Sadly, we have seen it all before, commercial blunders and personal… well, shall we say, misjudgments. Usually brands are stronger than people imagine and can come out of such mire with little more than a few bruises to the ego and a little embarrassment. The public understand that the brand is not embodied in an individual – in most cases.
A brand’s culture is very much like any other culture, it is tripodal – at its heart are its core values and beliefs, around that are its actions, how it interacts with the world, and finally its products, the physical manifestations of the brand in terms of tangible artefacts and goods. Any one of these elements may be vulnerable to damage through the actions of individuals or groups. We have seen some spectacular examples over recent years. But usually the brand may survive so long as the core – the beliefs and values are not damaged.
The question for the poor old co-op bank is, are its values at risk?
I think it is a close call. One differentiator that separated the brand from other banks, and helped see it through the stormy waters of the banking crisis, was its ethical dimension. Although it may have been viewed as staid and perhaps parochial, it relied upon the heritage of the co-operative movement, distanced from the pure profit motive. It often took ethical stances in terms of investments structured its accounts and products accordingly. This a distinction which must have appealed to many customers whose values it reflected.
Are business ethics distinct from personal ethics? Does business probity stand separately from moral laxity in the bank’s officers?
I’m sure the brand has not suffered terminal damage, but it has been hit in a very sensitive spot, its valuable point of differentiation will take a good deal of reclamation.