept of branding can
be understood, explaining that those involved in non-profit can grasp the Nike brand
for example; however, they fail to understand why a non-profit or social enterprise
needs a brand and crucially, how a brand would benefit them (Deatherage, 2009).
She further elaborates by echoing the ideas of other brand consultants and who
explain that there is a lack of clarity as a result of the absence of a core brand to
connect with consumers (Deatherage, 2009). To summarise her philosophy of
branding for nonprofits, she believes that they can shape their brands by focusing
on the same three elements used by for-profit enterprises: ‘value proposition,
personality and messaging.’
Stifelman, founder of ‘The Change’, a brand strategy agency which works
exclusively with social enterprises supports Deatherage’s idea believing that “in the
non-profit sector, branding frequently falls by the wayside” (Stifelman, 2008,
internet). What was more insightful however was his point on the competitive nature
of the non-profit sector where he points out that he is “…always astonished at these
organisations’ apparent failure to realise that they are competing with one another
for my attention and for my contributions” (Stifelman, 2008, Internet). It seems that
the lack of differentiation in non-profit brands is being overlooked, often due to a
naïve belief that because they have a noble cause, that the audience will be able to
decide for themselves who to support. Frequently, the result of this lack of
differentiation is that no one particular brand will stand out, failing to grasp the
imagination of their intended audience. For Stifelman (2008), social enterprises
should focus on four key areas:
1. Start with the essence of your organisation – analyse your strengths, values,
heritage and principles in order to define who you really are and make that
the basis of your brand
2. Find ways to get the essence of your brand in every element of
communication
26
3. Be consistent – The perception of integrity is a cumulative one based on
multiple impressions. Consistency allows the brand to be identifiable and
trusted and very crucially builds equity
4. Authenticity matters – The intended audience are more likely to contribute
their money and support to brands who obviously ‘live and breathe’ their
mission. To achieve authenticity is the combination of the above three
points: by finding your essence, integrating it into your message and being
consistent
Nissim (2004, internet), a brand management consultant for non-profit organisations
agrees with Stifelman and in his four steps to brand a non-profit organisation he
advises them to:
1. Define their overall brand perception
2. Describe the goal of the brand
3. Create a plan to reach the goal
4. Make sure the brand lives throughout the organisation
What is abundantly clear from professionals and academics is that many are
concerned that social enterprises very frequently fail to see the potential of their
brand. Quelch a highly rated academic on branding from the Harvard Business
School has investigated the relationship between non-profit enterprises and their
brands. In an interview with valuenewnetwork.com about large non-profit
organisations, he points out that “when surveys are conducted that ask people to
indicate their level of trust in these NGO brands, versus, say, for-profit brands such
as major soft drinks or fast food franchises, the non-profits come out way ahead.
This makes them extremely valuable. The problem is many…don’t realise the
veritable gold mine they have at their fingertips, in terms of brand equity” (Quelch,
2007, Internet).
Szmigin et al believe that these brands find themselves in a position where they
need to distinguish and differentiate themselves from others while ensuring that they
meet the functional requirements of customers and their “psychological or
representational needs” (Szmigin et al, 2007, p.398). Although this view has its
detractors arguing against the importance of branding; ‘Anti-branding’ championed
27
by Naomi Klein in her 2000 book ‘no logo’ contests the need for brands, insisting
that brands have become ubiquitous in society and more important than products
(Klein, 2000). In the digital age, anti branders are gaining traction due to the easily
accessible information of brands; consumers want to make different statements, a
more sophisticated one, particularly when in economic downturn, the role and value
of brands is being questioned. However, there seems to be a stronger movement in
favour of branding.
There are a few scholars who advise how to position a social enterprise brand.
Szmigin et al highlights four dimensions “that help the ethical brand cross the divide
between ethical production and consumer acceptance” (Szmigin et al, 2007, p.396):
1. Distinction
Interaction with a social enterprise to derive distinction suggests that value is
created from its consumption. For example, purchasing a fair trade item
requires the customer to pay a price premium or make a greater effort to seek it
out, “whether or not the consumer seeks status gains from such activity, there is
likely to be a degree of social visibility inherent in such behaviour” (Szmigin et
al, p.400). Furthermore, “ethical consumers are often less concerned with the
price of the commodity but look for reassurance that the goods have the
appropriate ethical attribute” (Szmigin et al, p.400). It’s the choice of brand can
reflect lifestyle choices and statements of personal identity as much as prestige
alternatives
2. Hedonism
When choosing an ethical brand or social enterprise service, it can be said that
they are “acting hedonistically both in relation to their feelings and in terms of
the good they may bring to others” (Szmigin et al, p401). In lay persons terms
doing the ‘right thing’ is acceptable if we associate it with feelings of self-
respect, which in turn, gives us a feeling of pleasure (Szmigin et al, 2007). To
illustrate, think of a fair-trade chocolate brand like Divine Chocolate, where
hedonism is more apparent in indulgence products like chocolate, which had a
strap-line ‘It’s time you indulged in some gorgeous chocolate with a clear
conscience” (Szmigin et al, 2007, p.401). So as Szmigin et al put it, “the brand
first encourages consumers to partake in hedonistic pleasure and secondly
28
reminds them of the functional and emotional benefits of making an ethical
purchase.”
3. Love
“There are times when we define ourselves through the love we feel for others”
(Szmigin et al, 2007, p.401). In ethical branding this usually signifies “doing the
right thing for your family” (Szmigin et al, 2007, p.402). For example, the
washing up liquid firm Ecover portrays a man washing up with his child with the
message ‘we made ours an Ecover home.’
4. Aesthetics
Szmigin et al suggest “that the aesthetics dimension is prevalent throughout the
advertising for ethical brands. The producers have [an] understanding that the
goods and the advertising for those goods need to be part of a consumer
culture where the aestheticisation of the everyday is the norm” (Szmigin et al,
2007, p.404). It seems important in Szmigin et al’s view that brands can retain
their authenticity while engendering an aesthetic response from their customers.
Deatherage (2009) agrees with Szmigin et al (2007), and lends from Keller (2008)
and Aaker (1991, 2003) when stressing that to non-profits it is critical they
understand the importance of developing a strong brand and “how [the] brand
literally lives within the minds of your audience” (Deatherage, 2009, internet).
Brands should be the personality of the organisation, and the “sum of all
experiences at all touch points; the gut feeling someone has about your
organisation” (Deatherage, 2009, internet). To do this, Deatherage suggests that by
establishing an emotional connection with consumers, similar to what Apple do, the
brand can be built by its audience, in their minds. Very importantly though, “the very
nature of non-profits gives them an advantage in creating powerful brands that
people want to support” (Deatherage, 2009, internet) a view he shares with Quelch
(2007).
Hall (2007) believes that all ethical branding of this is more important today than
ever before as we shift into a new paradigm of consumer and corporate behaviour
reaching “the environmental and social tipping point, something that confers a huge
responsibility upon marketers and creates, at the same time, a huge opportunity”
29
(Hall, 2007, p.365). Ethical concerns are becoming popular, creating fast growing
consumer trends such as:
1. Healthy Awakening – new generation of mums and others who, due to
health and obesity scares and strong media have ‘woken up. They now
substitute old habits and brands for Innocent, Rachel’s Organic and The
Food Doctor
2. Empathising – Many have moved from a sense of guilt to identification and
solidarity
3. Ethical Badging – Buying ethical because it makes you feel chic, trendy and
noble. Often these brands are of excellent quality and more expensive.
They make a statement by purchasing Green & Black’s, wear the ‘Ethletic’
shoe and buy them on their Red Amex card.
4. EWOL – Ethical Way of Life. Consumers whose almost every aspect is
ethical, from energy saving and recycling to managing their carbon footprint;
they shop at Organic Connections and buy their footwear from Worn Again.
Hall makes the important point that if a brand understands these new consumer
trends, they can begin to start positioning themselves effectively, knowing as a
result the motivations and emotions that these consumers have (Keller, 2008).
2.3.1 Key Observations
It’s clear that the nature of social enterprises has somewhat hindered scholars and
commentators from agreeing the appropriate strategies for branding them. While
you may think that is typical, given that there are a variety of ways to brand a
commercial enterprise, I feel that the attitude of some of the key change agents has
hindered progress. Up until the last few years, a significant number were quite
sceptical to the usefulness of branding, borne out of a lack of knowledge or simple
scepticism and cynicism. However, there seems to be a new breed who have
utilised the traditional market based approaches of marketing a social enterprise,
and have succeeded (Alter 2007), they agree with the views of Zimmerman (2008)
that a brand is fundamentally important.
30
It is important that special attention, on a case by case basis needs to be taken.
Social enterprises have some fundamental differences to traditional commercial
firms, such as, more stakeholders. Nonetheless, these differences are not
significant enough to abandon good branding. In fact, it is because of these
differences that a special attention needs to be given.
Fundamentally, social enterprises have good, endemic values, borne out of their
missions and ethos. It is these values that they must capitalise on to engage
consumers and create awareness. Social enterprises are generally trusted more
than commercial entities (Quelch, 2007), so they have the ability to leverage that
trust. By having a clear and transparent attitude to their organisation, they could
potentially create real brand equity.
From the brand positioning aspect, Szmigin et al (2007) and Hall (2007) analysed
how ethical consumers interact with brands, and explained some of the typical
ethical profiles that now exist (Hall, 2007). It seems that brand image and feelings
(Keller, 2008) are of paramount importance to get into the minds of the consumer
when dealing with social and environmental concerns.
31
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1Research Approach
To suitably investigate the aims, objectives and research questions of this thesis, an
in depth literature review on branding and social enterprise will be complemented by
qualitative research based on a case study and seven semi-structured interviews
with expert witnesses from a branding and/or social enterprise background.
The processes followed for the thesis were as follows:
1. Literature review broken down into three areas:
a. Branding
b. Social Enterprise sector
c. Relationship of both
2. Investigation of suitable firms to analyse the relationship between branding
and social enterprise
3. Investigation of suitable target interviewees for qualitative study
4. Analysis and review of interview results
5. Use findings to conclude on the research questions and offer possible
recommendations for social enterprises
Although the initial research idea was ‘Branding and Social Enterprise’, two topics
which I found of particular interest, the research questions were unknown at the
outset of research. To develop the main research questions, it is often a useful to
begin with one general focus research question that flows from the research idea
(Saunders et al, 2007). That general research questions was, ‘how successful is
branding in the social enterprise sector.’ From this initial idea, a number of more
specific research questions were formulated (see introduction) using what Clough
and Nutbrown call the ‘Russian doll principle.’ This involved, “breaking down the
research questions from the original statement to something which strips away the
complication of layers and obscurities until the very essence – the heart – of the
question can be expressed” (Saunders et al, 2007, p.31).
32
3.2 Literature Review
A literature review based on sources picked during the definition stage will be
carried out. It will be based around the following areas:
Investigating what branding is, how it plays a role for the consumer and the
firm, and how brand equity is created
A review of social enterprise both in general and more specifically in the UK
Analysis of the importance of branding for social enterprise
The following describe methods used for each section:
3.2.1 Branding
Branding has been a topic that has been studied in depth for decades, and hence,
there is an extensive array of books, articles, journals, and recently, online
resources which will be used as a source of information. The main focus will be the
concept of branding and how the most commonly used techniques can be adopted.
There are a vast number of key texts on branding and commonly accepted scholars;
to keep my research relatively narrow, most of it will be based on work by David
Aaker and Kevin Keller, while looking to others for any critical points of view. To
supplement and expand my research, I used well known online databases such as
EBSCO and FACTIVA to access articles and recent press articles on branding. It is
clear that this method is the most appropriate for a research paper of this nature; by
complimenting the most popular text books with more recent articles and journals
found online, I have identified the most common themes and important concepts of
branding used today.
3.2.2 Social Enterprise
Although social enterprises have been around for a while and scholars have been
commentating on them for a number of years, there isn’t an extensive range of
critical reviews readily available via books and journal articles compared to
branding. However, in very recent years there has been a proliferation of online
resources such as websites and blogs dedicated to social enterprises, government 33
resources such as the cabinet office website and blogs by social enterprise
commentators both in the UK and abroad (particularly the US). It will be these that
most of the information related to social enterprise will be used.
3.2.3 Branding of Social Enterprise
Again, due to this research topic being relatively new, there is little literature on the
branding of social enterprise. However, there have been a number of articles
written researching the impact of brand management for non-profit, ethical and fair-
trade brands. As this is the literature review of the social enterprise sector, it is in
my opinion that the term social enterprise can be used as an umbrella term which
includes organisations such as charities, fair trade firms, ethical brands, NGO’s, and
non-profit firms, where all these firms fall within the ‘third sector.’ Therefore, it will
be stressed that the terms ‘ethical brands’, ‘non profit’, ‘fair trade’, will be used to
mean social enterprise for the purposes of this section.
3.3 Qualitative Research
3.3.1 Case Study
As a result of detailed research of the social enterprise branding subject, it was felt
that the best way to show how successful branding has worked was to investigate a
well known social enterprise brand. It became clear that many social enterprise
commentators and bloggers were regularly citing Cafedirect as an example of the
success of the sector, particularly praising the work it has done in the fair-trade
market in the UK and its financial success and impact borne out of it.
Consequentially, a few writers have studied the brand which inspired me to take a
look at it also and to attempt to highlight key areas to their branding strategy.
To structure the study, I adopted Keller’s CBBE model to analyse key elements of
the brand. I felt it most appropriate to use his model as it was taught in the MBA
elective course, ‘brand management’ and formed the basis of my branding literature
review.
34
To compliment it, a quantitative study in the form of an online survey on Cafedirect
was done to investigate any impact the brand has had and to either support or
oppose any judgements made by myself or other commentators.
Online Survey
A tool for descriptive research, I felt a survey to understand some basic attitudes
and opinions of the Cafedirect would benefit my study and support some literature
opinions (Saunders et al, 2007). The choice of questionnaires are usually
influenced by factors such as characteristics of the respondents desired, size of the
sample and number of questions (Saunders et al, 2007). For purposes of this
research, I felt it necessary to achieve a good number of respondents,
approximately 50 plus, but also wanted to ask both known Cafedirect consumers as
well as non users. My approach to target the sample was two-pronged:
1. Survey was posted on Cafedirect’s Facebook fan page (appendix 1)
2. Survey link was sent to Imperial College MBA cohorts
The survey was created via ‘surveymonkey.’ Crucially, the survey was endorsed by
Cafedirect themselves, who are will be reviewing the results of my findings.
The questionnaire was kept to a maximum of nine questions as shorter
questionnaires have higher response rates (Saunders et al, 2007). Surveys were
distributed between the 9th and 11th December. By 16th December 2009, 47
anonymous respondents were recorded. See appendix 2 for questions and full
results.
Of course this method has a number of limitations. Saunders et al (2007) refer to
uninformed responses, where insufficient knowledge will encourage them to guess
an answer. Other limitations could be using MBA students as the sample may be
distorted by a more informed demographic. However, in this particular case, the aim
of the questionnaire was to gain an insight from Cafedirect consumers, which are
the exclusive coffee suppliers at Imperial College. The fear of bias could also be
said to limit the validity of the survey, particularly if targeting known ‘fans’ of a
35
product or service. Once again though, the goal was to understand usage of the
product and the impression users have.
Cafedirect Interview
A semi-structured phone interview was conducted with Jacquie Bance, Cafedirect’s
Marketing Communications Manager on the 23rd December 2009. Interview
questions can be seen in appendix 3.
3.3.2 Expert Witness Interviews
For the purposes of this research, it is believed that the best method to gather
reliable and valid data would be through a set of interviews with industry and
academic experts to obtain primary data and opinion / insight into these two key
topics (Saunders et al, 2007). Once this was decided, different interview methods
were researched to compare the benefits and pitfalls between highly formalised
structured interviews versus semi-structured or unstructured interviews. Given the
candidates and knowing some of their personalities, I felt that semi-structured
interviews would be the most successful form. This would allow the opportunity for
some general and informal conversation which would encourage wider and deeper
analysis.
The importance of the literature review will be apparent at this stage, as it will be the
basis of how I shall form my interviews. The main outcomes from the interviews are
as follows:
1. To test the ideas borne out of the literature review
2. Get opinions from brand consultants and other experts in the field
3. Support any findings from the case study
For this reason, interview questions were based loosely on the main research
questions (see introduction) and case study. It is my opinion that a qualitative
approach to investigate this subject matter is most appropriate as the information
obtained will be from those professionally involved within corporate and social
36
enterprise branding as well as solely from the social enterprise sector, giving me a
far more ‘real time’ perspective of the subjects rather than static opinions from
journals or text books.
The interviews themselves will be based on a set of questions which will allow me to
explore certain areas, but each interview will be treated individually; where
appropriate some questions were either omitted or expanded depending on the
expertise and experience of the interviewee (Saunders et al, 2007). From my initial
approaches to potential candidates, I was very fortunate to get an excellent
response and willingness to participate; out of nine interviewees approached, seven
agreed to participate.
Finally, although it was felt that face-to-face interviews would have been more
successful, unfortunately, due to time restraints and work commitments, all bar one
of the interviews were done either by phone or internet-mediated (one questionnaire
sent by email). Although these types of interviews are perfectly acceptable, it is
clear that they pose particular problems as well as some advantages in certain
circumstances (Saunders et al, 2007). For example, phone interviews may be
unreliable as participants are less willing to engage in an exploratory discussion or
opportunities to witness non-verbal behaviour which can adversely effects your
interpretation on how far pursue a line of questioning (Saunders e al, 2007). Email
interviews pose different issues as respondent could possibly be unwilling to expand
further than simple one line answers. However, both were appropriate in my case
as there was a limited period of time and using this strategy resulted in all
interviewees willing to engage thoroughly, supplying some very rich and insightful
responses.
For the list of expert witnesses please see appendix 4 and questions posed to them
in appendix 5.
4. CASE STUDY - Cafédirect 37
4.1 Background
After the US abandoned the International Coffee Agreement in 1989, coffee prices
plummeted from the minimum of $1.20 guaranteed between 1975 and 1989; often
being sold below the cost of production during the 1990’s (Jeffrey, 2003, Website).
In 2003, figures showed that coffee producers earned on average just 1% of what a
consumer in the developed world pays for a cup of coffee in a coffee shop or 6% of
the retail price of coffee bought in a supermarket (Jeffrey, 2003, website). The
consequences of this were dramatic with massive unemployment and poverty in the
coffee producing nations in central and South America.
Born out of this collapse, in 1991 Cafedirect was created by a joint venture between
Oxfam, Equal Exchange, Traidcraft and Twin Trading which decided to set up a
company “that would bypass the conventional market and buy coffee direct from
disadvantaged growers in developing countries” (Datamonitor, 2008). Cafedirect
gained the fair-trade mark in 1994, the first company in the UK to be certified. By
2004 it executed the UK’s biggest ethical public share issue raising £5 million,
enabling its “grower partners, consumers, employees and founders to own a share
in the company and to be directly connected to each other” (Cafedirect website).
Since 2000, Cafedirect has “invested £3.3 million of its profits directly into
businesses and communities of their growers [based in Africa, Latin America and
Asia] as well as paying more than £13 million over and above the market price of its
raw materials” (Cafedirect website). In 2008, turnover was £22.34 million the most
in their trading history.
38
Figure 8 – Cafedirect turnover 1999 – 2008. Source, Amadeus Database
Cafedirect’s mission is to:
“Change lives and build communities through inspirational, sustainable business.
We focus our social and economic impact in the developing world" (Cafedirect
website)
And while consumer demand for ethical and fair-trade products increases,
Cafedirect continues to see a success in achieving these goals. Through its ‘Gold
Standard’ Policy it is a sustainable enterprise which, through the emphasis on the
quality of Cafedirect products commands premium prices thus providing sufficient
profit to fund producer premiums (Cafedirect website).
4.2 Products
In 1991, Cafedirect’s first organic coffee was launched, capitalising from an increase
of interest of organic products by consumers. In 2001, it introduced its organic tea
range. Today, Cafedirect has a range including ground, roast and instant coffees,
teas and hot chocolates. It has utilised a number of channels to retail their products
from supermarkets and ethical food stores, coffee shop suppliers, branded vending
machines, an online store and its own branded high street coffee shop in Regents
Street, London, UK.
39
Figure 9 – One of the latest ranges from Cafedirect, 2009 (Cafedirect website)
4.3 Brand Values
Cafedirect’s brand values are twofold, based on having a ‘Fair-trade’ and a
‘Quality’ product. Firstly, as already discussed, its fair-trade products are the
foundation of the company ethos. However, the firm understood that being fair-
trade would not be in itself reason enough to encourage consumers to switch from
their loved brands to an ethical brand. Therefore, Cafedirect made it equally as
important to position its brand as a quality product.
What is often too frequently missed is the quality message of fair-trade products, a
fundamental flaw particularly if you are trying to encourage consumers to pay a price
premium over what they are prepared to pay. Without a quality product and making
that aspect clear through branding only a few consumers would be encouraged to
buy in. So how did Cafedirect actually do both? Well, they sum it up very succinctly
on their website:
“[By] working with partnership with small-scale growers around the world gives us
the pick of every crop and our growers a fair price for their harvest. So, we can
produce fair-trade coffee, tea and hot chocolate of the very highest quality.”
40
Through their product and branding strategy it conveyed its message by positioning
the brand on the values of ‘quality’, ‘fair-trade’, ‘taste’ and ‘excellence’.
4.4 The Consumer-Based Brand Equity Model
We know from the literature that you can build a brand using a sequence of steps to
ensure identification of the brand, establish the brand meaning in the minds of the
customers, elicit the proper responses to brand identity and converting the
responses to active loyalty (Keller, 2008). I have chosen Keller's ‘six brand building
blocks’ that make the CBBE equity pyramid to analysis the Cafedirect brand.
One important note to make clear, some elements of the CBBE are more difficult to
analyse than others as access to accurate or up-to-date statistics may be prohibited
due to sensitivity. While Jacquie Bance, Cafedirect’s Marketing Communications
Manager was more than happy to talk to me, some information was not divulged
due to being competitively sensitive.
Salience
While we know how salience is defined (chapter 1), it’s
more difficult to measure in a case study. Intuitively,
through communications such as advertising and social
media, a brand’s awareness increases. When posing this
to Jacque Bance, she explained that typical awareness
strategies included, ‘Friends of Cafedirect’, their official
network of approximately 15,000 members; Facebook and
Twitter are heavily used to reach consumers to inform of
events and receive feedback. They also participate at
events such as the Hay Festival, Thames Festival and Fair-
Trade Fortnight,’ where over 500 events were organised by
friends of Cafedirect around the UK and publicity from fair-
trade and ethical networks, websites and bloggers is
invaluable. She admitted that Cafedirect’s awareness has
certainly improved, along with the fair-trade sector in general. Unfortunately, recent 41
Year Awareness
1998 38%
1999 43%
2000 55%
2001 56%
Table 2 – Prompted
brand awareness.
Source – Taylor
Nelson, 2001,
www.prnewswire.com
brand awareness data could not be provided. Figures publicly available most
recently relate to 2001 (table 2) and awareness of the fair-trade mark is at an all
time high of 72% (Fair-trade Foundation Report). Another strategy to increase
salience, using brand recognition is a distinctive brand logo. Cafedirect’s new logo
(since 2008/2009), is a bright orange sign with the white ‘C & D’ Circle in the middle,
an obvious nod to the strategy taken by brands such as Easyjet, offering a distinct
image differentiating it from other fair-trade coffee brands.
Performance
As the primary influence on customer experience of the brand, the product is at the
heart of brand equity, hence designing and delivering a product that fully satisfies
consumer needs and wants. In fact, numerous studies have shown that high quality
brands tend to perform better financially (Keller, 2008). Jacquie Bance made it clear
that “in the hot beverage market, products are not purchased on an altruistic basis;
coffee consumers demand good quality and taste.” Consequentially, Cafedirect
prides itself in offering as good as, if not better alternative to the leading competitors.
The results are clear. According to Bance, most recent figures place Cafedirect as
the 7th largest coffee brand in the UK, 7th largest tea and 4th largest ‘add milk’ hot
chocolate. They are also the largest fair-trade coffee brand, 2nd largest fair-trade tea
and 4th largest add milk hot chocolate brand.
The results of their focus on taste and quality speak for themselves. In 2008,
Cafedirect won eight prestigious Gold Great Taste Awards such as the coveted
‘three star gold’ award for the organic Mount Elgon gourmet coffee beans. To put
that in perspective, just 72 out of 4753 entries received that award (Cafedirect
website). In July 2009, Cafedirect won a further two awards. But most notably,
Cafedirect was the number one ranked brand out of 2000 in a survey by Millward
Brown in 2007 and it won the 2009 ‘Ethical Business of the year’ at the Triodos
Women in Ethical Business Awards (sources all from Cafedirect website).
42
Figure 10 – Q4 of online survey
In the online survey of 47 respondents, it was clear that taste and quality were the
main reasons why Cafedirect was being chosen. Taste was ranked number one
40% of the time, followed by ‘Quality’ and ‘Fair-trade’ – an indication, at least in this
sample, that consumers prioritise their enjoyment from the brand before any fair-
trade concerns. Interesting also is the relative price inelasticity of Cafedirect, as
price is generally not an important concern; consumers are generally willing to pay
for good quality AND fair-trade.
Brand Imagery
As explained in chapter one, imagery refers to the intangible aspects of the brand,
i.e. the way people think about a brand abstractly (Keller, 2008). Using imagery
either through experience or through advertising, brands attempt to meet customers’
psychological or social needs (Keller, 2008).
It is evident that Cafedirect aim to target consumers based on ‘psychographic
factors (Keller, 2008) which focus on attitude on life and social issues. Taking a look
at some of the advertising Cafedirect have done illustrates the strategies they
adopted.
43
Their original brand message, seen in a guardian newspaper double paged
advertisement in October 1999, set the tone of what was to become their strategy
for a few years. with a main tagline: “Do yourself a favour: discover world fresh
coffees” they attempted to resonate with the target audience by evoking one of
Szmigin et al’s four dimensions of ethical branding, by being “...a form of distinction
confirming the consumer’s superior taste and social status in a similar manner like
the L’Oreal’s campaign slogan ‘because I’m worth it’” (Szmigin, 2007, p.400).
Wright (2004) in her analysis of the campaign stresses that this campaign “leaves
the quality of the product and...[a] distinction offered, as the rationale for fair-trade
purchase” (Wright, p.668).
Cafedirect’s new line of gourmet blends were introduced in the advertisement, the
reader told they tasted so good because “of the special way it works directly in
partnership with coffee producers, linking them with consumers and by making sure
that the growers get a good price for the crop.” Furthermore, with descriptions such
as “just the right balance between sunshine and rainfall” as well as referring to
growers working in “the rich volcanic soils of Mount Kilimanjaro” these descriptions
evoke in the minds of the consumer the quality of production and the care taken by
the farmers for whom you (the consumer) wish to support by buying fair-trade. This
brand positioning clearly aimed to clearly associate the brand to those who pride
themselves with consuming quality products that taste good.
The second element to Cafedirect’s brand values, being ethical, is explicitly
suggested by drawing the audience’s attention to Cafedirect’s fair-trade
accreditation; in fact Cafedirect insisting that it even goes beyond what the mark
requires. Apart from other elements which highlight Cafedirect’s ethical credentials,
an image of a ‘virtuous circle’ made up of six roasted coffee beans can be seen.
This image is supported by text below which explains that ‘the quality of the trading
relationship is linked with the quality of the coffee’ and reminds the reader that fair
trade means better coffee. This is very clever; by interweaving both values together,
it suggests to the consumer that being fair-trade is having quality. Nonetheless, it
also certainly targets consumers who would buy products solely due to its fair-trade
credentials; perhaps those whose profile fits one of Hall’s four types of ethical
consumer (chapter two).
44
It is clear that the initial period of Cafedirect’s imagery was based on getting the
consumer to understand fair-trade. At that time, fair-trade was not commonplace
and hence text rich communications were designed to educate the audience.
Since 2001 however, and as a result of the popularity of fair-trade and increased
competition from private brand fair-trade coffee, Szmigin et al point out that
Cafedirect developed its visual and aesthetic representations alongside mainstream
brands (Szmigin et al, 2008). From the very early examples as illustrated before,
where they adopted a “very explicit message regarding the benefits of producers
and consumers and photographic images of the tea and coffee farmers...” (Szmigin
et al, 2008, p.404) they have moved from the functional approach “to an aesthetic
visualisation that not only expects consumers to be able to read the visual rhetoric,
but also largely expects that the functional values have become integrated into the
consumer’s knowledge of the essential value of the Cafedirect brand” (Szmigin et al,
2008, p.405). This can be seen in a poster depicting earth that has been ploughed
with a naked body hunched in the middle to symbolise a coffee bean. Szmigin
summarises Cafedirect’s evolution in branding as “following a historical precedent of
leveraging their offering in subtle ways to reflect consumer preferences and
understanding of what the brand has to offer while not losing their original
authenticity” (Szmigin et al, 2008, p.405-406).
Cafedirect Re-brand
It is fair to say, that between 2000 and 2005, Cafedirect led the way for ethical
branding in the UK with many other social enterprises inspired by the success of the
brand and starting up their own fair trade products, as well as established food
suppliers and supermarkets starting their own brand fair trade coffee. Sylvie Barr,
Head of Marketing at Cafedirect was aware of growing trend towards more ethical
brands proliferating the shelves of competitors which lead to an increase in
competition:
“...with the increasing number of ethically-labelled and Fair-trade marked products
flooding onto the market, we knew this year that we had to explain to consumers
more about Cafédirect and let them know what makes us different from the rest. If
we didn’t do that, what was there to stop someone choosing an own-label Fair-trade
coffee rather than one of ours?” (Cafedirect website)
45
As a result, Cafedirect were conscious that they had to re-evaluate their identity so
as not to be left behind new entrants and commissioned a series of workshops with
key stakeholders including growers, employees, customers and potential customers.
Three main aspects of their brand were re-affirmed and were borne out of their deep
dive into their brand:
1. Being 100% Fair trade
2. Creating mutually rewarding relationships that start with respect for the
farmer and end with the consumer getting great quality hot drinks
3. Offering people a window into the growers’ world, and a genuine connection
to the way they live and work - a ‘Virtuous circle’.
These key values to the brand were authentic and honest; Cafedirect wanted the
consumer to understand their goals more clearly and engage with its philosophies
and felt that its brand needed to visually differentiate from others.
The result was a new brand imagery and logo and strap line:
In 2008 we saw the ochre and white Cafedirect brand name logo being replaced by
a simple circle made up of the letters C and D representing their virtuous circle. As
Sylvie Barr put it, “We [wanted] this uniqueness to be conveyed in a simple and
graphic way...This new logo visually draws the eye to the centre of the product
where our name is proudly emblazoned.” To complement the logo, a new strap line
was created, one “that would express our unique company values and personality,
and emphasise the impact of our business” – ‘Bringing quality to life’ “embodies
everything we stand for – a way of working that benefits everyone” (Cafedirect
website).
Another significant aspect of their re-branding was to deal with what had been the
result of their own success in growing their range. Over a period of time, the
product line was extended, but the branding was not being kept consistent. It’s clear
that the re-branding which took place between 2005 and 2008 realigned the visual
element of the products. Images of the transformation can be seen in appendix 6.
46
Judgements
It’s clear from this research in social enterprises like Cafedirect, that consumers’
judgements are vital for brands equity. Those judgements based on quality,
credibility, consideration and superiority (Keller 2008) are created based on brand
performance and imagery. In this case, perceived quality evoked by images of the
sustainable growers working in idyllic vistas in South America, coupled with that the
use of strap lines like ‘bringing quality to life,’ has created a sense of quality.
Equally though is the perception of credibility. Cafedirect pride itself on one specific
dimension of credibility – trustworthiness. It is fair to say, that with the increased
awareness of fair-trade and ethical brands, some commercial enterprises have been
guilty of ‘green-washing’ their products to capture the audience of this vastly
emerging market. Some cynics for example would accuse Nestle of this, after
achieving fair-trade accreditation for the Kit-Kat confectionary bar in December
2009. However, true advocates would argue vehemently that Nestlé’s ‘core values’
do not marry with how they are positioning the brand and therefore are not very well
trusted. But according to Jacquie Bance, Cafedirect is seen as a highly trustworthy
brand, borne out of the fact that they are “ethical and social to the core...having a
business model designed and setup geared to being ethical and based on being
transparent, i.e. you can see where the product is coming from and how we help our
producers.”
Feelings
We know that brand feelings are the customers’ emotional responses and reactions
to a brand (Keller, 2008). Keller refers to Kahle et al’s ‘six types of brand feeling’
(mentioned in chapter 2) and it seems that Cafedirect, along with all ethical and/or
fair-trade enterprises, certainly try to evoke feelings of ‘social approval’ and ‘self-
respect’ (Keller, 2008). Many of the text and imagery inspire the audience in feeling
that they are helping others. Jacquie Bance points to the brand new packaging
design this year, which can be seen in figure 9. Here we see images of authentic
tools used by the growers. Additionally, each product has a quote from one of the
growers, with an image on the reverse. This quote is used to try and illustrate the
deep relationship between the growers and Cafedirect as well as the importance of
the relationship, enabling the achievements. We can see that by this positioning,
47
Cafedirect are encouraging you to think that you have an almost direct effect on the
success of the growers, a very powerful feeling, particularly for those who yearn for
“a sense of pride, accomplishment or fulfilment” (Keller, 2008, p.70).
Brand Resonance
We know from the CBBE Model that resonance can be broken down into the four
categories of ‘behavioural loyalty, ‘attitudinal attachment, ‘sense of community’ and
active engagement.’ While it’s difficult to know what loyalty Cafedirect is currently
achieving, due to the sensitivity of the information, it’s clear that it certainly has a
large fan base, who relate to the brand as more than just a hot beverage. How have
they tried to increase their resonance?
Jacquie Bance explained that they try to engage with their customers in many
different ways. For example, using social media such as Facebook and Twitter,
they stay in touch with followers and fans. They have a ‘Friends of Cafedirect’ page
which can be found from their website, from which you can join to receive
newsletters and chat on their forum. They also provide an online toolkit where you
can download recipes, facts, stories about their growers. Although they don’t hire
volunteers to sell its products (like Tradecraft), they do have a network of grass
roots campaigners who spread the word at church fairs and women’s institutes,
using campaign kits supplied by Cafedirect with different themes. In fact, as Jacquie
pointed out to me, it was at local churches where Cafedirect first started its
campaigning.
Brand Extensions
Over the period of since they sold their first Coffee bean, Cafedirect had expanded
their range of SKU’s , selling apart from alternatives to coffee such as tea and hot
chocolate, but alternative coffee’s such as roast, ground and instant. The result of
this product range expansion was that “customers didn’t always grasp that Teadirect
teabags came from the same company as 5065 instant coffee, or Cocodirect
drinking chocolate” (Cafedirect Website). To rectify this common misunderstanding,
the whole product range was repackaged with a uniform design (appendix 6). The
result is the vision Barr wanted, that of “people to understand that we are offering a
48
‘family’ of high quality Fair-trade products, and hopefully encourage someone who
enjoys one of our Cafedirect Roast & Ground coffees to ‘cross-purchase’ another
product from our range.”
To summarise all the elements, Cafedirect’s CBBE Model may look like this:
Figure 11 – Adapted CBBE Model for Cafedirect by Kerem Danish
4.5 Key Observations
Cafedirect has thus far been very conscious of their brand. Since inception, it has
recognised that the key to its success is to get its values and message across to the
target audience. Although at the outset, the message was clearly about ethics and
fair-trade, over time, either because of increase consumer knowledge, or because it
was becoming difficult to sell ethics alone, Cafedirect re-positioned itself
fundamentally as a quality coffee company based on taste and excellence.
In addition, Cafedirect has not remained static, having re-branded when necessary,
usually prompted by external factors such as an increase in competition from private 49
SALIENCE
Awareness increasing year on year. Use of various media outlets
PERFORMANCE
Quality and taste
Profit re-investment
IMAGERY
Ethical/Fair-trade
Quality
JUDGEMENTS
Trust/credible
Provenance
FEELINGS
Social approval
Self-respect
RESONANCE
Loyal fan base
labelled fair-trade. Importantly, this has not meant a superficial change of logo or
colour scheme. It is always innovating its products and introducing new and better
quality, usually after extensive research and market testing. Operational excellence
is seen to be taken very seriously.
Cafedirect has been eager to show us that not all fair-trade is equal, and that it goes
even further to help its growers, giving them a stake in their own business, rather
than just guaranteeing a fair price.
Its tactics in terms of brand positioning is also noteworthy. Certainly, it has not
escaped them that a good brand needs to evoke an emotional connection with the
consumer. Cafedirect has done this in a variety of ways, including advertising and
use of their website to show the impact of the enterprise.
It’s clear that efforts have been fruitful. Awareness has been steadily rising year on
year, as has financial revenue. However, it still faces challenges. By no means is
fair-trade coffee a direct competitor to the established brands, this is certainly
noticeable on the shelves on stores, where often, Cafedirect, along with other fair-
trade brands get relegated to the niche section. Awareness still has a long way to
go, but it seems, they are using the right strategies to improve it. If it does, it will
certainly build on the brand loyalty they have already acquired.
5. DATA ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION50
5.1 Analysis of Expert Witness Interviews
In this section, I will analyse the key responses from eight interviews from brand
consultants and social enterprise experts. All except one of the interviewees were
happy for full disclosure of their name and employer. This candidate will be called
‘anon’ for the purposes of this analysis. Details of interviewees are available in the
methodology section.
A set of interview questions was devised to gain an insight into the key areas of
discussion for this investigation. It is important to note that despite one general line
of investigation, the relationship between branding and social enterprises, identical
sets of questions were not given to all interviewees; adjustments were made to tailor
to the field and experience of each individual, therefore, not all questions were
answered by all interviewees. More often than not, due to the semi-structured
nature of the questions and interview technique, general discussion gave a deeper
insight into related matters. Where comments that were borne out of a
conversation, but not directly as a result of a question, these will be analysed at the
most appropriate juncture. Key observations of all interviews will be summed up at
the end of this section but first, an analysis of the interviews will be done.
Q1. How many of your clients (proportionately) have paid much attention to branding before they’ve worked with you? Do you think they had a good understanding of brand management before taking on a project?
A majority of interviewees commented that it really was “a mixed bag really” as it
was described by one; knowledge (or lack of) would be similar for all enterprises, not
just social enterprises. David Willans pointed out however that it is often the case
that if a client approached them for a project, it was usually because they had
formed some understanding about branding and were seeking out consultants such
as himself at Futerra to assist them. He also admitted that he has been “surprised”
with the number of firms wanting to investigate a brand strategy at an early stage;
this for him indicated a “maturity” of these firms. Some commented that many
51
Initially it was intended to ascertain from the beginning of the interview whether
or not social enterprises have any knowledge or deep understanding about
branding
clients often “thought they knew what branding was” but it was only after some initial
consultation that they truly understood what and how it helps. For Mike Betts of
Better thinking “about 90% have a good understanding, though exact views differ
widely.”
Fiona Myles’ comments relate to her work with the Design Council who have
assisted over 1500 SME’s She believes that a lot of branding is “naïve and trying to
imitate” and sees a lot of “me too branding”, inferring that new entrants try and copy
competitors. However, she did go on to explain that one main reason for this was
the desire to look credible from the outset, and that the best way to do that was to
imitate trusted brands. She noted one exception to that phenomenon, ‘Innocent
drinks’ who are very bold with their brand and do not fear that their positioning is
rather ‘quirky and fun.’ She also point out that many SME’s did not even bother with
branding but “focussed on survival and day to day operations of the business.”
Ben Metz, a social enterprise consultant and former Director of Ashoka UK
commented that social enterprises “fail to see the value of a ‘deep dive’ into
branding….usually basic branding is done at the outset, incorporating things like
name choice, logo and colour scheme.”
Bruce Davis, founder of Zopa.com and a freelance consultant made the most
interesting point regarding perceptions of branding by social enterprises believing
that “…for the most part, social enterprises are held back by the perception that
‘marketing’ is a black art of capitalism rather than understanding brands as part of
the creation of meaning in cultural and social contexts (underpinned by economics –
rather than being materially deterministic).”
Q2. How do you try and educate clients about the value of branding? Do you face much scepticism?
Fiona Myles explained that at the point where she either faced scepticism or
engagement, she would first want to ascertain what success meant to the client;
clearly for her clients (who are not all social enterprises), it almost always boiled
down to financial impact. Therefore she would show some “before and after
evidence of previous clients showing uplift in turnover or profit.” But, she did stress
52
This question was designed to test whether or not any of Aaker or Keller’s
interpretations of the value of branding would be echoed by interviewees
that many of her “clients were simply looking for better awareness or perception of
her brand, not to mention improving internal engagement” which implies that these
clients know that good brand management can help on more than financial levels.
An experience shared with Martin Roach who said that “some just want brand
awareness, but in the long term, financial success is key.” In terms of scepticism, it
wasn’t exclusive to social enterprises; in her experience, business to business,
defence and heavy goods manufacturers are always more sceptical to branding
versus FMCG or service companies.
Ben Metz has a slightly different perspective of the question, but made some valid
comments stating that “it is important to factor in the cost value in relationship to the
point of development of the enterprise.” In other words, one needs to evaluate the
current size and rate of growth of the business in relation to the size of the branding
project being undertaken, stressing that “firms do not grow at a linear rate.” For
Ashoka, they re-branded their company twice in recent years, not for financial gains
but simply for “clarity of message.”
This last point is echoed by anon, who is currently working on the Nike branding
account at his firm. He states that working with Nike means that “we don’t need to
educate them on the value of branding but it is important that we retain a focus on
the company brand values.”
Martin Roach of Epitype commented on the scepticism he has witnessed over the
years, particularly on issues of sustainability and branding. He notes that even
though before there was a certain amount of cynicism, “more people are coming
round to the idea of branding in the third sector.” And as social enterprises are
“adopting business models more similar to the likes of Coca Cola, they now see the
value in using the same marketing tools also.”
In his response, Bruce Davis touches upon the broader and deeper benefits of
branding rather than the superficial level of image, commenting that “people don’t
need educating about the value of brands, but they don’t necessarily understand
how brands create value (whether that is financial or in the mind of the consumer).
Brands are seen in narrow terms of aesthetics or persuasion rather than wider
contexts of exchange and creation of social and cultural capital through practices of
consumption and exchange.”
53
Q3. What are the main barriers for a firm to take on a branding project? (E.g. financial)
All Interviews admitted that the financial cost for a social enterprise and traditional
enterprises is one of the main reasons a branding strategy is not invested in. For
Martin Roach “once they are ‘at the table’, it means that they are interested. If that
client is lost, it is mostly because of the cost or time required to invest.” He went
onto explain that there is a significant amount of “short term-ism” amongst clients,
where they want to see results in a matter of months, but fail to understand that a
good brand strategy can last for two to five years.
But Bruce Davis elaborated more on the psychological barriers some have, borne
out of the lack of knowledge and by tending to “confuse brand identity with brand
strategy; the brand is reduced to an aesthetic problem or creative one rather than
being seen as the driving force behind what the company creates. This is as
relevant to a social enterprise as it is to a conventionally profit motivated
organisation.”
Finally, Mike Betts cited political issues within the organisation are bigger than
financial ones particularly when “different departments and individuals are constantly
vying for power, budgets and influence.”
Q4. Once you’ve been commissioned to a project, what are your first steps – how do you approach the brand in question?
Here, the majority of the interviews had similar responses. For example, anon
explained that he does “a lot of strategic positioning work with a client to establish
key principles and values that the brand aspires to... It enables us to write a creative
brief to work to and anchors the final creative work to a brand truth.” Mike Betts
echoed anon’s strategy almost identically, by outlining a process including
54
This question was designed to find out if there were any other reasons apart
from the financial burden which prevent adoption of a branding project
Here the aim was to see what similarities and differences between the brand
consultants’ initial steps exist
“establishing design (brand) principles.” Fiona Myles also underlines the importance
of understanding “the core idea” by asking the client “what they stand for.”
Q5. Do you approach a project significantly differently depending on their sector or product / service? E.g. FMCG versus Services versus Social Enterprise
The response to this question was very consistent from all of the interviewees, all
explaining that the core strategy for branding a firm whether it be an FMCG or
Service firm, for profit or social enterprise was the same. However, certain elements
of that strategy would be adapted, and more focus attached to a particular element
on a case by case basis; this would also apply even when comparing two firms from
the same sector.
For Fiona Myles, she was quite categorical in her response insisting that “there
would not be a different strategy; all cases still need to focus on clarity of message
for example.” This point of view was mirrored by Mike Betts who stated that “the
sector or industry would affect the dynamics, issues, objectives and outcomes but
the basic process is very similar.”
Ben Metz also referred back to a number of projects he was involved with in the past
where “when any sort of marketing or branding was initiated, he same process and
frameworks were used. For example, taking a look at the core values and how they
marry up with the product and service being offered.”
Q6. Are there any particular elements of branding that are a priority in your opinion?
A number of key points were made at this stage of discussion which led to some
other conversation in general about what branding is all about. To summarise,
these experts believed that a brand needed to be, as Mike Betts puts it “authentic to
the brand and act as a ‘stake in the ground’ for future aspirations and must have
longevity and rigour.” The idea of authenticity was also discussed with Fiona Myles;
55
The was felt to be one of the most important questions of the interview set,
given that it is vital to understand tactics to use for social enterprises
This questions was designed to re-affirm what brand consultants believe are the
fundamental elements for a branding strategy
particularly in the context of brand loyalty where she wanted to make it absolutely
clear that “brands should never promise anything they can’t deliver” so being
authentic and true to their values was paramount. The consequence of this as she
sees it is a build up of trust between consumers and brands. So for example, by
calling themselves ‘innocent drinks’ they are actually forced to be ethical by their
own brand.
Bruce Davis looked at it from a slightly different but interesting angle expressing that
it was “philosophy and internal culture, which in a transparent world of the internet,
they are your brand.”
From the perspective of anon, he felt that “the core values are priority as they sit at
the heart of the business. It is this that will enable a business to have a distinctive
point of view and give fans (consumers) a reason to believe in the brand above and
beyond the products they produce.”
Q7. If you have worked on both traditional (profit maximising) firms and social enterprises:
a. Did you notice a different attitude to branding from the social enterprise?
b. Do they have significantly different objectives to how they want to approach a branding project?
Responses to this question were the most insightful and help clarify the fundamental
concerns regarding possible differences between social enterprises and traditional
firms. Some points were reaffirmed from earlier discussions, such as scepticism by
social enterprises.
However both David Willans and Mike Betts made the almost identical comments
explaining, as Mike put it “there is not as much difference as there used to be ten or
twenty years ago.” To elaborate, David Willans has noticed that the “first wave of
‘green’ products in the 1980s were substandard; quality was sacrificed often
because green firms sold on the emotion of guilt, and those who purchased their
products did not mind to sacrifice quality for ethics.” However, he has seen a strong
paradigm shift where “consumers now want quality and ethical” and theorised that
56
Another key question to understand what, if any, fundamental differences exist
between social enterprises and traditional firms in respect to branding
even for ethical consumers, the minimum level of material wealth (in the context o
quality etc) has risen for these consumers. All this has meant is that ethical brands
have had to position their brand on different or additional values to ‘ethical’ such as
‘quality.’
Fiona Myles and Ben Metz both echoed anon’s summary, believing that “Within the
advertising community (Brands I have worked on), I believe the attitude towards
branding is pretty consistent. All brands want to be emotive and hope that the
material they develop will enhance their brand position. It is hoped that this will
enable them to create an ongoing relationship with consumers that will establish the
consumer as a brand advocate.”
Finally, I felt that Bruce Davis’ point of view was the most intriguing and sums up
very well the essence of what has been and continues to be an issue from the social
enterprises perspective; “Social enterprises tend to tie themselves in knots about
branding. They feel that ‘being a brand’ is important from the point of view of
persuading citizens of the value of their work but they shy away from embracing
what a brand can do for them fully because they feel that their ‘work’ and ‘ethics’
should speak for themselves. This arrogance of attitude is mirrored by commercial
enterprises who take a similar ‘sage on the stage’ attitude when referring to or
talking about the ‘perspective’ of their consumer/customer.”
5.2 Key Observations
57
Many important and interesting observations have borne out of this research.
Cleary knowledge of branding within the social enterprise sector is limited, with a
significant proportion harbouring sceptical and cynical feelings towards it. But, we
are starting to see a proportion that are willing to embrace and utilise some branding
tool, only to be hindered more often than not by the financial implications of it.
However, once passed that obstacle, there is evidence that it can be very helpful.
All the consultants agreed that the fundamental principles and core values are
crucial for a brand, but particularly for a social enterprise. This is borne out of
responses to how a project would be approached. Very importantly, consultants
would not approach a social enterprise branding project fundamentally differently to
a commercial firm’s branding project; all projects are dealt with on a case by case
basis, although most were aware that social enterprises have a few key differences,
such as varied stakeholders and social missions which should be addressed.
In terms of specific areas social enterprises need to consider, authenticity, credibility
and trustworthiness were very critical. And finally, it was obvious that social
enterprises like ethical and fair-trade brands need to offer more than just ethics. It
has clearly been difficult to get awareness, engagement and loyalty from customers.
Where in the past, firm’s survived on targeting niche customers, with the
proliferation of competitors, brands need to give more reasons for consumers to
interact.
6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
58
6.1 Summary and Conclusions
What was immediately apparent is that neither the topics of branding or social
enterprise are straight forward. Independently, both subjects are passionately
debated by scholars and commentators, particularly social enterprise; but once
combined, they create a research area which open to a plethora of interpretations
and still require extensive investigation. By taking a concept of branding which
some may argue has reached a tipping point, with individuals and societies who are
looking for a fresh alternative and putting them together with an idea which is in its
infant stage and supported by change agents truly committed for a worthwhile
cause, you have a potentially explosive marriage of ideologies which could create a
whole new paradigm shift.
Furthermore, at some points along the way, I have discovered new areas of study,
equally as important and interesting, such as consumer behaviour and the fair-trade
industry specifically. Nonetheless, I feel I have successfully uncovered enough to at
least create a base point from which to continue my research and gain expertise in
the topics of discussion in this thesis. Now I shall explain and conclude my findings,
summing up at the end with a set of recommendations based on my conclusions.
Branding
Branding is important; it’s a ‘win-win’ for consumer and firms, connecting and
matching consumers’ wants and needs and firms’ search for growth (Ind, 2005).
For the firm the key to differentiating your product is branding (Keller, 2008; Aaker,
1991; Aaker 1996). Only by attaching intangible values to the firm’s output can it
stand out from its competitors. That intangible value is, to a certain extent, what the
consumer is searching for.
For a good brand, the core values of the firm should run right through from internal
culture to what the target audience experience either in the product or service or its
communication. Therefore an authentic and transparent brand identity is
paramount.
Further underpinning a strong brand is performance of the product or service. If the
brand is to stand up to it’s positioning as a ‘class leader’ or ‘quality’ product, it must
59
actually be of high standard; only then will consumers accept and trust the brand
fully.
The brand must also appeal to the target audience on a psychological dimension.
More often than not, consumers attach an emotional link to a brand; whether it
reminds them of their childhood, or represents a social, cultural or personal
statement, a strong brand usually succeeds in linking feelings between an individual
and a product or service. Ind does not underestimate the power of people’s
emotions believing that “emotion appears from the subconscious mind and it is
absolutely the real reason why brands exist, and will always do” (Ind, 2005, p.151).
If this is the case, then a good brand must take care in investigating with whom it
wants to relate to, and what elements of its brand it should communicate to that
target audience.
Those emotions can be evoked through imagery; a brand can strategically position
itself using communications through advertising or alternative media sources and if
repeated enough can create awareness. Additionally, a brand can extend its
product line to capture more consumers from different demographic or
psychographic groups. The goal is simple however – to achieve brand loyalty –
which Keller (2008) believes is how firms can create real brand equity.
Looking at the different models of creating brand equity. It is evident that there are
some fundamental themes running through all the various concepts. Regardless of
whether you adopt Aaker’s brand equity model, Keller’s CBBE Model, or anyone
else’s for that matter, the key elements mentioned above should not be forgotten or
taken lightly.
Branding for a social enterprise
It was far from simple when it came to defining a social enterprise. Nonetheless,
regardless of the various definitions, and the business models, of which there are
three main models (venturesome, 2008), the one consistency is the over-arching
goals and values of all social enterprises. Whether it is a non-profit charity or a fair-
trade coffee company, they all aim for the betterment of either social or
environmental standards. Social enterprises certainly now and going forward have
60
a very important role to play in communities and societies, evolving from what were
once a group of ‘tree huggers’ to real change agents both locally and globally.
It is abundantly clear from both the literature and from the qualitative studies that
social enterprise has a long way before truly embracing branding. Somewhat
frustratingly, it has only been within the last few years that social entrepreneurs have
prioritised a proper marketing strategy, more often than not, as a direct result of the
rise in competition. Unfortunately, the view that “some researchers have
surprisingly found that many non-profits devote little time, energy, and care to
branding” (Laider-Kylander et al, 2008 p.59) was found to be true, and the number
of writers trying to ‘sell’ branding to social enterprises speaks for itself. I feel that
that there is an opportunity for clarity. It seemed that there were certain
misconceptions of what branding actually means and how it can add value, perhaps
due to a lack of ‘success stories.’ Change agents who understand the opportunity
should do more to promote branding.
It is also my opinion that commentators who claim that there are significantly
fundamental distinctions between traditional and social enterprises are misguided.
While it is fair to say that special care should be taken, this is simply a fact for any
branding exercise, for any firm, in any sector. A case-by-case approach when
branding is always adopted by consultants in the commercial sector, and this should
apply to social enterprise.
The idea that branding is more or less important for social enterprise can be
subjective and dependent on your personal opinions. My findings certainly point to
the fact that it is certainly not less important for social enterprise, as some argue
(Klein, 2000). I do not accept that a firm could succeed purely on the value of being
ethical, fair-trade or a charity; consumers’ need a real reason to engage in the
brand, especially if you are expecting them to pay a premium or donate money.
Social enterprises’ often fail to deliver a lucid and transparent message, which are
vital for a strong brand, something which is paramount for successful fundraising or
support (Quelch, 2007). I agree with Ind, who echoes the views of the expert
witnesses who says that “the concept of intangible value is a well-established one in
our capitalist system, and doesn’t make brands any more suspect or less valid than
any other form of commercial worth” (Ind, 2005, p.66). Furthermore, even if your
product or service is of an excellent standard, how can you educate the target
audience without branding? Whether or not the view taken by Stifelman that
61
branding is more important for social enterprises is still up for debate; but in my
opinion there is no debate when arguing if branding can help social enterprises and
no evidence is clearer than that in Cafedirect’s example.
Having analysed Cafedirect’s strategy, who are a true success story within the third
sector using a fair-trade model, many significant facts came to light. Cafedirect is an
enterprise that brand and re-brand; not remaining static, but adapt its strategy to
keep up with the change in consumer attitudes, competition, and environmental and
social demands. Certainly my analysis was not exhaustive, given the restraints
mentioned earlier, but I feel that I have discovered the fundamental parallels
between the strategy Cafedirect has taken, and the model Keller suggest as crucial
to brand building.
It is clear that a significant part of Cafedirect’s success is as a result of the focus on
the brand. I do not think it would be inappropriate to suggest that what has
distinguished it from many other fair-trade firms and social enterprises was its
recognition of the importance of branding. This was no more clearly illustrated than
in my interview with Jacquie Bance whose pride for the brand was very apparent.
She believed that because Cafedirect successfully represents everything about the
firm; from its internal culture, its social and environmental ethics and its excellence
in quality, it is gaining a significant following and brand awareness. It is because of
a real understanding in the power of branding that they were able to achieve this.
But the cleverest thing was they understood early on that ethics alone would not sell
their coffee. In my research, there were many references to the repeated mistake
that social enterprises believed their worthwhile cause was enough to be successful.
If you take a closer look at the strategy, a number of things stand out. For example,
its core values of quality and ethical behaviour were consistently portrayed in almost
every element, such as the logo, strap line, imagery and language, communication
and internal culture. Because of its authenticity, Cafedirect has nothing to hide.
This cannot be engineered, because a good social enterprise by its very nature
does not want to hide its true goals and objectives. This is fundamental in
generating trust on the basis of credibility and authenticity. The important point, as
Ind puts it is, “we are willing to pay extra to an organisation for this [intrinsic value]
because of the perception of added value. This is an issue of trust. We buy [them]
because we trust the authenticity of these brands” (Ind, 2005, p.17).
62
Cafedirect is also clever at observing the wider markets, which, both directly or
indirectly affect its success, and adapt to changes. For example, as competition
increased it noticeably differentiated its product and unified the various lines under
one uniform brand which allowed the consumer to recognise the products more
easily amongst the many other brands on its shelves.
What’s vital to point out, is that throughout the branding process, Cafedirect adopted
the similar strategies that Coca-Cola or Microsoft would adopt. Cafedirect, along
with other successful social enterprises like Divine Chocolate or the NSPCC, have
not ventured far from the tried and tested methods of the most successful brands.
Although I stress that each brand must approach it’s branding individually, it’s clear
from all of my interviewees, for example, that the strategies are the same.
There are however, some differences that require some close attention. We’ve
seen how some highlight the varied stakeholders that social enterprises have. Look
at Cafedirect, who, not only has four different organisations that created it, but
fundamentally, the growers have a valuable and significant stake, along with the
employees. To keep all the varied stakeholders happy a good brand that represents
all of the key players can play a vital role to ensuring harmony. Hence, any brand
strategy must acknowledge this dynamic. The other glaring difference is that now
expectations are higher. We’ve seen a lot of ‘greenwashing’ which can, or has,
resulted in cynicism. A brand needs to manage these issues.
Finally trust is an essential element; it takes only one or two mistakes to cast doubt
on a social enterprise and many years to rebuild. It could be argued the issue of
trust is different to social enterprises, “one of the greatest crimes a brand can
commit is to break a value – and not just a brand value but also a value held by the
customers and other stakeholders who judge it” (Ind, 2005, p.149). To avoid this, to
promise only what you can deliver (Ind, 2005). For social enterprise, I believe the
issue of trust can be far greater. Many well established firms like Coca-Cola, who in
effect ruined the trust of their consumers by changing the recipe in 1985, can
eventually regain it. But I may warn that with the stakes being even higher when
dealing with social and environmental issues, that trust may not be regained.
63
6.2 Recommendations
The findings to the main research questions, as described previously in this section
set the foundations for my proposed recommendations for a social enterprise that
are, either, creating a new brand or re-branding a failing or stagnant one. While
these are meant to guide the branding process, they are by no means exhaustive,
but at this stage should merely serve as guidelines based on the findings.
Firstly, a social enterprise needs to consider the following when thinking about
adopting a branding project:
Don’t be scared of branding – evidence both in commercial and social
sectors suggest that the right brand can be a ‘win-win’ for both consumer
and firm. Also, many believe that branding is even more important for social
enterprises
Do not ‘pile on the ethics’ of your enterprise – this can be a sensitive
issue, but the right balance needs to be found. Remember, most consumers
don’t ‘buy ethics’ particularly during economic difficulties. They also seek to
satisfy their own wants and needs. It’s evident from the research that
consumers often base their decisions on a combination of heart and brain.
For social enterprises they must accept that their values are important but
not fundamental. Social enterprises need to find out what the customers’
true values are and match them with their own
Don’t exaggerate your mission – authenticity is key, but if you promise
more than you can deliver you may break the bond of trust between you and
the consumer
Never remain static – this is not exclusive to social enterprises, but more
appropriate now more than ever. A number of elements in more recent
times have combined to make branding even more difficult today: consumers
have become more savvy, a proliferation in competitors in this relatively new
market, proliferation in media channels and a decrease in brand loyalty
Branding can be a useful tool to engage all your stakeholders, unifying them
all under one identity creating an instant community
64
A good brand helps manage perceptions and handling cynics and criticism.
For social enterprise this is especially critical because of the high stakes and
varied stakeholders involved
Branding does not have to be costly if you know the basics yourself. A well
prepared brief can reduce time and cost
When thinking of branding your enterprise, pay close attention to the following
fundamentals of branding:
Ensure that the core values are observable at all touch points of the
enterprise
Excellence – a good brand has a good product. Ensure the product and
service is of high standard
Differentiate – a good brand ‘stands out from the crowd.’ Create a
personality through the brand name, logo, strap line and thorough the
various communication channels you use
Create a psychological link between yourself and the target audience. As
mentioned before, brands are usually created in the minds of the consumer,
it is vital you evoke emotions on the basis of what you know about the
behaviour of your target audience
Speak to consumers’ in their language and make them feel they are part of
something worthwhile. After all, being socially responsible is fundamentally
about doing the right thing. However, it’s clear that people need to be
explicitly rewarded for their efforts
Capitalise on the inherent trust social enterprises’ have. People want to
believe you and want to feel that they are doing the right thing. Good social
enterprises are highly trusted
65
Certainly these points are not a silver bullet – each enterprise must do what works
for them. However, do not underestimate what a big difference a little branding can
do and bear in mind the words of Jerry Stifelman:
“Branding is a big deal if you're selling blue jeans -- it's an even bigger deal if you're
trying to save the planet. Social enterprises owe it to their missions to be the best
branders on the planet.”
6.3 Reflections
From the outset of this journey, it was clear that the true goal of my research would
not be achieved within the confines of this thesis. However, regardless of how ones
investigation was restricted by typical barriers, such as, time, word limit, unforeseen
disruptions and access to key experts within the chosen field of study, I am very
satisfied by the amount of research I have covered.
It is worthwhile to point out that observations and conclusions were based on the
literature review and limited qualitative data. Certainly, if I were to repeat this thesis,
I would endeavour to do more in depth case studies on a variety of social enterprise
brands, representing different market sectors. While Cafedirect has been
successful in its own right, and there is clear evidence that it has many essential
elements to its brand, some could argue to what extent its brand is attributable to its
brand, highlighting the intangibility of branding.
In terms of the qualitative data, I was extremely satisfied with the quality of expert
witnesses, who all represented the fields of research in question and I thank them all
for taking the time to assist, some with little or no notice. Ideally however, I would
have liked to have had the opportunity to speak to more expert witnesses,
particularly representatives of the official social enterprise bodies in the UK.
Furthermore, the quantitative data accompanying the case study was limited to a
small sample with little control on screening respondents and lacked a broad
representation and hence was not as insightful as hoped, yielding only real insight in
two questions. If repeated, it would be preferable to obtain a much larger sample
size, sourced differently. Overall, I feel I have a sound foundation of research to
build from for future investigations.
66
7. REFERENCES
Aaker D, (1991), Managing Brand Equity, First Edition, New York, the Free Press
Aaker D, (2002), Building Strong Brands, First Edition, London, Simon & Schuster
Allen B, (2004), Social Enterprise: Through the Eyes of the Consumer, National
Consumer Council
Alter K, (2007), Social Enterprise Typology, Virtue Ventures LLC
Barnham C, (2008), Essence: The Structure and Dynamics of the Brand,
International Journal of Market Research, Vol. 51, Issue 5, 593 – 610
Bettman J R, Johnson E, Payne J W, (1991), Consumer Decision Making,
Handbook of Consumer Behaviour, First Edition, Englewood Cliffs, Prentice Hall,
50–84
Blowfield M, Rentsendorf E, Tallontire A, (2001), Ethical Consumers and Ethical
Trade: A Review of Current Literature, University of Greenwich
Butters S, Ekanem I, Evans M, Smallbone D, (2001), Researching Social Enterprise,
Final Report to the Small Business Service, Middlesex University
Cabinet Office, Office of the Third Sector, (2006), Social Enterprise Action Plan,
Scaling New Heights
Chaudhuri A, Holbrook M, The Chain of Effects from Brand Trust and Brand Affect
to Brand Performance: The Role of Brand Loyalty, Journal of Marketing, 65, 81 - 93
Chell E, (2007), Social Enterprise and Entrepreneurship: Towards A Convergent
Theory Of The Entrepreneurial Process, International Small Business Journal, 25, 5,
5 – 23
Coyler E, (2005), Anti- Globalisation: Are You Serious, [Internet],
Brandchannel.com, http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=249,
[Accessed 12th November, 2009
Davies I, Doherty B, Knox S, (2009), The Rise and Stall of a Fair Trade Pioneer:
The Cafedirect Story, Journal of Business Ethics, 3rd July 2009
67
Dart R, The Legitimacy of Social Enterprise, Non-profit Management & Leadership,
Vol. 14, No 4, 411 – 424
Datamonitor, (2008), Cafedirect Case Study: Successfully Marketing Fair-trade
Products in the UK
Dawes J, (2008), Brand Loyalty in the UK Sportswear Market, International Journal
of Market Research, Vol. 51, Issue 4, 449 – 463
Deatherage J, (2009), The importance of non-profit branding, [Internet] Los Angeles,
Philanthropy Journal,
http://www.philanthropyjournal.org/resources/marketingcommunications/importance-
nonprofit-branding, [Accessed, 21st October 2009]
Dees G, (1998), Enterprising Non-Profits, Harvard Business Review, Jan – Feb,
1998
DTI, (2002), Social Enterprise, A Strategy For Success
Dyson P, Farr A, Hollis N, Understanding, Measuring Brand Equity, Journal of
Advertising Research, November/December 1996, 9 - 21
Farquhar P, (1990), Managing Brand Equity, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol.
30, No 4
Fill C, (2002), Marketing Communications: Contents, Strategies and Applications,
Third Edition, Pearson Education Ltd, Essex
Fombelle P, Laidler-Kylander N, (2006), AMA Non-Profit Marketing Conference,
AMA Foundation, July 0th – 12th 2006
Galera G, (2007), Social Enterprise in an Evolving Economy: From Non-Profit
Organisation To Social Enterprises, International Conference Organised By The
OECD LEED Program, Bucharest, 13 June 2007
Gilligan C, Golden L, (2009) Re-Branding Social Good: Social Profit As A New
Conceptual Framework, Academy of Marketing Studies, Vol. 14, No 1, 9 – 15
Greater London Authority, (2007), Social Enterprises in London, A Review of
London Annual Business Survey
68
Grimaldi V, (2001), What makes a Brand Great, [Internet], Brand Channel.com,
http://www.brandchannel.com/features_effect.asp?pf_id=66, [Accessed, 15th
August, 2009]
Guzman F, (2005), Brand Building towards Social Values: Associating to Public
Goods, EGADE University, Spain
Hall J, (2007), The Ethical Opportunity, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14, No
5, 365 - 367
IFF Research Ltd, (2005), A Survey of Social Enterprises Across The UK, The Small
Business Service
Ind N, (2005), Beyond Branding, First Edition, London, Kogan Page
Jahangir N, Parvez N, Bhattacharjee D, Ahamed K, (2009), The Relationship
Between Brand Affect, Brand Quality, And Customers’ Brand Extension Attitude,
The Cambodian Management Journal, Vol. 1, No 1, 20 – 34
Jeffrey P, (2003), Depressed Coffee Prices Yield Suffering in Poor Countries,
[Internet], http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/fairtrade/coffee/672.html,
[Accessed, 20th December, 2009]
Kaynak E, Salman G , Tatoglu E, (2007), An Integrative Framework Linking Brand
Associations And Brand Loyalty In Professional Sports, Journal of Brand
Management, Vol. 15, No 5, 336 – 357
Keller K , (2008), Strategic Brand Management, Third Edition, Upper Saddle River,
new Jersey, Pearson Education Ltd
Keller K, (1993), Conceptualising, Measuring, And Managing Customer-Based
Brand Equity, Journal Of Marketing, Vol. 57, 1 – 22
Keller K, (2003), Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, No 4, 595 - 600
Keller K, (2003), Brand Synthesis: The Multidimensionality of Brand Knowledge,
Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 29, 595 – 600
69
Kim H, Kim W, (2005), The Relationship Between Brand Equity And Firms’
Performance In Luxury Hotels and Chain Restaurants, Journal of Tourism
Management, 26, 549 560
Klein N, (2000), No Logo, First Edition, London, Harper Collins
Kotler, P, (1993), Marketing Management: Analysis, Planning and Control, 8th
Edition. Engelwood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Krishnan B, Hartline M, (2001), Brand Equity: Is It More Important in Services,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15, No 5, 328 - 342
Kuksov D, (2006), Brand Value In Social Interaction, Management Science, Vol. 53,
No 10, 1634 - 1644
Laidler-Kylander N, Simonin B, (2009), How International Nonprofits Build Brand
Equity, International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, Vol. 14,
57 – 69
Laio M , Foreman S, Sargeant S, (2000), Market versus social orientation in the
non-profit context, International Journal of Non-profit and Voluntary Sector
Marketing, 6 (3), 254 – 268
Leadbeater C, (2007), Social Enterprise And Social Innovation: Strategies for the
next ten years, Cabinet Office, Office of the Third Sector
Letts C, Ryan W, Grossman A, (1999), High Performance Non-Profit Organisations:
Managing Upstream For Greater Impact, First Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New
York
Linklaters, (2006), Fostering Social Entrepreneurship,
Low G, Lamb C, The Measurement and Dimensionality of Brand Associations,
Journal of Product and Brand Management, Vol. 9, No 6, 350 - 368
Mair J, Marti I, (2006), Social Entrepreneurship research: A source of Explanation,
Prediction and delight, Journal of World Business, 41, 36-44
Nissim B, (2004), Non-profit Branding: Unveiling the Essentials [Internet],
http://www2.guidestar.org/rxa/news/articles/2004/nonprofit-branding-unveiling-the-
essentials.aspx?articleId=833, [Accessed, 16th October 2009)
70
Nyssens M, (2006), Social Enterprise, At the Crossroads of Market, Public Policies
and Civil Society, First Edition, New York, Routledge
OECD, (1999), Social Enterprises
Oster S, (1995). Strategic Management for Non-Profit Organisations, First Edition,
Oxford University Press, New York
Papania L, Ressler J, Santon N, (2007), AMA Non-Profit Marketing Conference,
AMA Foundation, July 9th – 11th 2007
Peredo A, McLean M, (2006), Social Entrepreneurship: A Critical Review Of The
Concept. Journal of World Business, 41, 56 – 65
Quelch K, (2007), Non-Profit Brands: Don’t Waste Their Power [Internet],
www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/innovations/data/nonprofit_brands, [Accessed, 15th
October 2009]
Quelch K, Laidler-Kylander N, (2005), The Tricky Business of Non-Profit Brands,
[Internet], http://hbswk.hbs.edu/item/4686.html, [Accessed 15th October 2009]
Richarme M, (2005), Consumer Decision –Making Models, Strategies and Theories,
Oh My, Decision Analyst Inc, Texas
Sargeant A, Hudson J, West D C, (2008), Conceptualising Brand Values In The
Charity Sector: The relationship Between Sector, Cause And Organisation, The
Service Industries Journal, Vol. 28, No 5, 615 – 632
Shocker A, Srivastava R, Ruekert W, (1994), Challenges and Opportunities Facing
Brand Management: An Introduction to the Special Issue, Journal of Marketing
Research, Vol. 31, 149 – 158
Simon C, Sullivan W, (1993), The Measurement and Determinants of Brand Equity:
a Financial Approach, Marketing Science, Vol. 12, No 1, 28 – 51
Stifelman J, (2008), Branding for Non-Profits – Why It’s Important, [Internet] NC,
Treehugger.com, http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/05/branding-non-profits.php,
[Accessed, 15th October 2009]
71
Social Enterprise Coalition, (2009), Why Social Enterprise, [Internet], London,
http://www.socialenterprise.org.uk/pages/why-social-enterprise.html, [Accessed, 3rd
August 2009]
Social Enterprise Foundation, (2007), Social Enterprise and Its History, [Internet],
www.socialenterprisefoundation.org, [Accessed 4th November, 2009]
Social Enterprise Summit, (2009), Summary of Discussion, Cabinet Office, Office of
the Third Sector
Social Firms UK, (2005), The Importance of Branding,
http://socialfirmsuk.co.uk/resources/library/importance-branding-social-enterprises-
your-guide-branding-process, [Accessed, 12th May, 2009]
Szmigin I, Carrigan M, O’Loughlin, (2007), Integrating Ethical Brands Into Our
Consumption Lives, Journal of Brand Management, Vol. 14, No 5, 396 – 409
Trexler J, (2008), Social Entrepreneurship As An Algorithm: Is social Enterprise
Sustainable, E:CO Issue, Vol. 10, No 3, 65 – 85
Venturesome, (2008), The Three Models Of Social Enterprises: Creating Social
Impact Through Trading Activities Part 1, Charities Aid Foundation
Wood L, (2000), Brands and Brand Equity: Definition and Management,
Management Decision, 38/9, 662 – 669
Woods R, (1998), Can There Be a Common Definition for Brand Equity, Journal of
Modern Business, 1998, 1 – 11
Wright C, (2004), Consuming Lives, Consuming Landscapes: Interpreting
Advertisements for Cafedirect Coffees, Journal of International Development, 16,
665 – 680
72
8. APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Online Survey posting on Cafedirect’s Facebook fan page
i
Appendix 2: Cafedirect Online Survey questions and results
ii
iii
iv
Q9. What would you like Cafedirect to do next?
Unfortunately, the responses to this question were not of any significance or
usefulness
v
Appendix 3: Cafedirect Interview Questions
The following questions were posed to Jacquie Bance, Marketing Communications
Manager of Cafedirect
1. What are the core values of Cafedirect?
2. How do you describe your brand identity?
3. What strategies do you undertake to increase awareness?
4. Do you monitor Brand Awareness? If so, what are your findings?
5. What is the profile of Cafedirect Customer?
6. What is the nature of competition within the market you operate in?
7. Do you measure brand loyalty? If so, what is it? Are you happy with the
current level?
8. How would you describe your brand personality? How is it created and
maintained?
9. Is branding for a social enterprise like Cafedirect fundamentally different to a
commercial enterprise?
10. What are the most important elements of brand management for Cafedirect?
vi
Appendix 4: List of seven expert interviews
Anon – Brand consultant currently working for Nike at a branding agency (name
and agency undisclosed) (Email interview)
Mike Betts – Director at Better Thinking a third sector and sustainability
consultancy. Mike has experience in working in local and global, charity and
government branding projects (Email interview)
Bruce Davis – founder of www.Zopa.com with experience in brand consultancy and
social enterprise (Email interview)
Ben Metz – Currently freelancing as a social enterprise consultant, formally
Managing Director of Ashoka UK, a global association of the world’s leading social
entrepreneurs and a leading change agent within the third sector (Face-to-face
interview)
Fiona Myles – Branding consultant and founder of Myles Consulting, currently
advising the Design Council. Has experience in both first and third sector
organisations (Phone interview)
Martin Roach – Brand consultant from Epitype (Phone interview). 12 years
experience in both commercial and social sector
David Willans – Brand consultant at Futerra (Phone interview). Seven years
experience in the sustainability sector
vii
Appendix 5: Expert Witness Interview Questions
Name:
Company:
Position:
Brief description of relevant experience:
The following questions should take 15-20 minutes to complete. Some questions
may not be relevant or appropriate to your experiences. If so, please put n/a for that
question.
1. How many of your clients (proportionately) have paid much attention to
branding before they’ve worked with you? Do you think they had a good
understanding of brand management before taking on a project?
2. How do you try and educate clients about the value of branding? Do you
face much scepticism?
3. What are the main barriers for a firm to take on a branding project? (E.g.
financial)
4. Once you’ve been commissioned to a project, what are your first steps – how
do you approach the brand in question?
5. Do you approach a project significantly differently depending on their sector
or product/service? e.g. FMCG versus Services versus Social Enterprise
6. Are there any particular elements of branding that are a priority in your
opinion for? Do they differ for a social enterprise versus traditional
enterprise?
7. If you have worked on both traditional (profit maximising) firms and social
enterprises:
a. Did you notice a different attitude to branding from the social
enterprise?
b. Did you have to adopt a different strategy for social enterprise?
c. Do they have significantly different objectives to how they want to
approach a branding project?
Many Thanks for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
viii
Appendix 6: Evolution of Cafedirect’s brand packaging
1991 - 2000 2000 – 2005 2007 - 2009
ix