There has been considerable public debate in recent weeks about the need for a single common brand for Australian Agriculture. The question is, what are we asking for here; a common brand? Or a common and united representative body to market our branded produce?
Forget the relative newcomers to branding like Coca-Cola, Nike, Apple and Facebook. Agriculture bloody well invented branding! For more than 200 years, our farming ancestors used branding irons to mark which animals were theirs and to identify where they came from.
So what’s happened? How has Branding changed and why has the primary producer become so far removed from the consumer, and the ensuing value their brand delivers?
In the basic sense of the word, a brand is simply the non-generic name for a product that tells us its origins, however there is more to the perception of distinctive products and services than their names. Marketing a brand is about creating a specific perception in customers’ minds concerning the qualities and attributes of each non-generic product or service so they pay more for it. We call this perception, “the brand.” In short, your “brand” is what a prospect thinks of when they see, hear or interact with your brand name.
So, do we need a common national brand to promote Agriculture here and abroad?
We certainly need to build brands to extract value for our superior quality produce, but perhaps we would be better placed to position Agriculture as a house of brands, rather than a branded house, and therefore brand each of our commodities e.g. Grain, Wool, Dairy, Beef, Pork, Lamb etc separately via a cohesive, well organised and equally represented centrally legislated cohort of commodity groups.
With the myriad of trade barriers globally impacting on each commodity group differently, depending on which export market they are targeting and the disparate nature of the demography, geography, environment, supply chain and production efficiency impacting on each group, it is naïve to think that all commodity groups could sit around a table and find common ground in respect to establishing one Brand. A name for the organisation perhaps, but one all encompassing Brand? Remember that saying ‘a camel was a horse designed by committee’.
Common branding to me seems very old school, cumbersome, predictable and nationalistic, but more concerning is that the approach exposes all industries to increased risk if a major incident affects a particular commodity. For example, if there is a BSE outbreak in the Australian Beef Industry and our master umbrella branding is all about clean, green, safe and sustainable production systems and the brand is compromised, then where does this leave our lamb, chicken, pork and horticulture industries. Are we that confident in our supply chain that we can deliver one believable brand position consistently across the diversity of enterprises?
And before I hear you say, well, New Zealand Brands Agriculture consistently with “100% Pure”….. Well, that’s not an Agriculture Brand, it’s a Tourism Brand! Nice fit and handy coincidence, but not purpose built for Agriculture.
Brands clearly have a value to the companies which own them; the business is worth more because of the position of the brand in its market. It’s called segmentation and it’s the only real way of extracting value from brands. The days of generalist brands that are all things to all people are gone. There is a reason National Australia Bank has a retail brand in nab, an online brand in UBank and an insurance and wealth management brand in MLC. You get more, higher value customers when you offer something that is specialised, valued by the consumer and differentiated from your competitor!
Think Johnson and Johnson, Proctor & Gamble, Nestle, or our very own Murray Goulburn; some of the worlds biggest and most dynamic brand management companies that see value in a house of brands, rather than a one dimensional, constrained, slow moving branded house.
The value of the Australian agricultural brand is in the sum of it’s parts, not as a whole. The Woolmark brand of the 80’s is a shining example of how an industry brand became a global trustmark recognised for its benefits and its quality. It is achievable!
Today’s consumer moves quickly, buys less more frequently and is less likely to be longer term loyal to brands, companies and more specifically, countries. Our focus needs to be around relevant, consumer driven marketing activity that can quickly evolve to meet the needs and trends of emerging markets. We’re not going to achieve that with more Kangaroo and Made in Australia Swing Tags and Stickers!
Jim Gall, 25/06/14
Have your say on a Branding Australian Agriculture by entering the John Ralph Essay Competition @www.farminstitute.org.au
Jim Gall is Managing Director of Redhanded.
Twitter @BrandAg
Email [email protected]
A version of this article appeared in the Weekly Times this week:
There has been considerable public debate in recent weeks about the need for a single common brand for Australian Agriculture. The question is, what are we asking for here; a common brand? Or a common and united representative body to market our branded produce?