Brand Central Station

… and what it’s not.

The Media Orchard blog has an interesting post about brands and branding.  They take on Jeff Bezo’s comment that “a brand for a company is like a reputation for a person.”  And rightly so.  As the Baradels’ team at the Orchard point out, branding is a little more complex than that.

Instead, they say, branding is much more:

Branding is all about personification — giving human traits to things that aren’t human … Branding communicates the continuity of a company’s business model — to shareholders, to customers, to employees. It says, “This is the kind of person we are — if we were actually a person.”

But here’s the hard truth to the matter:

Corporations are not human. And that’s a good thing, because if they were human, they would be sociopaths. This isn’t a cheap shot. A sociopath is a person who is interested only in their personal needs and desires. By definition, corporations are designed expressly to serve the interests of their shareholders — and only those interests.

Now, these are important facts to bring up when discussing brands and branding, but they only tell part of the story.

(more…)

Here’s something fun to work on if you have a few minutes – and interest in earning a few bucks.

On Friday, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) posted an invitation to contractors to submit designs for a new “Art Works” logo.  You can download your own copy of the RFP off our site or from the NEA’s site.  The open period for questions (best asked after you’ve reviewed the RFP) ends at 5pm (EST) on Wednesday, February 10.  All material must be summited to the NEA for review no later than 5pm (EST) on Friday, February 26, 2010.

To be honest, this release caught my eye because NEA Chairman Rocco Landesman announced the competition at a Miami-area high school for art and architecture and I immediately thought it was a student competition.  I have an 18 year-0ld, aspiring designer and thought it would be a great opportunity for him to stretch his creative muscles and maybe pick up a buck or two.

Then I saw the government’s estimated budget for this project.

$25,000.

For a logo.

Wow.  Talk about your stimulus package.

(more…)

Web 2.0 marketing appeals on a number of levels to charities and non-profits.  It can be inexpensive.  It’s trendy.  It can appear to be very democratic – allowing all with an opinion to chime in on issues they feel are important.

The truth is, however, that what makes the social web such an intriguing tool for charities and non-profits faces many of the same obstacles those charities and non-profits faced in their pre-technology days.  Enthusiasm for a new medium can overcome some of those barriers initially; but in the long run, it’s the institutional thinking and long-established traditions and taboos that can doom a non-profit’s attempt to join the social web.

(more…)

There’s a tug-of-war going on between traditional marketers and those who consider themselves on the vanguard of the social web. This post by Mitch Joel, about the end of THE BIG IDEA, is indicative of this battle.

Some consider it “old school” to pitch THE BIG IDEA to a client when, in the age of the Internet, the individual is the thing and success is only, really attainable through the successful implementation of a succession of smaller, more highly targeted and customer-reponsive ideas. Big ideas are a thing of the past and should be relegated to Mad Men (or Bewitched, I suppose). It’s all about the small ideas that can make a difference.

On the PR side we see the same thing happening. Big media, newswires, mass audiences are breaking down (either as part of their own strategy or by circumstance) into smaller, more focused publications, distribution channels that often bypass reporters and editors and go straight to the people who have the need to know. It’s the triumph of small over big.

Or so it might seem.

(more…)

Blackhawk Content announced the debut of their live-action, web-based sitcom series on the www.petcentric.com web site yesterday.  The site, supporting Nestle Purina’s PetCare division, is a content-rich environment for people who are crazy about their pets.

So, it makes sense that content for pet-crazy people should be fun and entertaining, right?

(more…)

The Apple iPhone has been a tremendous marketing success.  This week (today, in fact), Apple’s iTunes Apps Store just distributed its one billionth application for the iPhone.  This last quarter, Apple shipped over three and a half million iPhones.  Profits are up and things are looking good.

Well, except for that one misguided iPhone app debuting this week.  The “Baby Shaker” app.

“This application was deeply offensive and should not have been approved for distribution on the App Store,” said Natalie Kerris, an Apple spokesperson.  ”When we learned of this mistake, the app was removed immediately.  We sincerely apologize for this mistake and thank our customers for bringing this to our attention.”

Amid all great news, someone always seems to have to spoil the party, don’t they.

Fortunately, Apple not only did the right thing by removing the app, they promptly apologized and, more importantly, they acknowledged the role Apple customers had in making the recall possible.  Whatever the lingering lifespan this app is likely to have in the ether that is the Internet, it’s unlikely Apple will be tainted as a result. 

The Apple brand has its loyal advocates and acolytes.  They received the recognition they were do and, no doubt, see themselves as part of the Apple tribe responsible for keeping the brand pure as a result of this action and public recognition.  

All in all, it’s a great example of positive brand reinforcement with your key audiences.  Kudo’s to Apple.

And for those of you really interested in learning more about the state of Apple’s iPhone apps, I strongly suggest your read Nicholas Kolakowski’s story in eWeek.  Very interesting and informative.

Carol Davis, one of the innovators at FletcherKnight, has written an interesting piece on how women are taking a different approach to health and beauty.  It’s the new age of trial and experimentation for women.

Carol’s experience includes management stints at P&G, Bath and Body Works, the Lancaster Group and Kane, Bortree & Associates.

You’ll find her insights into the 50+ market after the jump.

(more…)

An interesting piece surfaced today in USA Today about he value of playing up a brand’s history and longevity in today’s economically turbulant times.

The creative strategy seems simple enough – create confidence in the brand by emphasizing its historical roots and stability over past decades.  As reported in USA Today:

Marketing experts say the trend is about image during an economic sea change. “It’s not going to have an effect on consumers making a purchase decision, but in these times, you want to put your best face forward as people look at companies that are going out of business,” says Walter Guarino, a marketing professor at Seton Hall University. “It’s image building. My guess is you will see more of it.”

But does the message slide from “stability and reliability” to “desperation”?  That’s what one branding expert claims in the article:

But branding expert Robert Pasikoff, president of Brand Keys, says touting still being in business smacks of desperation. “(The) consumer has been brought up now in a fast-moving age. People are looking for things that are up to date. There’s no good way to say, ‘We’ve been doing this for 150 years.’ Heritage is fine, but people are not buying Coach because it is old.” 

I put this question out to my friends in the Blogosphere and on Twitter to get their thoughts and ideas, and branding guru, Rob Frankel, stepped up with this very salient point:

“I believe reinforcing users’ brand loyalty – especially when it echoes proof of the brand’s strategy – can be very effective.”

Rob’s point is well taken.  And it’s a fundamental belief I share in my take – a sort of “middle ground” on this whole debate, if you will.

(more…)

Grabbed this from the FontFeed newsletter.

Wolda, the high-profile, global graphic design competition, just announced the publication of its 2008 printed annual.  Between the covers are the best logos and trademarks designed throughout the world this past year.

So, just how do you determine which logos are the “best in the world”?  As it turns out, there are four key judging criteria:

1. Clear Communication of the key brand message;
2. Originality and Creativity (who said everything had to be subjective, right?);
3. Good Graphic Design;
4. and a Positive Overall Impression.

For businesses and marketers considering a logo re-boot (or if you’re just starting out), these four evaluation points are a great starting point for your own logo project.  But take special note of the first criteria (Clear Communication).  That point presumes, of course, that you have an idea of what you’re supposed to be communicating.

The fact is, whether you’re designing a logo for a new medical practice, a real estate development, a sports team or a new consumer brand – there has to be a message you want the mark and logo to convey.

Take your time to develop that message and make sure it’s true to who you and your brand are before you hire a design team to do the “fun” part.

And one other thing.  Send me your best logo work along with the brand strategy and I’ll post the best to the BCS blog!

See more great logos and trademarks from the Wolda Competition here.

TNS, the world’s largest provider of custom research and analysis, recently published their list of the top 1,000 brands in the Asia-Pacific Region (more details on the study).  Japanese brand, SONY, came in at number one displacing Canon, the leader of last year’s list.  US-based Nike came in third.

In fact, the top ten list showed the depth and influence of US brands in Asia by occupying five of the spots on the list.

The top ten brands for 2008 include:

• Sony
• Canon
• Nike
• Google
• Hewelett-Packard
• Coca Cola
• Adidas
• Samsung
• 7-Eleven
• Yahoo!

It seems like some marketing questions can never be answered, doesn’t it?  Well, when it comes to who’s brand is better, the folks over at Brand Tags have the solution.

The Battle of the Brands.

(more…)

Laura Reis’ blog post about focusing brands on owning the category and not the name is right on the money.  Too many marketers are looking for the next big brand extension – the equivalent of a profitable sequel in the movie business (like Toy Story II or Godfather II or James Bond 20+).

Sequels, like all brand extensions, are desirable because they are “safer” than developing an idea from scratch.  If successful, a “defining” brand becomes synonomis with the product it represents.  This is part of the cognitive process for humans and it’s part of the reason why drastic logo changes for established brands can cause such angst among consumers (re: Pepsi).
(more…)