Most of the writeup about branding seems focused on communications and storytelling. Is the strategic plan focused on these types of activities?
That observation should not be taken as necessarily implying a criticism, as I think it could be the right approach. One might conclude, for instance, that the communications and storytelling angle is pretty tractable and/or neglected in comparison to other brand issues. But the term branding can be seen as broader in focus, so I think clarity on scope would be helpful here.
Suppose one were managing the brand of a hotel chain consisting mostly of franchisees. It seems to me that there are two sides of the branding coin there. First, hotel brands have brand standards intended to create the brand. These are often very detailed on issues like room size, toiletries, staffing, free cookie at checkin, etc. The brand enters into contracts with franchisees to enforce those brand standards (although enforcement is often iffy, if travel bloggers are to be believed). Then they need to effectively communicate the brand they have created to potential customers. This week’s writeup seems focused on the second step of the process.
Brand management of EA is doubtless harder than managing a hotel chain, but one could imagine identifying the pain points in the current EA brand and developing brand standards to address those points. One challenge is that (at least many) brand standards need to be observable by the public, or at least by intermediaries trusted by the public. For instance, brand standards adopted in response to FTX need to persuade the public—not just “EA leadership” or EAs in general—that anyone who turned a blind eye to warnings about SBF has been appropriately dealt with.[1] Credible brand standards to address racism would need to point to more concrete, public actions than (e.g.) referral to Community Health for possible placement on what may come across to the public as double-secret probation.
I don’t see much about the brand-standards side of the coin in this writeup. I saw some of the linked EAG talks, but they are at a 10,000 foot level. That’s of course understandable for being an EAG talk!
I can think of a number of reasons why there might be less focus on the non-communication side of branding here, such as:
Brand standards may just be outside the scope of this particular writeup.
CEA may think detailed brand standards are inconsistent with what EA is, or are too costly for practical reasons.
CEA may think existing brand standards are fine (or at least not a limiting factor) and are followed, just not communicated effectively to the public.
CEA may believe that there isn’t clear community consensus about what semi-detailed brand standards should be, and CEA doesn’t have the power to enforce its own views on the subject on the community.
CEA may believe that, even if there is (and could be) community consensus about brand standards, CEA has little to no power to actually enforce said standards against people or entities who do not wish to comply.
CEA may believe that any vigorous attempt to enforce brand standards may imply acquiesce in the problems for which no formal enforcement action was taken.
Again, I’m not taking a position at this point on how much CEA can or should try to shape what the EA brand is vs. limiting itself to more effective brand communication.
“Turned a blind eye” and “appropriately dealt with” are intentionally vague because I’m not trying to reignite that conversation here beyond asserting that “turned a blind eye” is not limited to actual knowledge of the nature of SBF’s fraud.
Most of the writeup about branding seems focused on communications and storytelling. Is the strategic plan focused on these types of activities?
That observation should not be taken as necessarily implying a criticism, as I think it could be the right approach. One might conclude, for instance, that the communications and storytelling angle is pretty tractable and/or neglected in comparison to other brand issues. But the term branding can be seen as broader in focus, so I think clarity on scope would be helpful here.
Suppose one were managing the brand of a hotel chain consisting mostly of franchisees. It seems to me that there are two sides of the branding coin there. First, hotel brands have brand standards intended to create the brand. These are often very detailed on issues like room size, toiletries, staffing, free cookie at checkin, etc. The brand enters into contracts with franchisees to enforce those brand standards (although enforcement is often iffy, if travel bloggers are to be believed). Then they need to effectively communicate the brand they have created to potential customers. This week’s writeup seems focused on the second step of the process.
Brand management of EA is doubtless harder than managing a hotel chain, but one could imagine identifying the pain points in the current EA brand and developing brand standards to address those points. One challenge is that (at least many) brand standards need to be observable by the public, or at least by intermediaries trusted by the public. For instance, brand standards adopted in response to FTX need to persuade the public—not just “EA leadership” or EAs in general—that anyone who turned a blind eye to warnings about SBF has been appropriately dealt with.[1] Credible brand standards to address racism would need to point to more concrete, public actions than (e.g.) referral to Community Health for possible placement on what may come across to the public as double-secret probation.
I don’t see much about the brand-standards side of the coin in this writeup. I saw some of the linked EAG talks, but they are at a 10,000 foot level. That’s of course understandable for being an EAG talk!
I can think of a number of reasons why there might be less focus on the non-communication side of branding here, such as:
Brand standards may just be outside the scope of this particular writeup.
CEA may think detailed brand standards are inconsistent with what EA is, or are too costly for practical reasons.
CEA may think existing brand standards are fine (or at least not a limiting factor) and are followed, just not communicated effectively to the public.
CEA may believe that there isn’t clear community consensus about what semi-detailed brand standards should be, and CEA doesn’t have the power to enforce its own views on the subject on the community.
CEA may believe that, even if there is (and could be) community consensus about brand standards, CEA has little to no power to actually enforce said standards against people or entities who do not wish to comply.
CEA may believe that any vigorous attempt to enforce brand standards may imply acquiesce in the problems for which no formal enforcement action was taken.
Again, I’m not taking a position at this point on how much CEA can or should try to shape what the EA brand is vs. limiting itself to more effective brand communication.
“Turned a blind eye” and “appropriately dealt with” are intentionally vague because I’m not trying to reignite that conversation here beyond asserting that “turned a blind eye” is not limited to actual knowledge of the nature of SBF’s fraud.