Your Brand in Action

No doubt, traditional value aspects of branding have changed and will continue to do so. The old image appeal of brands, for example, no longer attracts in quite the same way as it once did. But there is no conclusive evidence that branding has lost pull—when it is done well. In fact, based on her research, Harvard professor Susan Fournier contends brands continue to "serve as powerful repositories of meaning . . . employed in the substantiation, creation, and production of concepts of self in the marketing age." ^[9]

Consumers "Own" Their Brands: the Case of Starship

When brand meanings have been established and are alive in the hearts and minds of customers, they feel possessive toward "their" brands. This becomes very evident when companies try to tamper with them. A poignant example happened when the Auckland, New Zealand, District Health Board decided in early 2003 to do away with Starship, a much-loved hospital. Starship is a specialist children's hospital that has built a stellar reputation of strength and compassion for treating children with life-threatening illnesses. It offers its young patients, and their families and friends, a unique experience that alleviates the fear and sadness associated with most intensive medical care. Its taglines are "Giving children the best possible chance" and "Family centered care in a child focused environment." ^[10]

When given the much broader responsibility of delivering the best possible health services across the full spectrum of health care, the Auckland Health Board had a new modern facility built to house both Starship and a number of different specialist hospitals. Part of this standardization process involved changing the names of the hospitals, including Starship. After it became known that Starship would become the bland-sounding Auckland City Hospital Children's Services, the nationwide reaction was swift, unanticipated, and vociferous. A highly charged public debate erupted with stakeholders of all types (former patients, parents, staff, and the general public) rejecting the name change and criticizing the health board.

Nothing articulated the issue better, nor provided a more compelling explanation of what brands are about, than this letter published in a New Zealand national newspaper.

Our family has been traveling frequently to Auckland for two years, for cancer treatment for our eight year old daughter. The emotional value to us, knowing Holly is being treated and cared for at Starship, is huge. The word encompasses times of hope, fear, worry and sadness for ourselves as well as other children and families we have met there.

So, yes our attachment to the name is emotive ... But what makes it a world-class facility is the emotive stuff which the staff excel in—the things we have trouble putting a value on—such as compassion, patience, love and commitment. Mr. Brown [Auckland Health Board] is quoted as saying there is nothing special about the children's hospital ... this narrow view is not appropriate for the chairman of a district health board as it signifies he is not in touch with the nature and the purpose of this facility. ^[11]

Brands are Names, Logos, Beliefs—and Experiences

Any brand is clearly more than just its name. Brands are the values, beliefs, and service experiences that underpin them as the Starship case so poignantly expresses. When put this way, it is easy to see how customer service is a brand in action. A belief that Starship's staff would continue to deliver to a specific set of values was solidified in people who had personally experienced the hospital. In Starship's case, the customers obviously feared that with a name change, the experiences associated with the brand would be lost as well.

^[9]Susan Fournier, "Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research," Journal of Consumer Research 24 (March 1998): 365.

^[10]Visit http://www.starship.org.nz and take the interactive tour to get a sense of how different this hospital is.

^[11]S. and B. Richardson, Rotorua, Sunday Star Times, May 11, 2003.