Peter Kenyon. Brand expert?

[Mike O]

This is an answer to Dorset's query as to how exactly I felt that Kenyon had been a wholly negative influence on Chelsea over the last 4 or 5 years.

Hi Dorset,

Ok, here's my mantra on How to Create a Successful Brand together with a few pointers as to what this might mean in the context of football, and how PK has worked against the principles over the last few years.

I'll try and make it short and snappy, but those of you who've just popped into this thread for a touch of light relief may want to move along!

In a nutshell, great brands should:

1. Know what they stand for,

2. Know who their key audience is

3. Know how to use the former to activate the latter.

What's your playing philosophy?

To kick off with, all successful brands have to know what they should stand for in the 'hearts and minds' of their target audiences if they want to meet their objectives. The process behind getting this stance absolutely right is called 'brand positioning' and is how I make my living.

Well positioned brands tick three boxes. They are compelling (relevant and attractive to their audiences); they are credible (meaning both easy to believe in what they say and how they say it), and they are distinctive - they have to stand out in their markets and be easy to identify and remember.

All three of these factors have to work in harmony for the brand to succeed. If there's an imbalance, the negative fall-out can be epic. A great example of this was seen with the BA 'tail-fin' fiasco of the 90's in which a wide array of ethnic patterns replaced the red, white and blue across the fleet's tails. Here, distinctiveness out-weighed credibility massively in an attempt to move 'The World's Favourite Airline' into the realms of 'Every country's favourite airline'. No-one understood the thinking (including staff) and the whole exercise heaped ridicule and derision on the brand.

The lesson? Never do anything which undermines your credibility.

Who's in your back four?

To help cement a decent positioning in the brand structure, we employ 'values', ideally three or four notions which help pinpoint what makes the brand special. They are informed by i) key nuts and bolts in the brand DNA (i.e. 'location', 'heritage' and 'colours' would be key footy factors), ii) personality traits, and iii) the target market's experience of the brand, both rational and emotional.

To give you an idea as to what I'm on about, the old school Chelsea of the 70's-90's could have been summed up (whether they wanted to or not!) by the following values: Swagger / Bite / Nonchalance (Carefree!).

These would have encapsulated the Kings Road style of the 70's, the Continental class of the 90's, the worry about facing Chopper and Dennis on the pitch and Head-hunters off it, the inconsistent performances, the incomparable humour on the terraces and the aloofness that sometimes came with playing in one of the richest places on earth (as practiced by players, fans and chairmen alike).

Those values, wrapped up in the blue and white and planted in West London, certainly made us distinctive (for good and bad reasons), credible (painfully at times) and were even compelling to certain type of audiences (hello Lofty!). None of this was by design, mind...

In a nutshell, values don't just tell the world where you are, what you do or what you look like - they also inform on how you behave and what you believe in. Because of this, they won't work if they're everyday words like 'performance', 'passion' or 'success' (who wouldn't want to stand for those?). They only work if they're rooted in what makes you really special.

Who are you up against?

Nowadays, football brands have a wide range of audiences that they need to appeal to, and these differ in order of priority dependent on the size of the brand.

1. Local fan-base

2. Local community

3. Media audiences

4. Media owners / media workers (including journos)

5. Football community (other teams / players/ league management / FA / UEFA etc)

Evidently, for a team like Kingstonian the key focus is on the first 2 of these (to recruit both fans, players and investment), whilst for Chelsea it's arguably on the 3rd (to expand the fan-base to foreign climes).

Regardless of whichever your main concern is, the other audiences also need much care and attention. This is particularly poignant if your brand is going through a major transition and nobody really knows what you stand for anymore.

Like us in 2003, say...

Kenyon's Performance

So has Peter played by the brand rules and developed a real position of strength for Chelsea? Well I believe that the incredibly high levels of animosity to the Chelsea brand, from other clubs, from the media, from the football industry and even from some pockets of Chelsea fans, say a big 'No he hasn't'.

And are these levels of hatred unusually high? Consider whether a pre-Heysel Liverpool were roundly hated by so many different sources in the 70's / 80's? Or whether United have ever truly been so manifestly despised since Munich (other than by Liverpool fans). Did Arsenal have no major admirers whatsoever during the 90's?

You can count high-profile Chelsea supporters in the media on a small amount of hands, our relationship with UEFA is icy-cold, and perhaps only City fans balk at the notion of calling us all a bunch of JCLs.

So where did it all go wrong for Pete? For a man well-vested in the world of branding and marketing from his time at United and Umbro, the following cock-ups should never have occurred 'on his watch' as CEO.

1. What's our X factor?

The very first thing Kenyon should have done in taking on the brand was to define it as above - to identify what made Chelsea truly special. Aside from giving the club a framework within which to plan more coherent and impactful marketing and commercial activity, this would have had another two positive effects.

Firstly, if done properly, it would have helped dampen the mass view of him being a through-and-through Man Utd fan. If he'd identified and celebrated our values as being aligned to 'London-ness', or West End style, or Wise-like 'Cheeky chappiness' or whatever - he would have generated some warmth and trust with the long-term fan-base.

Secondly, the work could have post-rationalised RA's decision to buy us in the first place. As it is, we're not seen as intrinsically 'special' at all, we're just lucky bar stewards who happened to get spotted from a chopper.

Result:

• Alienation of long-term fanbase who believe they've been forgotten by new 'Brand-man' Manc who has no credible empathy with the club.
  
• Venomous jealousy from other clubs because of our sheer luck in attracting RA (ignoring that he was attracted initially by a world-class capital city, and a fantastic quarter in it etc).
  
• Mass accusations from the football world that we are therefore a 'nouveau riche' club with no proper fans and no history.
  

2. Alienating the Press

PK started his reign by taking each of the key football writers and pundits in the UK to one side, and giving them a candid and 'exclusive' insight into the CFC game-plan. It's reported by most of those hacks that he told them all that Claudio was safe in his job. It then became apparent to most that our benign Ranieri was anything but, and despite constant denials by PK, the sacking came.

You therefore have a press corps that all felt that they'd been individually taken for a ride and since the media are one of your key audiences, this is not good news.

Result:

• Major dive in the credibility stakes,
  
• Mass media support for Claudio,
  
• Anti-CFC articles start in earnest (and are still prevalent today)
  
• Credibility takes a further nose-dive 4 years later when the club announces a new contract for AG - The long-term future of Chelsea, about 3 months before sacking him too
  

3. Underhand commercial behaviour

Our standing as a brand with any sort of attractive qualities was then further compromised by our behaviour both in the transfer markets and with our own employees.

Examples of this included a bull-dozer purchase policy which saw us pay stupid fees for players (£24m for SWP anyone?), blatantly tapping up players, constantly lying about our activities, going to war with a wide variety of football bodies and getting through 5 managers in as many years.

Although much of this may well have been driven by RA's bombast, naivety and habit of -ahem - getting whatever he wants, PK still has no excuse in not understanding the effect it would have on the brand.

Within about a year of PK being on board (include into this JM and Frisk-gate), we were possibly the most hated club on the planet, and much of it was to do with our commercial behaviour.

Result:

• Further long-term hostility in the media
  
• Our brand personality traits being cited as arrogant, bullying, underhand, duplicitous, impatient, juvenile, spoilt, vulgar, immoral etc, etc, etc...
  

4. The Kenyon Brand vs the CFC brand

Finally, and perhaps most idiotically, amongst all of these fundamental failings, PK has still been keen to become quite the celebrity himself at the expense of focusing on Chelsea's needs.

Now as a rule in marketing, marketers keep a low profile and let their brands do the talking for them. In that way, the audiences can create their own relationship with the product or service and it can take its own place in their hearts and minds.

For instance, you may be a fan of Jack Daniels because you think it helps project you as a bit of a cowboy, a pioneer, say, with a new world spirit. That's great for you but imagine how you'd feel if you'd read 5 or 6 interviews with the owners of JD telling how they'd picked exactly the right music, imagery and packaging to attract people just like you and make you feel like a cowboy and a pioneer with a new world spirit.

You wouldn't feel like a cowboy anymore. More like his ass.

So why did Kenyon devote so much of his first few years working on his own public profile so vigorously (whilst doing much to simultaneously undermine Chelsea's - see point 2) and telling the world all about the great plan for CFC?

Why on earth did he carry an Olympic torch (who exactly, was he trying to impress?). Why did he lead the team up the steps to collect the losers medals at Moscow. Why is he never out of the broadsheets?

It can only be because i) he's in love with himself and ii) he has no idea as to the negative light it sheds on the brand.

Results:

• Even more outsiders think we're a bunch of twats because he seems to be our 'leader' and he's one.
  
• Even more insiders feel disenfranchised from the brand because they don't want to be associated with him.
  

So that's it then, Dorset. I hope that's answered your question.

Kenyon's failed the brand because he failed to identify its distinction, he undermined its credibility, and he let it behave in a way that made it singularly un-compelling to all its key audiences.

Furthermore, by simultaneously promoting himself and exposing brand strategy, he constantly disallows the brand latitude to be truly engaged with by target audiences.

If the Blues were to employ a brand consultant today to estimate what their 3 key values were as perceived by all markets, I would hazard a guess that Spoilt / Ruthless / Desperate wouldn't be too far off the mark.

The Paris Hilton of the football world, perhaps?

Edited February 27, 2009 by Mike O

[Virosh]

I appreciate your post, at least you should know the three sleepless days were not fruitless :unsure:

Edited February 27, 2009 by Virosh

[TheWestwayWonder]

Some people might say you are nit picking mike, but for me this is an excellent summary of why Kenyon is such a frustrating figure with this club.

He has done many good things for us, and there is no doubt he has helped increase our profile (in both good and bad ways) but the screwups have just been all too visible for a man as canny as him.

[Barn]

I'm struggling to buy this. If Kenyon has been given a job that has a direct impact on the footballing side of the club then Kenyon's manager is to blame, not the man himself. Does Kenyon get involved in areas other than that of his expertise, ie; selling the Chelsea brand far and wide.? If he does, that's Kenyon's managers fault and not the man himself.

Many of us on here have blamed Kenyon/Roman for the appointment of Scolari, "he was not the right man for the job and as a result we've had to sack another manager in a short space of time" Using the same process as the one we're using here the buck should have stopped with Scolari and not with Kenyon and/or anyone else. Don't get me wrong Kenyon is a character that I do not like one bit and is next to Drogba in the list of people that I don't want associated with my club, but I don't believe that everything is his fault. PK has developed a very good reputation for himself in his particular field of expertise (I'm not sure what that is for the record), it now seems that he is being blamed for failings that are nowhere near the parts of the business that he should be involved in - he's a business man not a football man, that being the case shouldn't we be asking who is giving him licence to damage the club in this way. PK should be given a clear guidline as to what his job is and left to do it to the best of his ability, if he fails at that then he should be sacked. But, what is happening is that he's being fed to the fans as the cause of everything that's wrong with out club, that's not right.

If Cech let's the ball roll through his legs we should blame Cech not the manager, if he pulls of a great save he should take the plaudits. By the same token, if Kenyon increases our turnover by 30% in the south pacific he should be commended, if he buy's a sh*te striker who's past his best - we should be asking who gave him permission to sign players.

[Mike O]

Barn, I'm not saying that everything is Kenyon's fault.

I am saying that the Chelsea brand is in a poor position primarily because of him, witnessed by the non-Cheslea domestic market's hatred of us.

I agree we shouldn't blame just him for stupid signings or tappings-up, but we can blame him for most of the negative fall-out from them in the media. For instance, the club were found to be lying through their back teeth about the Cole affair, and that (PR / media relations) is his responsibility.

And didn't he just love all those surreptitious meetings on clandestine yachts, whether he was qualified to be negotiating with agents or not? He almost seemed addicted to being in the press at the time.

And what was that infantile statement about Grant about last year when they gave him a new contract? Does he have any idea how downright stupid that made him, Roman and the board look?

All of which impacts on the brand and its perception in the public domain...

[dkw]

i cant see why you think chelseas brand is in a poor position. our income is up a hell of a lot and our sponsorship deals are a hell of a lot bigger than anything weve ever had before. i also dont see why you think the non-chelsea domestic market hates us. ok, other football fans do but i dont think the commercial market take that into account too much otherwise they would never sponsor anyone as theirs deep rooted hatred throughout the game of other teams.

[blueday3]

Whether it is PK or just the fact that Chelsea is a very good football team, well a pretty good team, but Chelsea is huge around the world, so in that respect he has done a good job. I agree with Barn though about him signing players, bring someone else in to do the signings, leave Kenyon to the business.

[Lofty]

That seems to me a pretty good marketing man's analysis of another marketing man's shortcomings.

From where I stand it's a little simpler than that, and if you like, even illogical. I can't stand the slimy Manc bar steward.

- I hate the way he looks.

- I hate his accent

- I don't trust him to have the best interests of the club at heart

- I despise him for his self-promotion - collecting that medal in Moscow was unforgivable.

- I hate the mere fact that he is even associated with the club, let alone that he acts as a representative.

- Or as a spokesman/person/thing.

- I'm embarrassed when other supporters have a go at Kenyon and all I can do is agree: "yeah I know, Kenyon is a slimeball".

Kenyon is an ugly weasly Northern pillock who should never, ever have been allowed anywhere near any kind of position at the club, let alone one of such power and influence. And I don't deny for a for a single minute that even if he was incredibly good at his job, I would still want him kicked of Stamford Bridge.

[Nibs]

That seems to me a pretty good marketing man's analysis of another marketing man's shortcomings.

From where I stand it's a little simpler than that, and if you like, even illogical. I can't stand the slimy Manc bar steward.

- I hate the way he looks.

- I hate his accent

- I don't trust him to have the best interests of the club at heart

- I despise him for his self-promotion - collecting that medal in Moscow was unforgivable.

- I hate the mere fact that he is even associated with the club, let alone that he acts as a representative.

- Or as a spokesman/person/thing.

- I'm embarrassed when other supporters have a go at Kenyon and all I can do is agree: "yeah I know, Kenyon is a slimeball".

Kenyon is an ugly weasly Northern pillock who should never, ever have been allowed anywhere near any kind of position at the club, let alone one of such power and influence. And I don't deny for a for a single minute that even if he was incredibly good at his job, I would still want him kicked of Stamford Bridge.

B)

Yep. That pretty much sums it up for me too.

[Mr Chelsea]

That seems to me a pretty good marketing man's analysis of another marketing man's shortcomings.

From where I stand it's a little simpler than that, and if you like, even illogical. I can't stand the slimy Manc bar steward.

- I hate the way he looks.

- I hate his accent

- I don't trust him to have the best interests of the club at heart

- I despise him for his self-promotion - collecting that medal in Moscow was unforgivable.

- I hate the mere fact that he is even associated with the club, let alone that he acts as a representative.

- Or as a spokesman/person/thing.

- I'm embarrassed when other supporters have a go at Kenyon and all I can do is agree: "yeah I know, Kenyon is a slimeball".

Kenyon is an ugly weasly Northern pillock who should never, ever have been allowed anywhere near any kind of position at the club, let alone one of such power and influence. And I don't deny for a for a single minute that even if he was incredibly good at his job, I would still want him kicked of Stamford Bridge.

and you cant say fairer than that

[Elliott]

Excellent post, Mike.

Kenyon is not to blame for everything that is wrong at Chelsea, but for a top marketing man, responsible for projecting a decent image at the club, he has been embarrasingly poor. And no doubt paid quite handsomely for it too.

[TT]

Mike O, you haven't really thought this through have you.

[Dorset]

That is some reply, Mike, and I have to say it has gone a long way towards altering my previous opinion on Kenyon’s ability to do a job that, admittedly, I knew very little about in the first place. A main plank of your criticism appears to be his inability to separate his own personal plans for advancement from those required to complete the work in progress, otherwise known as the advancement of the Chelsea brand. This essential for you had previously been taken as a harmless factor by me which, although never likely to be worthy of actually placing a medal around his neck, was nevertheless unlikely to do major damage in the great scheme of things. However, from now on, I will accept that not only is self praise no recommendation in life, but it can also bugger up your branding opportunities.

In addition, whilst I still harbour doubts over the fans dislike of him being anything other than a [possibly misguided] belief that he’s a Manc and will forever remain one, I take your points regarding the incessant Media dislike of us being partly attributable to him immediately getting off on the wrong foot with them, so to speak, and his initial failure to pick up on any of the Chelsea ’selling points’. Without having considered that aspect before myself, nor appreciated the significance, it seems that the fault lies with him not getting to know us well enough initially and, whilst this didn’t matter to any great extent in promoting overseas, he missed many a trick including portraying the owner in a better light when it came to the home market - a portrayal that may or may not have convinced the masses, but would have at least been an attempt to stem the tide of misinformation.

One more question, though, as I’ve long been amazed at how, within the Media in general, the Glazers can get away with being ghosts in the Old Trafford machine yet, in stark contrast, Roman’s every move is described as a materialistic manoeuvre guaranteed to force the wheels off our wagon. You align this with Kenyon’s failure spot the backlash [for Abramovich] that frivolous transfer spending would bring, but this doesn’t ring true unless you tar Garry Cook of Citeh with the same broad brush, because they’ve gone down the same cash waving route and [so far] the Abu Dhabi boys haven’t looked like suffering in the same way. Are they [Kenyon and Cook] both culpable, or could it be that whatever Kenyon did in this area his paymaster would be singled out for ‘treatment’ by the Media anyway?

[Mike O]

One more question, though, as I’ve long been amazed at how, within the Media in general, the Glazers can get away with being ghosts in the Old Trafford machine yet, in stark contrast, Roman’s every move is described as a materialistic manoeuvre guaranteed to force the wheels off our wagon. You align this with Kenyon’s failure spot the backlash [for Abramovich] that frivolous transfer spending would bring, but this doesn’t ring true unless you tar Garry Cook of Citeh with the same broad brush, because they’ve gone down the same cash waving route and [so far] the Abu Dhabi boys haven’t looked like suffering in the same way. Are they [Kenyon and Cook] both culpable, or could it be that whatever Kenyon did in this area his paymaster would be singled out for ‘treatment’ by the Media anyway?

I think there are two points here:

1. Alex Ferguson has made the Glaziers ghosts. His equity is so enormous, his own brand so perfectly aligned with United's that they wouldn't stand a chance of stealing any of the spotlight from him. No player since Veron has been foisted on United without his express say-so, no single player is more valuable than him in the eyes of the fans and furthermore he is testament to the old mantra that it takes time to build success. He has 100% credibility as a brand, generates success with every turn and is seen as truly outstanding on the world stage. I have no doubt whatsoever that his obituary will call him the greatest football manager of all time anywhere (I still can't stand the bugger, mind...). What chance would the Yanks have against that?

2. I think Roman was singled out for a certain amount of special treatment because of the timing of his takeover at Chelsea. There was a lot of talk around 2002/3 of the football bubble being about to burst and clubs having to operate like proper businesses again. I remember a distinct feeling that there would inevitably be some high profile victims (West Ham were high on the list, Leeds were already lost) but then the world would settle into a more sensible state. RA's entrance blew all that away and for many, he crystalised a new 'uber-stupidity' in football finance. His portrayal by the media at the time was then further sullied by Kenyon's PR nonsense and by the Ashley Cole affair. Without all that, he could easily have been positively drawn as the saviour of many clubs, West Ham included

Finally, I think City will prove the ultimate example of how stupid money in football has become. We all understand, and I mean 'all' as in 99% of UK football fans', that your side is nothing unless it has an indefatigable team spirit, an unassailable belief in itself, intelligence, intuition and yes, some individual talent. Unless you're in the market for a manager, money can only buy you one of those factors and it - the talent - is perhaps the most vulnerable to disappearing in a heartbeat or with a Robbie Savage tackle. Leeds United, Middlesborough and Derby County have all born testament to this.

It is now only billionaire foreigners with a good track record on their Fifa07 games who don't get it and we secretly snigger at them all. For many, Roman is perhaps worthy of an even greater laugh because he got it all absolutely right and then buggered it up himself...

Edited March 2, 2009 by Mike O

[Tim]

Very telling posts Mike and (as a person working in a similar area) a very interesting take on things.

It is certainly true that Kenyon's inability to develop a positive CFC brand has inevitably impacted on the success of his business strategy, and it is this fundamental failing that I find the most damning of his regime, given he, as a marketing person, should know how important it is to closely align the two.

Bottom line, however much he tries to extend the Chelsea brand into new territories and markets, if this brand is largely viewed as 'arrogant and souless,' then success will be continually hampered. Rightly or wrongly, post-Roman there was always going to be a fair bit of ill-will directed towards us, but rather than pacifying these detractors, his behaviour as the very public and very smug face of the new CFC has simply served to further antagonise them.

The very fact that the stock reply to any on or off-pitch failing at the club has become 'blame Kenyon' is a clear example of how far he has strayed from the 'behind the scenes' marketeer to become almost a pantomime villain brand in his own right.