Humanising brands, and Telkom the mugger

I was thinking today about Telkom, and the perception that so many of us have of this company. If you ask most people in my circles about the company Telkom, the words that come to mind would be ‘scum’, ‘hell’ (ah, the effectiveness of Hellkom and Telscum), ‘uncaring’, ‘inefficient’ and so on.

Personally, I vowed a while ago never to spend a cent with this company again. My experiences with them have been nothing short of disastrous. But my decision is an emotional one.

Recently I read an article on South African’s perception of the Virgin Mobile brand. The article claimed that most people saw the brand as ‘young’, ‘innovative’ and so on.

I know I treat my experience with companies way too emotionally, raging against Telkom and Nedbank, for example, and having slightly warmer and fuzzier feelings for Woolworths (I had to think hard for a positive example).

But how much of this is based on something rational (Shell destroying Ogoniland in Nigeria) and how much on the irrational (I was having a bad day and didn’t hit it of with the call centre staff member)?

Most of us attempt to humanise entities like companies, and that’s the angle that advertisers tap into. Telkom has kids making calls home to their mothers, Nedbank has people saving the Knysna lagoon.

It’s all a pile of crock. What really matters is how the company works for us. Some of us may be concerned only about personal matters, how much it costs, how quickly they answer their phone. Others may look at the bigger picture, perhaps choosing to rather buy a Dell over an Apple thanks to their abysmal environmental record, cool or not.

It’s hard to overcome negative perceptions. Telkom have burnt their bridges so often that I’d find it hard to support them, even if they quartered their prices and bothered to answer the phone when I called.

But the point is it’s not personal. Our human instincts of writing off an individual after they’ve betrayed us once or twice (or 10 or 20 times, Telkom) shouldn’t really apply to a company. Companies change staff all the time, from help desk to CEO, and values as well. By sticking with a negative perception I may be losing out, and showing some inflexibility. Maybe Telkom will somehow become worthwhile to deal with, and donate 50% of their profits to panda bear breeding schemes.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps companies do manifest a particular energy, and are as slow to change as most of us? In that case our humanising instincts may not be so far out after all, and treating entities like companies as we would other humans makes sense. In which case Telkom really is screwed. If I’d rather have my mugger to dinner than Telkom…

Technorati tags:

3 comments

  1. Being aproud client of Nedbank, I need to point out that you are missing something… you ultimately need to see what Nedbank and The Green Trust are actually doing in terms of caring about the environment and the upliftment of our communities.

  2. Nedbank’s actually a good example. I don’t doubt that the Green Trust is doing good work. I actually got the credit card purely to support the Green Trust, and I still have it. However, Nedbank have bought out/closed/merged with every bank I’ve ever belonged to (Perm, People’s Bank, BOE, Icanonline, 20Twenty), not always in the best of circumstances. But they’re a good example of the previous management having stuffed things up, and new management seeming to do a better job. I still have the credit card, so let’s see what comes of that 🙂

  3. Yes Cherub, we commend the environmental and community upliftment they are doing. The issue is that thats all PR. A tax write-off. Its effectively all about the bottom line for these guys.

Comments are closed.