Brand Model Review Land Securities Design Roster and Development Marketing Team
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Introduction The development marketing team working with the Land Securities Retail Design Roster have put together a critical appraisal of the current Land Securities brand model together with an outline of the various strategic brand models and the associated pro's and con's to Land Securities Retail. In any market is important that business strategy is continually scrutinised and optimised to ensure that the most effective strategy is being implemented. In a downturn it is especially important. This booklet summarises this thinking.
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Objectives The objectives for the brand model review are: - To review the current model against the backdrop of both b2b and b2c audiences - To explore alternative models with a view to identifying a model that might help our marketing activities be more effective - To explore alternative models with a view to identifying a model that might help our marketing activities be more efficient
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Methodology There were six principle models that the team looked at. Each agency was assigned a different brand model and asked to explore how creatively that model might be executed within the Land Securities Retail portfolio. The six models were: •
House of Brands and Endorsed House of Brands (NextBigThing)
•
Sub Brands (Designhouse)
•
Endorsed Sub Brands (Un.Titled)
•
House of Sub Branded Houses (Tsuko)
•
Branded House (SmallBackRoom)
•
House of Branded Houses (DS.Emotion)
Once developed the roster have met twice to discuss and debate the various merits of each model. We have identified two models that would bring real efficiencies and we think should be given serious further thought. •
Endorsed House of Brands
•
House of Branded Houses
The other brand models not taken forward and their associated pro’s and con’s can be found in the Appendix of this document. All creative has been undertaken by our rostered agencies at no fee. All the strategic thinking and wording has been produced by the development marketing team in house.
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Product Brands
House of Brands
Sub Brands
Parent Brand
Context – Current Model
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Context – Best Practice Text here
House of Brands
Branded House
Sub-Brands
Branded House
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands
b2b overlay Effectively our current model albeit we would bring the Land Securities brand into the consumers eyeline as a reassurance and promise of a quality environment and quality service. Whilst not immediately relevant to consumers over time the Land Securities brand will become associated with the operational excellence we are so rightly proud of and the extra services that we offer. E.g. loyalty card; charity credit card scheme; personal shopping service; creche, etc. During our development cycle the Land Securities brand is used in a very similar way. Where this had been most conspicuous - e.g. Canterbury, Corby and Exeter local consumers have become extremely positive about Land Securities as a brand. In this model this positivity would be carried over and built upon once the shopping centre is open. In the US Simon malls very subtly and very effectively endorse their centres. Research commissioned by Simon has shown that in the consumer mindset the Simon logo on the door, in the toilets, on the customer service desk and through extra value services such as the Simon giftcard give guarantees of a quality environment and better experience. The B2B overlay detailed above allows us to operate a hybrid model. Effectively a House of Brands we would, for our B2B customers, cluster our various centres together to reflect commonality of audience and asset type. Through the alignment of services appropriate to the asset type we would then drive synergies and efficiencies.
This approach would clarify the asset strategy including tenant mix, tenant services and approach to consumer marketing whilst also making cross selling and portfolio deals more likely within the cluster. PRO’s • Opportunity to segment centres for b2b purposes through clustering of our centres • Comparably easy to implement as model uses existing VI’s of our centres (some improvements required) • Brings Land Securities brand into consumer eyeline, eventually reinforcing our b2b positioning • Best of both worlds as b2b overlay allows us to use a consumer optimised model albeit with a b2b overlay which allows cross selling and synergies CON’s • Less of an opportunity to streamline the consumer marketing activities or drive efficiencies • A number of our centre brands are not sufficiently strong enough to allow this model to be optimised. A number of centre’s VI’s would have to be improved so that they both sit comfortably together in their clusters for b2b as well as comfortably sitting with the Land Securities brand endorsement (see the appendix for the design rosters subjective chart of our shopping centres relative brand strength).
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses
The Branded House approach is difficult to implement in the UK marketplace. One size does not fit all and every city demands a different response. The Branded House approach is doubly problematic for Land Securities, as within our portfolio we have great contrasts and differences amongst our assets. However we could cluster our properties into a number of branded houses. One size might not fit all, but 5 might! By either creating new optimised brands or through using our strongest existing brands and then extending them to numerous locations we have a structure that is easy to implement and would quickly lead to efficiencies and greater effectiveness. Each branded cluster would represent either a different kind of asset: covered centre, open centre, factory outlet, retail park; or a different experience type: destination/day-out, convenience, prestige, mass market, etc; or a different core customer group: no frills cost cutter, designer junky, aspiring spenders, etc.
PRO’s • Clear synergies – opportunities to standardise approach to service provision, consumer marketing, etc. • Clarifies investment and management strategies. • Build value of clusters with retailers – cross selling made easier. • Portfolio is made easier to understand – potentially making approach to overseas retailers easier. Also would make PR easier to achieve. CON’s • Would make asset disposal more problematic due to loss of brand guardianship (Virgin model could address this but would make sale agreements extremely complicated). • Some assets wouldn’t fit any group so would either require a number of disposals or a cluster of assets that continue to operate outside of the model. • May be a difficult model to implement at development stage – cookie cutter criticism could be levied. • May be barriers to implementing this model across our London retail portfolio
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – House of Brands and Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Incorporating London Retail
To many retailers the Retail property we own in central London is of greatest interest and importance to their business.
The London retail portfolio would be easier to accommodate within the Endorsed House of Brands model as this is in line with their current approach.
Indeed when attracting new entrants into the UK market it is Central London where they want to dip their toes initially.
The model would only necessitate the inclusion of the London Retail brands into the b2b clusters or if felt to be more appropriate the creation of a separate ‘Central London’ cluster.
As such the London portfolio of Retail Property is an important element of any discussion, negotiation or dialog with a retailer. In order to better leverage this strength it would be desirable that our London retail portfolio is included into the wider retail portfolio of brands.
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Incorporating Product Brands
Both the residential incentives brand ‘Home’ and the flexible office space brand ‘Landflex’ can be incorporated into either of the proposed models. As product brands both ‘Home’ and ‘Landflex’ sit at arms length to both Land Securities and to the properties at which they are offered. No change would be required to either brand.
Appendix 1 Other brand models
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Branded House
PRO’s
CON’s
•
•
Drives maximum equity back to the Land Securities parent brand
• •
Land Securties brand was crafted as a corporate FTSE ‘corporate’ brand. Not as a consumer ‘retail’ brand so would struggle to be relevant and to compete with the likes of The Mall or even Westfield Negative reaction from local authorities very likely – one size does not fit all Consistent approach to visual identity across our portfolio would conflict with the inconsistencies within our asset portfolio
Sub-Brands
PRO’s
CON’s
•
• • • • • • •
•
Reinforces brand and visual identity strength of Land Securities Consistent visual identity allows strong assets to be associated with weaker assets – potentially building value
May be difficult to implement on London Portfolio Cookie cutter criticism Asset disposal more problematic Visual identity of little meaning to consumers No room for assets to express themselves No ability for asset brand to optimise to its core customer Consistent visual identity allows weak assets to be associated with stronger assets potentially eroding value
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Endorsed Sub-Brands
PRO’s
CON’s
•
• • • • • • •
•
Reinforces brand and visual identity strength of Land Securities – further reinforced through the endorsement Consistent visual identity allows strong assets to be associated with weaker assets – potentially building value
May be difficult to implement on London Portfolio Cookie cutter criticism Asset disposal more problematic Visual identity of little meaning to consumers No room for assets to express themselves No ability for asset brand to optimise to its core customer Consistent visual identity allows weak assets to be associated with stronger assets potentially eroding value
House of Sub-Branded Houses
PRO’s
CON’s
•
• • • • • • •
• •
Clear synergies. Clarifies Investment and management strategies. Cross selling made easier. Portfolio easier to understand. Reinforces brand and visual identity strength of Land Securities Consistent visual identity allows strong assets to be associated with weaker assets – potentially building value
May be difficult to implement on London Portfolio Cookie cutter criticism Asset disposal more problematic Visual identity of little meaning to consumers No room for assets to express themselves No ability for asset brand to optimise to its core customer Consistent visual identity allows weak assets to be associated with stronger assets potentially eroding value
Appendix 2 Relative Brand Strength
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Relative Brand Strength
Introduction Objectives Methodology Context Brand Model 1 – Endorsed House of Brands Brand Model 2 – House of Branded Houses Incorporating Product Brands and London Retail Appendices
Relative Brand Strength