The portrayal of carbon pricing by Australia’s newly elected Liberal-National government as a fear creating tax represents a disappointing step backwards in Australia’s progress towards becoming an ecosystem economy. In taking this backward step, Australia appears to be falling even further behind far-sighted nations and corporations that are now embracing the concepts of natural capital and ecosystem services as essential aspects of mainstream economic decision making. For example, Andrew Liveris, the Chairman & CEO of multinational giant The Dow Chemical Company[1] recently observed: “Companies that value and integrate biodiversity and ecosystem services into their strategic plans are best positioned for the future”.

As a tool to help make rational decisions about goal setting and resource allocation 20th century economics made a huge contribution to the growth of national wealth, as measured in terms of growth in our capacity to consume. But by adopting a system that effectively ignored the negative impacts of pollution and over exploitation on our long-term capacity to derive economic value from the natural environment, 20th century decision makers ignored the need to meet the true costs of acting in ways that destroy the natural capital upon which long term growth and profitability ultimately depends. In the long run, it just doesn’t make economic sense to keep making this same mistake.

For example, if we accept the link between excessive carbon emissions, global warming, and decline in the long-term productive capacity of natural ecosystems, then it is economically irrational not to place a price on excessive carbon emissions. Only by doing so can we create the economic conditions in which those producers who invest in low-emission alternatives will ultimately be advantaged, so that the whole economic system adjusts to a pattern of growth based on more sustainable carbon emission levels.

In the emerging ecosystem economies of the 21st century, governments are accepting responsibility for extending regulatory frameworks to take account of the complex, yet increasingly demonstrable relationships between stocks and flows of natural capital (the natural resources from which we draw ecosystem services in order to sustain life and experience enjoyment of life) and our collective social and corporate capacity to grow and prosper. This long overdue acceptance has largely depended on our scientific and technological capacity to understand and model those interactions, which is now becoming well established.

It is now becoming widely accepted that the economically rational way for global society to manage natural capital in pursuit of widespread growth and prosperity is to charge for economic actions that draw down on the stock of natural capital and pay for those which increase it, at the same time as educating people about the underlying reasons why this makes good economic sense in the long run.

The good news is that tools and technologies now exist for governments and corporations to rationally apply the principles of ecosystem economics. For example, Australia will be amongst the world’s first nations to publish a set of national environmental accounts, based on the globally accepted System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), which has been developed over the past two decades under the auspices of the United Nations. And in Victoria at least we are already capable of assessing the impact of commercial land use on the stocks and flows of natural capital and ecosystem services within local catchment areas, with the real prospect of realising substantial gains in overall productivity through the development of more rational land use on an ecosystem scale.

On the micro-economic corporate scale, the economic incentive boils down to long-term productivity. Accounting for ecosystem services is the economically rational way to maximise long-term returns on the exploitation of natural capital. In an ecosystem economy, this translates into adopting more efficient use of natural resources like water or reconfiguring land-use in order to increase sustainable yields of both consumable and natural goods and services. The net result in the long run is that the landholder will become economically better off. Armed with better information and understanding of their landscape it should be possible to ensure that, if there is any loss of production of traditional market goods through this reallocation of land use, it will be more than offset by payments for their contribution to increasing the value of their natural capital.

So whether as voters, employees, shareholders or social networkers, I would urge all Australians to support and encourage the emergence of our own ecosystem economy as a good – or indeed as an urgently overdue – political development. Don’t be conned by backward looking, short-term focussed politicians and corporations into believing that we should continue to avoid paying to maintain the health and productive capacity of our natural capital. It’s everybody’s ecosystem, upon which everybody depends on our long term capacity for economic growth. So it’s up to us all to insist that we embrace ecosystem economics as soon as possible, to secure a positive economic future for ourselves, and for generations to come.

Get in Early
The contest to win the trust of prospective customers has already begun, and those brands which first achieve widespread familiarity will enjoy significant competitive advantages amongst conservative, quality conscious market segments. Like capital infrastructure, brand awareness can only be built up over time, and delivers its full returns over a long term. Early investment in an uncluttered market-space delivers much better long-term returns than later investment in a cluttered market. How long can you afford to wait?

Simply Differentiate your Brand Value
Complex organisations with long established ‘community service’ brands need to adapt to contestability by adopting highly distinctive, simplistic brand positionings based on customer value drivers. You need to be quick and remain committed to grab and own the mental real estate that will one day lie at the valuable centre of a contestable market ‘mind-space’. Consider Optus’ long-standing commitment to ‘yes’ – a positive service attitude that remains relevant and effective to this day. What equally simple idea can your brand hope to ‘own’?

Signal your Price Position
Are you premium, affordable value, or lowest cost brand? Each of these positionings appeals to distinct customer segments, and you need to be quick to adopt a language and style that clearly signals the segments you aim to attract. Consider for example about how effectively Australian Super has used the idea of ‘run only for members’ to turn the idea of ‘not for profit’ into a powerful, customer focused, affordable value brand story to attract value-conscious superannuation buyers.

Get Your Value Propositions Sorted
Traditionally supply-driven businesses need to be quick to recognise that contestable market success depends on generating demand. While you may be used to thinking and talking about delivering aged and disability care, remember that you are in fact catering to your customers’ needs for residential investment advice, property management and household services, family counselling, as well as medical and pastoral care. In may not be wise or even possible to market to all of these different demand drivers under a single brand value proposition. Consider how each of the ‘big four’ banks maintain distinct brands in the financial adviser space. Can your existing brand stretch to convey all things to all people at different stages of the ageing journey, or affected by different levels of disability?

Need Some Help?
If your organisation is looking for help to recognise and understand the challenges and opportunities inherent in the advent of care market contestability, then Brandway offers relevant insights and know-how drawn from decades of experience. Whether you are looking for a simple brand risk assessment, a competitive positioning review, or a full blown brand identity and architecture overhaul, we can provide the cost effective guidance you need.

Often the biggest rebranding cost comes after the brand strategy and identity have been created.  So it’s really important to work with a brand agency that can help guide you on cost-saving implementation strategies, while simultaneously amplifying your brand effect.

The most effective way to crunch costs and maximise communication cut-through is to create a set of core ‘graphic assets’ that convey your brand story in engaging ways – akin to your brandmark, but in some ways more powerful and versatile.

Such graphic assets are best created in the context of a flagship launch piece, such as a brand launch presentation to staff or customers.  The aim should be to create 8 – 10 powerful graphics such as illustrations, charts, word charts and found images that can be reused again and again in other communications.

This approach minimises overall implementation costs because, while there’s a one-off capital investment to create the assets, ongoing design costs are generally much lower.  Also, there’s no scope for anyone to ‘reinvent the wheel’ or for the opportunity for another designer to needlessly reinterpret the visual identity for his or her own creative satisfaction.  The result is a consistent new brand experience that communicates all the right messages about your brand.

So it’s all about channelling your inner Dale Carnegie to “tell your audience what you’re going to say, say it, then tell them what you’ve said”.  It’s a well proven way get your point across, and you’ll get some great cost savings along the way.

Tara Cahill, Director – Brandway

While it’s critical for those at the head of an organisation to take responsibility for new visual identity development decisions, there’s no substitute for the practical input that hands-on brand users can provide to make sure your new visual identity system really hums.

But beware! Expectations must be carefully managed at the outset, input sought at the right time in the process, and management must clearly understand the possible pros and cons of opening up the process to a broader group.  Input like, “I really don’t like grey because it reminds me of my house in the eighties” is rarely constructive!

So how can brand identity evolution or development benefit by involving those that will use the brand day in, day out?

Well, you might learn that the colour system needs a few more variations so that the myriad data represented in graphs and charts is communicated really clearly.  Or that a simpler, alternative photography treatment is required to manage communications for which the in-house designer is responsible. Or that a different file type is needed by one of the in-house teams when the artwork package is handed over.

The best point to engage brand users is usually just before the design refinement stage begins.  By then all the big, in principle decisions have been made by the executive, and the focus is all about fine-tuning the system to make it work as effectively as possible in real life.

And possibly the most important outcome of all is that you’ve cultivated some great brand advocates in the process.

Tara Cahill, Director – Brandway

These days it pays to be environmentally conscious, and demonstrate true commitment to adopt more sustainable practices. But that doesn’t mean adopting a ‘green’ brand positioning. The real challenge is working out how your brand positioning and value proposition should be adapted to reflect a greater degree of environmental consciousness.

One of the best ways to do this is to open yourself up to critical scrutiny from within your own organisation. Transparency and a willingness to adapt are vital aspects of environmental responsibility, and so the process of opening up is in itself a powerful demonstration of your new commitment to sustainability.

Try engaging your staff and partners with the practical challenges of introducing more sustainable practices into your organisation, and be prepared to resource the good ideas that come out of this process.

It’s a very good bet that some unique, hybrid ideas will emerge from this sort of discussion which will become important and distinctive beacons to signal your commitment to shift your brand in line with the greening of market expectations.

Angus Kinnaird, Director – Brandway

Using research to ask people all about their current perceptions of your brand is a bit like making a map of where you’ve already been – interesting, but not really useful to help decide where to go next.

And asking them where they want you to go doesn’t work either – it’s not their job to come up with the ideas that will challenge them and make them to see you in a fresh light.

So, to get the most out of research you have to come up with some challenging new ideas so people will react in ways that reveal what motivates, attracts or confuses them. It doesn’t matter if the ideas are rejected – the most valuable insights often come from people telling you why an idea is wrong. What does matter is that the ideas are distinctive and evocative, so that they elicit both rational and emotional responses.

So next time you invest in strategic brand research, plan to put plenty of time and effort up-front to come up with some strong ideas, and express them in ways that are sure to make people tell you what they really think and feel about where they want your brand to go.

Angus Kinnaird, Director – Brandway

Maybe the most difficult step in brand strategy development is making the conceptual leap from a verbally defined brand value proposition to an emotionally evocative visual brand identity. For example, you might be sure you want to convey the idea of proactive innovation, but how should you decide what sorts of colours and images will do that best?

A bit like choosing the exact site on which to build a new house in a paddock of possibilities, it always pays to fully consider a range of options before deciding where to invest all the money, time and effort that goes into the design and execution of a new brand identity.

Experience has proven the value of using illustrative positioning concept boards to help senior decision makers to visualise different options as a way to help them agree on an ideal ‘look and feel’ for their new or evolved brand.

We find it best to start with three distinct options as a way to illustrate different creative dimensions in the competitive branding landscape, thereby providing clear reference points with which to debate and agree on a visual brand positioning.

Angus Kinnaird, Director – Brandway

Some senior executives embrace the need for a strong brand value proposition, but then focus only on their own area of responsibility in isolation from one another, which can lead to contradictory propositions.  A strong brand story needs to make sense as a whole, and that means linking every audience-specific expression of the brand value proposition back to one core brand truth that is relevant to all types of brand stakeholders.

So what does this mean, in practical terms?

The MD or CEO plays a vital role in organisational brand evolution. While they may delegate responsibility for managing a brand project, they will always remain responsible for ensuring the brand’s overall integrity.

Senior managers need to invest time to work through their differences, to sort out the narrow brand truths that are relevant to specific stakeholder groups, from those overarching truths that are relevant to all.

You should aim to define the brand values proposition in a way that spells out how the interests of major stakeholder groups, such as  employees, shareholders and customers, are intrinsically linked.

Angus Kinnaird, Director – Brandway