Strong associations result from having a clear and consistent positioning

Sue has spent most of her working life with major media and advertising agencies. She began her career at Leo Burnett, then moved to Lintas. She was later appointed as managing director and worldwide board director at Initiative Media Futures. Prior to joining Millward Brown, Sue was managing director of Carat Insight and board director of Aegis Media U.K. During her career she has worked with a number of leading companies including Unilever, Diageo, Renault and AOL. Sue is a frequent speaker at major media industry events and is a past chairman of the U.K. Media Research Group. She shares her views with BE’s Abhijit Ganguly.

Q) What are the essentials of brand building? What among these is the determining factor in brand recall?

A) The one essential is an understanding that the brand exists as the sum total of the perceptions it has in the minds of the consumers. An essential task is to build and maintain positive associations in the minds of consumers that are tightly linked to the brand name, its logo, its packaging and the experience of the product or service itself. Strong associations result from having a clear and consistent positioning, leaving no doubt as to what the brand stands for and what it is offering to consumers. All brands have users with varying levels of loyalty and the brand must be managed with this in mind. We have found that building loyalty amounts to communicating these things: emotional benefits, rational benefits, popularity, difference, dynamism and value.

Global brand building has to take into account differences between and among countries since people will respond to a brand and its communications differently according to their life history and current realities and values.

Brand recall depends on reaching enough of your customer base with well branded and memorable communications - sometimes people forget that reach is important, but you cannot affect people you don’t talk to. Effective share of voice over the longer term is important in that you need your communications, your brand associations to dominate a person's memories of your category.

Q) Does the product define the consumer's choice or is it the other way around?

A) Any brand must satisfy its customers’ functional requirements and the

strongest brands deliver exceptional experiences. Marketing cannot make up for the failure of a brand to deliver but it can frame the attitudes and expectation people bring to their product experience and can enhance it, like for instance,“oh yes this really does taste quite like butter”.

Q) What major FMCG brands have set the trends in marketing?

A) I was privileged enough to sit as a final judge for the Festival of Media Awards this year and saw some great stuff, but what stood out for me was the W.A.L.S. (women against lazy stubble) campaign and “Shave India Movement” for Gillette in India. It’s significant in that it exemplifies the value of a social agenda, beyond social networking sites, which is going to grow in importance and is moving forward in marketing. When we have “anytime, anywhere” media consumption on a mass scale, people are going to be living in a huge cloud of influences, fragmented and out of order. In such a world people must instinctively recognise the brand and what it stands for irrespective of context or communications channel; in a way that is resilient to a myriad of other influences. A Mass Agenda is a key to this, but the enhanced sociability and influence of the consumer also means that most brands will seek to add a social dimension to it.

This is about more than using the social media. Yes, marketers are learning to interact more naturally through social technologies; going beyond display ads on networking sites to building an opt-in community and developing more intimate relationships with key influencers in the digital space. Indeed, social media will be a great way to listen to and engage with people who want to talk to you, but the ROI on these activities for actually building a brand (versus maintaining existing loyalists/or dealing with specific detractors) will not be there.

We have plenty of evidence of social media's power to harm a brand, but little of it actually building a brand. In the future, the emphasis will be about an authentic social aspect of the Mass Agenda, the sort of thing Gillette has done but on a bigger scale.

Q) How does Millward Brown help clients manage their brand assets? How has this worked in India since the establishment of Millward Brown India in 2008?

A) Our global company strategy is to be the ongoing partner of choice for clients when they are developing and managing brands into the future. Our offer encompasses everything from the development of brand strategy, monitoring brand health, to communications development and communications channel evaluation to the analysis of shareholder returns from marketing investments.

Our competitive advantage currently lies in our pre-eminent position as specialists in understanding how consumers build loyalty to brands and how communications affect loyalty. As we focus on tackling today's important issues for our clients, we don’t overlook what we already know, which is considerable since we have been doing this for 35 years.

In India, our aim has been to build a thinking organisation that develops appropriate new solutions to add value to our clients’ businesses. While we will stay focused on the brand, media and communication space, we are continuously expanding our offerings and leading the industry on innovating.

This year our foray into the exciting world of Neuroscience will add tremendously to our ability to advise clients on their creative needs, thus leading the industry in adoption of new ways of doing research, not via approaches suitable for one-off projects, but approaches that can be applied across frequently done projects. Another area is our adoption of CAPI for large tracks in a market where interviewing is still largely pen and paper based.

We will be focusing more and more on Cross-Media, Digital, Neuroscience and Marketing Science. We are launching these today with the knowledge that they represent the areas where our industry will need to be providing advice to clients in future. Our aim is to take the leadership position on each of these and thereby offer the best brand and communication advice to clients.

Tale of two tragedies

-Priyalina Basu

Iconic images of a dead child after the poisonous gas leak in Bhopal in 1984 (Above) and of a pelican struggling in the water polluted by the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico this year (Below)

Recently two compensations have made headlines- British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and the Bhopal gas tragedy (1984). BP has settled a compensation of USD 20 billion with a sincere apology within 56 days of the oil catastrophe, considered as the largest offshore oil spill in the US.

In an interview with Politico, President Obama said, “In the same way that our view of our vulnerabilities and our foreign policy was shaped profoundly by 9/11, I think this disaster is going to shape how we think about the environment and energy for many years to come.”

The Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) Gas leak disaster at Bhopal provides a stark contrasting picture. The court fined the seven convicted UCIL officials USD 2715 apiece and UCIL INR 5 lakh for causing the death of some 15,000 people and affecting nearly five lakh people over the years with several defects and diseases.

In India, instead of strongly criticising the Court’s soft judgement on the offenders, the former Chief Justice of India, A. M. Ahemedi said, “The hue and cry is happening because people want to raise the issue.”

This leads to a serious question: Are our laws more lenient for foreign companies unlike in the US? The answer unfortunately is YES. The entire procedure of compensation and regulation of a foreign/domestic company depends on how stringent the law of the land is and how determined are its enforcers to carry out their responsibilities.

Laws and implementation:

The US was able to extract a hefty compensation along with USD 75 million for cleaning the oil with the collaboration between federal and state authorities and BP by a legal process known as the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) established under the 1990 Oil Pollution Act.

However, in India, we do not have such strict laws that the MNCs are bound to observe. Even now, as the Pollution Control Board’s report states, the cyclone prone industrial zones of the country like Haldia are disaster-prone due to the lack of constant monitoring system and disaster resistant infrastructural mechanisms.

If we take the Nuclear Liability Bill for instance, we can see that certain clauses indirectly allow a way out for the manufacturers and the builders of the nuclear reactors from any financial and legal liability. The maximum financial liability in case a nuclear accident occurs in nuclear reactors would be USD 458 million- a similar law in US has set the financial liability for such accident at USD 10.5 billion.

Moreover, the operator will have to pay INR 500 crore and the remaining amount will be paid by the Indian government. The victims will not be able to sue anyone. So foreign companies will not pay an individual’s compensation once they have paid the total of INR 500 crore.

Corporate law:

There are very few laws in the world that give immunity to the corporates. However, in India, we do not have an effective corporate liability law for either Indian or foreign companies especially in cases of ' mass disaster’ where the killing could have been anticipated but profits were counted.

 Corporate offences relating to hazardous activity like in Bhopal have already been treated as cases under civil law. In criminal law, they are not counted as cases of strict liability with the accused (including corporations) having to show a lack of fault.

 There is no law to charge MNCs who control, are in charge of or are involved in the activity or its beneficiaries.

What Union Carbide did, was to find the loopholes and evade the responsibility. Therefore, the extradition of Warren Anderson, the CEO of Union Carbide during disaster, would not help much to get an exemplary verdict.

Union Carbide got the Supreme Court (SC) to reduce the charges to causing death by negligence - and limit punishment. This is unfortunate. The charge carried a punishment of up to two years or fine, or both (section 304A). Otherwise, corporate liability would have been tested under culpable homicide amounting to murder, carrying an imprisonment for 10 years (section 304 Part II).

In 1989, the deal included exculpating Carbide from criminal proceedings altogether. Mercifully, in 1992, the SC lifted the immunity it gave to Carbide. But Union Carbide (US) denied criminal jurisdiction to India. Anderson, a prime accused in the charge sheet on 1987, was denied extradition in 2004 for the lack of more “concrete” evidence. The trial, thus, became an Indian affair, as nine other accused were Indians.

Too Little, Too Late:

Realising the growing anguish of the people, the Indian government quickly convened a meeting of the Group of Ministers to come out with an acceptable compensation package.

 The total package costs around INR 1,500 crore.

 INR 10 lakh for the dead.

 INR 5 lakh for those with permanent disability .

 INR 3 lakh for those with partial disability.

 INR 100 crore to destroy the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal and construct a memorial in its place.

 Separate INR 300-crore remediation proposal to dispose of toxic waste.

 Treatment of second and third generation people.

All companies go through constant monitoring and reviews. None can feign ignorance of potential disasters. Therefore, it is imperative to have laws that deter companies from being criminally negligent. But more than that, there is a need for an apolitical and efficient administrative and judicial set-up to enforce these laws. The lesson of Bhopal must be learnt.

New Education Authority

Will the proposed NCHER promote autonomy?

Bappaditya Chatterjee

The new draft of the National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill, 2010 will not be ‘all-powerful’ and ‘centralised’. States like Tamil Nadu, Kerala, West Bengal and Gujarat opposed the old draft as it was ‘anti federal’. The earlier draft had attracted widespread criticism for over- centralisation and bureaucratisation of the education system. The central government appointed a taskforce that released a ‘federal’ version of the law addressing the concerns of the states. The bill was placed before the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE, the highest decision-making body for higher education in India under HRD Ministry) when it met on June 19. If the Bill is cleared, it would go for Cabinet approval and then would figure in parliament’s monsoon session.

Why NCHER?

The establishment of NCHER as the overarching regulator for higher education was recommended by the Yash Pal Committee. It would subsume all existing regulators such as the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), and the academic functions of the Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India and others.

Professor Suranjan Das, Vice Chancellor, University of Calcutta said, “The present systems of multiple regulators like UGC, AICTE and Bar Council, etc. in higher education was not efficiently working as there was lack of coordination among them. UGC and AICTE have different regulations for recruitment of teachers. So for a university like Calcutta University, it is difficult as there is no parity in regulations. States universities have grievances as 65% of UGC’s budget is being spent for around 40 central universities while the rest of the amount is being spent on more than 300 states universities.”

According to Yash Pal, noted academician, the overall responsibility of the NCHER is to increase the autonomy of higher education institutions, facilitate access, inclusion and opportunities for all and promote a culture of quality and excellence in higher education.

Why opposition by states?

“The proposed NCHER would over-centralise higher education. The states’ voice and demand have to be addressed”, said Professor Das. No universities can be set up without the “authorisation” of the NCHER and therefore, even state governments would have become supplicants before the commission if they wanted to establish a university. “The proposed NCHER Act disregarded the fact that higher education is in the Concurrent List of the Constitution and completely eliminated the role of the respective state governments. NCHER will have all powers of giving degrees and diplomas by legal implication and the universities and institutes would merely be its authorised agents delivering them. Since education is now in the Concurrent List, could this proposed “authorisation” by the NCHER, bypass constitutional amendments?” said, Professor Sutanu Bhattacharya, a former Joint Secretary of the UGC.

He felt that there was no provision kept for authorising or recognising the affiliated colleges in the earlier draft and hence under the Act, the NCHER could not authorise or recognise these to give them grants-in-aid. These colleges would lose their direct grantee status for Central assistance enjoyed under the UGC Act (Sections 2F and 12B).

What changes were made

A fresh version of the Bill is called Higher Education and Research Bill 2010. The word ‘national’ is missing. The new draft says that every university has to intimate the NCHER of its intention along with an assessment report by a registered accreditation agency. The NCHER cannot refuse “commencement of academic operations in a university” if it fulfills the stipulated norms and it has to either “declare” or “reject” the request within 120 days.

Another relaxation the taskforce has granted states pertains to functional authorisation, which any new university awarding independent degrees would need to obtain from the NCHER. Under the old draft, the NCHER could refuse authorisation even after the university received a positive assessment report from an accreditation agency.

The victory for states is the creation of an all-new General Council within the ambit of the NCHER. With representatives from every state/UT, this Council will have the power to veto the commission’s decisions by a two-thirds majority. “Constitution of a general council for giving wider representation to the states and educational and research institutions across different areas is a welcome addition to the old draft which was too centralised.” Professor Das said.

The old NCHER draft law made it mandatory for states to choose VCs from the national registry. Central Universities will make choices from the directory but for states, the provision is optional. There is also concern over a proposed Directory of Academics for Leadership Positions from which institutions can choose their VCs. The directory is to be prepared on the basis of names suggested by a collegium of scholars.

A major innovation in the draft is the setting up of a Higher Education Financial Services Corporation (HEFSC) as a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The corporation is to disburse funds to universities on the basis of norms and principles set by the NCHER. Currently the regulator (UGC) is also the funds disburser. The concern is that this will bring a corporate culture to the financing of education in the new draft called “Research Foundation.”

The draft also seeks control of education as a whole including medical, legal and agricultural. The taskforce recommended a constitutional amendment to include agricultural education under the NCHER, agriculture being a state subject at present.

But the question is about adding more bodies. The commission will have 7 members. There is a collegium consisting of eminent scholars. Then there is an 11-member general council which includes, among others, representatives of each state higher education council, vice-chancellors of universities, and heads of professional bodies, among others. Many senior academicians fear that too many committees will affect the autonomy and freedom of education.

World Cup 2010: How far can it help South African economy?

Sports events have always been about power projection. When China hosted the Olympics, the world acknowledged its growing power on the international stage. To host such events requires huge infrastructure and capacity. These events speed up the development of the country and create many jobs. But the global profile of a country would be as short-lived as the sports event it hosts if its development strategy is not sustained.

The world’s second largest sporting event, the FIFA World Cup, is in full swing in South Africa. However, after one month, when it will pass the baton to Rio de Janeiro, the state will have to face many unsolved problems overshadowed by the mega event.

Impact of the World Cup:

South Africa, the top economy in the continent, is the first African nation to host such a large-scale event. The slogan then for the South African bid was, "Africa's time has come, and South Africa is ready,” recalling the euphoria of the successful transition to non-racial democracy. At the end of the event, it is estimated that around USD 2 billion will flow into South Africa's tourism industry. An additional USD 1.1 billion is expected through the retailers in and around the various match venues and city centres.

FIFA is known to assist the host country and South Africa is estimated to attract USD 21.3 billion as total direct economic value for GDP for hosting the tournament. In addition, the event created 59,000 new jobs- full and part- time, permanent and temporary.

The darker side

Within twenty years, South Africa has grown tremendously. But there is still disparities and hostilities between the rich and the poor, the whites and the blacks. The white-led corporations continue to be the dominant force in the economy and enjoy a level of income well above most blacks partly because of market-oriented policies followed by the new government.

Major issues that have infected the country’s political system and can affect its growth are:

• The level of corruption is very high with cases filed even against its president, Jecob Zuma.


• Secondly, despite relative economic stability and steady growth, South Africa has not addressed the fundamental sources of poverty. Unemployment has reached 25%, being much higher among the black population. Income inequality has increased since the end of apartheid. It has the largest inequality quotient in the world after Brazil. Only one third of the population has government assistance in the form of pensions, child support and other grants.


• Thirdly, the lack of educational skills in population has affected the economy. The success rate for middle school students, which rose to 74 % by 2000, has fallen to 60.5 %. Less than 20 % of students pass the university entrance examination. In addition, half of all students drop out before finishing the twelfth grade.


• Protective labour laws enacted by the African National Congress (ANC) government have kept formal wages high with many employment regulations. This leaves South Africa with a high-cost, low-productivity economy, which neither attracts investment nor allows it to invest outside a few sectors.


• Land reforms have not been undertaken. Blacks are confined to only 13% of the land, and marginal land at that. This led to a decline in agricultural experience and a focus on urban and industrial employment. Efforts to buy back this land, which was possessed by the whites before 1994 for black farmers have largely failed because of the cost constraints and the land not been having put to agricultural use.

Zuma has not come out forcefully to resolve these matters or to provide clear direction. The future of South Africa's economy depends on how efficiently he handles them. The government, which reportedly spent about USD 4.6 billion on infrastructure including the renovation and construction of 10 stadiums, must confront these issues.

However, it cannot be denied that South Africa has enough to have hosted the rugby World Cup in 1995, world cup cricket in 2003 and the Indian Premier League last year. One benefit of a successful hosting of the tournament by South Africa will be the feeling of a sense of accomplishment that despite the negative criticisms from the western media, Africans are able to pull off the organisation of a tournament of such magnitude the not too distant future.

-BE Bureau

World: Business Economics July 1-15, 2010 ( Page 8-9)
Copyright@Business Economics

.