Listening to a fascinating radio talk show programme a while back, I came to the conclusion that Proudly South African had not done a particularly good job of educating consumers as to what message precisely is supposed to be communicated when companies carry its logo.
And I have begun to wonder, in view of this, whether the Proudly South African concept, or rather its ideals, is at all relevant anymore, given that the consumer actually doesn't seem to have a clue what these are.
I have always understood that the original objective was that companies displaying the Proudly South African logo would be motivated to try as hard as possible to produce the highest quality products and services and to treat staff equitably and its customers and suppliers with fairness. A sort of patriotic SABS mark.
It was, if you like, a sort of commitment to corporate aspiration to strive towards excellence.
It seems to me though, listening to caller after caller on that radio talk show and a number of others subsequently, that South Africans are either confusing “Proudly South African” as “Buy South African” or assuming that companies that are given the right to display the logo have achieved some sort of high standard of excellence. Instead, it seems, any company that can come up with the necessary money gets to use the sticker.
Now, this particular talk show came at a time when winter power blackouts were manifesting themselves in Johannesburg and rolling electricity load shedding was being pessimistically planned down in the Western Cape.
The talk show, broadcast in Cape Town and Gauteng, had consumers in both centres hopping mad with Eskom. Consumers phoning in to that radio talk show were accusing Eskom of being liars, incompetent, alarmist and inefficient.
And caller after caller questioned how it was possible for Eskom to be allowed to display the Proudly South African logo. As one caller commented sarcastically; “We are not proud of Eskom – how can they call themselves Proudly South African?”
Technically of course, according to the Proudly South African rules and regulations, it was perfectly entitled to carry the logo. But, Mr and Mrs South Africa certainly weren't seeing it that way because to them the logo was the equivalent of the SA Bureau of Standards Mark or even an international ISO something or other.
Later on in the same talk show a businessman phoned in with something that really got the phone lines humming with irate callers.
He had just returned from a business trip to China to buy textiles for the SA market and at one large Chinese company he was told that they were already exporting a lot of their products to South Africa. His Chinese host proudly pointed to a huge stack of cardboard boxes containing clothing made in China from Chinese fabric, using Chinese labour but all carrying the Proudly South African logo.
Further investigation showed that the clothing labels also carried the logo.
Now, whether or not it is possible for a foreign owned company to be entitled to call itself Proudly South African, or even if Proudly South African is unable to control what it might well perceive as fraudulent use of the logo, this shipment of Chinese clothing was assumed by consumers to have been given the official green light by Proudly South African.
It is clear though, generally speaking, South African consumers don't understand the Proudly South African rationale.
And frankly, I am not sure whether a lot of companies actually understand the basic concept.
I have the feeling that Proudly South African has become more of a marketing tool than anything else these days and now is probably a good time to consider its relevance.
Because the perception is that it has become something very different to what its founders intended. And much as Proudly South African might put its corporate hand on its corporate heart and declare itself blameless for the confusion and that it remains committed to its original lofty ideals, it surely has some sort of responsibility toward rectifying a lot of false and confusing perceptions that surround it?
The problem has been created in my opinion by the fact that that Proudly South African is a money-making organisation. And I don't mean that to sound as though I believe making money is something bad.
But, what is inevitable is that having its very existence, growth and indeed sustainability entirely dependent upon its sales force being able to go out and sign up more and more members, problems will arise.
For example, the temptation to “award” a company the right to display the Proudly South African logo when perhaps it doesn't quite meet the original criteria must be overwhelming in terms of keeping the sales figures jollying along.
And equally, when a member company clearly breaks the rules, it must be extremely difficult to wield any sort of stick because essentially that company is a fee-paying client and its simply doesn't make sense in business to give a fee paying client a hard time. After all, the customer is king and the customer is always right. And this very fundamental of marketing makes it unnatural and difficult to admonish an errant member.
Quite apart from which, if one is a money-making organisation, in the final assessment, it is money that matters most. Not intentionally and perhaps even unwillingly, but it happens all the same.
It is getting to the point, though, from a marketing perspective, that many companies are beginning to wonder whether the money they are having to spend for the dubious privilege of displaying the Proudly South African motif, is actually worth it or not.
I get calls from my own clients asking for my advice and opinion on Proudly South African. Whether it is enhancing their corporate image or indeed whether it is actually detracting from it.
In terms of making some sort of marketing judgment, I am absolutely obliged to look at perceptions rather than facts. To take my cue from all those ordinary South Africans who call in to radio talk shows rather than look towards the letter of the law as it exists in the constitution of Proudly South African.
Because in marketing terms it is perception that counts and not reality. And the perception is such that I found it very difficult to justify a client's investment in membership of Proudly South African because there now seem to be no apparent benefit.
The perception is that anyone who has got the money and can afford membership of Proudly South African will be able to quite easily and literally buy in to the concept.
The perception is that there doesn't seem to be any minimum standard.
Again, this might be far from the reality but one just has to phone around and talk to people who are members and those who wonder whether they should be and one thing is abundantly clear – there seems to be very little perceived value.
Add to this consumer confusion and anger, rightly or wrongly, at organisations such as Eskom carrying the logo, and one will come to the conclusion that being associated with this Proudly South African is not only of little benefit but it could also have some sort of negative impact on a brand.
Simply because if these consumer perceptions persist in the direction in which they are heading, then the Proudly South African logo will be considered by the consumer not as a symbol of quality and aspiration but rather as something a company hides behind when it can't quite crack it.
A marketing gimmick instead of a marketing advantage.
There is no doubt that it is high time that the Proudly South African organisation takes stock of itself. It needs to redefine itself in terms of changing perceptions and perhaps it needs to relaunch itself.
The problem is that where money is concerned, pride in one's country takes second place. And perhaps Proudly South African is the most guilty of all because the perception is that even Proudly South African is putting pride in South Africa second and money first.
I am not sure whether it is making lots of money or not but either way, from a marketing point of view it is desperately in need of a makeover.
