Brand ThinkingThought Leadership

Leaders on Brand .05

There are many different ways that leaders value brand strategy. Through the work we’ve done with leaders at companies of all types and sizes, across all kinds of industries, we’ve been particularly inspired by those who view brand strategy as part of their overall outlook on business. So inspired, in fact, that we decided to sit down with some of them to talk about how they see this sometimes elusive notion of brand and how, in their view, it informs their approach to business.

For our fifth Leaders on Brand discussion, we sat down with two senior leaders from InStep Health, a healthcare marketing company whose platform places Rx, OTC and CPG brands at the center of the consumer’s healthcare journey.

Nathan Lucht is the president and chief executive officer of InStep Health. His extensive track record includes management and executive leadership positions at General Mills, Boston Consulting Group and IRI. At InStep Health, he drives the foundational strategy and direction of the company while empowering his team to innovate both product and process, with clients and partners alike.

Michael Byrnes is InStep Health’s executive vice president of sales. He was previously in pharmaceutical sales and management positions with Weider Publications and Capital Publishing, and was senior director of Pharmaceutical Sales at Third Age Media. At InStep Health, he creates measurable and effective patient acquisition and adherence marketing programs for clients.

Readers note: InStep Health was previously called LeveragePoint Media. It was a behind-the-scenes parent brand to RxEdge — a widely recognized pharmacy shelf-edge brand in the healthcare marketing space. After acquiring PatientPerx — a brand in the space targeting healthcare provider offices — LeveragePoint Media’s team worked with Simple Truth to unify their companies and reposition themselves at the forefront of the conversation. To learn more, check out the full InStep Health case study.

___________________

Q: To kick off the discussion, can you each define brand in your own terms?

NATE: A brand is what a company is known for and recognized by. It’s emblematic of what a customer should expect and what over time, for better or worse, a customer holds as a standard.

 

MIKE: I think of a brand as a collection of characteristics that make a product or service identifiable and differentiating. It’s much more than visible characteristics, a brand is defined by what it stands for and the underlying factors that make it what it is. For example, when Nike comes to mind, I don’t just think of the swoosh — I think of great quality across all sports and giving back to the people.

 

Q: Would you say that brand is more strategic or emotional?

NATE: I think it varies based on the lifecycle or stage of a company or product. For us, it was actually both. Externally, it was purely strategic in that it allowed us to clarify and crystalize what exactly our company was at a pivotal point. We had two separate, respected but lesser known, under-defined companies, and we had the ability to bring them together and define them in an integrated way. At the same time, internally, it was more emotional. It gave our two companies something we could both equally share and rally around; and allowed us to demonstrate to the employee base that we were making real progress on our own corporate strategy and vision.

 

MIKE: That’s a good point Nate. The ability to define and rally around something new was certainly emotional and definitely brought the two companies together. And that was a big part of the exercises we went through with your team at Simple Truth early on. By identifying what’s meaningful to us and putting that at the foundation of the brand, all our people now know that they are a part of it.

 

Q: You just underwent a comprehensive brand exploration with us recently, and came out of it with a brand platform, new name and a new outward expression. What are a few things you took away from the development process?

NATE: First, the decisions you make early on will have a knock-down effect later, so getting that upfront framework right is crucial. The second thing is that our decision to involve a broad set of stakeholders throughout the process was the right call. It assured early alignment, helped iron out any kinks along the way and naturally developed brand champions.

 

MIKE: To Nate’s point about involving a broad set of stakeholders throughout the process, it was interesting to see the pretty significant differences between all of them. Even though we are all aligned on a lot of things, how we looked at the branding and story of the business was a lot of times very different. I found that working through the process together was both enjoyable and educational.

 

Q: Let’s talk about the naming process specifically. What were the key challenges? And what did you learn along the way?

MIKE: I found the whole naming process to be very challenging. When you’re combining two businesses, coming up with one or two words that satisfies what we’re all trying to get across is tough. InStep Health was one of my favorite names up front, but then there were also a lot of times where I actually didn’t like it. I learned that you can’t make a decision right away — it’s one of those things where you have to sit with it for a while.

 

NATE: For me, it was an easier process. Looking back, what I found most important throughout the process weren’t the names themselves, but rather the stories behind them. It was my favorite part. Once I heard the story behind InStep Health, I thought, “Yes, I can get behind that.”

  

Q: That story-behind-the-name was not only a key part of the naming process, it also affected your sales approach in a significant way. Can you both talk about that?

NATE: It was the linchpin to the whole thing. We could have the best name, colors and imagery; but at the end of the day, if we don’t have an effective story for our organization, which is sales dependent, then the whole thing would be a failure. We needed to be able to tell our story in a powerful and impactful way so that we could change the dialogue and frame of reference for our clients.

 

MIKE: I agree completely. This becomes our outward story, and without getting it right, everything else would fall apart. Having a different name and look is one thing, but if you don’t have a different story to tell, people will see through it. We needed to set ourselves apart in the marketplace and challenge our sales team to up their game. This new story did exactly that.

 

Q: To finish us off, what advice would you give a senior leadership team that’s considering investing in their brand?

NATE: I think you need to have a strategy in place where investing in your brand is one part of the overall strategy. Changing your brand alone won’t change your business. There needs to be other things happening in concert in order for it to be successful. Otherwise, it’s just the same thing with a different label on it, and that won’t resonate with your clients or the broader marketplace.

And you, Mike?

MIKE: I agree with Nate. You can’t go in expecting the process to develop your business for you. You have to have a plan, understand where you want to go and commit to the process with eyes wide open.

___________________

Click through to our previous Leaders on Brand discussions below.

Leaders on Brand .01

Leaders on Brand .02

Leaders on Brand .03

Leaders on Brand .04

Also, stay tuned for more posts in this series. And if you have a leader whom you think we should talk with, let us know.