Why build a monolith? (Cornelisen Ch. 3 & 4)

It’s easy to see why a company like Starbucks is constantly trying to engage stakeholders in surprising and sometimes disastrous ways. It is, by nature, heavily customer-facing, and has an aggressively open image. While flamboyant social-media-conscious companies are the ones likely to get the biggest stories, I’m intrigued by how Chapter 4 brought the issues of large conglomerates to light.

In recent years, I’ve noticed just the transition to monolithic branding of Unilever that Cornelissen mentions (72). I was vaguely aware of the company as a huge conglomerate responsible for hundreds of brands, but was surprised when I started seeing its quirky logo stamped on its products. It seems like the company has become more forthright in linking its brands together. What would cause a company to try to link shampoo and mayonnaise?

Let’s look at which stakeholders are involved. The definitive stakeholders—shareholders—are already well aware of the brands their sprawling multinational oversees. Well, let’s assume they are. Such moves are likely aimed at stakeholders both primary (such as customers), and secondary (the general public). Using the power-interest matrix (50), I would put customers in quadrant C; they need to be kept satisfied, but aren’t particularly interested. Does the average ice-cream eater care that their odor was crafted by the same company? Probably not.

Other members of the public could be in quadrants A or B, needing to be kept informed, at most. But I think moves toward monolithic branding are both reactive and proactive. I see them as reactive is the sense that the average consumer is more aware of who makes their products these days. Negative publicity typically centers on the parent companies that operate brands, as opposed to the brands themselves. If a consumer learns that Unilever is the maker of Dove through a negative news story, it should concern the parent company. Their reactions are usually examples of what Cornelissen calls stakeholder management; short-term tactics beholden to events (55).

Engagement—proactive moves—can come about as a result of trying to stay ahead of future negative events. Unilever’s social media presence is largely of the feel-good type.

New report shows #sustainable companies outperform their peers in financial performance http://t.co/f8joinI0rq #NCE2015

— Unilever (@Unilever) July 7, 2015

I don’t think the parent company’s shareholders would have felt any need to present themselves so publicly if it weren’t for the increased visibility that the 21^st century puts on corporate practices. I think they would’ve happily continued largely in the shadows, as far as the usual consumer (and thus, most stakeholders) are concerned. Dove would be Dove, Hellmann’s would be Hellmann’s, and Unilever would be a funny word only business insiders knew the context of.

The inherent difficulty in uniting the disparate brands that Unilever oversees is a testament to how monumental a task it would be for key stakeholders to undertake. Cornelissen’s arguments for why a company moves toward monolithic branding are less cynical than what I’ve discussed, focused on potential “market values” and advertisement savings (74), but I think the points I’ve raised need to be considered. Not all parent companies can lean on famous leaders or unique outlets to communicate their brands.

Cornelissen, J. (2014). Corporate Communication: A Guide to Theory & Practice (4th ed.). London: SAGE.