Brinks Home Security is now Broadview. Broadview CEO Bob Allen says the company would have been happy to keep the Brink name after its spinoff from Brink's armored truck division, but the agreement called for a new name within three years as licensing and tax regulations would have been too pricey.
Broadview Security will spend between $70 million and $120 million over the next several years in a re-branding effort. Dwayne Sigler, Broadview's senior vice president of marketing, says company executives don't know exactly how long it will take – or what they will have to spend – to make the Broadview name stick: "That's why there's a $50 million gap in what we're willing to commit. We need to see how it goes."
The full Forbes article lists the strategic business reasons for the split, chief among them readying the Brink's armored vehicle division for possible sale.
However, it begs the question: if it ain't broke, does it really need a $70 million – to $120 million – fix? Regardless of that answer, it's an ambitious course. It will be interesting to see if Broadview Security can maintain the level of brand equity that Brink's Home Security built.
Rumors are swirling that the "new" GM is considering an update to their classic blue square corporate logo. According to an AP article appearing in the Detroit Free Press, a source that has been briefed on the company's plans states that Ed Welburn, GM's vice president of design, is leading researching name and logo changes.
No recommendations have been made, but changing the background color has been discussed.
While this is all speculation, in terms of developing a cohesive brand strategy it could be argued that this type of overt green washing proves the General is content on business as usual behind the scenes, while gearing up for a public bombardment with brand messaging touting their renewed dedication to fuel-efficient vehicles.
Certainly this would generate interest. But, winning back the trust of the American people can not be made with a logo change. Or a new tagline. Or another advertising campaign. This is a not the time for GM to come up with a quick "brand fix". Instead, prove the difference with new – and improved – product offerings. Not a logo change.
Those that know me understand my disdain for all things corporate-speak. I understand it's a losing battle, but still I soldier on hoping that someday the madness might stop. Or, to phrase it in a way that no one can possibly understand: I'm immersing myself in a no-can-do mindphase in efforts to un-synergize today's communications brain splat.
Need proof of how so many words can say so little? I offer the following excerpt from a press release from today. Full link here:
Satyam Computer Services Limited (NYSE: SAY), a global consulting and information technology services provider, today unveiled its new brand identity, “Mahindra Satyam.” This strategic move paves the way for the emergence of a robust brand, which draws from the core values of the Mahindra Group and the inherent strength of the Satyam brand. The logo will be adopted from the Mahindra Group.
Speaking on the rebranding initiative, Mr. Anand Mahindra, Vice Chairman & Managing Director, Mahindra Group, said, “Customer centricity, high standards of corporate governance, and unimpeachable ethics form the cornerstones of the Mahindra Group. This rebranding exercise symbolizes an amalgamation of the Mahindra Group’s values with Satyam’s renowned expertise, even as it retains that part of Satyam’s identity which signifies commitment, purpose and proficiency of the organization and its people.”
There was also some stuff about “significant milestones", "synergistic approaches", "learning from best management practices" and "nurturing ... innate skills and capabilities" but I didn't want to scare you.
Does your organization speak like this? If so, I know Element Three can help. Or, as the old Charter Hospital commercials used to say, "if you don't get help with us, please, get help somewhere..."
I've always followed the career of a fantastic graphic designer, Jerry Herring (Herring Design, Houston), in part because of a close connection to a family friend, but also because of Jerry's terrific sense of humor.
One of Herring Design's memorable self promotions is now a part of the American Institute of Graphic Arts permanent collection – a brochure of Stock Trademarks that Herring sent out to friends, clients and prospects in 1975.
At that time, this was a brilliant concept: "Are you in need of a dynamic new image... but you are hesitant to act because of the expense and uncertainty of selecting an image... that is precisely why [we have] produced this collection... [These] are not only inexpensive, but can be used for almost any company... All the designs are available in black, green and blue. A few are available in red. Allow 2-3 weeks for delivery".
A sample for your pleasure, the Arrow Trademark (of note: Specify whether going straight up or to the right):
Other offerings included a star (perfect for those doing movie, government or occult work. Special clearance needed to do red) and a crest (especially good for new restaurants in need of a long history).
Herring immediately knew he was onto something when he began receiving calls specific to pricing...
Fast forward to today and online offerings for "entire brand packages" from $99 and it's painfully obvious that Herring was ahead of his time. Only now, it isn't nearly as funny.
I'm not dating myself (at least I don't think I am), but there was a time not so long ago when keeping abreast of what was happening in marketing communications, creativity and the design world meant subscribing to Print magazine and reading the Wall Street Journal. Keeping up simply meant paying attention to popular culture.
Certainly times have changed. In 1993, I recall sitting in a conference with Clement Mok (designer extraordinaire at Apple) telling us that, in Silicon Valley, what was cutting edge one day was outdated technology three weeks later.
Fast forward to today. The tools and techno-gadgets are meant to make our lives easier – and some actually do. We can distribute communications faster. Work smarter. There's cloud. Web 2.0. Wikis. Blogs. Podcasting. Mobile. Buzz. Social. Digg. Facebook. LinkedIn. MySpace. Twitter... In fact, I'm sure there were three – oops, make that four – new gottausethisorgetlostintheshuffles out just this week. Yet I don't feel I'm lost in the shuffle. I think instead it is crucial (for us all) to understand these are just tools, simply part of the toolboxes we now keep on our, um, desktops.
And, while this technological "tool revolution" may be in full swing, it's more important than ever to be relevant. By paying attention to and understanding popular culture. So, maybe things aren't all that different after all.
Now, I wonder who has the latest issue of Print.
Question for you: what communications technologies or tools have made your life better?
A couple of thoughts regarding the brilliantly executed video from locally based Scofield Editorial:
For me, this falls into the I wish I did that category... It's spot on and well written. I think the line "Yeah... cow" (0:52) could be an instant social media classic. If it were on SNL, this would be the equivalent of Christopher Walken's "I got a fever. And the only prescription... is more cowbell."
Second, I'm not surprised that this is produced by an Indianapolis team. After all, there's more than corn (and hayseeds) in Indiana. Cheers to them for this fun little satire now blowing up on YouTube everywhere:
.
Question to all: does this hit a little too close to home? We'd love to hear some of your horror stories.
We're currently in the midst of a brand identity development project for one of our clients. After going through our Brand Chemistry process (which includes a detailed competitive analysis and forward positioning strategy), our client was in agreement that a name change is in order.
Brand identity is my passion, but more often than not, the company name is off limits and we develop a corporate identity, brand visual and brand strategy makeover. Developing a powerful name for a company is, for me, the ultimate challenge (and quite the process).
For starters, what do you want your name to do? A powerful name can: . demonstrate your company is different (for now, we'll assume your company is different!) . achieve separation from the competition (most check this one) . be unforgettable (like AAA Vacuum Supplies – only better) . be emotionally engaging (versus cold and sterile: Agilliant Technologies anyone?) . provide a deep well for marketing (in other words, it's got legs...) . dominate a category (or at the least, change the landscape within your industry)
More on corporate naming strategies in future posts.
For now some questions for you: how does your company's name rate? Does your name tie into your company's vision? Is it forgettable? Is it easy to say? Does it rise above the goods and services you provide? Does it make sense to your customer base? Can you and your employees tell a story around your name? I'm interested in your comments.
We've all run across the occasional typo, whether in a newspaper article, resume, sports ticker, Chinese restaurant menu... But it's rare to find a jersey from a Major League Baseball (although it is only the Washington Nationals) with a typo:
So my question is: what's your most memorable typo catch?
I have two: I still remember getting a resume a few years back from a recent Purdue grad. Her contact info was name@purude.edu! And then there was the face painting at a local pumpkin patch. One of the painters was putting the Indianapolis Colts horseshoe on kids' faces along with the name "Cults". Clearly, not an officially licensed NFL product.
While I'm not a fan of Coors Light (I like my beer to taste, well, like beer), there is zero doubt that the MillerCoors marketing folks know what they are doing. Currently, they've posted 14 consecutive quarters of growth, while Bud Light grew in volume last year yet lost market share.
Patrick Edson, VP Marketing Innovation for MillerCoors, believes that it is their process of "20% Insight" that creates competitive advantages. In business, Edson believes the key is in finding the "right ideas" – specific insights that go beyond the dreaded 80% of what is known; "Great organizations get focused on (their) ability to decipher consumers' unarticulated needs..."
Edson challenges to common practice of brainstorming where "there are no bad ideas" where the end is the result of an idea contest. "People are way too lazy about stating the obvious...the fundamental thing...is to understand what a good idea looks like so your are working on that up front."
I've said for years that I am in the idea business. Increasingly, I'm starting to wonder a bit.
In the world of brand consultants, marketing strategists, media planners, identity architects, advertising gurus, digital darlings and social media experts there appears to be a fundamental crisis.
I see an overall shift where good ideas are being replaced by check the box tactics. Ads. Brochures. Buzz. Social. Mobile... The making of stuff is now more important than developing solid strategy and "making the picture pretty" trumps the message. Just do it is no longer the tagline for Nike – it's the mantra of thousands of client / agency relationships.
Sadly, the very technologies that allow us to work faster have empowered us to work dumber... Doing things quickly as opposed to doing things smartly? That should only apply to fast food.
I wonder in the 24/7 world of 1:1 tactics: is there time to develop solid strategies, or should we just go straight to the cool stuff?
For an excellent article on staying relevant, click here.
Heineken USA recently announced it was ending its relationship with Wieden & Kennedy (Portland, OR) and putting its account up for review – for the fourth time in four years. (Red flag waving...)
One thing about the announcement did cause a few raised eyebrows: the new agency will be a New York City agency as Heineken USA, White Plains, NY, is opening a marketing headquarters in the city and wishes for a nearby agency.
While there are obvious benefits to keeping the business local, (travel savings and time zone ramifications), it seems limiting for a powerhouse brand to open its search to only Manhattan firms. For any company, finding and locating the right marketing partner should focus less on geographic proximity and more on locating the correct mix of strategic and creative thinkers that understand their brand – and can unlock the key audience insights needed to move the needle. And New York certainly doesn't have a monopoly on that kind of thinking.
So what are your thoughts? In this day and age, isn't it possible to have a long-term strategic relationship?
Forbes.com recently released its annual list of fastest-growing team brands and the results are a little surprising. Surprisingly, my beloved Arizona Cardinals have seen the value of their brand jump “a staggering” 143% over the last three years – the greatest jump of any franchise in MLB, NBA, NHL or the NFL. The Cardinals jump in value (defined here as the portion of the team’s overall value derived from their name as opposed to their market and league) can be directly attributed to their new University of Phoenix stadium in Glendale – and winning.
Not shown in the report: the Cardinals growth can be directly attributed to changes in leadership. While the Bidwill family still owns the team, leadership of the franchise has been handed down from father William, to son Michael Bidwill. Under his guidance the Cardinals have turned decades-long incompetence into a winning formula. How? By hiring football people to run the football side (GM Rod Graves and head coach Ken Whisenhunt).
In short, the Cardinals as a franchise took a page out of Colts’ owner Jim Irsay’s playbook. When Irsay (whom had succeeded his father in running the club) hired a true football guy in GM Bill Polian, the Colts’ fortunes also took off. (There was also some guy named Manning... but I digress.) For the record, the Colts rank #5 in the NFL in terms of hottest brands with their three-year growth in value at 71%.
Clearly, winning strategies at the top leads to successes both on and off the field. The same is true in traditional business; a clearly defined brand strategy can mean the difference between winning and losing marketshare.
For years, we’ve preached that companies must be the brand, or to borrow a line from Denny Green, companies “are who we thought they were.” (Even as a Cardinals fan, I still get a kick out of Green’s infamous meltdown.)
Pepsi’s new brand identity development and marketing launch strategy has been in the news for months. What’s less reported was the massive internal marketing push with their employees that took place prior to the rollout, including webinars, town hall meetings and intranet updates leading up to the designated Rally Day, where the new logo and marketing was unveiled. “It was critical to get information to every person [as to] how they could bring [the brand’s new marketing message] to life in the marketplace.”, says Bill Wyman, senior marketing manager for Pepsi.
“If we were going to be successful in the marketplace, we were going to have to live and breathe the Pepsi brand with all of our employees,” Wyman says. “We set out to find every opportunity to communicate what we are doing, and why and how we are doing it.”
As developers of brand and marketing launch strategies, this seems obvious. Yet each day, companies large and small roll out new corporate identities, brand messaging or ad campaigns with plenty of background research, customer insights and C-level input without even a thought about getting critical buy-in from one of their greatest brand stewards – their employees.
To read the entire article on Pepsi’s internal relations rollout, click here.
I stumbled upon a Fast Company article featuring global trend forecaster Li Edelkroot whose business consults companies on how we’ll work, eat and live in the coming years. Fascinating reading, if you have ten minutes. A link to the article can be found here.
One quote in particular stood out to me. While the accolades for Edelkroot as a visionary abound, she takes a more modest approach, “People think I am some mystic or gypsy. But what I really do is pay attention. Then I have the nerve to say what I believe."
Pay attention and speak up. I wonder how many of us can claim the same?
Nearly three weeks after the Super Bowl, I’m amused that there is still so much controversy over some of those $100,000 per second ads. Teressa Izzi, editor of Creativity magazine and creativity-online.com, is clearly still fed up with Go Daddy (article here): “What I can no longer countenance is the sheer stupidity...of the marketing communications coming from what is meant to be a major player in this sector of the internet economy. The ads offend me as a human being.”
Seems a little harsh to me. While the Go Daddy spots are – and have always been – sophomoric in their not-subtle-at-all use of female anatomy to direct eyeballs to flat pieces of glass, they are successful in the fact they get results.
It doesn’t matter if Izzi or anyone else likes them. Do they move the needle? And not the USA Today ad meter needle, a concept so utterly American in its instant judgement of who “wins” and who “loses”, that I’ve lost interest. I’m talking about the reason marketers spend money on advertising (or at least, why they should): return on marketing investment. Or, more to the point, results.
Ads are meant to do one thing and one thing only: sell more stuff. And the results are in. Sales of new domains are up 110% over last year’s Super Bowl campaign. Scoreboard, Go Daddy.
I noticed that Kraft has a new logo (and that it's a popular topic here)! This will not replace the familiar red, white and blue logo on the company’s consumer products like mayo or Oreo®. Per the AdAge article the new mark is a result of a “co-creation process” with consumers, employees, ad agency (Nitro, London) and another shop, Promise.
From BrandWeek we learn that the new logo was “conceived as part of a several month design process, where more than 7,000 employees and consumers worldwide were asked for their feedback. Kraft asked consumers in cities like Chicago, Paris and Shanghai such questions as: "What do you look for in a food company?" "How do you engage with food generally?" and "What are the moments of that relationship that are important to you?"
Of course, there is differing opinion on the work. From a pure brand identity development point of view, it’s...um, breathtaking (anyone remember Seinfeld?). But so, too, are the visual monsters developed for every Olympic games since 1976. Breaking new ground? No, but look at all the colors!
It doesn’t matter if one likes the new identity. I question the strategy behind a corporate mark that captures the “essence of Kraft Foods” but will have zero marketing to promote the new look (per CEO Irene Rosenfeld). And, what of the inevitable confusion created by the company by changing its familiar kraft.com corporate URL to kraftfoodscompany.com?
It leads me to wonder if other leading brands might follow similar brand positioning strategy (or lack thereof). Do you think Apple would unveil a new logo (adding a smile, perhaps) and then change their landing page to applecomputercompany.com?
A recent blog post caught my attention which contained a quote from Romancing the Brand by David Martin:
“Most business decisions are made after studying a set of quantitative facts. These facts lead to rational conclusions. Advertising, on the other hand, is the odd ball that defies quantitative analysis in advance. It is a subtle and mystifying force that can be sandpapered into sameness and dulled by excessive testing and second guessing and a desperate attempt to be scientific. By attempting to reduce risk, clients and agencies risk running advertising that will be ignored—and with high awareness essential to the brand’s future, that’s the greatest risk of all.”
Martin’s book is nearly 20 years old, yet the message is spot on. The creative in me believes that our role (as designers, communicators and advisors) is to ignite passion in our clients and in their customers, stakeholders, etc., by creating business communications that both get noticed (with a certain element of risk) and are “on brand” (the all-important and sometimes lacking step two).
Often, we see examples of brand risk taking that unfortunately do more harm than good at the expense of getting noticed. Want an example? Try the recent Super Bowl debacle from Teleflora (in-house agency), where the “creative” solution, according to Ad Age’s Bob Garfield “is a box of talking flowers nastily ridiculing homely people about how ugly and sad they are.” Upon further review, this is not risk. It’s simply money not well spent. Or, to borrow another Garfield line, “a badly executed not-quite idea.”
Risk is good. But, so is understanding your brand’s essence – and staying true to that essence.
Business First is our motto at Element Three, and our Blog is designed to provide marketers and decision makers with fresh ideas and perspectives in the worlds of business, brand, marketing and design.
Subscribe
That's an RSS feed. Just click on it to receive content updates.
Powered by Compendium Blogware