Branding Tasks and Brochure

Building the utility brand impacts all facets of the organization. It begins with understanding the power of branding and the brand elements that support sound policy decisions on rates and investment. The attached Resource Trends brochure briefly covers many of the tasks associated with defining the brand, and integrating it into planning and outreach efforts.

Resource Trends Brochure

Branding Update
May 20, 2013

Simple Concepts, Big Change

Although there are subtleties to branding and it takes experience to implement a competent branding program, the principles are fairly simple. After all, it’s not profound to say that a water utility should provide water reliability and protect public health, or that the utility’s staff needs to be trusted with respect to planning and finances. However, there is a big difference between these ideas being very familiar and successfully building trust with policy makers and the influential public. For example, you won’t build a reputation for efficiency unless you systematically share information about efficiency improvements with target audiences. Similarly, building a strong financial brand requires being transparent with respect to financial motivations, standards, and decision making.

Ultimately, the biggest challenge for utilities is that implementing a branding approach usually involves considerable change, typically with respect to the information they share and the community relationships they strive to create. Success requires an appreciation for the substantial benefits of branding, which in turn fuels a commitment to do things differently. The positive outcome is a sizeable change in how the utility and staff are perceived, and a more dependable process for securing investment and rate increases.

Branding Update

May 6, 2013

The Influential Public

Giving policy makers the cover they need to make sound decisions requires that we understand who policy makers look to for support, or who is influential. Asking policy makers to be brave and make tough decisions without clear-cut support is too much to ask. It also increases the risk that the community will under-invest in resources and infrastructure. The last Branding Update recommended providing support for policy makers by building relationships with community leaders or the “authorizing public.”

Authorizing or Influential - Authorizing is a strong word, and to some this term describes policy makers, or only those people with the authority to make policy decisions. Developing a strong relationship with policy makers is clearly a priority. But utility managers also need to identify those community leaders who are in a position to influence decisions. So, a better term for the utility’s target audience might be the “influential public.” Using this term does not mean that individuals in this group have an objective to influence (although some might). It simply means that if their position on a key issue is known to a policy maker, it could affect how the policy maker votes. Ideally, the individuals in the influential public are community leaders that represent (as a whole) a broad cross section of interests. This means that utility managers need to use this “general-public-interest” standard when identifying the individuals that make up this group.

The Self-Selecting Public and Undue Influence - The influential public is not restricted to those who show up for public meetings or workshops. As mentioned in the last Branding Update, volunteers are self-selecting. They are engaged for a variety of personal reasons or special interests. They do not represent everyone. Self-selectors are surely part of the influential public, so they deserve a voice. But they should not be exercising undue influence or dictating policy simply because they volunteered to be heard. The mission of utilities is to serve the entire community.

The Challenge - Building relationships with members of the influential public requires that you know who they are and are able to peak their curiosity with interesting information and compelling events. Encouraging people to be interested and accept this relationship is a challenge. People are busy. And even the majority of community leaders are not seeking to learn more about water. Look for more information on addressing this challenge in future Branding Updates.   

Branding Update
April 15, 2013

Reaching the "Authorizing Public"

When thinking about public outreach, it is important to consider who you want to reach and why. Often, who utilities reach is limited by who shows up at public meetings or workshops, or who signs up to be part of an advisory group. It is important to remember that these people are self-selecting, and they are engaged for a variety of personal reasons or special interests. They do not necessarily represent the general-public interest. Sometimes the only people self-selecting are opponents or “squeaky wheels.”

Previous Branding Updates have addressed the need for utilities to provide “cover” for policy makers. This requires building relationships with those in a position to influence policy decisions. Ideally, the utility needs to reach community leaders who represent a broad cross section of interests. We have started referring to this group of individuals as the “authorizing public.” Reaching these people begins with knowing who they are, followed by proactively meeting and communicating. Self-selectors are surely part of the authorizing public because they are interested and engaged. But they are only a subset of this group, and certainly should not be exercising undue influence or dictating policy. The mission of the utility is to serve its entire community.

Branding Update

March 18, 2013

The Nature of a Compelling Argument

How High Is The Bar? - Most people don’t part with their money easily. So if you want someone to buy your product or invest in your endeavor, you need to make a pretty compelling argument. Often, utility staff members expect policy makers to easily trust that their rate-increase proposals are necessary. This is an unreasonable expectation. When it comes to money, trust never comes easy. Investment proposals must meet a high standard, characterized by extraordinary clarity and highly-relevant information. The foundation for trusting a specific proposal is the utility’s brand (or trust in the organization). No proposal is compelling if it comes from someone you do not trust. But a strong organizational brand must be accompanied by a strong case for investment. For water-utility managers, the bar is especially high because policy makers often feel uneasy about the consequences of supporting a rate increase. Furthermore, they and their constituents typically have preconceived notions about the efficiency of government organizations and government spending. Clearly, a compelling argument needs to be so clear and meaningful that it displaces current thinking and ideologies. This allows policy makers to fully appreciate the logic of the proposed investment.

How Should It Look? - A compelling proposal provides the rationale behind an investment in clear and precise terms, for example by:

·        Describing the fundamental roles and commitments (promises) of the organization

·        Reviewing ongoing efforts to increase operational efficiency

·        Providing meaningful transparency

o   Which means listing the key standards, driving forces, or other motivations for recommending the investment

·        Stating the problem to be solved

o   Which can be a current problem or one that will manifest in the near future if action is not taken

·        Emphasizing and explaining significant financial standards and challenges

·        Justifying the timing of the proposed investment

·        Communicating the ramifications of failing to invest or delaying investment

o   Typically in terms of reduced service reliability, increased risks, or higher costs in the future

What Doesn’t Belong? – Technical, financial, or any other facts that don’t make a relevant point or clarify the argument for investment.

How Should It Feel? - Policy makers should feel “compelled” to support the investment. More specifically, they should get a strong sense that voting no will be difficult to defend. A compelling argument exposes a “no” vote as being motivated by things other than meeting the utility’s operational and financial needs.

What Do The Results Mean? - A vote that tracks political-party lines or ideological beliefs means that the argument was not compelling. Therefore, the standard for a compelling argument is a unanimous decision, despite the fact that this is not always achievable (especially with large governing bodies). However, the unanimous-decision standard is suitable because it encourages the utility’s staff to take responsibility for the result, and continue to improve their planning and investment proposals.

Branding Update

March 5, 2013

Unpacking Planning and Financial Transparency

Previous Branding Updates have introduced the importance of making a compelling argument for investment and rate increases. The foundation for a compelling argument is trust in the person or organization making the argument. For utilities, building this trust (or brand) depends on providing meaningful transparency, especially with respect to planning and finances. In this context, meaningful transparency can be characterized as information that is both understandable by the audience and highly relevant to proposed investments or policy decisions. Sharing technical details with a non-technical audience may seem like transparency, but this doesn’t build trust.

Motivations and Standards are Relevant – This is because motivations and standards are what drive people to take action, make a change, or spend money: for example, a person taking public transportation to work every day because it’s less expensive, less damaging to the environment, and they can work while in transit. We can argue that these motivations relate to the personal standards of being smart with money, having concern for the environment, and being efficient with time. Understanding motivations and standards allows us to fully appreciate a situation or decision. With respect to planning and finances, utility proposals need to highlight the following types of information:

Planning Standards, Motivators

·        Acceptable levels of risk related to water resources and water reliability

·        Infrastructure-replacement and lifecycle-cost standards

·        Both regulatory and internal water-quality and environmental standards

·        Guidelines for addressing anticipated growth in the community

·        Planned increases in operational efficiency

Financial Standards, Motivators

·        Debt ratios (which impact the cost of borrowing money)

·        Liquidity and cash-flow standards

·        Maintaining financial reserves, and the logic behind recommended levels

·        The desired level of debt, and logic behind this standard

·        Costs/financial ramifications of delaying proposed actions or investments

Whatever the motivations and standards, they need to explain why the utility is recommending a specific course of action. Planners and chief financial officers are all too familiar with the issues above, but often the utility fails to provide the needed transparency. Presentations are better received and instill confidence when they begin with the pertinent motivations. And this can be done simply and briefly. Without this clarity and context, even policy makers familiar with the organization are hard-pressed to fully appreciate the utility’s proposal. Often, the unfortunate results are probing questions about why a proposal makes sense, confused enquiries about extraneous technical details, and ultimately erroneous conclusions about the urgency of the proposed investment.

The Bottom Line - The utility’s brand and the quality of the investment proposal have significant impacts on policy decisions, the performance and financial health of the utility, and ultimately quality of life in the community.

From Jan 9, 2013 Branding Update

Resource Trends Branding Brief on City and Community Branding

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When working with water and wastewater departments within a municipality, questions often arise about the department's brand and its relationship to the city's brand. This in turn leads to discussions about effective and ineffective ways to build the brand of a city or community. The following Resource Trends Branding Brief outlines key issues related to developing a city or community brand, and what we can learn from Proctor and Gamble, owner of 300 consumer brands.

Branding Brief - City Branding