So you know how corporate branding usually works, right? A company develops a pointlessly generic positioning statement - integrity, innovation, excellence and all the other usual suspects - sticks it above its reception desk and then goes on as usual in complete ignorance of these supposed brand values.
Of course, I am not being fair. Inconsistency is not the worst sin of corporate branding. There is a special place in hell reserved for brand contradiction. In these rarer instances, a company develops a bland positioning statement and still manages to contradict these apparently innocuous values.
Step forward PricewaterhouseCoopers, titan of business consulting. While advising clients on how to run their businesses, PwC has recently been doing an outstanding job of running its own affairs in a hilariously off-brand, off-kilter manner.
So how did PwC manage to contradict its brand values of teamwork, excellence and leadership? For the answer we must first travel to Bangalore, where PwC India audited and certified the accounts of IT firm Satyam, unaware that several of its senior managers were forging invoices and bank statements to the tune of more than $1bn.
It was only in January, when the Satyam scandal was finally uncovered, that the reason for PwC's inability to spot a seven-year, 10-figure superfraud became clear. Under questioning by authorities, the head of PwC's Indian business admitted that his firm had not been auditing Satyam's accounts as it was understaffed. Instead, PwC had outsourced the task to a local firm of accountants that shared its Bangalore office. I guess you could argue this was PwC living its 'teamwork' value.
Despite the undeclared outsourcing of the work, PwC still seemed comfortable signing off the accounts each year. Given that PwC claims that its very special kind of leadership demands 'courage, vision and integrity', it's clear why the Satyam scandal and the subsequent 10-month media outrage in India and across the globe has damaged its brand so badly.
Earlier this month, PwC shifted this winning approach to corporate brand management to the US. A day before a critical vote in the Senate committee on healthcare insurance reform, PwC released a report warning of increased family premiums and a rise in health-care costs if the legislation was passed.
The report, paid for by the industry trade group America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), was attacked by Democrats and healthcare experts as being factually misleading. A day later PwC admitted that AHIP had instructed it to focus on some features of the bill, without taking into account other major provisions such as the effect of subsidies for those buying insurance. To put it more bluntly, the numbers didn't actually stack up. How about that for integrity and courage?
PwC is often seen as having the most valuable brand of the 'big four' audit firms, so it has much to lose from these debacles. The firm's branded house architecture also makes it particularly vulnerable to brand contradictions.
Then there is the international nature of its B2B client base to consider. Unlike consumers, who are relatively immune to brand scandals in other countries, PwC's clients are mainly global firms, which are sensitive to misdeeds anywhere in the world.
If you are one of the firms being advised by PwC, please be generous. Next time one of its team pops into your offices to proffer their professional counsel, offer them a few tips on brand management in return.
Mark Ritson, PPA columnist of the year (business media), is an associate professor of marketing and consultant to some of the world's biggest brands
30 seconds on PwC's report on US health insurance
- The PwC study was commissioned by AHIP in September and released on 10 October. It concluded that, unless everyone in the market was made to take out insurance, the legislation would result in rises in premiums of up to $20,000 for the average family over the next 10 years.
- According to MIT healthcare economist John Gruber, the report failed to reflect a fall in administrative overheads and government subsidies that would help moderate-income US citizens to pay for insurance. According to Gruber, when these factors are taken into account, premiums will fall if the healthcare bill is passed.
- The omissions were confirmed by PwC, which released a statement accepting that it took only a partial view. 'The reform packages under consideration have other provisions that we have not included in this analysis,' it said. 'We have not estimated the impact of the new subsidies on the net insurance cost to households. Also, if other provisions in healthcare reform are successful in lowering costs over the long term, those improvements would offset some of the impacts we have estimated.'
- The report drew widespread criticism from US government officials. Former presidential candidate Senator John Kerry summed up the feelings of many: 'The insurance industry ought to be ashamed of this report.'
Comments