MedTech: 4 Challenges in Brand System Implementation

There are four key signs of challenges in brand system implementation. Based on a review of the Med Tech sector

1. Brand architecture is unclear and hard to navigate

EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES

Different levels of the hierarchy are often not represented cohesively within communications, failing to logically express the relationships within the brand architecture.

Typographical presentation of naming of focus areas, solutions and products is inconsistent and doesn’t represent the hierarchy.

Visual branding approaches such as color coding and design elements are not used effectively or consistently to support the communication of the brand architecture and hierarchy.

At the most basic level, the hierarchy of products, solutions and therapeutic areas should be supported with consistent typographic conventions.

WHY THIS CAN HAPPEN

• The hierarchy of the brand architecture has not been adequately defined.
• The hierarchy of the brand architecture has not been communicated effectively within the organization.
• The rules for how the hierarchy should be represented in different contexts has not been defined.
• Templates to facilitate this representation have not been provided.

It is challenging to connect the product brand with to the therapeutic area or solution to provide the target audience with a sense of the breadth of the masterbrand’s offerings.

2. The brand is expressed inconsistently

EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES

Visual styles, colors, design elements, photography and typography vary across or within communications.

Content tone of voice, grammar, depth and structure vary across or within communications.

Color-coding, typographic hierarchy, layout principles and hierarchical presentation of content are applied inconsistently, undermining their role in presenting a consistent communication of the hierarchy of the brand architecture.

A lack of consistency in the application of visual branding makes representation of brand hierarchy difficult or impossible.

WHY THIS CAN HAPPEN

• Guidelines are incomplete or unclear or don’t adequately present the rationale behind each principle.
• Guidelines are overly rigid or do not convey the creative latitude that is possible for each principle while staying within guidelines.
• Communication, easy access and training around guidelines is inadequate or has not been provided internally and to agencies.
• Guidelines do not cover all the necessary types of communication or contexts.
• Templates are not provided or do not cover enough use-cases or contexts.

3. Limited & Indistinct Brand Communication Types

EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES

Brand communication is limited to only a few categories such as corporate and product information.

Alternatively, a variety of different themes or types may be communicated (e.g., stories, education, evidence), but the tonality, visual presentation/templates, and channel placement are uniform and not adjusted to best convey the specific content type and therefore fails to adequately fulfill the brand communication potential of the type.

This is an example of a slideshow post on LinkedIn. It could arguably benefit from a defined template to provide a clear signal of its purpose — perhaps using a tag and a prominent arrow button, and provide basic information such as the number of slides.

WHY THIS CAN HAPPEN

• Lack of appreciation of the importance of a holistic approach to leveraging various content types and channels in brand communications.
• No defined templates and guidelines to support different types.
• No defined and communicated strategy for how different types should work together in different contexts and stages in order to support optimal brand communication.

4. Creation of isolated, inconsistent & duplicative brand platforms

EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC ISSUES

Microsites, landing pages, social media accounts, events and initiatives are created by various stakeholders within the organization that are not interlinked with other brand platforms and are not compliant with guidelines or aligned with the overall brand strategy.

As these are created outside of the established governance models and processes, they can be non-compliant with regulations, fail to meet minimum quality standards in terms of design, content and usability, and become outdated and unmaintained.

Isolated platforms can be created (sometime rogue), that are inconsistently branded and do not allow brand equity to flow horizontally across the hierarchy.

WHY THIS CAN HAPPEN

• Lack of guidelines, platforms and templates to support key brand communications needs (e.g., no way to present events, KOL content or editorial content).
• Lack of flexibility in guidelines and templates.
• Lack of consultation within the organization around communications needs.
• Lack of training around guidelines and templates.

Boston Scientific’s application of a visual device to represent the masterbrand allows for the brand to be represented explicitly at different levels of the hierarchy. This is especially useful at the product storytelling level, where the masterbrand representation tends to be less pronounced.

Three-Tiered Approach to Comprehensive Brand Stewardship

It is complicated to manage a global brand system. At an overall level there are 3 areas which need to covered:

• Clear rules for representing the brand architecture through labeling and typographical hierarchy guidelines in different channels.
• Enough templates to support all comms needs and ensure compliant visual branding that allows brand architecture to be easily apparent.
• Guidelines for ‘hero’ communications with clear rules but opportunity for creative expression that is brand-compliant.

For further detail and case studies, feel free to reach out.