Why Brand Governance Is Harder (and More Important) in Agency Models

Brand governance is challenging in any organization. The larger you grow, the more people you have who are responsible for delivering on the brand platform. Ensuring they can do so consistently – but not homogenously – takes effort. Not only do you need the right kinds of assets, but clear guardrails around how to use them.  

This dynamic is even more complex in an agent-driven company – think insurance, financial services, or real estate. In a transactional product-oriented business, consistency is king. You expect the same burger in every McDonald’s around the world. But in many service-oriented businesses (as most agent-driven organizations are), most customers expect and prefer an individualized experience. The consultative approach to selling means delivery needs to be more tailored according to the individual office, branch, or agent. Yet the distributed nature of an agency model makes it harder to create cohesion across channels and markets.

So what do these organizations need to consider as they grow and their marketing needs evolve? We’ve got you covered.

1. Inherent brand loyalty

One of the reasons agents choose to work for a company, whether stated or not, is the strength of its brand. Those who choose to work for a larger organization, rather than going out on their own, see value in name recognition and the resources an established organization can provide to help them grow their business.

2. Entrepreneurialism is baked in from the start

Despite this brand loyalty, agents are an independent type. Because of the ways agents are compensated, this business model typically attracts those with those who want their fate in their own hands. Being responsible for their branch or agency, they also naturally have a lot of ideas about how to grow their business. In an agency-driven organization, employees are more vocal and engaged as collaborators (as they should be!) – which means you need a robust feedback mechanism to both learn from them and guide them.

3. Competition exists within, not just beyond

The competitiveness of an agency model doesn’t just extend outward to competitors. Often, agents in larger organizations seek ways to differentiate from those repping the same brand, especially when they’re in close geographic proximity. Assets need enough optionality to give each agent a degree of choice in a branded system – otherwise everyone looks the same, making it harder for agents to attract their ideal clients.

A glimpse of the future?

Growing a brand in an agency model is challenging – your agents are responsible for both living out the brand and injecting their own individuality into it.  

Establishing the right amount of flexibility is key. Which parts of your brand are fixed, and which can be flexible? For example, the logo can never be altered, but agents can choose from a set of approved colors for their marketing materials. There are many levers you can pull – it’s about making sure you don’t overly constrict, or conversely, grant too much leeway.

Who can we look to as an example of effective brand governance? Compass is one organization using technology tools to empower its agents with flexibility while maintaining the sophistication you expect from the enterprise. Not only does Compass allow its agents to have custom visual elements (with guardrails), it provides the flexibility of choice in the assets that agents use the most.

As automated marketing tools continue to evolve, we’ll be watching to see if other large agent-driven organizations adopt a similar approach.

Brand-building in an agency model is “give and take” – make sure you do both. Getting this right can not only improve an agent’s experience (and bottom line), but when done exceptionally well it can be used as an effective recruiting appeal – helping everyone grow. If you need help finding the right balance, give Joe a shout!

‍