Is Military Re-Branding Possible?
July 25th, 2007 by Chief NutA RAND corp. study urges the U.S. Military to revise their tarnished brand in Iraq (from Reuters). The 211 page study claims that military actions such as the images from the Abu Ghraib prison and the delay in getting electricity and clean water to the Iraqi people have created poor “positioning” …. AND, the situation can be solved by implementing a better brand strategy.
I can’t disagree with the recommendation. My suspicion is, however, the U.S. military won’t be able to effectively pull this off. …. for a couple of reasons:
- First off, the news story tips the military’s hand on how they would approach this type of recommendation. The last paragraph states that the Joint Forces command will use the report to study possible responses to current urban challenges. OK, they don’t get it. “Studying possible responses” is a time killer. More importantly, taking that approach is a demonstration that the U.S. military is not structured in a way that it can heed this advice in a way similar to a failing corporate brand. Example; Take any VP of Marketing for a large corporation and put their head on a chopping block for creating a poorly positioned product brand. Their next step would be to take action … NOT “let me study some possible responses, and I’ll get back with you, maybe.”
- A la Tom Peters, in his book Re-Imagine, these types of drastic situations require taking drastic steps. Complete reinvention … not a Kaizen-like, Six-Sigma, “incremental progress”, tweaking of the situation.
- Finally, the effective re-branding of an entire organization requires a holistic, top-to-bottom implementation. The successful launch of the new brand would need to be permeated throughout the entire organization and be reflected in the organization’s deeds and actions. I’m guessing the U.S. Military is NOT going to completely re-invent themselves. They aren’t prepared to change their processes this dramatically … nor do I think it would be wise to do so.
What to do. What to do.
I suspect the reality is not the military’s brand is tarnished as much as the entire United State’s brand is tarnished…. it just so happens that for the past few years, the Iraqi people have only experienced the U.S. via their interactions with our military. The RAND corp. study suggests taking a “we will help you” approach to repositioning the brand. I think that’s sound advice. BUT, the military is the worst choice of organization to implement that type of strategy. Their deeds and actions don’t support the concept.
If the U.S. were to successfully pull off that kind of campaign, it would need to engage an organization large enough and with the correct “leanings” to launch a “we’re going to help you” initiative. Someone like; the Red Cross, the United Nations, the Peace Corps … heck, even the Boy Scouts of America would be in a better position to do this than our military.
(Note: Understand that this post is not a commentary on my views of whether we should pull out of Iraq or not … that’s a political hornets nest. I’m simply addressing the brand issues presented in the Reuters article.) What do YOU think?
July 27th, 2007 at 3:08 am
I agree with what you are saying. Brand USA has been badly tarnished by its military interventions and although some improvements could be achieved by the military taking more of a ‘we will help you role’, they will struggle to do so all the while they are fighting insurgents. Its a Catch 22. If the USA wants to improve its brand positioning in the middle east, then it needs to do something bold show that it has something positive to offer, which they will struggle to achieve while the military is their primary point of contact. Incremental improvements on their current tactics are unlikely to achieve the change of perceptions that they need.
January 3rd, 2008 at 11:28 pm
Before the U.S. Military decides that they “will help you”, let’s hope that the recipients want that help.
Imposing assistance based on our ideology has proven to be a grave error.
When ever there is a major disaster in the world the U.S. is the first to the post to offer assistance and they don’t get enough credit for this in my opinion. They’ve got to toot their own horn more. The world loves to rag on America for being the “World Police” when it is convenient. I think that the military can change their brand with actions reflecting assistance values rather than aggressive values.
As a Canadian, our military are considered “Peace Makers” through out the world. Granted, it’s as big as the New York Police Force, but it’s brand is enviable. Imagine if the U.S.’s military brand was that of peace makers, it would be powerful. It has got to hurt, that when an American travels abroad, they can’t wear their flag on their sleeve for fear of being a target. many American friends of mine actually wear a Canadian flag to get better treatment. Tell me that’s not enviable branding.