The new branding comes on the heels of some very aggressive communications from many of the survivors of the financial meltdown, most of which delivers a variation on a theme that could broadly be expressed as "we've been in business forever, and we care about you, so trust us."So was the breakdown of investment ratings, actual returns, and the implicit (and sometimes explicit) promises of suitability and reliability just a blip?Has the last year of news been an exception that we can happily forget?
Did the evaporation of zillions in value have no effect on policy or procedures at the financial firms still around?What a miracle of branding this is. Financial institutions are in a state of denial, and they're asking consumers to go along for the ride.I know I'm a dim bulb, but I really don't get it. Remember when the toy companies got caught with lead paint and other product defects a few years back?
Consumers were subjected to the usual corporate communications blather -- investigations, cooperating with authorities, and a collective company-wide shock -- and then reminded that the brands stood for things better, and more reliable (and thus were somehow not responsible).Checklists were rechecked, and mention of an errant factory here or there ("there" being China) made the rounds on the Internet, but then the story disappeared. Crisis resolved. If the toymakers are doing anything substantively different today than they were before the problems got national attention, they've not bothered to tell anyone.
My suspicion is that they've spent the time finding new ways to shave costs, circumvent minor details of regulation, and otherwise get away with making as much money as they can.Does Mattel truly stand for safe products today? Of course not.
Similarly, Bank of America, MorganStanleySmithBarney, and the other financial firms blowing lots of money on brand image advertising aren't any safer, better, or reliably different than they were before the meltdown. If they were, don't you think they'd tell us?This approach to branding is condescending, at best, and an outright insult to our intelligence, more likely.
As with any other crisis, there's an opportunity for financial institutions to truly differentiate and achieve real, meaningful positions in the marketplace. But they have to do things differently in order to be perceived as different. New policies, programs, and products. More transparency on how decisions and recommendations are made.
Better engagement and education with investors, both large and small. I'm suspicious of the companies that are making the most noise; they should be doing things other than marketing the return of the Status Quo. Their glossy branding nonsense just looks like a bad investment.
Link to original post