SLIM brand excellence 2007

The Sri Lanka Institute of Marketing (SLIM) should be congratulated for the very professional manner in which it organized the Brand Excellence awards and conducted the awards ceremony.

Under the guidance of Dr. Uditha Liyanage new and relevant criteria were introduced into the judging process - criteria which quite correctly took the focus away from advertising and product management and placed it fully on brand strategies and brand implementation. These included brand intent, brand content, brand process and brand performance. The new criteria certainly compelled practicing marketers to take a second look at their overall marketing strategies and give to brands its true value and importance.

However SLIM should be the first to concede that success this year is no guarantee of success next year. Therefore this year’s brand excellence awards has to be viewed as a bench mark. From now on each consecutive year must incorporate improvements and what is referred to as ‘fine tuning.’ SLIM has to live up to its own manifesto of ‘knowing that that its best is only temporary and that it has to continually better its best’. It is in this context that the following suggestions are offered.

The two most prestigious awards other than the top award of brand of the year were Service Brand of the year and Product Brand of the year. In doing this SLIM quite correctly recognized the difference between products and services and provided not only a level playing field but also two different playing fields. This made it extremely fair for participating companies. It also allowed the judges to be more objective and compare the proverbial apples with apples. However in the special categories section Product Brands and Service Brands competed with one each other. This made the task of the judges more complicated than necessary. It was also unfair to the participants because there were Product Brands and Service Brands each of which would have won much deserved awards had there been two separate categories for services and products. The reality is that each competes in a different playing field. Therefore it is suggested that this differentiation between products and services be extended. It may not be necessary to extend it to all categories. But for a start SLIM should consider extending it to the following categories –

• Innovative Brand of the year.
• Local Brand of the year
• Best new entrant for the year

Having created two lanes - one for Product Brands and the other for Service Brands is it fair to converge these two lanes into one in the final stretch for the brand of the year award ? Even if it appears to be a contradiction to what has been stated earlier it is recommended that this award remain as it is. The contention is that there finally must be an award for the brand of the year be it product or service, which has created the most impact in the market place through its physique – personality.

If a parallel were to be drawn from international cricket – it is like the player of the series award. With no intent to breach the concept of confidentiality upheld by the panel of judges, it would be relevant to state that this year there was much discussion as to whether the Service Brand of the year or the Product Brand of the year deserved the top award of Brand of the Year.

The discussion which involved a close evaluation of brand strategies was not without strongly expressed dissenting views. Thus reaching a decision was not easy. But all this contributed to the final judgment being absolutely fair. It added credibility and value to the award. Therefore Brand of the Year needs to remain and be the most coveted award.

There are two areas in which companies are now getting more and more involved - areas which can add value to the company’s product or service brands and consequently lead to greater awareness and acceptance by consumers. These are the areas of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) and Environmental Care (EC). Here the company becomes the brand and the company has to use the identical strategies used for its product brands and service brands if its CSE and EC efforts are to be recognized by the general public.

The motives of the company can be sincerely altruistic but unless CSE and EC efforts have a positive impact on overall company performance these efforts can be self defeating. Hence public awareness, acceptance and recognition are necessary. Will SLIM consider developing criteria for awards for these two areas?

This year there were 12 members on the panel. This seems to be an ideal number. It also permitted SLIM to conform to the important adage that not only must justice be done but also that it must be seen to be done. Thus a judge who had a direct interest in a product brand confined himself to evaluating only the service brands while a judge who had a direct interest in a service brand confined himself to evaluating only product brands.

This type of conflict of interest will recur in the future. It is therefore suggested that while the total number of judges be kept at 12 this panel be divided into two. One to judge only the product brands and the other panel to judge only the service brands.This will enable the two panels to meet separately but simultaneously and have more time for discussion and evaluation.

However the two panels should meet together to discuss and decide on the top award – Brand of the Year and like this year the guidance of the chairman of the panel can be most important.

SLIM brand excellence 2007 - a review