Benjamin Bidlack is Brand Strategy Director at RiechesBaird

Welcome back to the conversation about tech brand audit. Last time we talked about the important (and difficult) strategic questions that a tech brand audit answers:
• How do customers, employees, investors and prospects really see us?
• Which brand attributes and personality do we and our competitors ‘own’?
• How much ‘permission’ does our brand(s) have to offer new products or enter new markets?
• How cohesive and compelling is our brand story and promise?
• What internal and external challenges do we face in developing and strengthening our brand to drive our business forward?
• Which touchpoints have the most impact for building our brand?

To answer these questions, usually an outside company undertakes a number of key pieces of analysis. So let’s talk about the analyses that typically comprise a brand audit, and how they help answer the strategic questions above.

Keep in mind: the ultimate purpose of tech branding is not answering tough questions or pretty logos and websites. It’s about revenue deriving from the sale of your technology/products. Revenue is driven by:

1. More people being aware of you, or increasing brand awareness.
2. The trial period of people trying your product or service.
3. Consumers preferring you and then coming back for more, or brand preference and brand loyalty.

That’s it. Period, end of story.

So what key pieces of information need to be identified to accomplish this feat? There are at least three key analyses that typically comprise a tech brand audit:

1. Competitive analysis: what competing technology providers are offering and/or copying?
2. Customer insights: how do customers think about and buy your services/technology?
3. Communications audit: how are you presenting your technology and company to the world?

Technology branding is about revenue deriving from the sale of your products.

I should mention here that the most critical part of brand strategy work, one almost always overlooked, is a rigorous analysis of business strategy. Brand strategy development without this critical and often difficult analysis ends up being flimsy and incomplete, even if it covers other internal, competitor and customer insights well. A thorough brand audit will highlight the specific business strategy issues that senior management needs to iron out before working on the brand.

For the purpose of this blog I’ll focus on communications audit (point number 3 above), which includes reviews of the following brand communication components:

- Collateral
• Brochures
• Data Sheets
• Case Studies
• White Papers
• Annual Reports
• Advertising
• Stationery/Business Cards/other branded 2D items

- Digital
• Website
• Videos
• Social Media
• PowerPoint

- Tradeshow Booth: Interior/exterior
- Signage
- Logo
- Product nomenclature/architecture
- Brand guidelines

Each of these components is reviewed with the following questions in mind:

• How cohesive and compelling is our brand story and promise?
• How effective and relevant are these pieces in communicating our unique value to the world?
• Do these support our business now?
• Do these support our plans for the future?

If any answers to these four questions are not a resounding “Yes!”, then this piece of a brand audit has done its job. Namely, highlighting areas of the brand, and possibly business strategy as well, that need rigorous and thoughtful development and execution.

Next time, I’ll give some insight into the first of two points relating to a tech brand audit: customer insights and competitive analysis.

If you have any questions or comments about a brand audit please do not be shy, I’ll be quick to respond and happy to assist your efforts.

Ray Baird is President of RiechesBaird

Ok, it goes without saying that every B2B company marvels and envies the “Intel inside” story.  I can’t tell you how many times prospects and clients have referenced this B2B success, not to mention the numerous Intel employee stories and variations on how this success was created and achieved.  It’s an OEM marketer’s dream to create such brand preference, demand and value.  For B2B technology companies it is—– Brand Nirvana.

But somehow, throughout the 15 years since its conception, Intel’s brand strategy/architecture lost its way.  The original idea of simplicity and value creation was lost in the multiple names and brands that squeaked their way into the primary brand’s strategy and positioning.

But Intel is not alone; this is a common problem that technology brands run into.  Product managers and marketers think they have to have a name/sub-brand for every new product and platform they dream up.  Then, all of a sudden they have brand confusion and dilution.

But why?  Mostly because marketers don’t formalize their brand architecture strategy and give it the attention it deserves.  Alan Brew, a colleague of mine wrote an article on this subject and nailed it perfectly.

“The problem with brand architecture is that it’s such a fuzzy term and every organization has its own meaning.” Or more frightening, no meaning at all.

Old Intel Inside Logo

This brings me back to the Intel Inside strategy. Recently Deborah Conrad, Vice President of Corporate Marketing has made changes to the strategy by reducing the number of brands and introducing “modifiers” into the core brand which signal different features and benefits.  See Video

I applauded her intentions.  It’s an interesting concept and you should check it out.  But in my opinion, this has replaced complexity with a whole new set of issues.  I’m a strong believer in simplicity and single thought.  Trying to differentiate the company, the positioning of “Intel Inside”, and product differentiation might be too much for the audience to digest.  In my experience, simple is better.  People can only remember so much.  Keep product positioning strategies separate and brand strategy pure. That being said, I’m sure Intel will do just fine.  Who’s knows, maybe this is the first step towards getting back to the  simplicity and originality of the idea that helped shape the company in the first place.

But that’s my opinion, what’s yours?