Brand identity; the impact of ethical values within food corporations
Branding has developed and evolved with the age of digital technology, its effectiveness can change the attitude towards global issues and communicate to a mass audience. You could also argue that it contributes to the national giant corporations getting their distinct brand embedded into the minds of the consumers in society. A brand is a simple identity of a company or product in which the public can recognize and associate with, everything from the colour, image and type have been considered and designed to ensure the companies purpose and communication is not lost with the public. I will investigate how brands have made an impact on society and the ongoing battle with corporate chains are competing with their products and brands in the UK and how it has an impact on our society. At first corporations used to stay in the background of their products, as noted by Wally Ollins (2008) “Manufactures either used their corporate name, such as Heinz or Kellog’s, to brand their products” this was because the corporations thought they only had one target audience; the final consumer. This enabled the manufacturers to put overlapping goods on the market, which may have not been very different in quality, but the price may have varied. With a selection of goods with lower quality branding and high quality branding it gave the consumer a choice whether they wanted to spend money on something more luxurious. As noted by Matthew Healey (2008) “Customers always believe a branded item is worth more than a generic one, even though the two may be similar.” This suggests there is a lot more involved than the aesthetic look of the brand, it provides trust to the consumer that time and money has been spent on the product, therefore it must be of a higher quality. It proves that consumers have a sense of loyalty with the brand the are investing their money into, the nicer quality branding of a product must be more luxurious, whereas a lower quality of branding for a product must mean the product itself is of a lower quality too.
Wal-Mart for example is one of the leading global retailers in the world, however it causes many ethical and economic issues with mass production, distribution and waste Wally (2008) argues, “Wal-Mart represents branding at its most triumphalist, globalist, greedy and oppressive.” With giant malls/supermarkets dominating society it has a huge effect on small companies running them out of business with competing prices. Whilst in the Britain there is a ongoing competition between the large and small supermarkets who have a similar system to the giant supermarkets in America. As the larger supermarkets mainly import their goods from abroad, they sell their products cheaper which will eventually run smaller community businesses out of work as they will struggle to keep up with the competing prices. There are also prejudice views on the different supermarkets in the UK, Tesco and Asda for example despite their success are viewed very differently to their competitors such as Waitrose or M&S. Visually the branding for Tesco can be seen as tacky and unsightly, the bold harsh red and blue colours contrast with one and another. Asda also uses an illuminous green colour throughout their product branding, this makes them look of a lower quality as the colour contrasts with any other colour. These elements would indicate their products are more for the lower-middle and working classes. Whereas the branding for Waitrose and M&S is much more sophisticated and elegant. The smooth san serif typefaces give off a professional yet approachable feel to the consumers, which could promote that they are a well-established company and can be trusted with quality products. This ideally appeals more to the middle and upper classes in society who have more disposable income to buy more luxurious products.
Sarah Butler (2014) noted in her article that for the first time in 20 years, grocery sales have gone into decline. She mentions that the reason for this is due to the raging price wars between supermarkets and the uprising of the smaller, cheaper supermarkets such as Aldi and Lidl. This could have an impact on the way the public perceive branding for larger supermarkets. M&S with its stylish elegant branding and sexualized TV adverts was considered a well-trusted brand, with good quality commodities. Their stores has been designed to entice the consumer and make them have the most enjoyable shopping experience, this is intended to influence them into spending more money. From the stacked well lit shelves, to the fresh colourful fruit and vegetables they position at the entrance of the store, even the music they have chosen has been specifically decided to help the customer feel at ease and have a more enjoyable shopping experience. In comparison, Aldi have a different approach on their store layout and design strategy. The neatly stacked shelves are replaced with the stacking of the original boxing which the products are imported from, this is an efficient and a more environmental way to lower costs whilst ensuring the customer is still presented with exactly what they need. It saves time for the staff who would usually be neatly stacking the shelves and cuts down the waste produced by empty boxes.
With the likes of M&S lowering its prices to compete with the likes of the cheaper lower-income supermarkets such as Aldi and Lidl, its actions lessen the effectiveness of the branding and undermine the many hard years of the customers loyalty. “At the heart of every branding effort there has to be a kernel of truth. The beauty of great branding lies in its ability to identify that truth, tell its story, make it look good, and build into a valuable, emotional bond between producer and customer” (Matthew, 2008, p.9), with that in mind the likes of Aldi’s branding is becoming more appreciated as people are becoming aware of the difference in prices and the similarities in food they find compared to their usual supermarket. Amanda (2010) an M&S loyalist argued that although Aldi’s shopping experience is different to the likes of M&S and Sainsbury’s where the well lit supermarkets have nicely designed banners and offers, Aldi cut her expenses from £120 to £45 a week with almost identical products to her previous shopping. This proves that the larger supermarkets were very successful in influencing the consumers with their brand that their products are the cheapest and best quality, when in fact the smaller supermarkets is really where the value is at. Elements of McDonalisation has been took into account when it comes to UK supermarkets. There are distinct similarities with the strategy to ensure the consumer can purchase their goods in a short amount of time in the most efficient and enjoyable way. Branding is one of the key elements in ensuring this process is successful. Branding for the fast food industry has also had an impact on society. McDonald's, the leading fast food giant has had articles claiming they now have a restaurant in every country in the world, the brand itself is also one of the most recognisable brands and despite its reputation for producing and selling food that is unhealthy, advertisements still make their way to our televisions influencing consumers it’s a place of comfort, to socialise and eat good tasty food. The branding for McDonald’s is one of the most recognisable global brands. The golden arches represent efficiency and short term satisfaction as consumers with a busy lifestyle going from a to be need a quick bite to fulfil their needs, it can also represent the perfect form of bureaucracy and the dehumanizing effects of working for such a large corporation and other corporations that have similar work ethics. McDonald’s has been successful in manipulating the public and entice people into an underpaid overworked system, as everyone knows, the food sold at McDonalds is unhealthy. The details of McDonald’s have all been considered and have a purpose; the very design of the interior and exterior is currently a neutral green and brown. This suggests that the soothing and relaxing colours is have been strategically decided to have an affect on the way we behave and think when around those colours. Adverts also suggest that it is a restaurant to go and socialize, relax with friends and eat good quality food and drink when in reality it’s a well-organized corporation that has a huge impact on society, it underpays its workers and exploits the public into purchasing its goods. Rosalind (2005) reported that the salads and more healthier options contain up to three times amount of salt in the food that the rest of the menu. Not only from McDonald’s but from other fast food chains such as KFC and Burger King. Mark (2013) also reported in an article that the US government regulation of genetically modified crops is inadequate. Again this shows that with effective branding and strategic marketing methods the negative side to McDonalds and its products are simply ignored.
George (2000) argues that Mcdonaldization is “the process by which the principles of the fast-food restaurant are coming to dominate more and more sectors of American society as well as of the rest of the world.” He argues that McDonaldization does not only affect the fast food business but virtually every other aspect of society, he argues in detail about both the negative and positive affects from it. The positives being a much wider range of goods and services that are available to a larger portion of the public, the system offering comfort and familiarity to those living in our rapidly changing hostile world and commodities and services will be of a far more uniform quality and affordable to those who may not have been able to afford it before. However George (2000) does argue the negative affects of Mcdonaldisation and how it represents the irrationality of rationality. He mentions that although the system offers powerful advantages that benefit us it also has its downside. “Efficiency, predictability, calculability, and control through nonhuman technology can be thought of as the basic components of a rational system.” (George, 2000, p.16) he argues that eating and even working in a place such as McDonalds or Starbucks has dehumanizing affects on the way we behave as people. How the queue’s to be served and the way the food is prepared resemble an assembly line almost like cattle, Ronald Takaki (2000, p.27) characterizes rationalized settings as places in which the “self was placed in confinement, its emotions controlled, and its spirit subdued.” He also mentions that the demand for quantity over quality leads to large amounts of poor quality work, the limit on skills that are required whilst working there limits the abilities for the workers which also has dehumanizing effects, over time this system has infiltrated the majority of society, its something we cannot escape as it offers part-time and full time jobs to those who may be under qualified to work elsewhere, it also offers the quick fix from being hungry to full within a short amount of time.
Another example a corporation that has took form from McDonaldlisation is Starbucks. Their leading brand is another identity that almost every person in western civilisation would recognise and relate to. Starbucks's logo and identity has had some changes over the past 40 years which itself has responded to the social changes in society. As the consumer has evolved the brand itself has also became more of a cultural icon for current generations, rather than the passion for coffee itself. Charles Passy (2014) mentions that in 2011 Starbucks dropped the word 'coffee' in their logo, he also mentions how Starbucks gets 26% of its revenue from products other than beverages, and in the beverage department a good portion of sales come from drinks other than coffee. The logo itself just containing the vectored illustration suggests that Starbucks is not just a coffee chain but somewhere that offers a various selection of goods to satisfy the consumer in a sociable relaxed environment.
Chris Watts (2011) mentioned that Ethical Consumer had ranked brands on 19 different and found that Starbucks was the worst do their behaviour on political activities and workers rights. He mentioned that they had blocked Ethiopia's attempt to improve the working and living quality of the coffee farmers, and also using genetically engineered milk full of hormones. This had a negative impact on the brands identity as we live in a society that is more ethically conscious for where goods are produced and the livelihood of the workers. With Starbucks competitors such as ATM coffee who were rated much higher in ethical reasons, Chris Watt (2011) mentions that ATM coffee were the first coffee shop in the UK to have their products completely Fair Trade and 100% organic milk, Starbucks needed to act on their ethical ways before their loyal customers swayed to other competitors. However in 2015 Bruce Horovitz (2015) stated that Starbucks are now 99% ethical and have spent more than $70 million on farm sustainability and the workers livelihood, he mentions that they are appealing towards a younger target audience who are more socially and environmentally conscious. This will boost the their brand identity back into the limelight and make people have a clear understanding of the ethical and moral values within a corporate chain. To conclude I have investigated previous and current day issues with corporate branding and how it is affected by ethical and moral values. Corporate branding is the key essential element into making a business successful, getting a chains identity into exposed into the minds of society will not only bring it success but it will reveal hidden truths that corporations may prefer to keep a secret. McDonalds and Starbucks are strong examples of this, however have taken different approaches to meeting consumer demands. Both are very similar when it comes to their workers who work in their stores, the underpaid graveyard shifts and the cattle like assembly line in serving the products to the consumers, has dehumanizing affects on the way the public live in society. The branding itself for Starbucks has became more about the culture than the actual product, whereas McDonalds is a quick place to visit to get from hungry to full in a short amount of time. Allegations that McDonalds and Starbucks serves products that have been genetically modified can have an extremely harmful affect on the brands identity, it can leave the public feeling dismayed and loose trust with the chains themselves. However it has been reported recently that Starbucks has improved the livelihood of their growers and pumped millions of dollars into farm sustainability, with their target audience at a much younger age its clear we are entering a generation that are a lot more environmentally and ethically conscious and want to make a change. From the facts I have presented it shows that corporations can take notice of the publics demands and when they respond it brings them respect and success.
As for the UK supermarkets, again research has suggested that people are not falling for the well branded, more expensive goods anymore. The well established corporations such as M&S are taking a dent in their customer loyalty as competitors such as Aldi and Lidl are producing goods with similar qualities but for a much cheaper price. Although there are huge differences in the quality of branding and the interior of the stores, it appears that our economy has lead people into choosing price over the store the product was bought in. Aldi and M&S and in a way a comparison between Starbuck and McDonalds, they all have the same established assembly line system however the stores that have chosen the more environmental and ethical route are now gaining much more success. Overall there is a significance with good quality branding, if Aldi were to rebrand its logo to a more sophisticated quality then the store as a whole could be viewed as more of an honest higher standard. Brand identities such as McDonalds and Starbucks however have already exposed themselves to the global market, it would have to take a lot more work to completely change the reputations the brands withhold. They will constantly be criticised on their ethical and environmental issues unless they change the way they produce and sell their goods.
