2009 January | brandSTOKE

Archive for January, 2009

Jan

How brand packages look different than commodities

By Kirk Closed

Categories: art direction & design, identity, packaging, retail and standards

Recently a colleague and I studied the packages of 13 brands of ice cream in store environments. We compared the packages individually as well as en masse in the freezer cases.

Here’s what we found: The higher priced brands featured:

Consistent design throughout all lines: premium, light, no sugar added, fat-free, slow-churned, yogurt, co-branded, seasonal, etc.
Consistent signature brand elements: icons, colors, flavor ribbons, etc. Examples: Breyers’ green leaf, Edy’s brown-and-white striped rim
Large logos
Small or no photos of ice cream
Subtle design differentiation between lines
Subtle flavor callouts
Subtle category callout: “ice cream”

The lower priced commodities featured:

Inconsistent design throughout all lines
No signature brand elements
Small logos
Large photos of ice cream
Bold design differentiation between lines
Bold flavor callouts
Bold category callout: “ice cream”

Our conclusions: Higher-priced brands promote the brand prominently on the packaging for quick recognition. The line, flavor and category are almost an afterthought. Presumably, their customers are brand-loyal and look for the distinctive packaging first before selecting a flavor. The commodity ice creams scream flavor prominently, apparently attempting to attract customers away from the other lower-priced options.

When buying ice cream, which do you shop for first? Brand, flavor, price, or line (e.g., fat-free or slow-churned)?

Jan

The biggest ideas in history in less than 140 characters

By Kirk Closed

Categories: copywriting and social media

Is 140 characters enough to convey a big idea? The New York Times says 140 is fine for microblogging in business. Many famous quotes fit nicely, such as “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” (88 characters)

But what about really big concepts? What about thinking that transforms history?

Like the Bill of Rights, for example.

I took a look. Two of the Amendments, the 8th and 9th, are each under 140 characters, including spaces. The 8th Amendment is the shortest at 111 characters: “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” Glad we have that one.

The 2nd (144 characters), 3rd (156) and 10th (161) could get there with some simple editing and abbreviating, such as converting “United States” to “US.” The rest of the Amendments, including the oft-cited 1st and 5th, are way over the limit. The 5th is the longest at 591 characters, but the portion used when “taking the fifth” is only 151 characters.

So at least five of the first Ten Amendments could have been tweeted. As could most of Confucius’ quotes, such as “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.” As could Buddhism’s Four Noble Truths.

As for the Ten Commandments, it turns out God is a master of brevity.

Depending on which religion, translation, list, parsing and edition you follow, six of the Ten Commandments are under 140 characters! The shortest, “You shall not kill” has only 19.

“Neither shall you commit adultery.” (34 characters) “Neither shall you steal.” (24) “Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbor.” (59) And so on.

The first line of the Gettysburg address is 179 characters. Here’s how to shorten it to 140: “87 yrs ago our fathers brought 4th upon this continent a new nation conceivd in Liberty and dedicatd to the prop. that all men are creatd =.” Doesn’t quite have the same ring, does it?

What other great concepts can be conveyed in only a few words? Send them and I’ll start a list.

Jan

Authenticity can’t be faked … can it?

By Kirk Closed

Categories: brand essence

With dismay I read the prediction of Fern Siegel, a JWT futurist, that brands in 2009 will adopt “authenticity.”

What a sad statement! As if they weren’t authentic previously. As if “being real” is just a new change of clothes or a paint job.

In the online blurb for their 2007 book, Authenticity: What Consumers Really Want, James H. Gilmore and B. Joseph Pine II make being real sound just that premeditated and contrived: “In this provocative and practical guide, Gilmore and Pine define what authenticity means to the postmodern consumer, and how companies can render their offerings as ‘really real.’”

“Render their offerings as ‘really real?’” Really?

Is authenticity what the brand really is or what the brand’s customers want it to be?

Authenticity, by definition, is being true to one’s own self. It is being faithful to one’s own spirit, character, and commitments. And therefore, it is in the eye of each beholder. A brand that resonates with me may be meaningless to you because we have different values. Which is as it should be.

Carter McNamara, MBA, PhD, of Authenticity Consulting says, “Different people have different views about authenticity and many people feel very strongly about their own views.”

This suggests the old marketing chestnut about perception being reality. But who controls the perception? The perceiver or the thing perceived? In other words, can authenticity be faked?

Well, of course, brands will continue to attempt to identify themselves with their customers’ self-images and desires. It’s business. In 2009, that may mean “adopting authenticity,” whatever that means.

But in the end it is the consumers who decide, as always, how honest they believe a brand is being. And the answer is not universal; it is consumer by consumer. My perception of authenticity may differ from yours.

I can’t help but wish brands would listen to William Bernbach, Advertising Hall of Famer: “The most powerful element in advertising is the truth.” How about you?

Jan

Tweeting there vs. being there

By Kirk 5 Comments

Categories: event marketing and social media

Back in the dark ages before cell phones could shoot video, taping family events was a larger and more choreographed production. The cameras were huge and expensive for a young father.

When I brought my newborn son home from the hospital, a friend loaned his camcorder to tape the event for posterity. I was hooked on the instant gratification. Shoot, pop the cassette into the VCR (remember those?), and enjoy! Soon I bought my own camera for taping birthday parties and holiday dinners.

Fun! I imagined myself a cinematographer, composing my shots and adjusting lighting.

But as I watched and re-watched the parties, Halloween costumes, and Christmas mornings, I noticed something. I wasn’t in them. I wasn’t there. Nor was my voice. In my effort to capture the authenticity of the moment, I didn’t interact with my subjects. I witnessed the events unfold, like a journalist careful not to become part of the story. I became the family historian, my children’s biographer, yet I was missing the real-time experience. The experience became watching the tape, instead of enjoying the party. More and more, I put the camera down.

Which got me thinking about Twitter. I’m fairly new at it and have only live-tweeted a couple of events. But immediately, I flashed back to my experiences videotaping family events. I realized I was reporting what the speaker had said a split second ago, instead of listening to what he was saying now.

Chris Brogan explored this in a recent post on microblogging from events. He asks if “live-tweeting a press conference might get the story into some kind of live action play faster?” But in a comment Lisa Newton asks, “Do you get so involved in reporting the event that you miss out on the event?”

Sharing the experience live is a hallmark of Twitter. But does reporting an event via Twitter interfere with participating in the event? Can journalists assigned to cover the fire also help put out the fire?

Do you find tweeting enhances or distracts from your event experience? Let me know.

Jan

10 new business red flags

By Kirk 5 Comments

Categories: budgeting, client-agency relationships, new business and research

istock_000006921303xsmall Dear Prospective Clients,

We would really love to do highly effective work for you that achieves results, makes you and your organization lots of money, and advances your career. Sometimes, however, the way you approach an agency review makes it hard. From experience, we’ve learned that how you handle the review often foreshadows the way you conduct your half of the relationship.

Here are ten “red flags” we notice during the review process that tend to give us pause, along with our recommendations on how to get the best from your review:

1. Comparing apples to oranges to pomegranates. Reviewing a large ad agency, a mid-size PR firm, and a small web development firm indicates you are not sure what you are looking for. Figure out what you need, talk to a few firms casually, and determine the capabilities and size of firm that is right for you before sending invitations to pitch.

2. Reviewing a cast of thousands. Do your homework and narrow your choices to three or four, before starting the review. Please don’t waste everyone’s time, including your own.

3. Setting too short of a timetable for a thoughtful response. Presumably you’ve got business challenges. It’s worth taking the time to research and strategize an approach in order to get it right. Asking for solutions overnight suggests what we might expect if we win your business.

4. Making a hiring decision by committee. Shouldn’t have to explain this one.

5. Not providing access to the real decision maker(s). Our pitch will be more on target (and you’ll look smarter for inviting us) if you let us pick the brain of the ultimate decision maker early in the process. Plus, it saves time. If the decision maker doesn’t want to take the time, it sends a signal about the (lack of) importance of the review.

6. Asking us to jump through irrelevant hoops. The opportunity is important to us, but the process itself is a huge pain. Probably for you too. What we’re excited to spend time on is getting to know you and figuring out how we might help you with your challenges.

7. Not sharing research. We need background info in order to share our best thinking with you. if you have concerns, we’ll happily sign a confidentiality agreement.

8. Not sharing your budget. Understanding your budget constraints helps us make smarter, more strategic recommendations.

9. Asking for spec work. Frankly, until we know more about your organization, we’re just guessing. And our paying clients aren’t all that keen about us giving away our thinking for free. Instead, let’s spend time getting to know each other. After a robust conversation, we would be happy to share our ideas on how we’d approach your business.

10. Not hiring. Please don’t put us and other firms through a review unless you’re serious about actually choosing one of us.

I know there are more red flags. Can you add to the list? Or perhaps you have some from the client’s perspective?