Corporate Branding - The Who, Why n What of it all

Corporate Branding – the new paradigm for India

In the 1970s, India was ruled by conglomerates, some of whom still wield significant power. The family owned enterprises were, and still are, gigantic brands. Some of the biggest and most respected companies in the 21st century India are still those family owned conglomerates. These were the TATAs, Ambanis (Reliance), Birlas, Wadias and the Godrej family.

But in the 1990s, the country saw the introduction of brands where the identity of the owner was smaller than the identity of the brand. No one knew who owned, manufactured or distributed the brands they touched and used many times each day. We knew Close Up as toothpaste, Ariel, Wheel and Surf as three different detergents, Lifebuoy and Lux as two different soaps, Coca Cola and Sprite as different drinks. The nature of their manufacturer, or the company owning the brand, wasn’t considered important given the low involvement associated with such Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCGs).

All this was soon about to change due to the ever increasing impact of external influences on the brand perceptions residing in the consumers’ mind. Now, the advertisements by the company weren’t the only source of information about the organisation. There were the news channels, the NGOs, the politicians, and even the spiritual gurus who had a view about things as important as cold drinks.
This led us to the stage where India had to embrace the concept of Holistic Branding, where the brand managers tried to manage all avenues of information a consumer was exposed to. This led to significant spending on managing Public Relations, and also on Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).

CSR is the new buzz word for generating long lasting brand loyalty, as consumers not only want a better product, but also want to be associated with a better, more responsible company. Further, due to the nature of CSR, where only one corporate identity can be highlighted, it’s prudent for companies to associate their brands with the parent corporate. Hence, if Procter & Gamble launches a Rs. 1 crore child education initiative, ‘Shiksha’, it also makes big news about it, using its partner Sony Television, and all its friends in the media. This also includes signing brand ambassadors for supporting a cause.

Having built a responsible, “Good Samaritan” image, the corporate would also logically try to use some source bolstering (a phenomenon where the potential users assume positive traits for a brand and a product based on the information about the credibility of its owner).



The trend started in India with Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) where all the television ads for its brands ended with a Unilever logo. Similar strategies are also being used by P&G, Coca Cola India, PepsiCo India, Godrej, Con Agra Foods, Parle Agro, and ITC among many others.





That’s how consumer begin to trust a new brand like Vivel, as its ads end with the ITC logo, which because of its CSR activities (like e-chaupal) is now seen as a responsible company, and not the root cause of lung cancer, mouth cancer, and tonnes of other diseases.





The case for Coca Cola India’s full fledged corporate campaign stemmed from multiple reasons. They were under attack for excessive pesticide content. This was based on tests performed by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), which released reports in 2003 and 2006, which were devastating for the soft drinks major. Spiritual gurus like Baba Ramdev were also taking a free shot at their products, and the company had no deep connections with the consumers that would make them stick to the company’s brands.

This is when they realized that their social responsibility, as perceived by the masses, was much higher than what they had realized. This led them to focus on issues like carbon & water neutrality, rejuvenating old dry bawaris, and trying to portray a more caring, and humble image. All their brands were pompous, and hence, a separate campaign was designed to drive home the point. The success of such efforts still remains to be seen, but their plans to set up a separate division for its corporate social responsibility (CSR) activities with a corpus of $10 million Coca Cola India Foundation sure seems to be indicative of their long term stand.

Thus, I conclude by saying that today, due to multiple information sources and their potential threats, most brands could do well with some parental corporate branding. This makes much more sense for the corporate too, as the protests, the anguishes, the losses, and all the transactions are with and affect the corporate much more than the brands they own.

Hence, today the corporate has to do it straighten out all what it does, and build a brand for its own self, and not just for the products it sells. Those who would succeed in doing this are the ones who would succeed with most of their brands. And those who don’t will always be susceptible to a CSE-like attack ruining their image, sales and profitability. And yea, there are others like Godrej too, who are trying to show how the company has evolved and is more vibrant through its new colorfull logo and Corporate Branding.



Comments, are obviously welcome :)