Poor old Diamond Bob – a martyr to Barclays’ brand values

June 28, 2012

BarclaysA lot of people are accusing Barclays Bank and its chief executive Bob Diamond of racketeering. Acting like white-collar gangsters, in other words. They say the bank and its principal directors colluded in serial distortion of the interbank rate, Libor. What this means in plain English is that they beggared us – the saps who are their customers – with artificially inflated interest rates on loans and mortgages  – in order to enrich first themselves, through bigger bonuses, and then their shareholders, through bigger dividends. Barclays has been fined a total of £290m by the regulatory authorities on both sides of the Atlantic. But it’s the thin edge of a very thick financial wedge. Once the lawyers get weaving on behalf of aggrieved customers, who knows where the liability will end up?

Martin Taylor, a former Barclays CEO himself, summed it up best on this morning’s Today Programme. He said that Barclays had engaged in “systematic dishonesty” between the years 2005 and 2009. While he didn’t explicitly link Diamond – who then happened to be head of BarCap, the division most closely tied to the scandal – with the gigantic swindle, he did say that chief executives set the cultural tone of the businesses they run. Implication: Diamond should retire to the discreetest room in his penthouse suite and make good use of a service revolver. Diamond – Taylor implied – may, or may not, have colluded in such corrupt dealing practices; but because they happened on his watch, he was at very least grossly negligent.

Now I know what I’m about to say isn’t going to be popular, but I’ll say it all the same. Was Bob so very wrong in what he did – or rather, for the sake of any legal eagles looking in – er, what he didn’t do? I mean, at least Barclays Bank co-operated with the investigative authorities, whereas other banks did not. Barclays is paying the price of being first to fess up: a media Exocet amidships.

Then again, the bank took not a penny of public money in the wake of the Lehman Bros collapse. All right, it was pretty stupid to allow such an unredacted and inculpatory email trail to get into the hands of the regulators. But at least you won’t hear any trading floor intercepts along the following lines: “Dude, thanks a billion in Treasury credits. I owe you big time. But not as much as I owe the taxpayer. Come over after work and let’s break open the Bollie.”

I’m not sure the same will be said of RBS and Lloyds. Both were big recipients of taxpayers’ bail-outs, and both – along with HSBC, Citigroup, JP Morgan, UBS, Deutsche Bank and others I probably don’t even know of yet – are, so it seems, up to their gills in interest-rate-rigging mire too. Poor old RBS. Talk about reputational damage: it’s not only guilty of systemic incompetence with customers’ direct debits, but of “systematic dishonesty” in charging them higher interest rates as well. Will this publicly-owned company owned by the public ever recover?

But I digress. Bob’s is the head that everyone wants to stick on a pike over Tower Gate. That’s because everything about Bob is Big and Boastful. Biggest salary, biggest bonus, biggest ego. He is, in short, the archetypal arrogant, swaggering, fat cat.

And as such, he has been entirely consistent with Barclays brand values over the years. Do you not remember Barclays brand ambassador Anthony Hopkins telling us how, if you weren’t big, you were nothing in banking circles? You don’t, do you? So, here as an aide-memoire is a superbly-crafted ad by Leagas Delaney, dating from 2000:

Sometimes, you see, advertising really can convey complex, uncomfortable, inner truths – without the client even noticing. Bob did, of course. He’s been a part of Barclays’ cultural furniture since 1996. He took the message very seriously indeed and acted out the part. What a brand martyr the man is!


Reckitt Benckiser chief executive Rakesh Kapoor reshapes the world of marketing

February 9, 2012

Lapac and Rumea sound a bit like those ancient continents Gondwana and Laurea, which straddled the Earth before tectonic plates carved them into the world map we’re all familiar with.

Actually, the parallel is not so very far off the mark. Except, the carving of these new continental landmasses is being done, even as we speak, by Rakesh Kapoor, recently appointed chief executive of healthcare-to-household conglomerate Reckitt Benckiser.

This is part and parcel of his new vision of the commercial world, articulated as a kind of antidote to some not-overly-impressive full year figures which have been announced at the same time.

As Kapoor sees it the motor-force markets of North America and Europe will, at best, stagnate in the years to come, so he’s taken the radical step of downsizing them into a single operation, centered on Amsterdam, in order to cut costs.

At the same time emerging markets, where almost all RB’s future growth is expected to come from, have been recast with new and emphatic importance. Hence “Lapac”, or Latin America and Pacific countries; and “Rumea”, Russia, the Middle East and Africa.

These are no mere geographical expressions either; Kapoor intends to put RB’s money where his mouth is. At the moment, only half the company’s capital expenditure goes into these regions. By 2016 this will rise to 80%. And we can expect little less revolution in the way the marketing budget be allocated: the bias towards emerging markets will shift from 44% to 55% over the same period.

It can hardly have escaped notice that a strategic realignment of this kind was implicit in Kapoor’s appointment as CEO in the first place. He is the first Indian to lead RB’s stalwartly Caucasian board. As such, he is part of a growing trend in multinational companies: the displacement of WASP leadership.

Look around you and you will see Coca-Cola and Pepsi rearming for an all-too-traditional cola war, with greatly increased marketing budgets. But one corporation is now led by a Turkish-American Muslim, Muhtar Kent, and the other by Indian-born Indra Nooyi. They’re not there by historical coincidence. A lot of that money will be spent over the next 4 years encouraging people in emerging markets to drink cola; rather than simply refreshing the palates of jaded North Americans.

We might note the same trend at Citigroup, whose chief executive is Vikram Pandit, and Deutsche Bank, which has picked Anshu Jain as its new co-chief executive. Or even at that redoubtable WASP establishment Harvard Business School, whose dean of two years is Nitin Nohria.

The big surprise is that Unilever did not take this route when appointing a successor to Patrick Cescau, instead plumping for a Dutch outsider with a P&G and Nestlé pedigree, Paul Polman. Maybe appointing a non-European would have been too far ahead of the curve in early 2009.

That said, the two most promising internal candidates for the CEO job, Harish Manwani and Vindi Banga, were – as their names clearly indicate – both Indian. If Polman decides to move on, I’ll wager that the next Unilever CEO will be Indian.


%d bloggers like this: