Beth Flom, Author at Tenet Partners | Where brand meets innovation®

The role of brand in the healthcare industry

Posted on January 21, 2025January 21, 2025 by Beth Flom

Good brands are built to help organizations predict and thrive through change. Often times, that change is external and at a market level. The healthcare industry is no different, and is currently experiencing a series of shifts that not only impact businesses, but brands.

Admittedly, when we speak of the healthcare industry, we reference a broad ecosystem of people and organizations that include clinicians, payers, patients, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, hospital systems and more. So while there are trends that are exclusive to individual players, in a connected ecosystem like healthcare, a change to one stakeholder group often impacts the others. Here’s what we believe are the pervasive trends in the industry:

Increasing costs for labor, supplies and equipment

A significant labor shortage, especially in rural hospitals and networks

Consolidation of hospitals and networks leading to a smaller pool of decision-makers with outsized influence

The rising frequency of direct patient care, a seeming response to patients demanding quality, affordable care

Value-based care isn’t new, but it is becoming a more prevalent conversation year-over-year

The exploration of how evolving technologies, such as AI, have a role in areas including patient care, facility management and medical resources

Regulatory bodies and governments continue to look at drivers of healthcare companies and are poised to impose big change on things like technology, reimbursement, and drug and treatment affordability, among other key areas

Amidst the backdrop of these trends, long-standing dynamics continue to impact what makes a brand successful in healthcare, strategically and creatively.

Strategically:

The ever-growing role of VACs and administrators in decision-making requires suppliers to make a compelling case around value—and care using benchmarks that speak to these groups (e.g., improved outcomes, reduced risk, shorter LOS)

Regulation also has impacts on brand development as it can create guardrails that limit creativity, extend approvals and require unexpected collaborations

Outreach to clinicians must be done with the knowledge that clinicians “own” the patient and any messaging and marketing should respect that boundary

Clinicians, many of whom are also members of VACs and have an administrative role in decision-making, are very literal; high-concept messages and campaigns do not connect

Arming the patient is increasingly important; with the advent of technology, they are doing their own research and becoming their own best advocates. Along with caregivers, another key influencer, patients are no longer looking to be disintermediated. Even those organizations who haven’t traditionally gone DTP (medical device and pharma, for example) must adapt

Creatively:

Visually, cooler tones are more popular and appealing because of their calming and positive nature. However, they are not ownable and need to be combined with other palettes, patterns or graphics to create distinction

Lifestyle images with patients and families are more relatable and approachable, but are also very common. Abstract/conceptual imagery does not connect well, but is another way to complement and create distinction

One last thought

And last, but certainly not least … like many other industries and organizations driven by product revenue, many healthcare companies are debating the value between performance marketing and brand marketing.

Which will prevail? Which is more impactful for healthcare organizations? The answer is… both.

Within healthcare especially, it is imperative that companies invest in both performance and brand marketing. While product marketing is undeniably a lifeline of an organization—be it drug, therapy or device—trust is even more vital in healthcare. And that trust is embedded at the brand level, serving as an umbrella that enhances equity for all the products and services beneath it. Equity at the brand level gives you goodwill, higher familiarity, a shorter sales cycle, permission to expand beyond your core and possibly, permission to make a mistake. Most importantly, brand marketing can be measured as well as performance marketing. Want to learn how? It’s one of our favorite conversations here at Tenet. We look forward to chatting.

Brand values

Posted on November 26, 2024November 26, 2024 by Beth Flom

Your brand. My reputation.
My reputation. Your brand.

In late October, David and I got to talking. Despite one of us living in a Blue state and the other living in a Purple state (with not near enough electoral votes to be a swing state), we were seeing similar things.

It was the time of year when an abundance of signs began appearing on neighborhood lawns, street corners, down highways and even near government buildings. There were also spooky pumpkins, skeletons and purple and orange-colored Halloween strand lights (who ever thought those would become a thing?) As scary as those were, we’re referring to something more frightening: the political signs.

It wasn’t about politics. It was about brands. And it made us think. The brands you choose tell others about you … whether or not that’s your intention. It’s called the self-expressive benefits of a brand—how your choice to use or associate with a brand reflects your larger personality or preferences. Or in other words, what your association with a particular brand says to others about you.

Aligning brands with values

But it’s not only about what people think about you. It’s about what’s important to you. The brands we associate with reflect our values and beliefs. In fact, a statistic from the IPSOS Global Trends Report confirms customers want to do business with companies who have purpose. Further, more than two-thirds want to purchase from companies who align with their values.

We with our wallets (and our yard signs), tend to select brands who align with our values. Whether Hobby Lobby, Target, Bud Light or Chick-fil-A —we often choose to do business with companies who we believe, think and act like we do. And that says something to others as well.

Just a few weeks ago, in fact, I overheard two men pleased when the supermarket shelves were full of Bud Light but empty of other beers. It took me a minute, but I finally caught on. Or I think I did. In their minds, people were disagreeing with Bud Light’s decision to feature a transwoman in an advertisement. Wherever you stand on the issue, your perception of these men is likely informed by their reaction.

A virtuous circle

Let’s take it one step further. It’s not only about consumers and users wanting to purchase from brands who align with their values, but also about brands self-selecting customers who align with theirs. It’s a virtuous circle. And it seems to say as much about us as individuals as it does about those companies that sell to us.

Take for example, Patagonia. The company’s vision is to “save our home planet.” It is known for its passion and action for environmental causes, including its One-Percent For the Planet initiative. Several years ago, Patagonia decided it would no longer allow co-branded embroidery on its apparel. The reason cited was that the co-brands shorten the lifespan of the garment and limit its re-use. The more subtle message was the Patagonia wanted to disentangle itself from the finance and tech companies whose employees are renowned for their Patagonia branded vest “uniforms.” The decision both promoted the company’s values and distanced itself from customers who did not share those values.

Lululemon is yet another example. Over the years, the company has made decisions regarding sizing inclusivity and the models it has selected for its promotion and advertising that have made it clear, Lululemon prefers a specific (thin) woman to be wearing its clothes. While the most vocal representation of these decisions has been from Chip Wilson, the former CEO, the brand remains associated with the beliefs (despite admitted changes in action). And the former CEO does not deny his intention; he has instead stated “And I think the definition of a brand is that you’re not everything to everybody … You’ve got to be clear that you don’t want certain customers coming in.”

Agree or not, Wilson is correct. We choose brands. And, they choose us. So, next time you make a brand selection, you may think about what it says to others. Or it may be more important to you to understand whether their values align with yours.

Let’s talk about data tolerance™

Posted on September 30, 2024October 15, 2024 by Beth Flom

What is data tolerance™, you might ask? At its most simple, it is the type and amount of data required to facilitate decision-making within an organization. And it differs for every organization.

When establishing the research plan that will support a brand effort, it is important to consider not only the core decision-makers, but leadership and executives, who may ultimately have to sign off on any changes … or even, just the idea that there is a need for change.

The best brand research plans consider data tolerance, as well as research objectives and organizational resources. A combination of qualitative, quantitative and advanced analytics should be considered. Often times, an interconnected research model that incorporates elements of multiple methodologies is the best answer for any organization.

As you begin to develop your research plan to support brand development, evolution or implementation—or work with an external agency to do the same—here are a core set of topics to think about:

Qualitative vs. Quantitative

While most research plans integrate qualitative and quantitative methods, there are indicators that demonstrate which is most appropriate for the task at hand.

Qualitative research, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, traditionally allows for more nuanced insights and the ability to explore unexpected or surprising opportunities. It’s most beneficial for conducting broader exploratory or validation, and often times may be used to fuel a bigger quantitative study by providing key themes and hypotheses to be confirmed by a larger audience.

Quantitative research, such as an online survey, offers larger sample sizes, most often provides statistically significant and projectible data, enables longitudinal comparisons and as earlier indicated, is quite helpful for testing initial hypotheses. Additionally, because of the larger size of quantitative studies, it is easier to segment and analyze data across multiple variables (e.g., geography, function, customer type, etc.).

Quantitative studies can also provide sufficient data—both structured and unstructured—to conduct advanced analytics, such as sentiment analysis, drivers of important organizational KPIs and brand valuation. Additionally, analyzing quantitative studies using data science techniques can provide actionable insights around marketing and brand ROI, profit by segment, high-growth products, attributes that drive growth and even predictive variables around marketing spend. In other words, brand research not only may inform brand decisions, but business decisions, as well. At a minimum, it can ensure that you are developing a brand designed to help your company meet its strategic business objectives.

Gut decisions vs. Guided decisions

Being realistic about how decisions are made in an organization is key for determining the most appropriate research plan. While all organizations contain institutional knowledge and market expertise, few rely solely on that knowledge to guide decision-making around brand.

For those organizations that lean toward “gut” decision-making—relying more on that institutional knowledge and market expertise than data—qualitative research is often sufficient. Often times, we see this scenario for early-stage companies or those in unique industries with a limited universe of customers or potential customers.

On the flip side, many organizations contain that same internal knowledge, but rely more on projectable data to make brand decisions. A detailed understanding of customer preferences, purchase-drivers, company perceptions and competitive comparisons is required either by the core brand team itself or as a tool to sell decisions to senior management. Often times, these types of organizations appear in regulated industries or have recently been part of a financial event, such as M&A or PE investment. Here, quantitative research informed by qualitative research is often the best approach.

Short-term input vs. Long-term output

At what point will you conduct research? Traditionally, companies use data to inform brand development by obtaining an understanding of company, customer and competitive perceptions. It may also be used to validate brand decisions, such as positioning, names, taglines or even logos. While we don’t always recommend brand validation research, as it’s difficult for non-marketers to evaluate these types of elements, those companies that are highly data-driven will inevitably require such research. Either way, both of these types of analyses are short-term in nature.

However, research cannot only be used to inform brand, but to measure its health over time. By building in benchmark assessments of your brand, such as reputation, satisfaction or NPS, at the onset, companies are able to demonstrate how brand moves the needle over time—and adjust messages and campaigns according to shifts in the market. Brand health studies are best conducted annually with static questions that can be compared longitudinally over time. Here again, for those companies with a lower data tolerance, bi-annual studies may be more suitable.

Whenever Tenet undertakes research for a client, we will always discuss data tolerance in advance of making recommendations. For the best results, we suggest you do the same.

A Brand New Look at the Election

Posted on November 3, 2022December 8, 2022 by Beth Flom

There was much to keep our attention during this election season. As a result, I found my professional role as a brand strategist inserting itself into my personal role as a voter. My natural tendency was to glean where I saw brand concepts playing a key role – in our perceptions of the candidates, their platforms and the multitude of consumer businesses that chose to get involved.

Personality drove brand perceptions

A strong brand positioning integrates both positioning attributes and personality attributes. Shorthanded, positioning integrates both what you say as well as how you say it or the tone of voice. This construct was evident by both candidates’ positioning, whether by intention or by perception. In addition to their differing policy viewpoints, which in large part, define what they say or what they stand for, President Trump and President-elect Biden have distinctly different personalities. While some of that personality is an extension of their party’s platform, much of it is inherent to who they are or who they chose to appear as to the electorate.

This difference in personality became highly relevant as the election became about identity over policy. Their identities (or personalities) defined the brand of each candidate.

Trump’s core supporters see him as aggressive, a bold outsider to the system, and fighting the good fight. His detractors see him as self-serving, dishonest and reckless. Biden’s voters see him as “not Trump.” His active supporters also define him as authentic, experienced, a stalwart (having gracefully persevered through a lifetime of tragedies) and sincere. His detractors see him as an entrenched insider, outdated and weak. The narrative for this election was essentially cast as a good versus evil storyline. Which candidate was good and which was evil was defined by how you perceived their personality, and thus, their brand.

Platforms defined campaign slogans

For each candidate, multiple slogans were used at varying points over the campaign. Trump brought forward his ubiquitous 2016 campaign theme, “Make America Great Again,” as well as others such as “Law and Order” and “Promises Made, Promises Kept.”

Biden launched with a “Battle for the Soul of the Nation,” later introduced “Build Back Better” at the Democratic National Convention and complemented with other ideas, including “Unite for a Better America” and “Our Best Days Still Lie Ahead.”

For me “Make America Great Again” rose to the top as the core reflection of what Trump’s campaign stood for in the eyes of its supporters. Biden’s slogans were less sticky and no one slogan seemed to identify the campaign.

Reflecting back to what defines a brand positioning, these slogans are a distillation of “what you say.” In essence, they serve the same role as a tagline.

A tagline is an external expression of an internal brand positioning. It can serve as a rallying cry for employees or in this instance, for supporters. It offers a compelling shorthand for the positioning, and if done well, is concise, memorable, relevant and differentiating.

Whether or not you agree with the position that underlies these slogans (taglines), most are objectively successful from a brand standpoint. “Make America Great Again” is deeply embedded in the Trump ethos. It emotionally ties the campaign to its supporters. It’s memorable. And it certainly became a rallying cry. That said, I do question the use of the same tagline after four years in office. It seemed like an evolution to “Keep America Great” was attempted, but didn’t stick. This in itself reinforces the strength of the original tagline.

For Biden, “Battle for the Soul of the Nation” was his best effort at creating a powerful emotional connection. “Build Back Better” never attracted quite the same level of emotion, but structurally, its memorability is enhanced by the alliteration. And tactically, it was tied to every Biden proposal from jobs and economic recovery to racial equity and pandemic policy. Its strength was in its consistency at all levels of campaign messaging, exactly how a positioning statement and its shorthand tagline should be implemented.

Corporate voices demanded to be heard

From large consumer companies to financial institutions, many brands attempted to turn votes into marketing. Boosting voter turnout, encouraging voter registration, aligning with specific candidates – many companies attempted to accomplish at least one of these objectives, often times while simultaneously selling product. Like no other election I recall in my lifetime, the number of companies and corporations demanding to have a voice in the election was near immeasurable. According to a recent article in Fortune, “over 2,200 companies stepped up their civic responsibility efforts, embracing their power to drive increased voter participation.”

And yet, such action risks alienating a large percentage of buyers and users. Seemingly, it was a risk many companies were willing to take this election. In our article entitled, “Five ideas to help brands make an impact” we spoke about the importance of speaking out and leading society forward in a way that is authentic and true to their brand platforms. I’d argue that many companies took that advice when considering their election-related outreach.

For Gen Xers (like me) the first corporate election initiative that comes to mind is likely MTV’s long-standing “Rock the vote” partnership. For 30 years, MTV has been partnering and funding this high-level initiative to encourage voter registration. It is impossible to separate MTV from the program, as it’s become an authentic part of what the company stands for.

This year sports leagues, most especially the NBA and its players, complemented MTV’s work with initiatives to encourage voter registration and enable voting in their stadiums. A natural outcome of players’ outspokenness and powerful actions in support of Black Lives Matter and in direct response to the shooting of Jacob Blake in Kenosha, these get-out-the-vote initiatives seemed natural and authentic. And more than any other sport, the NBA players’ voices combined and elevated to the league level.

Other companies got involved by giving employees time off to vote. JPMorgan Chase, Coca Cola and Twitter, among others, ensured that at least one of the boundaries that prevents people from voting was removed. It’s an action that demonstrated leadership, I believe, in hopes that others – and perhaps the federal government – will follow.

And in yet another effort that one might cynically describe as less generous and more aimed at selling product, many fashion companies united behind the “I am a voter” campaign by offering for purchase a mix of approachable and high-end products featuring the slogan. The outreach is defined as a “public awareness campaign that aims to create a cultural shift around voting and civic engagement by unifying around a central truth: that our democracy works best when we all participate.” Bringing together fashion and social media with designs from the likes of Stuart Weitzman, Jennifer Meyer, Tory Burch and Grayson, ensured the importance of voting was emblazoned on celebrities, influencers and everyday folk across the country. If nothing else, awareness was raised.

Perhaps this election was unlike any other. And it looks like it may continue to be. As you tire from the rhetoric, distract yourself like I do, by finding where brand is playing a role.