identity | brandSTOKE

Archive for the 'identity' Category

Feb

The branding of electricity

By Kirk 0 Comments

Categories: advertising, brand essence, budgeting, identity and strategy

Electricity is a commodity. And therefore, it sells on price alone.

But in 1998, local electric cooperatives from around the country, all of which operate independently, got together to distinguish the electricity they serve from that served by investor-owned utilities.

A brand was born.

The catalyst: energy deregulation. Since the late 1990s, many states have rewritten the rules in order to increase competition among energy providers. Facing the prospect of competing head-to-head with large, well-financed utilities, electric co-ops decided to unite their individual brands under one banner.

“Touchstone Energy” became the national brand identity for participating electric cooperatives.

Because members own the co-ops which serve them, cooperatives have a unique advantage in a competitive environment. Market research conducted during the development of the brand identified the following differentiating attributes:

Co-ops are active members of the local communities they serve.
Co-ops are directly accountable to their member-owner-customers (not to investors).
Co-op members have a voice in how things are run.
Co-ops are perceived as more people-focused.

After developing the Touchstone Energy name and identity, participating co-ops adopted the tagline, “The power of human connections,” and launched a national branding campaign (See current campaigns here.).

Correctly, the co-ops didn’t try to brand electricity. Instead they branded the co-op experience, based upon intangibles including integrity, accountability, and commitment to community.

Today, the Touchstone Energy brand represents an alliance of nearly 700 cooperatives in 46 states. Touchstone Energy co-ops collectively deliver power to more than 30 million members every day. They distribute power for 75 percent of the U.S. land mass over 2.4 million miles of power lines.

And the brand lives up to its promise. Industry research indicates electric co-ops rank well ahead of their industry counterparts when it comes to customer satisfaction. Data from the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI), one the nation’s most recognized measures of customer satisfaction, gives Touchstone Energy cooperatives an average score of 81 out of a possible 100, outclassing the utility industry satisfaction score of 74.

Co-op electricity — it’s a powerful brand.

Dec

The North Face Dilemma: Spank the Butt or turn the other cheek?

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: identity, loyalty, promotion, public relations, retail and social media

Okay, it’s a little bit funny.

At least the first time you see this parody of The North Face’s familiar logo.

But The North Face is not laughing. It is, instead, suing young Jimmy Winkelmann, founder of The South Butt brand, for trademark infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition.

Winkelmann isn’t subtle about the inspiration for his line of casual apparel. The South Butt’s tagline is “Never Stop Relaxing,” a play on The North Face’s “Never Stop Exploring.”

On his web site, Winkelmann says, “I thought of The South Butt in response to a growing number of people who continued buying gear and clothes from a brand they really didn’t relate to, but were buying because ‘everyone else was.’

“After seeing the same people wearing the same brands, I decided to create a way to poke fun at the norm, while making an affordable and quality product.”

Despite his disclaimer (”If you are unable to discern the difference between a face and a butt, we encourage you to buy North Face products.”), he’s not just having fun. He’s selling merchandise — much more now due to the media attention provided by the lawsuit.

An article by Jim Salter of the Associated Press quotes the suit: “They (The South Butt) are marketing apparel that directly and unabashedly infringes and dilutes The North Face’s famous trademarks and duplicates The North Face’s trade dress in its iconic Denali jacket.”

“While defendants may try to legitimize their piracy under the banner of parody, their own conduct belies that claim,” the suit said. Supposedly, The South Butt has twice attempted to register its trademark and once offered to sell The South Butt to the The North Face for $1 million.

Winkelmann is capitalizing on the attention. He’s launched a game on his Facebook page, entitled “Can you tell tell the difference between a face and a butt? Take The South Butt Challenge.” He’s making media appearances. He’s leveraging a brand built by someone else. He’s making money.

“This is bigger than facing down a bully in the school yard,” said Albert Watkins, attorney for The South Butt and Winkelmann. “This goes to the heart of competition, the concept of an open marketplace, and the freedom of the public to make their own choice.”

So which is it? A parody, free enterprise, or a rip-off?

Are The North Face customers confused? Not likely.

Are they switching brands? No.

Is The South Butt a long-term threat to The North Face’s market share? No.

For The North Face, this is not about money.

It’s about demonstrating, for legal reasons, that they are willing to defend their brand. One of the ways a brand keeps its trademarks defensible is by proving it will not tolerate copycats. Putting Winkelmann out of business would send a message and serve to scare off other potential interlopers.

But there’s a risk. Legal action and continued media interest may make The North Face look humorless, corporate and stodgy. A heavy-handed handling of this frat-boy joke and the accompanying bad PR may not appeal to its younger customers. (Currently, The North Face does not respond to questions about the lawsuit and does not reference the issue in its social media. So much for transparency.)

How do you think The North Face should handle this?

Drop the lawsuit and be a good sport?

Or scuttle the Butt?

Dec

Best posts of 2009

By Kirk 2 Comments

Categories: art direction & design, brand essence, budgeting, client-agency relationships, copywriting, identity, loyalty, new business, roi, standards and strategy

This month BrandSTOKE is one year old.

I’m honored that you take the time to read and comment. My goal for 2010 is to engage more conversation. If you have any suggestions for topics or improving the blog, please let me know.

Thanks for your interest and support. I’ll try to do better next year.

Here’s a list of some of the most popular posts as well as a few personal favorites from the last twelve months:

On brand building:

On brands vs. commodities:

On simplicity and effectiveness of messaging:

On smarter strategy:

On getting hired:

Just for fun:

Sep

Brand anarchy: why we need cops

By Kirk 1 Comment

Categories: identity and standards

istock_000008364248small Take any group of people. Give them a goal in which they have a vested interest, throw some obstacles their way, and apply pressure. What happens?

One common outcome of a shared experience is that the group members will bond. They will say things like, “Our team busted our butts putting the annual budget together in four days. Nobody slept. It was a hell of an accomplishment.”

And they will identify with each other. They will give each other knowing looks in meetings and tell inside jokes. They will develop their own mythology. And something else: they will brand themselves.

Apparently it’s human nature. One would think a football team, for example, would have one identity only. But within a team, the defensive players share a special bond, as do the offensive players. And within the defense, the linebackers hang together, as do the defensive backs. The seniors on the team are bonded as a class, as are the first-year players.

Nearly every organization has teams within the team, divisions, departments, outlying offices, and committees. And many of these units will brand themselves with their own symbols, slogans, and special versions of the organization’s logo. Sometimes, unfortunately, these identifiers face the customers.

While this may be good for the morale of the individual unit, it is often confusing to the customers who are witnessing a multiple-personality disorder.

Enter the brand police.

The purpose of brand standards and message platforms is to present the organization in a unified and distinctive manner to all audiences. Standards improve clarity, effectiveness and memorability. When applied consistently, they benefit all of the groups within the larger group and strengthen the brand in the marketplace.

Yet in many organizations the brand cops are held in contempt. No one likes to be told to take off their colors.

How are the standards police regarded in your organization?

Jul

Don’t just sponsor events — brand them

By Kirk 4 Comments

Categories: cause marketing, event marketing, identity, promotion and strategy

The backs of most event T-shirts look like the one on the left — a jumble of sponsor names and logos.

And that’s just how the event organizers like it.

The proliferation of community fund-raising events, such as runs, walks and golf outings, is good for all parties. The more sponsor money the better!

The sponsors, however, may be choosing to participate for reasons besides charity. Some, of course, are sincerely engaged in the cause. Some are playing the role of community citizen. Some may feel personal or political pressure. Some may be fulfilling employees’ interests. Regardless of their motivations, all donors should be profusely thanked and recognized for their generosity.

However, if one of their goals is to generate brand awareness, they are likely getting lost in the crowd.

Instead of making a nominal donation to multiple events, brands should consider moving to a less crowded venue — the front of the shirt.

Being the title sponsor of an event is consistent with recent trands in corporate giving; that is, giving larger amounts to fewer charities in order to make a greater overall impact. Take a page from Panera’s book — own the event.

Jul

Private labels: the new brands?

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: brand essence, identity, loyalty, packaging, retail and strategy

Retail trade media is abuzz over the hypothesis that consumers will shift their loyalties permanently to private labels after the recession.

Private labels have been around since the late 1800s, but consumer attitudes toward them are changing, perhaps even faster due to the downturn.

More than 30% of consumers polled are now “buying more store brand products” compared to a year ago, according to research conducted by the Private Label Manufacturers Association (PDF).

Is there really a sea change? Here are some perceptions and realities to consider:

Perception: Private labels are cheaper than manufacturers’ brands.
Reality: According to Fortune, private labels cost consumers 5-20% less than equivalent manufacturers’ brands.

Perception: Retailers make less money on private labels than manufacturers’ brands due to the lower prices.
Reality: Margins are an average of 10% higher on store brands than manufacturers’ brands.

Perception: Private labels are perceived to be of lesser quality.
Reality: It depends on the label, of course, but many are now perceived to be of at least equivalent quality, such as Sears Craftsman tools, Saks CLOTHES (Real) women’s apparel, and Kroger Private Selection foods.

In Private Label Strategy: How to Meet the Store Brand Challenge, a book by Nirmalya Kumar and Jan-Benedict E. M. Steenkamp, the authors say the concerns about quality and the social stigma attached to store brands have disappeared.

Perception: Private labels are perceived by consumers as generic commodities.
Reality: For the most part, those days are over.

Some private labels are perceived instead as extensions of the store’s brand. Loyalists to Trader Joe’s, for example, sometimes drive hours to the nearest store to stock up on its products, about 85% of which are private label. Barry Silverstein in a brandchannel.com post, “Trader Joe’s: Quirky Mart,” describes the retailer as “less a grocery store and more a brand with a cult-like following.”

Other stores disguise their relationship to their private labels, often as part of a multi-pronged strategy to appeal to different customer segments and compete in different product categories. A few examples: Macy’s offers fashionable INC, traditional CHARTER CLUB, and trendy Style&co. Nordstrom sells under the classiques entier and Halogen labels. Kohl’s features sonoma, urban PIPELINE, apt. 9, and Croft&Barrow. All private labels.

Perception: Private labels are increasing their market share primarily due to the recession.
Reality: The downturn may be speeding up the trend, but retailers have been growing more sophisticated in their positioning strategies and gaining ground for quite some time. They want to offer consumers a range of options and prices for shoppers. When they notice a niche missed by the manufacturers, they often fill the gap with their own label.

Perception: After the recession, consumers will migrate back to manufacturers’ brands.
Reality: More likely, consumers will stick with the brands they prefer, whether manufacturers’ or retailers’.

According to a Wall Street Journal article by Julie Jargon and Ann Zimmerman, Sara Lee’s CEO Brenda Barnes says, “… (manufacturers’) brands are not dead. The question is: How do you make sure your brand is the No. 1 brand? There will be consolidation, over time, with only the No. 1, No. 2 and private-label brands remaining.”

This is a brand-by-brand battle, taking place in the minds of the consumers. Strong store brands, such as Sears DieHard and Walmart Great Value will likely be able to continue to transfer brand equity to their private labels. Smart retailers with differentiated brand names, such as Macy’s European-influenced ALFANI and Target’s Archer Farms, will likely succeed, if they pay attention to their customers’ preferences and position their brands accordingly.

In other words, strong brands will succeed and weak brands will die, regardless of who owns them. It is law of the jungle.

Do you perceive a difference in quality between manufacturers’ and store brands?

May

Why strong design is always on Target

By Kirk 8 Comments

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

Here in the Information Age, we receive more words than can possibly register. We are deluged with data.

Funny thing. When everyone is shouting, most marketers attempt to shout louder to be heard. Most strive for share of voice by out-explaining their competitors.

In a previous post, I suggested that using fewer words demonstrates focus and clarity. “Less” stands out from the rest. “Less” is often most powerful.

As an example, this wraparound outdoor signage at West 42nd Street and 7th Avenue in New York City works without words. Not even a brand name. Of course, it is Target, a master of restraint.

Target’s effective use of simplicity arises naturally from its philosophy. “Great design is the essence of the Target brand. Since day one, our company founders recognized that the appeal of smart, stylish, well-designed products and stores would set Target apart.”

In its marketing, Target applies its standards consistently. Its advertising is quickly recognized. In its category, it owns the colors red and white, the way UPS owns brown and Fiberglas owns pink. (Owens Corning, maker of Fiberglas insulation, has actually trademarked the color pink.)

The target icon is so simple and obvious it is recognized without the Target name.

No name — ’nuff said. Which other brands can get away with this?

Apr

G, I don’t get Gatorade’s line extension

By Kirk 4 Comments

Categories: copywriting, identity, packaging, retail and strategy

I am brand loyal to Gatorade. I drink it a couple of times a week during and after running workouts. It’s a staple for most runners.

But its line extension has me confused.

First of all, what happened to regular Gatorade? And what is the difference between these ill-defined options with forgettable names? Here’s the current line-up:

G (that’s the name) might be the original.
Shine On seems to be the original with vitamin C added. It is positioned for drinking prior to morning workouts. I’m not sure why.
Bring It has B vitamins added for “metabolizing energy.”
Be Tough has vitamin E, an antioxidant.
No Excuses seems to be Gatorade Light, a drink for those who find the taste of regular Gatorade too strong.
Focus has vitamin E, 25% more electrolytes, 50% less carbs, and Theanine to help focus. With Tiger Woods‘ endorsement, it’s positioned for more serious athletes.
G2 (that’s the name) is the low-calorie option with vitamins B, C and E.

Shine On, Be Tough, Bring It, No Excuses–these names don’t exactly convey the product differences needed when standing in the grocery aisle. Is Bring It the one with B vitamins? Or is that Be Tough? What’s the difference between G and G2 again?

To make it worse, these names just replaced some equally vague ones:

Shine On used to be A.M.
Bring It was Fierce.
Be Tough was called X-Factor.
No Excuses used to be Rain.

Both the old and new names are on each package to aid with the transition. Good luck.

So what do I want in a sports drink beyond hydration? Energy, focus, protection? Do I have to choose? Why not all?

Here’s my suggestion:

Keep the original and call it Gatorade. It’s like Coca-Cola Classic.
Make an enhanced version with all the extras: more electrolytes, vitamins, Theanine, etc. Call it Gatorade Plus or Gatorade Extra.
Make a lighter tasting, low-calorie version, called, of course, Gatorade Light.

I know — boring. But at least I would know which one to grab at the grocery store.

PS: Since writing this post, Beverage Digest reports Gatorade’s sales dropped 13.7% first quarter 2009. Business Week’s brand blog Brand New Day blames the new packaging.

Jan

How brand packages look different than commodities

By Kirk 0 Comments

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)?

Dec

And what do you do?

By Kirk 3 Comments

Categories: advertising, identity and public relations

istock_000003134929xsmall

You know that moment when someone you’ve just met asks the occupation question?

“I’m in branding … which is much more than making logos. It’s marketing actually … but not the salesman kind. And interactive … you know, with computers?”

It takes too long to explain! Doctors, lawyers and engineers say it in one word, then get specific about their specialties as the conversation ensues. For crying out loud, we’re professional communicators — why can’t we invent a more succinct description for our profession?

I used to say I was in advertising. Like in Mad Men. By definition, advertising means sponsoring a message in a mass medium (TV, radio, print, etc.) with the intention of persuading consumers to buy something. But ad agencies have always done more, including research, direct mail, promotions, packaging, interactive marketing, even PR.

“Advertising” is too limiting of a description.

PR has the same problem. The Public Relations Society of America offers a lengthy definition of PR that centers on developing effective relationships between various audiences (publics). This might involve actually selling something, although some PR practitioners don’t like to admit it. “Public relations” is too narrow a word to describe all that PR firms do (which sometimes includes advertising).

Corporate communications as a description has the opposite problem: it’s too broad. It means passing information from the organization to both internal and external audiences. Couldn’t that mean a phone call? The International Association of Business Communicators‘ description also includes teaching and training. “Corporate communications” is too vague.

How about marketing? Historically, it meant everything involved in taking goods to the marketplace, as in chickens or cabbages. Now, its meaning has expanded to include services and ideas as well, or as the American Marketing Association says, “offerings that have value.” Still, it’s all about selling, which is why some sales reps call themselves marketing reps. The phrase “integrated marketing” seems redundant.

“Marketing communications” is a shotgun marriage attempting to narrow the definition of “communications” while broadening the meaning of “marketing.” Like “jumbo shrimp.” It’s little but it’s big.

“Branding” or “brand management” seems like a good solution, as it means bringing all of the tools — research, marketing, advertising, PR, direct marketing, interactive marketing, promotion, publicity, packaging, event management, etc. — to bear on building brand loyalty. Interbrand publishes an annual ranking of the value of the top global brands. Unfortunately, many people still think branding is limited to creating logos and identity standards.

And none of these descriptions ever imagined the emergence of direct, database and interactive technologies.

So … you’re at the cocktail party and someone asks, “What line of work are you in?” What do you say?