Business continuity and brand protection

Jim Burtles

In this paper I put forward a logical argument for linking business continuity to the long term success of a brand.

Brand value and brand protection can provide us with a means of forecasting the future performance of an enterprise. Sound protection leads to a long and profitable business-life whereas poor protection exaggerates any flaws or weaknesses to the point where failure becomes almost inevitable in the long run. The message can be conveyed most effectively by the use of graphical models showing the alternative approaches.

The argument is based upon a number of logical assumptions which most people will probably accept as true, or at least reasonable.

Proposition
After many years of practical experience in many countries and most industries, I am coming to the conclusion that the primary purpose, and therefore the principal value, of business continuity is in the protection which it provides for the brand. Furthermore, I am also convinced that the degree of protection directly influences the long term prosperity of the organisation. In this context I am taking brand to mean, or include, such concepts as market position, image and reputation. I have not conducted any formal research and cannot therefore offer any substantial evidence to support my theory. However, I do believe the argument is rational and credible which means it might very well win favour with those who hold our purse strings. There is also an opportunity here for some formal research which will be able to prove the validity of the proposition that there is a distinct relationship between resilience, brand and long term prosperity.

Whilst the line of reasoning offered here is based upon the performance, consequent perception and thus the value within a commercial environment, I do believe the same considerations apply to any public or private sector enterprise which offers services, supplies goods, provides information or spends money on behalf of others.

My line of reasoning is based upon certain basic tenets or principles which seem to underpin the philosophy of business continuity management:
- Any enterprise will be beset by serious problems from time to time.
- Their brand will suffer if those problems impinge upon the customer set.
- Brand recovery, like brand establishment, takes time and effort.
- Repeat failures erode the potential for brand recovery.
- Brand strength is a variable but stubborn characteristic.
- Business continuity provides resilience which equates to brand protection.

If these assumptions are true, as I have every reason to believe, then I suggest we can predict the future performance of any business by taking account of its current brand value and the protection which that brand is afforded. We can plot the value, or strength, of a brand against the degree of protection and infer the effect on trade. If trade suffers then the profitability, hence future success, comes under threat.
Where we are looking at two characteristics or dimensions we can derive four basic models which illustrate the relationship between those parameters. Here, we are considering value against protection in relationship to that nebulous but important concept we call a brand.

Weak brand; poor protection
Firstly, let us consider the worst case scenario where there is a weak brand which is poorly protected. A weak brand has no in-built resilience and so without adequate protection it is subject to the vagaries of the market place. It is likely to fail at some point in time. One could say that failure is almost inevitable in these circumstances.
I am inclined to think of this as the ‘Doomed Business’ model. Trade is likely to suffer an unacceptable downturn in the wake of a serious incident.

Investors, management and customers should be wary of such an enterprise. There is little chance of recovery from the inevitable failure of some aspect of the business operation simply because no-one has had the foresight to plan for the future as it might be.

Weak brand; good protection
In our second scenario there is again a weak brand but in this case it is well protected by a business continuity management regime which strives towards good practice. A weak brand with good protection will not suddenly collapse due to an unexpected operational difficulty. However, its innate weakness does suggest that trade is likely to diminish over time. This purely because of the inherent weakness of the brand but it will not be subjected to a sudden dramatic or catastrophic failure.
I regard this as the ‘Fading Business’ model. Trade might tend towards a downward trend, but stakeholders have nothing to fear although they may never see any exciting or rewarding results. There won’t be any sudden surprises because someone has had the good sense to implement an effective survival strategy which will extend the life of a relatively poor product or service.

Strong brand: poor protection
Here we are dealing with a strong brand which is poorly protected from and thus exposed to any of those unexpected operational problems which are almost bound to occur. A strong brand is, of itself, resilient but it is nevertheless subject to the vagaries of the market place and may be affected by operational problems or delivery difficulties. So, without any protection it may be expected to stumble occasionally but its strength should enable it to recover its market share.

I refer to this as the ‘Erratic Business’ model. Trade may have its ups and downs; stakeholders may a have few disappointments from time to time but these will be offset by an equal number of pleasant surprises. Overall it will be an interesting experience in which the challenges and successes seem to appear in equal measure. Because the brand has manages to survive quite well so far, nobody has bothered to take the initiative to work towards avoiding the challenges and setting the foundation for the steady growth which a strong brand can achieve.

Strong brand: good protection
Finally we come to the ideal business case where a strong brand has the advantage of good protection.

A strong brand is naturally resilient and attractive and so with the added advantage of good protection it shouldn’t falter despite the vagaries of the market place, problems in the supply chain or occasional operational difficulties.

With a well protected stable brand, trade can continue to expand incrementally. Scale of the increments will depend on the brand and the products it supports.

I refer to this as the ‘Sound Business’ model. It is a positive picture which suggests continuing success. Trade is likely to be consistent with a tendency towards expansion subject to limitations imposed by the scale of the operation which may be governed by the level of investment or other known factors.

From a stakeholders perspective this is the ideal long-term investment. The future is rosy because the powers-that-be have had the wisdom and the foresight to invest time, money and effort into a sound business continuity programme. It is also quite likely that the business continuity programme will have made a significant contribution towards the smooth running and the efficiency of the business which owes its long term success to a strong brand allied to a prudent management team.

Conclusion
I believe there is a very clear message here which the business owner should be paying attention to. If you want to see your business to do well then you must generate growth and growth stems from brand strength. Brand strength is dependent upon having a satisfactory service or product but it is generated through good and persistent marketing.

Steady and predictable growth requires brand protection. Lack of predictability can lead to delivery, servicing, supply chain and cash flow problems. Our business requires and deserves protection from the many and varied malignant influences which surround us. This protection can be provided by business continuity management in the form of a properly developed, maintained and supported incident response plan. The alternatives can be very costly.

Jim Burtles, KLJ, OMLJ, FBCI is the author of ‘Principles and Practice of Business Continuity’ published by Rothstein Associates. For further information go to www.rothstein.com/data/dr800a.htm

•Date: 8th February 2008• Region:UK/World •Type: Article •Topic: BC general
Rate this article or make a comment - click here