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.

Branding is not all about personification.  Brands are representative, that’s all.  They are emotional shorthand for a relationship an individual has created between a thing (a product, a person, a company, etc.) and the values, ideas, emotions and knowledge associated with that thing.

Personification, the process of creating a “human quality” for a brand, is one way of establishing that relationship – but it’s not the only way.  There’s nothing wrong with that approach, it just may not be the most direct route to establishing brand equity because its path may be impeded by secondary concerns or prejudices.

The second part of the first observation offered – that branding communicates continuity – just scratches the surface.  Continuity is communicated through practiced consistency.  What really needs to be communicated are the values associated with the brand.  And those need to be congruent with the brand’s proposed position to the market.  Failure to continuously make your case through all lines of available communication upsets your brand’s continuity and tears away at your brand’s equity in the mind of the audience.

Good branding work builds continuity and brand value.  But failure to do that work will still result in a brand impression.

The wrong kind of impression.

You see, branding happens whether we want it to or not.  It’s part of how we, as humans, learn, understand and organize information.  Failing to understand how it all works – or, worse yet, dismissing it as “warm and fuzzy” marketing of little to no value – exposes your venture unnecessarily.

Finally, I can’t point out how important it is for people (professional communicators, clients and consumers/customers) to realize the relevance of the last point made in the Media Orchard post.  Corporations might be “good citizens” – but they are amoral.  They don’t care.  They can’t.  They’re not human.

That is why branding, as a discipline, can never take a day off.  Professional communicators, business owners, managers and employees have to work every day to infuse some element of humanity into the operation of the amoral enterprise they operate.  That’s okay.  If it’s done right, organizational might can multiply the effect of the individuals involved.

But to ever think you’ve “finished” establishing a brand is perilous.

Great post.  Got me thinking on a cold Monday morning.  Thanks to Scott and Cathy and the rest of the folks at Media Orchard.

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.

Now, it’s important to note that the NEA did say in their RFP that its award would not be made “on the basis of a superior capability without consideration of the amount of its price.”  That is to say, “price does matter.”  But seriously, when you say you’ve got a $25,000 budget – who’s going to come in much under $20k?  In fact, when you dig into the RFP (page 23), you find that price carries just 5% of the total evaluation’s weight.  Technical evaluation is 70% and the remaining 25% depends on “management evaluation criteria” – or, can the image be produced in print and online in both black-and-white and color.

Seriously.

The assignment is to produce a graphic identity for the phrase “Art Works” which, to Chairman Landesman and the rest of the NEA, mean these three things:

1. “Art Works” as a noun that refers to the works of art that artists create;
2. “Art Works” as a reminder that a goal fo art is to work on audiences and viewers to inspire, transport and challenge them; and
3. “Art Works” as a reminder that arts workers are real workers who are part of this country’s real economy.

That’s all well and fine.  But “Art Works” isn’t exactly a new phrase and there are already some executions of it out there.  As an aide to all designers thinking of entering this free-for-all, here’s what I was able to find in about ten minutes of searching:

Good luck.

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.

Let’s take a step back for a second and recognize some of the institutional barriers to effective organizational communication inside your local charity/non-profit.  From my experience, there seem to be three or four problems existing simultaneously in almost every non-profit organization:

1. A conflict of “mission” over “survival” that often results in moral dilemas turning on doing the right thing for those being served or doing the right thing to keep the enterprise functioning.
2. A tendancy for “mission creep” in good years and a reluctance to cut back on programs or initiatives when the money dries up or – heaven forbid – the problem is solved.
3. A failure to plan for leadership succession within the organization which – eventually – leads to insulation of a key group of volunteers who “do all the work” while everyone else attracted to the charity are alienated and/or driven away.
4. A reluctance to try anything new or to try a different approach to an existing program because of a perceived lack of funds, personnel or knowledge when it comes to implementation. 

Any one of these obstacles can present an almost impossible to overcome scenario for a Web 2.0 program – but that’s where the savvy marketer needs to explain the ultimate benefit of a social marketing solution to the problems faced by the charity:

Social marketing is all about engaging people and getting them to become rabid fans of your cause.  And with a group of people rallied around us (and what we stand for), there isn’t anything we can’t do.

It seems a key ingredient for success of a charity or non-profit organization is the engagement (and encouragement) of its members and the public at-large. 

Does that sound at all familar?  It should.

A vast majority of the tools available to people, businesses and brands using the social web to reach out, rally and remind fans and friends are intended to engage the public on one level or another.

It appears (to me, anyway) the key to social engagement is to draw them in, listen to what they have to say, respect divergent points of view and bravely state your thoughts and opinions.  It’s really all about good social ettiquite, after all.

Here are a few things to remember about creating social engagement among the members of your charity/non-profit:

1. Remember that social media is a conversation between people.  If you want to be a brilliant conversationalist and truly capture peoples’ hearts and minds on behalf of your cause, you need to ask people what they think and actually listen to what they have to say.
2. Involve your followers in the decision-making process for your charity/non-profit.
3. Work on establishing a personal connection between the values of your charity/non-profit and the people you meet online.  If people see a natural fit between how they see themselves (self-values) and how they percieve the mission of a specific charity, they’re more likely to become die-hard fans (or possibly even brand evangelists).
4. Keep the conversation going with your followers by being active.  Keep your information up-to-date, your status updates fresh and if you’re on Twitter, send out a handful of tweets every day.
5. A part of the keeping the conversation going is responding to contact in a timely manner.  If your cause has a Facebook page, a Twitter account or a blog, you need to make sure all of that content is refreshed and current.
6. Limit your channels of communication to keep all of the conversations and updates to a managable level.
7. Make sure your social marketing effort is a reponsibility shared by everyone.  It should become part of the daily routine for paid staff and key volunteers should be able to access those same resources and support the brand on their own.

So is your charity or non-profit considering adopting a more agressive social media marketing program?  If so, you may want to make sure you have taken the time to think through how that program should look and the resource demands that will result.

Want to learn more, please feel free to contact me directly for a no-obligation telephone consultation.

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.

I tend to disagree with this way of looking at the evolution of our industry, though. I see the BIG versus small thing as more of a ying-yang relationship than a winner-take-all contest.

I mean, let’s be real here. From the very beginning, big ideas have helped shape the direction and small ideas have brought us there. If Vince Lombardi’s big idea was to win at football, it was his emphasis on blocking and tackling that got him there. (Okay, no more sports analogies in this post, promise.)

BIG IDEAS and small ones can have great value to a brand. They can also distract and get in the way. Those problems arise not because they’re BIG or small ideas but because their bad ones. Off strategy. Ego-stroking. Wasteful. Inconsiderate. Incomprehensible.

Got it?

Here’s how I usually work our ideas with our clients: We start by clearly understanding who we are and what the brand really stands for and where you plan to go with it. This “values” review helps us create a context for every idea that we’ll discuss and evaluate. And a strategic vision of the brand’s future is just as impotant for setting your messaging and direction. BIG IDEAS that don’t fit in the context end up in the same trash heap as the little ideas that don’ continue to reinforce the values we’ve identified (and vice versa).

Personally, I’m a BIG IDEA kind of person. I like them because they help me come up with tons of little ideas with a sharp focus. And for those of you who’ve worked with me before, you know that I’ve been known to fill an etire conference room with little ideas overnight thanks to a couple pots of coffee and a well-crafted, BIG IDEA.

(Did I mention that I love to brainstorm?)

Don’t count out the BIG IDEA when, in fact, it’s often the over-arching direction provided by a BIG IDEA that creates the environment (and inspiration) to come up with some really great small ideas.

Now, get out there and start brainstorming (not blamestorming).

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?

According to Jim Allen, Branded Entertainment Manager for Nestle Purina, that’s the idea:

This program is another example of our commitment to providing fun and entertaining pet content to consumers in the digital space. While Man’s Best Friend is meant to be funny, its underlying message is about the positive experience of pet ownership. Hopefully, those who view the webisodes, will take away just how smart dogs can be to and for their owners.

But while the idea is fundamentally sound, the sitcom itself falls a little bit short.  It’s a little off-center, sure, but that’s not the problem.  The problem is that it’s not particularly funny.

Then again, a lot of the stuff we see on YouTube, DailyMotion and the rest is not particularly funny either.

But web-based video content seems to fall into two distinct categories: the “home made” and the “tv-like”.  This series, self-described as a web-based sitcom, appears to fall into the second category.  Add to that the “better than home made” lighting and canned laughter and you get the idea that the entertainment bar has been set at the professional level.

Unfortunately, the concept, writing and acting all fails to clear the bar.

The idea of a web-based sitcom seems (to me, anyway) to be right on target.  It’s a good idea.  It’s just not very well executed.  But you can’t knock either Blackhawk Content or Nestle Purina for trying.  It is an ambitious undertaking and lessons will, undoubtedly, be learned.

There’s no doubt that as the content improves, the views will go up (because good content has better pass-along value than poor content) and the effort will pay off.

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.

In these precarious economic times, starting over at 50 brings to mind lost jobs, lost homes and broken nest eggs.  When it comes to women and beauty, however, starting over at 50 means something altogether different.  It means starting over with many aspects of their personal care routine and learning how to care for a body, hair, skin and face that are undergoing fundamental physical transformation – whether it’s hormonal, cellular or even plastic.

Today’s 50+ women are no longer a marketer’s deadbeats who never try new products, but a marketer’s dream.  They’re in hyper-active trial mode, searching for beauty products, exercise regimes and nutritional solutions to help them correct the damage the first 50 years have done, prevent further damage and continue to look and feel like the 30-year-olds that live perpetually inside them.

Marketers should be advised that 50+ women seek formulas that cater specifically to their needs, whether it’s from brands that explicitly target 50+ women like Lauren Hutton’s Good Stuff cosmetics or that do it implicitly like Lancome’s Genifique Youth Activating Complex.  But that’s not all these women want.  Perhaps even more importantly, they’re hungry for information to teach them how to get the best results as they change and evolve.

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.

Reassuring consumers is an important role for marketing communications to play.  And if re-establishing your brand’s credentials by visiting the past works for you, then go for it. 

But making an argument that your brand is worth a consumer’s attention just because “we’ve been here a long time” is a path wrought with possible failure.  A lot of things have been around for a long time that have very little perceived value.  They still make buggy whips, remember?

Marketers need to share their history in a way that keeps the brand relevant to today.  That’s what historians do – they help people connect with their past to develop a better understanding of their present and the challenges they face in the future.

If, as some administration officials and economists are saying is true, we are starting to make our way out of the global economic crisis – but the challenges will be long and hard – then it’s time to start mining your brand’s history to find examples of how you’ve helped customers weather the storm and improve their lives.

Afer all, your customers aren’t concerned about your brand’s historical viability – they’re more concerned about their future survival.  Make your brand part of their future story by demonstrating how you’ve done it before in the past and you’ll find plenty of gold to mine from your own historical story.

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.

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!