£650 on a mattress. £210 to re-fix a toilet seat. £600 for hanging baskets and pot plants. £268 for Christmas decorations. All claimed back on expenses. All apparently 'within the rules’.

While the depth and breadth of the political expenses row continues to unravel, what truly fascinates me is the oft repeated defense of ‘I haven’t broken any rules. It’s all within the guidelines.’ While this may be true, what this throws sharply into light is the difference between the ‘rules and standards’ and what is the right and proper thing to do for a brand, and how this relates to online.

‘Rightness’ is often based on people’s moral compass. What people expect to be the ‘right’ sorts of things for Members of Parliament to claim is based on their moral belief that a politicians ‘brand values’ resonate around the ideas of integrity, of trust and of working for others before themselves. (Stop laughing at the back)

Quite how, in an age of freedom of information and a globally networked planet, our MPs ever thought that these expense claims wouldn’t both emerge and enrage is another discussion. (They are aware of the website www.TheyWorkForYou.com I assume?) It is clear though that it is the disparity between the expectation of the brand and what it delivers which is where the fury lies, regardless of what the written ‘rules’ say.

The inconvenient truth is you can’t convey and say one thing and then do another. You will, in the end, get rumbled. Roll the Internet into the mix and the truth is no more than just a click away.

Brand and marketing managers must love and hate the Internet in equal measures. While on one hand they can (in theory) tap into a global market for their products and services; the other side of the story is that those pesky net-savvy customers keep questioning, probing, haggling, talking between themselves. ‘Why don’t they just believe what we say anymore?’

Back in the ‘pre-web’ days, brands operated like our now ‘estranged’ politicians. They were all front, all aspirational brand values and clever-clever strap lines that could rarely be attributed to what the organisation actually did or what they made. The Internet, however makes you prove it; it makes a company actually have to deliver on these brand values.

At least it should.

‘Humorous’, ‘Honest’, ‘Innovative’, ‘Helpful’, ‘Respectful’ etcetera etcetera etcetera…. we have all seen the page in the clients branding manual. However, how many of us can claim that these values play any real and clear part in the services and functionality we devise and deliver for our clients? As smart interactive agencies, we need to challenge our clients to commit to experiences that actually impart these values; not for our benefit, but for theirs. Closing the gap between what brands say and what brands deliver (and the way that they deliver it) through their interactive services is the most important nut to crack because of the immediate and resonant impact this would have for customers.

OK, I’m not saying it is easy. Mapping brand values to functions and processes to create ‘branded interactivity’ is a tough one. Just exactly how to impart a keyword search with the brand value of ‘humour’ isn’t something that can be solved in this column – but these are the questions that need to be asked and answered.

An organisations brand values should be imbued in every service and marketing touch point experienced by its customers. And barring the internet, ‘traditional’ agencies ensure they generally are. As the digital market matures, as the technology provides more creative opportunities, our sector must start to help our clients understand the value and power of actually delivering their brand values via the one channel that now shapes and forms so many of a customers perceptions of an organsation.

One final thought. £105 to change some broken light bulbs? Who can’t change their own light bulbs? I bet his constituents are so proud.