Caltex’s Star Mart was in need of refreshment having warn the same red/turquoise wave identity for at least 14 years. The designers Hulsbosch rightly claim that the new logo shows “Warmth, personality and fun” is which is befitting of an offer which makes no great claim over and above providing speedy refreshment for the motorist. But whether the new ‘Star Man’ identity is truly contemporary as declared by the designers remains a question according to comments posted on the Australian media website mumbrella.

If mumbrella’s readers are as we suspect hyper critical graphic designers tired of such a familiar ‘Star Man’ visual pun then no doubt they would explain that using the Caltex star from the symbol and name was too obvious a starting point for the refreshed identity…..which is possibly why the previous designers avoided such a ‘gift’ in order to communicate the innovative nature of the offer in the mid 90’s.

Things have moved on, others are offering equal and superior offers and possibly required more thinking ‘Out the box’….see ‘Picknpay’, ‘On the Run’, ‘Wild Been Café, ‘Mesra’, 'Bonjour', ‘Sainsbury’s Local’, ‘Marks and ‘Spencer Simply Food’ and ‘Tesco Express’.

As ever it’s not what graphic designers think that matters and actual trading figures from 500 Australian sites will determine whether the rest of Caltex’s network in Asia and Africa will see more of the same.

The maintenance of a good corporate reputation in today's febrile multimedia age is no easy task - not least because the needs of a company's various stakeholders are all too often contradictory. Investors may seek cost efficiencies which boost earnings and dividends whilst employees seek job security. The need to boost the resource base, especially for oil and gas companies, will often conflict with the needs of local communities and environmentalists. And in some industries, like tobacco, the very nature of the business activity itself can be hard to defend and virtually incapable of being painted in a positive light. So does that mean that there are no firm guidelines that can be established to help companies manage their reputation - is it all too difficult? This article will argue that the reverse is the case - so long as companies understand that brand management and reputation management are the same thing - and so long as they have an imperative to integrate what they say with what they do - and then tell the truth. And as long as they have the confidence not to have their reputation management decisions taken by lawyers!

Let's start with the key premise that there is really no difference between a company's corporate brand and its reputation. This is not semantics - the need to understand this principle is an essential condition before we can go on to put a reputation management plan together. But first lets clarify what we mean by corporate identity or brand. In a company like Unilever the corporate brand is the company name and it is the multitude of product brands that comprise the consumer offer. Lipton and Lux and Persil stand alone as distinctive brands and although there is some measure of endorsement from the Unilever parent brand this is not crucial to the product brands' success. When Unilever experienced some problems with the reformulation of their Persil brand back in the 1990s it did little harm to their corporate brand or to their business performance. It was a costly error - but it was confined to one product line - albeit an important one.

Contrast this with the now largely forgotten furore over Formula Shell back in the 1980s. Formula Shell was launched as being the "first new petrol for fifteen years" and the advertising made extravagant performance claims. However within months of the launch it emerged that in certain vehicles and in certain circumstances the additives in Formula Shell could actually damage a car's engine. In this case there was no possibility of distancing the brand of the corporation from the product brand - they were the same. The revelation that Shell, a company previously believed to be highly technologically advanced, could make such an error damaged Shell's reputation - and not just in respect of product formulations.
In the petroleum sector most companies, and all the multinationals, manage what Wally Olins calls a "Monolithic" brand structure - essentially their corporate identity runs as an identifier through the whole of their vertically integrated business from wellhead to the petrol station. There are some exceptions to this (BP has kept the brand integrity of its Castrol lubricants subsidiary for example) but in the main the monolithic structure prevails. The implications for the company in respect of brand and reputation management are both positive and negative - and need to be understood. On the plus side is the endorsement that the corporate name can give to new products and new ventures. Shell's latest differentiated petrol product Shell V-Power is very definitely a Shell endorsed sub-brand for example - just as Formula Shell once was. On the other hand Shell's overtly corporately branded and largely unsuccessful moves into some renewable energy areas such as "Shell Forestry" and "Shell Solar" were ill advised - at least with hindsight. There was never a satisfactory corporate fit for Shell to be in these businesses and the internal will to make them work never existed. These failures damaged Shell's overall reputation and credibility - something that might not have happened had a less Shell-branded option been pursued. The other real risk for monolithically branded corporations is of course the collateral damage that can be done when one part of the business fails or under-performs - or is perceived to have done so. In Ireland Shell's difficulties with its large Exploration and Production project Corrib in County Mayo led to protests from the local community and from environmental activists - including on the wholly separately managed and unconnected Shell-branded petrol station business. This brings us to BP's brand challenge in the light of the Deepwater Horizon rig disaster.


The Deepwater Horizon tragedy, in which a dozen workers lost their lives and which is causing major environmental damage, will no doubt become a reputation management case study in years to come. If ever there was a case of the need to manage perceptions this is one. The facts of the case will no doubt eventually emerge after the investigative enquiries are completed. But few would disagree that the public perception is one of corporate failure both in respect of the fact that the accident happened at all and in respect of the unedifying initial blame shifting between the various parties involved: BP - the commissioner of the rig, Transocean, its owner and operator and Halliburton who provided, on a sub-contracting basis, some of the rig-based services. It is also necessary in this case, as in so many others, to point the finger at the legal elephant traps that lie in the way of open and truthful disclosure. If BP had acknowledged right from the start what most observers, including the US President, believed - that they, BP, were ultimately responsible for the disaster and its consequences - then the legal penalties could have been punitive. They may still be of course but there is little doubt that as in so many of such cases in modern times the dead hand of the lawyers can be seen to have played a disproportionately strong part. To BP’s credit, current communications at the time of writing this article regarding Deepwater Horizon seem straightforward and truthful.

After Shell's scandalous failure to disclose the truth about their hydrocarbon reserves back in 2004 there is no doubt that virtually no moves are made, and certainly no significant public statements are issued, by the company without the lawyers being central to the process. If you look at Shell's most recent Annual Reports, for example, you will see a document full to the brim with obfuscating legalese - the contrast with the far more open and self-confident Reports of ten or fifteen years ago is marked.

So for a monolithic brand like Shell or BP there is no escaping the fact that problems in one part of the business can damage brand approval in other substantially unconnected parts of the company. Look, for example, at this report from the Daily Mail last year when BP's profits fell. The illustration is of a customer in a petrol station - but in truth BP's retail business had virtually no impact on the profit fall. The problem is that Roadside Retail, for the oil companies with downstream businesses like Shell or BP, is the most visible manifestation of their monolithic corporate brand. And the media will always illustrate stories about almost anything to do with the company with images from a branded petrol station.

In Roadside Retail it is not just the monolithic oil majors who operate in a brand environment in which their Corporate Identity is synonymous with their retailing brand. The same applies to the ever more important hypermarket and supermarket operators - but in these cases the coalescence of brand and reputation is nearly always a benefit. Although on the face of it for Tesco to run a network of petrol stations, previously the preserve of the oil companies, may have initially seemed curious in fact there was an inescapable and consumer-driven logic to the move. The Tesco corporate brand conferred a high degree of respectability - their reputation as a professional company was high. And their retail brand (synonymous, of course, with the corporate brand) was almost unchallenged in their sector. So for Tesco to offer fuels and lubricants on forecourts was credible not because they were an oil company but because they were a multiproduct retailer. Of course they had to understand the special mechanics of running petrol stations - but that was not a problem. And the corporate brand conferred reasons to believe and reasons to prefer from the start.

One of the reasons that reputation management has proved difficult for so many huge corporations is that it is all too often seen as being the same thing as lobbying and PR - especially in the United States. PR is often perceived as being at best just providing a positive gloss on reality, whilst ignoring harder truths, whilst at worst it can be characterised as systematic lying. I would argue that in the same way consumers see through false brand promises stakeholders soon see through mendacious PR and misguided attempts to built reputations through selective and slanted corporate advertising. To build a positive reputation companies must above all do the right things in the right way. Where health and safety is concerned there is no alternative but always to go the extra mile and if a project becomes marginal as a result they must have the courage to walk away. If good behaviour on HSE (etc.) is inculcated into corporate behaviour throughout the company then risks will be reduced substantially. And if the operational risks are reduced then potential damage to corporate reputation is reduced as well. Finally it is essential that reputation management plans, especially when it comes to corporate communications and other stakeholder engagement, tell the truth. The challenge is not to present the company in a positive light and to ignore the negatives. It is to present the company in a positive light because there is a positive story to tell - that it's not just PR hype but that you really can say that everywhere it operates the company "walks the talk".



Paddy Briggs

May 2010

© Minale Tattersfield

Italy
Agip’s part solar PhotoVoltaic (PV) powered petrol station is a particularly attractive green energy proposition since Italy has moderately high solar radiation but also high energy prices where conventional energy source prices and solar energy prices are roughly equal per kW/hour.

Spain
The Repsol car wash outside Madrid airport features flat plate solar thermal panels which preheat the water used for washing cars. Using this relatively low tech, low cost solar thermal energy collecting device, Repsol are able to save the cost of heating the water by conventional means (electric or gas) and therefore also reduce carbon emissions and as a bonus gain a valuable PR advantage. How simple and effective but also quite obvious for a nation famous for its sunny climate.

Spain have also invested heavily in solar PV as illustrated above with a sophisticated solar tracking device on a Galp petrol station.

Gulf Nations
Gulf nations with plentiful fossil fuel resources and resulting low energy prices have to date seen little motivation to install solar energy despite the highest naturally occurring solar irradiance. Abu Dhabi’s Masdar ‘Sustainable City of the future’ may be an encouraging portent of the future and even the wind turbines at the centre Bahrain’s world trade are a further sign of renewable energy at least entering the consciousness. BP Solar calculated that a solar PV array the size and location of the Arabian peninsular could produce all the world’s energy needs.

China
At first glance it may be surprising to discover that China with an only moderate natural abundance of solar radiation is by far the largest user of solar energy with 60% of world use. Of this amount, the relatively mature and low tech solar thermal variety comprises a large proportion with either flat plate, or evacuated tube collectors becoming a familiar site on Chinese rooftops which provides the ‘Low grade’ energy required to heat water. As an energy hungry nation, China clearly sees solar amongst other renewable energy sources as a valuable component of their overall energy portfolio which saves valuable conventional fossil fuels for power stations producing ‘High grade’ electrical energy for industrial and domestic consumption. China’s commitment to invest £34bn (source Joss Garman - Independent) in clean technologies shows they too take the view expressed by US president Barack Obama’s that ‘The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy’ Could there be a parallel that the companies that lead with introducing green technologies such as Tescos will also lead their sectors?

UK
Sunnier climes such as Spain or Italy have an annual solar energy density of around 200 w/m2 compared to around half that amount in the UK, nevertheless a domestic solar thermal installation in the UK should be able to provide half the yearly requirement for hot water according to Everest, one of hundreds of accredited solar installers in the UK. The fact that such a well know name as Everest, UK’s largest double glazing provider now offers solar thermal shows this technology has reached a certain level of maturity. Unfortunately solar salesman are gaining a bad reputation for miss-selling by overstating the potential gains.Solar Century may be a more trustworthy port of call being one of the longest established suppliers.

Government encouragement of the renewable electricity generating sector includes a range of guaranteed buy back schemes known as ‘Feed in tariffs’. For example renewable energy supplier Segen, is offering a 3.9 kW system (domestic users may use between 4kW/h and 10 Kw/h per day) comprising a rooftop solar PV array of 22 Sharp 180w panels costing £17,000 fully installed (after a £2,500 government grant and including the reduced 5% rate of VAT). The feed in tariff for renewable energy systems up to 4kW is 36.1p per kWh which Segen calculate would give a return of approximately £1,600 per year guaranteed for 25 years. (Note that the average annual amount of energy produced by a solar PV panel is typically only 10-25% of the ‘Rated’ output of the solar panels which is calculated according to their performance under a standard test irradiance of 1000W/m2 which corresponds to the maximum irradiance expected on a clear day in summer at moderate latitudes).

Germany with a similar sunshine level to the UK has long since been offering feed in tariffs giving it the world’s biggest installed capacity of solar PV with 5.5 GW compared to the UK’s 0.021 GW and a total worldwide total capacity of 14.8GW capacity. The money for these government subsidies is not as free as the energy source itself and has resulted in Spain drastically cutting back their commitment to renewable after perhaps too heavy an initial surge. Greece who are old hands with solar thermal have long since announced the intention of similar government PV/ wind incentives but will no doubt have to review such ideas in the wake of enforced austerity measures. Solar it seems will have to thrive more on its own merit alone helped not so much by governments but rising conventional energy rates.

The future
According to Dr. NJ Ekins-Daulkes physics lecturer at the Grantham Institute for climate change, Imperial college, solar PV technology is likely to continue to improve.

Most of the installed solar PV to date is first generation technology which offers 20% efficiency at a cost of $3.5/W. Costs have come down to around half of what they were 15 years ago but have struggled to reduce at the same rate due to a shortage of microelectronics industry grade silicon and the complexity in making silicon wafers themselves.

Leading second generation ‘Thin film’ technology manufacturers such as First Solar can offer 10% efficiency but at a very attractive cost of $1/W due to a more efficient production process and the use of Cadmium Telluride. The ability to apply the basic semi conductor material to glass, plastic or metal foil offers the possibility of integrating PV into the fabric of a building as opposed to panels ‘planted’ on top.

Third generation PV promises both double the efficiencies and half the cost once satellite grade technology is mass produced which comprises multi junction solar cells which can capture a broader width of light emitted from the sun. The Australian company Solar Systems has produced a concentrated PV system where a lens or mirrors focus light on a small but highly efficient (40%) multi junction PV cell.

Hybrids
Heat reduces the output of Solar PV which was no doubt the driver behind an erstwhile little known hybrid solar panel manufactured by Solarus in Sweden which comprises PV panels with water cooling which outputs both electricity and hot water. Per square meter costs of Solarus panels are competitive with non hybrid varieties. The advantage of the Solarus hybrid is that it can achieve more total energy collection from a given area. The disadvantage of any hybrid system is the added complication and the fact that if one component of the combined system fails the whole system may fail.

It should not be overlooked that PV panels require a significant amount of energy to manufacturer which should ultimately be factored into the actual environmental friendliness of the technology. So too the use of the finite and toxic resource of Cadmium. Fortunately the cadmium for PV comes from the bi product of other mining processes.

Passive Solar
The idea of ‘Bolt-on’ solutions such as solar power and wind power to lower our fossil fuel consumption are attractive to a society that has become dependent upon a ‘Plug and play’ mentality where we can use any energy consuming device anytime day or night. Solar and wind are of course intermittent so the option exists to either store energy via a trans national boarder grid or get used to the idea of managing local consumption in tune with what the elements throw at us.

Much more senbsible would be to rely less on so much ‘Bolt-on’ technology in the first place and rely more on properly designed buildings that did not waste so much heat through the walls, had built-in natural light sources, shade structures for summer or other on ‘Passive’ solar features that may cost no more than an ill considered building to construct but offer huge benefits in terms of running costs.

Solar in Retail
Apart from a few demonstration schemes, retail in general has been slow to see the opportunity of ‘Free’ solar energy that comes with a significant initial investment that depending upon circumstances may not pay back for a number of years. On a positive note major supermarket brands such as Tescos, have made a commitment to solar as part of their plans to decrease their carbon footprint (see Terry Leahy’s environmental credentials) Is it cynism or realism to suggest that the positive PR opportunities associated with environmentally friendly energy sources such as solar are the real drivers of change that tip the economic balance in favour.

The Undercover Surrealism exhibition at the Hayward gallery was the first major survey of DOCUMENTS, the radical surrealist magazine published in France in 1929 and 1930, and edited by the avant-garde philosopher and novelist Georges Bataille. DOCUMENTS combined an eclectic mixture of art, archaeology, ethnography and popular culture, drawing in many of the greatest writers, poets and artists of the time, including Carl Einstein, Robert Desnos, Pablo Picasso, Joan Miró and André Masson.

Drancy outside Paris was established by the Germans in 1941 as an internment camp for Jews prior to deportation. We are lead agency providing both 2D and 3D design and project management. The exhibits shows statements from survivors, portraits of the victims. A feature is the frosted glass walls behind which are portraits of the victims, these walls representing enlightenment and the expression of truth. 

One of the problems with having spent most of my career in the oil industry is that it was a far too rational world – or liked to think that it was. There were lots of engineers, geologists and accountants to explain to you that managing was about input-process-output. In other words you came to proper business judgments by making sure that you had the right resources (the inputs); handling out them properly (the process) and doing the right thing with the products of all this effort (the outputs). Business was a machine and the better designed and oiled and maintained that machine was the better you would do. But my world, the world of brand management, was less certain – much less actually. In promoting a brand you are only partly appealing to rational man – you are also appealing to emotional man and emotional woman. As David Ogilvy once memorably said “The consumer is not a fool – she is your wife”.

So it is in the context of these thoughts that I commend to you the latest John Lewis TV Commercial (click on the link). There is nothing at all for rational man here – no reason to believe or hard-nosed benefits. True the tagline at the end is John Lewis’s familiar “Never knowingly undersold” – but this certainly isn’t a price comparison ad. This is 180° opposite from PriceCompare.com and their like (sites that rational man would love). The John Lewis commercial is unashamedly emotional – tugging at the heart strings if you like. It is beautifully conceived, wonderfully executed and totally focused in its target. It is nonsense to criticise the commercial for saying it is middle-class. Of course it is – but that is John Lewis’s customer base! The commercial has a reassuring panoply of images which pretty overtly convey the message that John Lewis will be with you from cradle to… well not quite grave (they don’t have a funeral service) but certainly your twilight years.

Retailing is about delivering fit-for-purpose products at competitive prices in comfortable surroundings and in a customer-responsive way. Retail is detail – always. But it is also about creating subliminal reasons to believe and reasons to prefer – and the John Lewis TV commercial does that with style. Bravo!

Paddy Briggs

© Minale Tattersfield

May 2010