I thought I’d share my reply for you lovely people to comment on, refute or share alternative views on.
“The short answer is neither of the options listed, as brand is owned by consumers and customers.
The long answer is that if brand strategy is the key influencer on business strategic development, all cascading operational strategies and leadership decision-making (which it is), the CEO must be the key advocate – inspiring all internal stakeholders. Seemingly counter to this is the emerging concept that the whole organisation is now responsible for marketing – that successfully optimising brand value (marketing’s traditional role) is now so inter-dependent on others in the org. that marketing cannot take sole ownership of this now.
The real answer then is that the whole org. is equally responsible for growing brand asset value and marketing effectiveness… sales, operations, technology, culture, R&D, acquisitions, CS, data etc etc. Anyone of these could be the fail point because all impact on the true brand custodians – customers – or ‘people who can now broadcast brand advocacy or criticism more effectively than the brand ever could’.
How to orchestrate this integrated, organization-wide dynamic is another matter – particularly in orgs that have an entrenched view of both brand and marketing. Surely this is the true mission for brand strategists and good leaders operating in our transparent, transforming and technology driven world.
Isn’t it?
