Delusions Of Brandeur
2 Oct
How important is a national branding campaign to credit unions?
CUES (Credit Union Executive Society) put that question to attendees of a recent Combined Council of America’s Credit Unions meeting (comprised mostly of automotive company credit unions, I believe).
One in five respondents said “essential”, while another 47% said “very important”.
We need to be careful in extrapolating these results since the sample may not be representative of the broader base of credit unions.
If it is representative, then I’m somewhat confounded.
Is there consensus about what the credit union “brand” should be?
Is there consensus about what the objectives of a national branding campaign would be?
Is there even consensus about what the concept of a “brand” means?
My bet is that the answer to these questions is NO.
If CU executives are yearning for greater awareness of credit unions and how they’re different from banks, that’s fine. But that’s not “branding.”
If CU executives are yearning to differentiate themselves from their competitors, that’s fine. But determining what the points of differentiation are, and how to communicate those points, is not an easy process.
And even if someone did lead a national branding CU campaign, and achieved some kind of consensus about what the brand should be, I wouldn’t be surprised if that “brand” took on a “we’re not like the big bad evil banks” flavor.
What’s wrong with that? Big banks are NOT credit unions’ biggest enemy. The biggest enemy CUs have is consumers’ lack of engagement and involvement with their financial lives. Consumers who are engaged and involved with their financial lives take the time and make the effort to make informed decisions about their choice of financial providers. And consumers that make carefully considered and informed decisions are more likely to choose credit unions.
I find it hard to believe that two-thirds of credit union execs think a national CU branding campaign is essential or very important. It’s far from a panacea.
Bingo. Well said.
I’m one of the few that can remember back when CUNA attempted a national branding campaign. And, when my state league attempted the same in Wisconsin. Like pushing a rope up a hill and mostly ineffective. But the posters looked nice on the walls of the board rooms.
Ron, you’re right: credit unions’ biggest enemy is APATHY. People aren’t strongly against credit unions….but they’re not strongly for them either. Rather, they don’t give a darn. They’re indifferent, and indifference kills any brand, whether you’re an individual company selling shoes, or a national collective industry selling a “movement.”
I think a common misconception that many credit union professionals and board members hold is that the “Got Milk” campaign was successful. Yes, there was a lot of awareness for the CAMPAIGN; celebrities lined up to be in it…. but the deep dark secret is that it didn’t actually increase SALES of MILK. In fact, it worked brilliantly to commoditize milk, driving many smaller dairy farmers to either go out of business or figure out a way to differentiate themselves DESPITE THE NATIONAL BRANDING CAMPAIGN. Anyone want an additional battle to fight right now? No? No takers?
While this article doesn’t mention the Got Milk campaign, it’s readily apparent that it certainly did no favors for smaller producers. National branding campaigns work the opposite way; it favors the largest in the field and quickens the demise of independents.
You are judging the “Got Milk” campaign unfairly. The goal always was to create awareness for an industry that was getting out marketed by Coke, Pepsi, Gatoraid and Snapple to name a few. The campaign kept and continues to keep market share, in an industry that was consistently loosing 5% of the market share year after year. The larger will always benefit the most because of sheer size, availability and resources. The small producers that failed relied solely on the national campaign to keep sales. To many people look at an awareness campaign as a cure all. You need to still do your individual marketing to produce action from the consumer.
I believe Credit Unions spend to much money, time and resources educated their members about the Credit Union Difference and not enough to the mass public.
National awareness is needed to keep and maintain the ideals of the Credit Union movement. More and more this year I have read articles about Credit Unions acting more like banks. This is because Credit Unions are starting to stand for nothing but being a financial institution.
I’ve heard this before. “We need a Got Milk campaign for credit unions.”
Got Milk works because the individual dairies have relatively no brand and no direct-to-consumer interaction. And its milk. Everyone knows what milk is and has a general sense that it’s healthy.
I don’t believe that you can clearly communicate a unified brand message when there will always be individual brands competing within the national brand. There is no room in the consumers’ mind for both.
Dejardins in Quebec is a the closest example in North America of independent co-ops working under a unified brand. Every credit union (they are called caisse populaires) is underneath the Dejardins Brand. http://www.desjardins.com/en/
Same goes for the UK. They have unified under the The Cooperative and actually share this brand with financial services, food, pharmacy, travel and all sorts of co-op businesses. http://www.co-operative.coop/
These are examples of national (or provincial) brands. A unified awareness campaign for 8,500 individual credit union brands is not a national brand. Not only does it seem impossible to pull off, it seems like it would be a waste of money with out a singular and compelling point of differentiation.
None of the things brought up in the post or the comments stand as sufficient arguments against a national campaign for credit unions. Certainly there are concerns, challenges and fears, as everyone has pointed out. But not one of these points refutes the need nor potential results of a national campaign:
* Credit unions can’t agree on a definition of brand.
* It’s hard to define the campaign’s objective(s)
* It’s hard to define the campaign’s message(s).
* The campaign *might* have a “bash the banks” theme.
* Apathy is a problem in the financial industry.
* CUNA attempted this before (yeah…with what budget?)
* “Got Milk” was- or wasn’t successful.
The notion of some sort of national campaign has been floating around for yearssss… The first stumbling point is always rhetoric. People argue about whether it should be a “brand campaign,” or an “awareness campaign,” or a “PR campaign.” Then someone points out that “you can’t brand an industry.” Then the whole discussion tailspins… What’s the objective? What’s the message? Who pays for it?
Back and forth. At least once or twice a year this gets debated.
One thing is for certain, and that is the credit union industry has a huge problem. Research has proven over and over that people don’t know what credit unions are, therefore people don’t consider credit unions as viable financial alternatives. A solution should be found for this problem, whatever name you want to give it. It seems as if a lot of people summarily dismiss the problem because they don’t like the proposed solution (“brand” campaign).
A national campaign doesn’t need to directly address the differences between banks and credit unions, as Ron fears. Such a campaign, regardless of what label you apply to it, should aspire to raise the American public’s basic understanding of what credit unions are. Then each, individual credit union would have a lot more latitude with their marketing capital. As it stands today, credit unions waste mountains of time, money and energy explaining the common basics shared among all credit unions.
Of course, this entire conversation is completely moot right now… There isn’t anyone in the credit union movement who can afford to ponder anything as wild as a coordinated, industry-wide marketing message. Not CUNA, NAFCU, NCUA, CUES, corporates, leagues… Not anyone.
‘with out a singular and compelling point of differentiation.’
- Create one.
‘a national branding CU campaign, and achieved some kind of consensus about what the brand should be, I wouldn’t be surprised if that “brand” took on a “we’re not like the big bad evil banks” flavor.’
- Perhaps not an all encompassing Credit Union brand as such, perhaps CU branded shared services and I give only as an example – ‘CU Insured/Insurance’ or perhaps even – a shared transaction network, mobile or otherwise.
Give the local businesses and merchants a reason to love their individual Credit Union. Does a Credit Union member’s funds have to go from small-town to New York and back to pay the local merchant who is also a member of a local Credit Union? Hardly going to be able to be compared with the big bad Wall St banks (or credit card brands) if your customer’s money never goes near them.
‘They’re indifferent, and indifference kills any brand’
– Give them a reason to love you. Tell them why your customers love you. Be better for the local community and remind them that you are.
I believe I missed three words in my last sentence.
“Without AN AGREED UPON singular and compelling point of differentiation.”
I am not saying that there are no compelling points of differentiation. In fact, there are many and therein lies the rub – getting consensus on what to market. If someone can get everyone to agree on something and rally a significant budget, I say go for it, but it better be more than conveniently located, friendly service and we can do everything banks can do.
I do agree with Jeffry: it would be much easier for individual credit unions to market themselves if everyone knew what a credit union was.
My examples of a single co-op brand were simply examples of international approaches to brand building in the co-op sector. This is certainly not the only way to do it.
Call it a national campaign versus a national brand campaign and perhaps consensus can be built.