A brand doesn't come for free

Tech companies have had more than their fair share of PR mishaps this year. Sam Trendall examines the importance of branding for channel players

As members of the press we are prone to regard every molehill as a mountain, and blow up every teacup-sized storm to the size of a raging cyclone.

With that in mind, it may seem something of a fool's errand to declare this year a landmark one for PR disasters in the tech industry. But it surely is.

A clutch of the world's biggest technology vendors - including Microsoft, Acer, HP, Amazon, RIM, Cisco, Nokia and RSA - have made headlines for all the wrong reasons in 2011. Failing technology, management musical chairs, rapidly declining sales and poor operational execution have led to all the above firms and more going down in infamy in the press.

The importance of cultivating and maintaining a strong brand has never been more evident, as some companies seem to brush off catastrophe and come up smelling of roses, while others stumble from one misadventure to the next.

Brand designs

It wasn't so very long ago that probably the only people who cared about effective branding strategies were Don Draper and his ilk. But these days everyone from the chief executive to the consumer is fully aware of the time and money companies spend on getting their brand right.

But what is the key to building a great brand in the technology industry - for both vendors and the channel partners that serve them?

Nick Baggott, course director at the Chartered Institute of Marketing (CIM) which has a focus on the technology sector, argues that many tech companies could benefit from building their brand with end users as much as they do with the channel.

"There is a tendency to focus on the technology rather than the brand. They are often focused on their partner and reseller networks and can under-emphasise the need to build long-term, sustainable brands with their end consumers," he says.

"Technology companies use blogging effectively to make their brands more accessible and relevant to end consumers and much of this communication is rightly done by the technical experts rather than the marketing comms team. This can lead to an inconsistent brand experience."

Andrew Pearce, managing director of conference call specialist Powwownow, agrees customers do not want to get bogged down in high-end specifications.

"The majority of tech consumers want to feel ahead of the curve and to be associated with forward-thinking expertise that can help them better achieve a purpose, usually a job," he says. "Therefore, there are very few flashy companies in this space, and instead, a sturdy, simple, professional and trustworthy image is wise."

Resellers and distributors can surely benefit from strong ties to a well-regarded brand, but when a vendor's name is dragged through the mud, it can hurt channel partners.

Mike Maynard, managing director of B2B technology PR firm Napier, says: "Negative publicity about products has a trickle-down effect on the distributors and resellers, which may have enquiries from their customers about a negative story they have seen."

Nicola Lidgett, head of marketing at VAR Azzurri Communications, claims that the more a reseller has invested in a certain vendor, the more they could ultimately stand to lose.

"The more a reseller is tied to a vendor, the greater the impact of those negative headlines," she says. "In today's market where agility and independence are attractive differentiators, resellers that are vendor-independent will not feel this impact as much - their brand credibility can see both parties through."

Branding the channel

The onus is also on VARs and distributors to cultivate their own brand identity that resonates with customers and differentiates it from rivals. Mark Weston, distribution manager at LG UK and Ireland, claims that effective branding is arguably more important for resellers than for vendors.

"As you move through the channel from vendor to distributor to reseller, the importance of branding is possibly increased as competition increases," he says. "Branding can create an emotional bond which trans-lates to favouritism and selection over competition."

Azzurri's Lidgett agrees that, in a more crowded market, resellers must work even harder than their vendor partners to develop a successful brand.

"Vendor products and services are available from any number of sources," she says. "So being the most credible and attractive source, the one that is top of a customer's mind, is key. And that's about brand."

When we asked channel onlookers what the tech industry's most successful branding stories are, two names came up time and again: Apple and Microsoft.

Dave Stevinson, sales director at VIP Computers, singled out both firms.

"Apple has developed a digital lifestyle where its product range all connects into a single technology suite," he adds.

Paul Hooper, vice president of marketing at Gigamon, also picked out the Mac maker as a top branding success story, alongside Riverbed, NetFlix and Big Blue.

"IBM has completely transformed the image and the culture associated with a huge brand over the past five-plus years," he explains.

Baggott from the CIM, meanwhile, chose Intel as his top example of stellar branding.

"It has made a virtue out of something that was ignored previously," he explains. "Did people care about the processor inside their PC before Intel started to use co-operative marketing techniques to make its brand the must-have component?"

But for every multinational monolith, there are hundreds of also-rans that fell from fortune, or brands that failed to ignite at all. VIP's Stevinson cites Netscape and Compaq - even prior to its acquisition by HP - as notable names to have slipped from view.

"I remember having a branded Compaq PC and using the Netscape browser, but in the long term both brands failed to understand the changing dynamics of the market and their customers," he claims.

Midwich's Lewitt singles out Sony as a brand that failed to cash in on early success. Its dropping the ball has allowed rivals to muscle in, he points out.

"From a dominant position in Walkman, PlayStation, Bravia, Ericsson and many other areas it seems to have let others in the back door," says Lewitt. "Apple, Microsoft, Samsung and others have benefited from its recent strategies. Its creative spark seems to have vanished for the moment."

Losing traction

But what to do when your brand is generating the wrong kind of publicity? The industry players we spoke to agreed that responding swiftly is key, as is apologising and admitting culpability where necessary.

Napier's Maynard says: "Don't make a statement until you have all the facts, but make sure you get those facts as quickly as you can. Hesitation can cost your brand dearly. Companies should have a clear process established prior to any crises arising."

Hooper at Gigamon agrees that expeditiousness and accountability are the watchwords.

"Accept blame, don't deflect it - in other words, avoid the Toyota approach - and tend towards over- rather than under-communication," he adds.

While Barrie Desmond at Exclusive Networks' advice for vendors in the midst of tech problems is simple: "Admit it early and fix it earlier!"

But when you are up against it, having a strong brand already in place can minimise the damage, says Stevinson. He believes the tech industry's two most iconic brands have been able to leverage their brand power to get past recent difficulties.

"PR disasters that spring to mind are Windows Vista and the iPhone 4 signal problem," he states. "Weathering them was down to customers having faith in the brand to resolve the problem."