The brand that is

Submitted by:
SUPREET SINGH -5422
SUNMUKH SINGH -
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation aims to identify those qualities, that make Google so different from the

others and to compare those qualities across major brands in various industries to see if

Google is indeed a one of a kind and utopian or if it is just doing things differently and

others can follow suite.

The research was based on a combination of primary and secondary research based

on availability and in the case of primary research, interviews would be an ideal data

collection tool. Also a questionnaire may be devised to do a comparative study of what

kind of emotions each of these brands evoke among their target audience.

The research in the case of Google was, among other secondary sources, based on the

book “The Google Story” by David A Vise and Malseed, which is full of anecdotes of

daily life at Google and the happenings within the Googleplex and also has an in-depth

study and analysis of Google’s growth and how Google became the world’s largest media

company, out doing biggies such as the Time Warner group. Besides this book, I also

researched various other articles and journals on the IT giant and their strategies, products

and services as well as their overall business model.

The sample size for the focus group was about 22, broken down into smaller groups with

all the groups asked questions as per the guidelines developed which can be found in the

appendix of this dissertation.

The method of Analysis was primarily qualitative in order to identify those qualities,

that make Google so different from the others and to compare those qualities across

major brands in various industries to see if Google is indeed a one of a kind and utopian

or if it is just doing things differently and others can follow suite which is defined as the

aim of this thesis.

The outcome is to be able to pinpoint those extraordinary qualities that make Google so

special and reasons as to why other enterprises cannot replicate such success. The

primary driving force that will ensure Google’s sustained success is the visionary zeal of

both Sergey and Larry, the founders of Google Inc. and their continued focus on keeping

customer experience as their most critical KRA.

 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Every success story draws inspiration from some source and mine was primarily the

experience of visiting the facility in Hyderabad, INDIA and trivia one

hears of and its visionary zeal. I would be doing great injustice if I did not

thank ___________________, one of the best professors I have had so far in 6 years of

my professional education, for his support and guidance throughout this venture as well

as through most of the other projects I have had the fortune of being a part of.

I express my heartfelt gratitude to all who assisted and supported me through the

accomplishment of my goals and my project group mates for making work as much fun

as possible. I had quite an eventful and meaningful two years in Delhi, completing my

MBA and adding value to my career, and I would like to thank each and every one

associated with that experience. Thank you all, very much.

Above all I am thankful to The Almighty for showering me with his blessings.
 CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE NUMBER

Introduction 1

Literature Review and Case Studies 5

Methodology 24

Analysis 26

Recommendation 34

Conclusion 41

References

a. Bibliography 42

b. Appendices 43
 INTRODUCTION

Brands! How is it, I wonder, that some names mean something, while others do not? Why

do some names – Google and McDonalds - shape emotions, while others remain neutral?

While it's easy to explain how Coke has become a brand after 100 years of advertising

and marketing efforts, it is inexplicable how Google has become a brand in a fraction of

that time, with virtually no advertising.

Based on the review of literature, some of the key aspects are:

 Brand Management begins with a strategy and a consistent, integrated vision.

 Central concept is brand identity not brand image.

 Not just components namely, brand name, logo, packaging, level of brand

awareness.

One of the key concepts that stood out was successful differentiation and usually for it to

be a sustainable competitive advantage the focus should be Off-Core Differentiation. For

instance Nokia gained from its Off-Core Differentiation of multiple panels for a single

phone, making the phone a fashion accessory.

The differentiation we want to focus on is the strategic differentiation, such that provides

a long lasting, circumstance-crossing advantage (Circumstances is the C in the ABC of

Branding).
The brand's role in the realm of marketing has changed dramatically during the past

decade. In the past, we used 'to brand' already existing products or companies, in order to

make them more attractive to consumers. It was definitely cosmetic branding. In contrast

recently, developing a brand means devising and implementing a way by which to deliver

a benefit to consumers. Such concepts direct the development of products and services

designed to supply the benefit, and even shape entire organizations for this purpose. This

is strategic branding. One of its consequences is that 'brand extension'. Today, brand

building no longer constitutes a mere manipulation of the consumer's perceptions and

desires, but it is a creation of a system that on the one-hand makes promises and arouses

anticipations, while on the other-hand it delivers and realizes the promises that it makes.

Aim:

To identify those qualities, that make Google so different from the others and to compare

those qualities across major brands in various industries to see if Google is indeed a one

of a kind and utopian or if it is just doing things differently and others can follow suite.

Methodology:

The research was based on a combination of primary and secondary research based

on availability and in the case of primary research, interviews would be an ideal data

collection tool. Also a questionnaire may be devised to do a comparative study of what

kind of emotions each of these brands evoke among their target audience.
The research in the case of Google was, among other secondary sources, based on the

book “The Google Story” by David A Vise and Malseed, which is full of anecdotes of

daily life at Google and the happenings within the Googleplex and also has an in-depth

study and analysis of Google’s growth and how Google became the world’s largest media

company, out doing biggies such as the Time Warner group. Besides this book, I also

researched various other articles and journals on the IT giant and their strategies, products

and services as well as their overall business model.

The sample size for the focus group was about 22, broken down into smaller groups with

all the groups asked questions as per the guidelines developed which can be found in the

appendix of this dissertation.

The method of Analysis was primarily qualitative in order to identify those qualities,

that make Google so different from the others and to compare those qualities across

major brands in various industries to see if Google is indeed a one of a kind and utopian

or if it is just doing things differently and others can follow suite which is defined as the

aim of this thesis.

The research was built around a null hypothesis namely, “Google is not doing anything

different and it just got lucky.”

This dissertation covers the following areas of Brand Management:

  Brand Identity

 Brand Architecture, Brand Extension and Multi-Brand portfolios

 The phases of Brand Management namely,

 Launching the brand

 Sustaining the brand long term

 Adapting to the market (identity wrt change)

 Handling Change in name or brand transfer

The focus is to see how companies try

to build brand identity to leverage

brand recall and loyalty in a short span

of time as opposed to the age old idea

of decades of advertising to establish

and leverage brand loyalty as seen in

the typical example of Coca~Cola.

Most of the brands in the top 10 brands in the BrandChannel 2005 Readers Choice

Awards are brands such as Google, Skype, Ikea, Starbucks, Firefox, and eBay that did

not exist a decade ago.

 LITERATURE REVIEW AND CASE STUDIES

A successful differentiation is one not imitated by your competitors, even though it brings

you unmistakable success with consumers.

Does it seem impossible? Not quite so. I am about to reveal to you, one of the

unexpectedly simple and wonderful secret of successful differentiation: you must think

beyond the core benefits of your product category. Think: Off-Core Differentiation.

This school of thought says differentiation along the core benefits will only give a limited

first mover’s advantage while off-core differentiation or creating a differentiation along

the non-core benefits will lead to a longer sustained advantage. Let us better understand

this school of thought before moving on to some other schools of thought.

"Core Benefits" are the benefits that the consumer already expects to receive from a

product like yours. This is the list of "what's important to the consumer." "Core Benefits"

are more than the essential product benefits. The core benefits of today's cellular phones

include much more than the possibility of conducting a conversation while you're in

motion. Everything that the consumer has already come to expect from the product is

included in the core benefits. These are the benefits that all of your competitors offer,

because they compose the essence of the product and it is impossible to compete in the

market without them.

That is precisely the reason why if you really invest your efforts and are truly brilliant

and make a major break-through in improving core benefits - do you know what will

happen? They'll imitate you as fast as possible. That's what will happen. You must

understand: in that case, your competitors can't allow themselves not to imitate you.

You'd do the exact same thing.

Many companies have learned this the hard way:

• Starbucks thought that their coffee shops would be cosier and look more like a

neighbourhood hangout if all their chairs weren't identical and if they had easy

chairs and sofas. What a great idea! Today, you'll find it in almost every coffee

shop in the world.

• Colgate Palmolive combined all of the known beneficial characteristics of

toothpaste and created Total. The innovation caught on completely. I would dare

to say that there isn't even one manufacturer in the world that hasn't imitated the

idea, first and foremost Crest from P&G.

• Volvo created its brand around a central core benefit: safety. They did everything

humanly possible! They invested limitlessly! And they succeeded no doubt. They

especially succeeded in convincing their competitors that it is very important to

invest in safety. Today, no one will tell you (except for a few out-of-date

marketers) that safety is Volvo's differentiation.

I could go on and on, but I think message is clear. So what should be done? In order to

create a differentiation that won't be imitated, you have to think beyond the core benefits
that are (already or even just in potential) considered important in that particular market.

It works time after time. The companies that have succeeded in maintaining their

differentiation over the years and weren't imitated even though they were making

tremendous profits are those that innovated in qualities beyond the core benefits of their

market.

Case : A Naked Differentiation :

In Canada, there is a news company which according to no lesser authority than Time

magazine "offers the best international coverage this side of the BBC". The company is

called Naked News, and it broadcasts upbeat news and current events programs to more

than 172 nations daily on the Internet and reaches a potential weekly television audience

of 34 Million in United States and many more million viewers in UK, Australia and

several other countries around the world. Naked News is also available as View-On-

Demand (V.O.D.) in over 1.4 million hotel rooms in North America, Caribbean and

Europe. The Naked News content is available daily to wireless mobile phones and

handheld devices. Naked News digital products are cable and satellite-ready, and

available for licensing in English, Spanish and French language distribution.

Most of what the managers and other workers in this news company do is exactly what

their colleagues in any other news company in the world do. But Naked News has a little

something that they do differently, and that's the reason that some viewers prefer to watch

them (and to pay a premium price!). Tagged "The channel with nothing to hide", Naked
News' attractive anchor persons (well, mainly young women) cover politics, business,

sport and entertainment - all naked.

Their differentiation has no connection to the core benefits of a news company. What

they are doing in order to make themselves distinct seems strange, even shameful and

irrelevant to their competitors. And so the chances that someone will imitate them are

small.

Now, think about Apple. At the beginning, their differentiation was the operating system

with a user-friendly interface. That is very important to the customer! As computer users

were increasingly regular folks and not computer pro's, that user-friendliness became an

important core benefit. Could Microsoft afford not to imitate them? Of course not! Over

the past few years, Apple has changed its approach. Now, their differentiation is based on

sophisticated design, an approach that views the computer as a part of the well-designed

office, while the lap-top is a show-piece. Is anyone in a rush to imitate them? Not really.

In general, computers have become less-ugly, but no significant competitor sees its

computers as an opportunity for designers to go wild in the way that Apple did.

What are they waiting for?

Virgin Atlantic is one of the examples I like the best. As an airline company (in the usual

sense of the term) it's not any better than any of the other companies. It doesn't have

better planes or more comfortable seats. It's not on time more often, doesn't fly faster,

doesn't serve better food or offer a better timetable of flights than British Airways, for
example. But it's a company that almost always does some things differently. But please

note - none of these belong to the core benefits of the "airline company" category.

And the result: although Virgin Atlantic has been successful for several years and has

taken a good chunk of the market and its competitors' clients, British Airways isn't

imitating them. Why? Because Virgin Airlines seems ridiculous to them (Remember: they

don't do things that are critical for the consumer!) The serious people at British Airways

say to themselves, "A massage on a flight?! Who wants a massage on a flight! Let those

weirdo's at Virgin Atlantic offer massages on flights - it suits them!"

Swatch decided to treat the watch face and band as a design area. What does this have to

do with the core benefit of a watch? Exactly! So no one has imitated them.

What about The Body Shop? There's no place for another cosmetics chain that actively

fights against animal experiments, for the environment and for the needy wherever they

are. No one even thinks about imitating them.

Case : The mob and the mobile :

Sometimes an off-core differentiation can become eventually a core benefit. This is

exactly what happened with Nokia. It happens when the differentiation is not really off-

core but is actually based on a deep insight into the direction that the market is going and

of consumers' future needs. Nokia took the global market with a classically off-core

strategy. While Motorola was busy developing better and better mobile phones, Nokia

predicted that mobile phones were going to be a popular product. When people will start
carrying their cell phone around with them as they go about their everyday life, it will

become an apparel item, a fashion statement. And thus the idea that helped turn Nokia

into the world leader was born - the idea of the exchangeable panels that let you match

the phone to your clothes. It didn't seem like a core benefit of the category back then.

Totally not connected to what a mobile phone is supposed to do. But when the

technology of most mobile phone manufacturers became similar, they began to compete

over design. Samsung started to beat Nokia, using its own weapon. Recently, Samsung

has joined with Vogue Magazine and designer Diane von Furstenberg in an attempt to

lead the cellular fashion. As I am writing, Nokia's share of the market is still double that

of Motorola's (do you realize what a lead Nokia was able to open?), while Samsung is

trailing behind both of them. But Nokia has lost its differentiation. Today, Nokia is

looking for a new off-core differentiation, but it still hasn't found it. It's leading the

competition over the mobile phone as a personal entertainment centre. This idea stemmed

naturally from the technological developments of 3G; thus it is a core benefit of the

category. In sales of phones with a camera and 3G sales, the gap between Nokia and

Motorola is closing. What will happen next? Time will tell.

You may say that only a few companies have become leaders by means of an off-core

differentiation. Let's not argue what is "many" and what is "a few". By the way, most

companies never become leaders, nor need they become. However, if you are in a

competitive market and trying to make a living, an off-core strategy is the best chance

you have to give a group of consumers a good reason to devotedly prefer you and even

create a private monopoly for you.

I'm not trying to argue that differentiation within the core benefits is a bad idea, if you

can do it. It opens a window of opportunity for you, until they start to imitate you. For a

man like Michael Dell, that was enough to become a billionaire. Dell changed the way in

which personal computers are sold. Michael Dell understood that from the moment that

personal computers became standardized (thanks to the IBM clones on the one hand and

to the foresight of Microsoft in the 1980's, on the other hand) - people would buy them

over the phone and later, over the internet. Dell also understood that since personal

computer components are standardized anyway, you can put them together to suit each

user's needs. That wasn't an Off-Core Differentiation. Dell simply saw where the trends

are leading to. Today, everyone sells computers this way, but the period of time in which

he had this shining differentiation made him one of the richest people on the planet.

Another school of thought that in some sense seconds this theory is the Appreciable

Brand Triad.

The following few paragraphs will throw more light on the ABCs of Branding and the

Appreciable Brand Triad TM.

This theory is built on the premise that great brands encompass three characteristics that

possess a winning combination when executed correctly. The road to branding success

requires a unique discernment of the value proposition being offered followed by

vision, patience and perseverance. By combining these characteristics and method of

execution, great organizations (i.e. Brands) emerge from the landscape of mediocrity.

As with all brands, the voyage from obscurity to trusted products/services occurs when

adhering to a disciplined process referred to as the ABC's of branding: ATTRIBUTES,

BEHAVIOR and CIRCUMSTANCES. What do these ABC's have to do with great

brands? The lack of a solid foundation for a brand will ultimately undermine its future

success. This foundation goes beyond the logo and brand fascia and provides the

underpinnings of legitimacy and ability to deliver real value. The type of reasoning that

both buyer and seller share enables the origin of a relationship. The setting by which the

foundation and behaviour can be acted on must be appropriate in many respects.

Altogether, this hypothesis suggests that an Appreciable Brand Triad™ forms the basis

for great brands.

The discussion begins with presenting the ABC's of great brands and applying the "Triad

Brand Test" as the metric for success. After the ABC's are reviewed, an introduction of

this concept will be expressed through a case study. We'll use Southwest Airlines as an

archetype to exemplify and support this theory.

Attributes :

Whether you are discussing people, places, or things, attributes are the basis by which

you compare, contrast, and distinguish levels of acceptance for use and/or consumption.

Everything we do on a daily basis draws upon attributes to discern and validate who we
are and our place on this earth. Do you believe that? Why do you buy a certain car, brand

of clothing, or a cup of coffee? Additionally, why do you connect with certain associates,

friends, neighbours, etc? Conversely, why do you reproof, reject, and distance yourself

from other products or services? Whether we want to admit it or not (intellectual versus

emotional), we rely on associations (a.k.a. brands) that surround the attributes of people,

places and things.

I recently queried a highly educated associate of mine and asked why he drove a certain

brand of automobile. Being an engineer, his response was both highly analytical and

quantifiable; he supported his logic with facts such as MPG, weight-to-horsepower, and

the practical use to get him from point A to point B. When he was asked why he didn't

buy a smaller, less expensive car that could do the same job, his response was "I wouldn't

be caught DEAD in that particular car." Touché!

In short, attributes are indeed imperatives in our daily discrimination process and forms

the basis by which we make choices. Attributes alone will not satisfy anyone. There must

be a foundation and process by which these attributes are executed and delivered to form

such perceptions. In the following aspect of the appreciable triad, we will examine the

foundations that create a strong bond between perception and reality. The old adage

seems to hold true - we shop intellectually but we purchase emotionally! Next, we will

consider behaviour in response to attributes and what that means to us as consumers.

Behaviour :

Would you consider yourself a rational consumer? Most of us would say yes in response.

Interestingly, what we do and how we do it often defies rational thought despite our best

intentions. Let us look at this interesting associate of mine and see what drives his

behaviour. Despite his high level of education (two Master Degrees and a PhD.) and

rational thought process, when he attempted to buy generic table salt at the store, he

ended up purchasing the Tata Salt Brand (Blue label, little girl and umbrella). He

admittedly couldn't bring himself to buy the white labelled, store brand (emotional) even

though he (intellectually) believes that salt is salt, regardless of the package it comes in.

Don't we all behave the same way? You walk into a store to buy a can of soup. You see

two products on the shelf: one has a no-name white label, another red with the brand

name Campbell's™ written on it. Which one would you buy? Remember, the type of

reasoning that both buyer and seller share enables the basis of a relationship. As a

consumer, you are buying more than a can of soup and this purchase reflects who you are

(at the cash register), the perceived quality you provide your family (brand trust), and

what you deem as acceptable in your world (values). This synergy between behaviour

and attributes, however contrived, becomes the paradigm by which we consume.

Marketers could gain greater insight into attributes/behaviour relationship by observing

HOW people actually behave versus WHAT people say they do (i.e. surveys). If you ask

owners of CD players how to improve this product offering, they probably wouldn't have
come up with the iPod concept. If you observe HOW they use CD Players, their

behaviour would speak volumes about the gap that exists between the current offering

and a desired solution (i.e. runners use for mobile music devices). Now that we discussed

two aspects of this appreciable triad, let's see how they relate to circumstances.

Circumstances :

The circumstances surrounding how we make purchasing decisions are situational at

best! As a marketer, you may have the right attributes and behaviour in place, but if the

setting isn't appropriate, the whole concept falls apart. For example, let's discuss the auto

industry.

Buyers were seeking the next generation consumer vehicle. Automobile companies

possessed the same relative resources, processes, and values to compete fairly for this

emerging market. The attributes of design, functionality, and capability pre-existed along

with the behaviour of consumers to continuously improve their driving experience.

However, the problem for one Auto Company came into play with circumstances: the

general public wasn't prepared to give up their gas-guzzling cars for a sub-compact,

range-limited electric vehicle (EV) that this company had so heavily invested in.

The technology of EV's under the current circumstances was not a good fit at that

particular time, and as a result, the electric vehicle product offering died a timely death.
Conversely, Japanese automakers like Toyota and Honda took the next, logical step and

created a hybrid (gas/electric) vehicle that was closer to a standard car but with all the

benefits of high mileage and environmentally friendly.

What valuable lesson was learned? Although people desire higher mileage vehicles

(attributes/behaviour), the idea of a car that relies solely on battery technology (charge

each night, limited range, and very small size) defies the circumstances of main-stream

consumers.

Case : Application of ABC's :

Now that we have defined the ABC's of branding, let's apply it to a practical real-world

setting. We begin with a product/service that most of us have used or are at least aware of

- Southwest Airlines.

Attributes :

The attributes of Southwest (SW) are straightforward: friendly, inexpensive, frequent

flights, quick turns, fun flight attendants, etc. On their web site, www.southwest.com,

you'll see their mission statement mirrors reality: "The mission of Southwest Airlines is

dedication to the highest quality of Customer Service delivered with a sense of warmth,

friendliness, individual pride, and Company Spirit."

Under a section called "about us", they nicely summarize their value proposition to the

masses: "More than 32 years ago, Rollin King and Herb Kelleher got together and

decided to start a different kind of airline. They began with one simple notion: If you get

your passengers to their destinations when they want to get there, on time, at the lowest

possible fares, and make darn sure they have a good time doing it, people will fly your

airline."

Airline Value-Gap Analysis

Now that we understand their "public persona," let's briefly understand the foundation

that makes this actually work. In 1971, SW airline saw the landscape of this business as

hub-and-spoke, expensive maintenance facilities, multiple aircraft, major airports, and

expensive unions as the standard formula for operations. What was unique about SW

from the start was the business model they pursued which was contrary to the status quo.
In effect, SW did quite the opposite: stayed away from major airports, use point-to-point

service, only purchase one type of aircraft (737's), and cross-functionally trained their

employees. They also considered what the travelling public viewed as important (see

graphic) and designed their offerings accordingly. By adjusting their business model,

they reduce or eliminated those offerings in which the public didn't view as important and

increased amenities they enjoyed. For the price consensus traveller, food and comfort was

of little value compared to on-time arrivals and a "fun" experience. The outcome of this

foundation provided :

• A low-cost business model

• Enabled low fares to consumers

• A profitable enterprise

The economics behind this business model appears simple, yet so many major carriers

attempted to incorporate a competing design with little success. For example, United

Airlines launched "United Express" as a method for attracting discount flyers. The

problem was their cost structure couldn't support discounted fares and thus became a

losing proposition. Over 20 years, SW literally changed the rules of this game. A low-

cost business model became the new standard for competition and spawned a similar

company called Jet Blue. In short, the attributes of an intelligently design business

followed by impeccable execution makes SW a Great Brand!

Behaviour :
What shared reasoning occurred between the general public and SW that formed the basis

of a mutually beneficial relationship? Let's consider the following: SW provided less

service, less amenities, and certainly less prestige than all other offerings in the

commercial airline industry. Why would anyone want something less - isn't more

supposed to be better?

During the nineties, the "do-it-yourself" phenomenon occurred and companies like Lowes

and The Home Depot burst onto the scene. The Home Depot grew from 145 stores and

$3.8b in sales in 1990 to 1890 stores and $73.1b in sales by 2004; they were named the

most admired specialty retailer by Fortune Magazine in February 2005. Their corporate

website states:

"The Home Depot is committed to offering the ultimate home improvement shopping

experience. With about 40,000 different products, trademark customer service and

guaranteed low prices, The Home Depot stores cater to do-it-yourselfers and do-it-for-

me's, as well as home improvement, construction and building maintenance

professionals."

Whether you are trying to reach a certain destination or fix a broken lawn sprinkler, the

behaviour remains the same. In both cases, people will actually accept less for a good

price. The behaviour has achieved balance with attributes (business model) for delivering
what they want, when they want it, for a discounted price. In both cases, these companies

are organizationally excellent at the value they deliver!

Circumstances :

Let's start this discussion with the concept of "under and over-shooting." What does this

mean? When you want to fly from Orange County, California to New York, NY, you

have many choices available. Not only does your range of options include a variety of

carriers, but various levels of service. The middle of the road would consist of a fair

price, a reasonably comfortable seat, and a palatable meal.

To "over-shoot" this event, we would spend thousands on a first-class ticket, sit in a big

leather seat, and eat a gourmet meal served on china tableware. To under-shoot, we

would sit in cramped seats, eat a bag of pretzels, and have more than two connections

with unusually long layovers. The circumstances in which people fly vary depending on

the dimensions presented.

In today's environment, the ability to rationalize value is primarily a function of available

information. If you rely on a travel agent, your span of available dimensions is severely

limited and reliant on the assessment of others. As with the travel agent, how far your

under or over-shoot your desired experience may never be known or occur after-the-fact.

Conversely, the Internet provides a wealth of options that allows the user to select

attributes/circumstances and compare the results. In effect, our ability to determine the
circumstances in which we travel, to a large extent, falls to the consumer. Next, we will

draw these three concepts together. The following section presents this connection

theoretically and conceptually.

Appreciable Brand Triad™ :

So, how does one use this triad to create a Great Brand? This theoretical model plots

Attributes, Behaviour, and Circumstances on equally spaced points of a triangle. Each of

these three aspects interacts with the other on the periphery as well as on a 3rd dimension

(centre of model).

Appreciable Brand Triad™

To apply the model, first compare your products attributes to how people generally

behave. Using customer focus groups, surveys, and other qualitative & quantitative data,

determine if the attributes are in balance with the audience's actual behaviour (=0 on the

AB line is perfect harmony).

Once a point along this line has been established, repeat the process for the two

remaining lines AC and BC of the triangle.

It is possible that a point can fall outside of the lines, as with real life. For instance, let's

use "Tazo Tea" and the AC line as an example. The "Attributes" (rich in flavour,

consistent quality, etc.) are desirable; however, assume the product is not conveniently

sold (Circumstances). The point on the AC line will move away from "Circumstances"

and toward "Attributes." If this combination happens to exist and prevents an interaction

or purchase to take place, then a "disconnect" occurs between your audience/offering and

this point will fall outside of the triangle. Conversely, if your point resides within the

triangle, your brand has become part of the consumer's identity.

Now that you have plotted all three points, consider the depth to which the consumer

"owns" your brand. The centre point (0,0) defines perfect balance of all three

constituents. The beauty of plotting your current state and considering a desired position

will allow you to define a strategy to achieve a great brand!

Conclusion of the Appreciable Brand Triad™ :

What constitutes a great brand? By applying the concept of an Appreciable Brand Triad,

we were able to define what attributes, behaviour, and circumstances are, and if executed

correctly, how they enable the foundation for brand greatness. This theory was postulated

by citing two brands that have achieved both financial and brand success (SW and Home

Depot). Although the dynamics of the plotted points on the Appreciable Brand Triad are

in constant motion, their general locale suggests three things: an intelligently designed

business model, proper positioning of ABC's, and flawless execution. Taken together, the

opportunity to formulate or re-design a business is in the hands of business leaders each

day.
 METHODOLOGY

The research was based on a combination of primary and secondary research based

on availability and in the case of primary research, interviews would be an ideal

collection tool. Also a questionnaire may be devised to do a comparative study of what

kind of emotions each of these brands evoke among their target audience.

The research in the case of Google was, among other secondary sources, based on the

book “The Google Story” by David A Vise and Malseed, which is full of anecdotes of

daily life at Google and the happenings within the Googleplex and also has an in-depth

study and analysis of Google’s growth and how Google became the world’s largest media

company, out doing biggies such as the Time Warner group. Besides this book, I also

researched various other articles and journals on the IT giant and their strategies, products

and services as well as their overall business model.

A Focus Group Discussion was the medium used to gather primary data, with the target

audience being users of the internet, either at work or at home, ranging between the age

of about 18 years to about 35 years, typically falling under the demographic classification

of middle class or above. The sample size for the focus group was about 22, broken

down into smaller groups with all the groups asked the same questions as per the

guidelines developed which can be found in the appendix of this dissertation.

The method of Analysis was primarily qualitative in order to identify those qualities,

that make Google so different from the others and to compare those qualities across

major brands in various industries to see if Google is indeed a one of a kind and utopian

or if it is just doing things differently and others can follow suite which is defined as the

aim of this thesis.

The research was built around a null hypothesis namely, “Google is not doing anything

different and it just got lucky.”

 ANALYSIS

Based on the focus group discussions and pouring over various secondary information

sources, the answer to the problem seems quite simple really, almost too simple.

The secret seems to lie with Sergey Brin and Larry Page, the founders of Google Inc, and

in their vision and their stubborn belief that the customer is king in every sense of the

word. It is quite obvious that Sergey and Larry will maintain a top down approach in all

matters from the culture to beliefs and the Google philosophy and sticking to their guns,

come what may.

Google’s vision statement is definitely one of a kind, stating “Don’t be Evil”.

Since it’s inception, Google has always been about a satisfying end-user experience.

When Larry and Sergey got together to create the world’s first ever “relational” search

engine, their only aim was to make the world’s best internet search engine that delivered

exactly what the millions of users were looking for. It was their quest for mathematical

precision that drove them, not profits, and yet today, Google is the biggest media

company in the world having almost nothing to do with media except for their

“AdWords” and “AdSense” programs, responsible for the text ads, apart from their most

recent acquisition of YouTube.

Google takes such immense pride in the “Googling” experience of their users that their

most frequented website namely www.google.com is absolutely ad-free and as clean as

clean can possibly be and even though they can sell ads for this page for millions of

dollars, they have no plans of doing so just to ensure that the end-user’s experience is not

compromised.

I doubt that there is any other company that exists which would pass up an opportunity to

make millions of dollars, solely for the sake of the end-user’s or customers.

Google also does not charge a single penny for any of their services, the only avenue of

revenue generation being their text ads driven using “AdWords” and “AdSense”.

Their competitors like Microsoft or MSN or Yahoo are in contrast charging their users

for almost all their products or services as well as having obscure video or image

advertisements that absolutely ruin the user experience of their service or products.

As revealed through the Focus Group Discussion, the users are readily shrugging off

services provided by Yahoo, MSN or Microsoft and moving to Google and it is this clean

experience that drives internet traffic Google’s way.

Brand Identity and Brand Personality :

Based on the study, it seems like the focus on following the same theme throughout their

corporate existence namely “mathematical excellence” besides customer satisfaction

seems to be the mantra behind Google’s success.

What I mean by following the theme of mathematical excellence is that, the name Google

is derived from Googol which stands for the mathematical figure of 1 followed by 1

hundred zeroes. Then came the historic IPO, the first ever online “Dutch auction” IPO at

$85 per share and the secondary IPO both related to mathematical figures of ℮ and ∏ in

terms of the number of shares that were released to the public.

Google unlike other enterprises has this fun outlook towards work and life that it is hard

to contain and this has a direct effect on the loyalty of the users, driving them to

repeatedly visit the pages of Google. Google has a policy of having food available within

15-30 feet of each and every employee. Besides this, every Google facility around the

world has massage balls and massage chairs. The work culture is easily the most relaxed

with a spa thrown in for that long day’s work.

An integral part of the playful and fun nature of Google is the simple Google logo, that

undergoes transformation on special occasions such as the Independence days of various

countries, sporting events, Mother’s or Father’s days and so on, which has resulted in the

users feeling more intimate with this service provider thereby increasing the loyalty of
their users. Tampering with a brand’s logo on a regular basis would be considered a

cardinal sin by all brand management gurus, and yet Google does it with penchant and

it is a runaway hit.

This has over the years has also inadvertently increased the traffic flow to their site on

such occasions. Dennis Hwang (Hwang Jung-moak), a 23-year-old Korean computer

artist in the United States, is the creative mind behind these and has been drawing the

face of Google for almost two years, creating a buzz of sorts with his simple yet witty

designs. With its seemingly magical ability to produce the most relevant search results,

Google is already an established destination for the Internet savvy. Recently, Hwang's

creative logos have been expressing the playful heart of Google behind the impressive

technology.

For Piet Mondrian's birthday, Hwang transformed the "Google" logo to emulate the

artist's signature style of utilizing colorful blocks. Claude Monet's birthday saw the logo

turned into a dreamy watercolor, complete with floating lily pads. Some fun Google

logos,

2004 Summer Games in Athens

Louis Braille's Birthday - January 4, 2006

World Cup - June 9, 2006

Celebrating Google's 7th Birthday - September 2005

Happy Halloween - October 31, 2005

VOTE - November 2, 2004

Earth Day - April 22, 2004

Google’s personality is as close to being human in terms of being fun and innovative.

Google celebrates April fool’s day like no other enterprise. For instance here are some

anecdotes,

Google MentalPlex (2000)

Google announced MentalPlex search technology that read user's mind to determine what

the user wanted to search for. No need to actually type in the search query. What a

wonderful tool, right?

There are many more such hoaxes that Google has played and the links can be found in

the references section of this dissertation.

Google has also kept users guessing about some of these hoaxes as some genuine services

have also been launched on April fools Day such as GMail for instance.

These have added a personal touch to an entity which is widely used but cannot be felt,

and through such means has managed to find a firm place in the life of many internet

users. No doubt that the quality of the service has got them coming back every single

time they are looking for information, but these personalisations have also added to the

charm and personality of Google, so much so that it is almost like a constant companion

in the lives of millions of users.

Users worldwide are solely interested in quick results, irritation free use of services such

as search, e-mail, online communities, chat and so on and with almost all providers

cluttering their pages with graphical ads that consume bandwidth to load, the clean

appearance of Google and all of its siblings come as a breath of fresh air to the users.

Umbrella or Co-Branding :

Google over the years has launched many more services diversifying from being just a

search engine including,

The interesting fact about these services is

that even though each and every one is not exactly a case umbrella branding, there is a

generous mix of both umbrella branding as well as co-branding.

In some stray cases, some of the co-brands have greater recall, that they are using these to

generate usage of the parent brand. For example in Brazil, Orkut, Google’s community

site is by far the most popular internet site and Google is using Orkut to promote Google

where people tend to use more of MSN and Yahoo.

Most of these services are a direct result of Google’s mandate that every employee should

spend about 20% percent of his time on a dream project of their own. This, known as the

“20% rule” resulted in Krishna Bharat creating Google News.

Based on all the work put in to this dissertation, my analysis of this new gentle giant in

the big bad world of global enterprise would be that by being driven by the visionary zeal

of both Sergey and Larry which has slowly rubbed off on to not only Eric Schmidt, CEO

but also to all the employees not only at the Googleplex, Mountain View, California, but

Google facilities all over the world through the organisational culture and such a case

may be utopian but the Google Guys have showed to the world that it can be down and

the top down approach of organisational culture seems to be based on the research, the

easy route to success.

The top down approach not only in terms of organisational culture but also the focus on

attaining top quality every step of the way to ensure customer satisfaction seems to have

brought Google to where it currently is, from an IPO price of $ 85 per share to more than

$ 470 per share, where it is today and Wall Street Analysts are still not able to evaluate

the true price of the GOOG share and some speculate that it might well end up being

close to a couple of thousand dollars per share.

Google, it seems, has proved to be masterful at branding, not through any grand ad

strategy, but simply by letting their users and the news media do their work for them.

As Peter Sealey aptly put it, “Their service is so good, they grew organically.”
 RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the research and analysing the information, Google has, in my opinion, done a

fantastic job in implementing the following mantras for success.

10 Steps for Successful Corporate Branding

Corporate branding is potentially a strong tool for realigning a corporate strategy

and ensures that the corporation - big or small- is leveraging adequately on the

untapped internal and external resources. We believe - and our experience across

clients show - that a strong CEO and a dedicated management team are always

seeking to raise their own bar and be change agents for their corporations backed

by a strong corporate branding strategy. A well-drafted and professionally

managed corporate branding strategy and implementation plan can be a powerful

component of the board room work.

We have identified 10 crucial steps a successful corporate branding strategy,

entails serving as a useful guide for any corporate branding project.

1. The CEO needs to lead the brand strategy work

The starting point for corporate branding must be in the board room, which also

serves as the most important check-point during the project. The CEO must be

personally involved in the brand strategy work he/she must be passionate and
 fully buy into the idea of branding to ensure success, despite the daily and

stressful routine involving multiple duties. The CEO must be backed by a strong

brand management team of senior contributors, who can facilitate continuous

development and integration of the new strategy.

2. Build your own model as not every model suits all

All companies have their own specific requirements, their own set of business

values, and a unique way of doing things. Therefore, even the best and most

comprehensive branding models have to be tailored to meet these needs and

requirements. Often, important adjustments are required to align them with other

similar business models and strategies in the company to create a simplified

toolbox. Remember that branding is the face of a business strategy so these two

areas must go hand in hand.

3. Involve your stakeholders including customers

Who knows more about your company than your customers, employees and

various other stakeholders? This is common sense, but for many companies these

simple and easily accessible sources in providing valuable information for the

branding strategy are not tapped. A simple rule is to use 5% of the marketing

budget on research and at least obtain a fair picture of the current business

landscape including the current brand image among stakeholders, brand

 positioning and also any critical paths ahead. Put simply, do not forget the

valuable voice of your customers in this process.

4. Advance the corporate vision

The corporate branding strategy is an excellent channel for advancing the

corporate vision throughout the company. It allows management to involve,

educate and align everyone around the corporate objectives, values and future

pathway. It provides a guiding star and leads everyone in the same direction. (The

internal efforts count towards at least 50% of making a corporate branding

strategy successful.)

5. Exploit new technology

Modern technology should play a part in a successful corporate branding strategy.

Technology contributes to improving effectiveness and improving the competitive

edge of the corporation. A well-designed and fully updated Intranet is a must in

today's working environment which has become increasingly virtual with

employees working from home, from other locations and traveling across the

globe. An Extranet can facilitate more seamless integration with strategic

partners, suppliers and customers, avoiding time consuming paper work and

manual handling of many issues. A company website is not only a must, but

rather a crucial channel for any modern corporation regardless of size. If the
 corporation is not accessible on the Internet, it does not exist! The more

professional the website is, the better the perception among the Internet savvy

modern customer. Gone are the days where corporations could get along with a

business card portrayed on the Internet.

6. Empower people to become brand ambassadors

The most important asset in any organization are its people. They interact every

day with colleagues, customers, suppliers, competitors and industry experts. As

well as interacting with an impressive number of people totally disconnected to

the corporation in the form of family members, friends, former colleagues and

many others. Hence they serve as the corporations most important brand

ambassador as word-of-mouth can be extremely valuable and have a great impact

on the overall corporate brand image. The most effective way to turn employees

into brand ambassadors is to train everyone adequately in the corporate brand

strategy (vision, values and personality etc.) making sure they fully understand -

and believe! - What exactly the corporation aims to be in the minds of its

customers and stakeholders. Nike is a brand which is known for their efforts in

educating and empowering everyone employed by the company to be strong

brand ambassadors.
7. Create the right delivery system

The corporate brand is the face of the business strategy and basically it promises what

all stakeholders should expect from the corporation. Therefore, the delivery of the

right products and services should be carefully scrutinized and evaluated on

performance before any corporation starts a corporate branding project. Think of the

cradle to grave concept, of a lifelong customer and the value he/she will provide in

such a time span. Make sure he/she is handled with outstanding care according to

internal specifications and outside expectations. The moment of truth is when the

corporate brand promise is delivered well - and it does not hurt if the corporation

exceeds the customer expectation. Singapore Airlines runs a very rigid, detailed and

in-depth description of any customer touch point with the corporation. Resources are

spent on making sure it actually does happen every time to every customer. All

employees regardless of title and rank from Singapore Airlines spend a significant

amount of workdays being trained every year.

8. Communicate!

To bring the corporate brand to life one needs to implement a range of well-

planned, well-executed marketing activities, ensuring the overall messages are

consistent, clear and relevant to the target audiences. Making sure the various

messages are concise and easy to comprehend. Do not try to communicate every
 single point from the corporate branding strategy. Instead, use a selective

approach, will make much more impact using the same resources.

9. Measure the brand performance

A brand is accountable and so too should a corporate brand. How much value

does it provide to the corporation and how instrumental is the brand in securing

competitiveness? These are some of the questions which need to be answered and

which the CEO will automatically seek as part of his/her commitment to run the

strategy successfully. The brand equity consists of various individually tailor-

made key performance indicators (including the financial brand value) needs to be

tracked regularly. A brand score card can help facilitate an overview of the brand

equity and which gauge progress as the strategy is implemented.

10. Adjust relentlessly and be ready to raise your own bar all the times

The business landscape is changing almost every day in every industry. Hence the

corporation needs to evaluate and possibly adjust the corporate branding strategy

on a regular basis. Obviously, a corporate brand should stay relevant,

differentiated and consistent throughout time, so it is a crucial balance. The basic

parts of the corporate branding strategy like vision, identity, personality and

values are not to be changed often as they are the basic components. The changes

are rather small and involve the thousands of daily actions and interpersonal
behaviours, which the corporations employ as part of the brand marketing efforts.

But make sure complacency does not take root in the organisation and affect goal

setting. The strongest brands are the ones which are driven forward by owners

whom never get tired of raising their own bar. They become their own change

agents - and brand champions for great brands.

 CONCLUSIONS

Based on the above conducted research the conclusion is obviously evident. A focused

top down approach by the top management on all matters pertaining to the vision and

strategy of the company, keeping in mind that the end-user should stand to gain at the end

of it all and there should be absolutely no compromise being made on the customers or

end-users experience or satisfaction.

In other words ensuring 360 degree stakeholder satisfaction will in quick time ensure that

you have a successful enterprise in place with an outstanding growth rate, ensuring top of

the mind recall at all times in that particular industry which is the dream of all companies

building and working on brand management vying for that top of the mind recall.
 REFERENCES

Bibliography :

“The Google Story” – David A. Vise.

In numerous articles from

• www.brandchannel.com and

• www.allaboutbranding.com

www.google.com/corporate

http://www.google.com/technology/pigeonrank.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_hoaxes

http://www.google.com/jobs/lunar_job.html

http://www.google.com/googlegulp/

http://moon.google.com/

http://www.google.com/romance/
 APPENDIX

Guidelines for the Focus Group Discussion :

The following questions are for the Focus Group Discussion (FGD) that I plan to have to get

a feel of the perception among consumers about the brands that I am focusing on to get

QUALITATIVE responses which would be more suitable for my dissertation rather than

using a quantitative Questionnaire.

FGD: (Structured)

Target Audience: 20+ of Age, people who are working among SEC B+ (Middle Class

and Upper Class)

SOLELY to establish the perception in the target audience about the selected brands:

I am sure you have heard of names like Google, Microsoft, Wills, McDonalds, LG and so

on. I’d like to know what kind of an impression each of you have about such brands and

then we shall discuss what gives you such an impression.

1) Looking at the field of IT, internationally the top names that come to ones head

are Microsoft, Oracle, Google etc. What is your perception about these

companies? ----> further questions based on the responses if deemed fit.

2) We discussed IT and the perception each of you have about some of the

companies. Now please tell me why you feel this way about these companies.

What is it that these feelings rise from?

3) I think it is safe to say that most of you have had no interaction personally with

the company, and yet your feelings seem quite strong. How did that come about?

4) Now let us slightly drift to another sector altogether, though remaining in the

domain of the service industry. What is your opinion on McDonalds?

5) I presume that none of us here have even dined at McDonalds enough to form an

opinion, considering that Chennai does not have a McDonalds. So where does this

opinion stem take root from?

6) Does advertising have an effect on your perception and if so to what extent?

7) Now going back to the IT sector, we do not see many advertisements for

companies like Google, Oracle and Microsoft. Yet we a strong perception taking

root from usage of the product (probably established through question 3 above).

Are there other sources of information affecting our opinion and if so to what

extent.
8) If you were to buy a TV, which one would you go for? (An out of the blue

question to trigger best top of the mind recall).

9) Why? (the factors that result in such a perception being formed in the mind of the

consumers)

10) To what extent do advertisements affect your perception?

11) Players like LG and Samsung are relative newcomers in the marketplace. How is

that they seem to be more popular that old brands that have been in the market for

years like Philips, Onida and BPL? (anticipating such a scenario, else the

Question can be modified based on the response to question 8 above).

Common Responses :

“Google - Working there is a dream. A bold company, willing to take risks. More hits

than misses as far as their products go.”

“Personal usage of the product is what I base my opinion on.”

“Advertising does not affect me too much and even if it does, it affects my perception

of the personality of the company as a whole more than its products.”

“The similarity between Google and McDonald’s is their attempt to bring to

customers around the world, as similar an experience yet customized based on

geographies and this drives their success to an extent.”

“Google is a useful tool that helps me look for anything on the internet. Google has

primarily grown through word of mouth which is again a very important medium for

spreading the news around or making people try it out once.”