RSS
One day left to vote on SXSW panel proposals… and here’s ours!
That’s right — just one day left to vote on SXSW panels! Head here to vote right now.
Our contributed panel proposal, “Scratch Your Niche! How Digital Dimensionality Builds Influence,” brings together:
- our own Tamsen McMahon, Director of Digital and Strategic Initiatives and “co-tack” at Brass Tack Thinking;
- C.C. Chapman, Boston-based media maven, Digital Dad and the man behind Accident Hash and Managing the Gray;
- Amber Naslund, Director of Community at Radian6 and “co-tack” at Brass Tack Thinking;
- Julien Smith, co-author of Trust Agents, and in-demand speaker and consultant.
You can read more about what the panel’s all about at the link above, but here’s a quick peek:
“Influence based on “digital dimensionality”—a coordinated presence across four dimensions—can expand your potential audience, and influence, to almost infinite proportions. In this session, you’ll see real-life examples of how both individuals and organizations have used the digital dimensionality to advance their goals…and learn how you can, too.”
To learn more — and to vote! — just head to our SXSW PanelPicker page!
Categories: Branding, Digital Media, Outside the Square, Strategy and Management
Two great tastes?
Brand mergers aren’t always as easy as peanut butter + chocolate
A few weeks ago I was traveling back to the heartland, flying on a Continental plane. Reading pretty much every page of the in-flight magazine (I forgot to bring a book), I came across this Chairman’s Letter, in which Jeff Smisek called the Continental–United airlines merger “a merger of equals.” The “world’s most comprehensive network” will be “[f]lying under the United name with the Continental livery, logo, and colors,” he continued. That sounds simple enough! How hard could that have been? (In another statement, Continental spokeswoman Christen David said, “This combination is a true merger of equals bringing together the best of two great organizations. Accordingly, the marketing brand combines brands of both companies.”) Would that it were so easy.
If you’ve ever been involved with any kind of merger between two brands, you know it’s not at all easy, regardless of either party’s relative brand or economic strengths. There’s rarely a “right” answer to any single question. Say what you will about how imaginary or ephemeral the effects of branding are, brands and brand identities immediately become partisan battleflags when they’re threatened with annihilation. Something has to come out on top, which means something else doesn’t—i.e., loses—and no one likes to lose.
An excellent article by Julie Johnsson in the LA Times (you can find it elsewhere, too) investigates many of the brand issues tied up in the merger. It compares the merger to a wedding, but it’s more like two parents creating a child—and disappearing. We’ll be able to see their characteristics in the new creature, but in a novel mix. Each company spent a lot of money investing in the brands it has today, and they shouldn’t leave behind any more equity than they have to. The new company can’t afford to start from scratch. More than just choosing a logo, there is an array of symbolic and practical challenges to meet. Will the new airline (for in reality it will be a new airline) invite you to “Work hard. Fly right”? Will it still be “time to fly”? Or will its main message be something new altogether? For seasoned travelers who tend to develop loyalties, the colors, messages, and jingles are emotionally freighted. And the 80,000-strong company has to throw out a lot of stationery (and brochures, and websites, and sign)…oh, and repaint all the planes.
To be sure, there’s a lot more than branding that will decide how the new airline comes out the other side of this transition. But if the new company is a thoughtful steward of its emerging brand, the brand can help the company—
- Honor the long heritage of both United and Continental
- Retain customers and attract new ones
- Navigate through complex executive and shareholder politics
- Engage and motivate employees
- Make good resource allocation decisions
From a branding perspective, “a merger of equals” is the worst possible case. King Solomon wouldn’t be able sort it out. In this case, two famous logos went in, and neither walked out. There is no solution that won’t engender complaints about who lost. Kevin Masi, a Chicago branding expert, is quoted in Ms. Johnsson’s article: “Rebranding is an opportunity and requirement to communicate to the marketplace.” That’s exactly right. The new company has to do it, and if they stick to their guns (and do everything else people expect an airline to do well) they will build a strong brand, and this moment will become yet another footnote in their corporate history—remembered as a case study only by design and marketing types.
Categories: Branding
Is that recycled logo good news… or just old news?
It’s become a ubiquitous little symbol, and maybe so much so that our eyes pass over it without a thought.
Postcards from the cable company, magazines, catalogs, even your daily newspaper—all likely carry the original recycled mark or the logo of one of the associated advocacy organizations (FSC, SFI, among others). Each has its own unique significance (amount of recycled content, whether it includes post-consumer fiber, if wind power was used in the manufacturing process, etc.).
But what does it mean to you?
We know that a strong, clear brand is one that resonates with your customers and supporters. And if environmental stewardship is important to you, it should be an important message to send to your followers.
I often encourage our clients to include some version of a recycled logo, or even language that spells out things like how many trees have been saved because of the use of recycled paper (talk about a good story to tell!). Sometimes they haven’t necessarily cared about that message themselves, but the reaction they’ve gotten from their constituents makes them sit up and think differently.
How can we, together, make old news new again? The environment is ours to take care of, and we’re all in it together, as they say. Being green is becoming a way of life, despite what Kermit the Frog once said.
Is environmental stewardship important to you? Does it make a difference in your decisions about what to buy, who to support, and who to engage?
Categories: Branding, Design, Outside the Square
New workshops to advance your brand
We’re pleased to roll out a new series of workshops today, focusing on four of our most important areas of collaboration with clients: brand strategy, messaging, visual brand expression, and social media.
Each one of these modular, half-day (and customizable!) workshops offers your organization the opportunity to learn how you could more effectively be communicating with your audience (both internally and externally), and how to make more significant connections with the customers, constituents and community members that matter most to you.
Sound good?
We’d love to work with you to help you do what you do even better.
Drop us an email via the form on the Workshops page to get in touch, or give me (Meg) a call at 617-266-8577.
Categories: Branding, Design, Nonprofits, Strategy and Management
Online vs. offline brands
I wear Warby Parkers.
I can’t tell you the last time I could name the brand of glasses I wear, but these days, whenever anyone comments on them, I tell them, “They’re Warby Parkers.” And they cost $95. And I bought them online. And that, because I bought a pair, Warby Parker donated another pair to someone in need.
Warby Parker gets it. They get that there are people out there who (a) love to wear glasses (b) would buy a different pair for every day of the week if they could and (c) like having their little bit of vanity balanced by helping someone else out. In other words, they get that I’ve become an instant devotee because what they offer, and how they offer it, intersects with what I want and value. That my “brand” intersects with theirs.
An optical shop up the street from our office, on the other hand, does not get it.
A tale of two brands
Warby Parker doesn’t have a store; you buy their glasses online. That’s a little weird for us lifelong glasses wearers, but Warby Parker has answered that concern with both at-home try-on options and a virtual try-on feature that works surprisingly well (once I got my pair, I went back and checked how they fit against the virtual try-on: VERY close). You choose your frames, send along your prescription and doctor’s information with your order, and then they send you your glasses.
But it turns out that offline optometrists and optical shops have a monopoly on one little piece of information that’s needed to make your glasses work properly for you: a measurement called “PD,” for “pupillary distance.” Any optician can do the measurement… but as soon as you go in and ask for it, it’s a red flag that you’re about to buy your glasses somewhere else.
Such was the case at the aforementioned optical shop up the street. It’s a shop well-matched to this Boston neighborhood—they carry fashionably high-end frames (some exclusive to that store) that cater to the well-heeled and fashion-forward clientele of the area. I went in, asked for the measurement, and was immediately asked,
“Are you buying your glasses online?”
Yes…
“Well, we offer a service where we’ll do the measurement for you, and then do the adjustments once you get your frames. Because, you know, an online shop can’t do that.”
I’m pretty sure I could have found a place to do the measurement for free, but I was already out on my lunch break, there weren’t any other optical shops nearby, and I was incredibly eager to complete my order and get my new frames. So I agreed, got the measurement, and was on my way… but not before several more digs at online optical shops.
Hmm. Not exactly the way to get me to come back to your store, despite your protestations that “We’re not in business to give away business to online stores.”
But they were already into me for $25, so I was definitely going to go back to get my Warby Parkers adjusted. Which I did, but not before more digs and snarky comments at their construction (a fact noticeable only to proprietors of optical shops, apparently, as I had no complaints), lack of service (as imagined by the proprietor; again, I had no complaints), and rhetorical questions about why people would ever buy glasses online rather than a store like his that had exclusive (and blisteringly expensive) frames.
Um, hello? I’M STANDING RIGHT HERE.
The optical shop didn’t get it.
They didn’t get that by criticizing the glasses I came in with, they weren’t just criticizing Warby Parker, they were criticizing me, and my choice to buy them.
While I’m sure it was all the result of a somewhat misguided attempt to convince me to shop further in his store (“Do you need your prescription sunglasses updated, too?” Um, no. At least, not with you.), what he didn’t get was that how he handled the difference between his offline experience and my online one was an opportunity—if not to get me to buy a pair of glasses at his store, then at least to encourage a recommendation of his store to people I might know whose needs and values more closely aligned with his.
Brand evangelists, agnostics, and atheists
Companies and organizations cannot be all things to all people. They just can’t. The more they try, the less they’re able to focus on what really makes them stand out, or on how best to make that all-important connection with those who REALLY care about what the organization does and stands for.
Customers (or audiences or stakeholders or…) fall into one of three categories: the evangelists (those for whom you can [usually] do no wrong), the atheists (those who’ll never be interested in or value what you do), and the agnostics (those whose opinion isn’t yet set).
As a brand, your first responsibility is to your evangelists—they are the lifeblood of your organization, and the ambassadors who’ll do much of your proselytizing for you. Since you’ll never change the atheists’ opinions (at least, not without an extraordinary amount of time and effort or some kind of deus ex machina), they’re best left alone, as are the evangelists of your competitors (since it’s awfully hard to get an evangelist to change religions).
But you can change an agnostic’s opinion… in either direction.
I was agnostic about Warby Parker when I first heard about them. Could I really buy a pair of glasses without ever trying them on? What if I didn’t like them? What if I wanted my friends’ opinions on them? Would they look like I only spent $100 on them? But Warby Parker answered every concern I had (not to mention the added benefit of donating a pair of glasses for the pair I bought), and they delivered—within a week of getting my order in the first place. So now I’m an evangelist.
I was agnostic about the optical shop, too. I had been in their store in years past when looking for previous pairs of glasses. They were always friendly, and always had nice frames, though nothing ever struck me as fabulous enough for the money I’d have to spend. But I left the store this time not only aware that I’d never return (an atheist), but also of a mind to write this post—and wondering how offline brands can compete with online ones.
So, what do you think the future holds? Is there a middle ground for online and offline brands? How can each best find their market—and maybe even work together to provide shared customers with value?
Categories: Branding, Outside the Square
5 lessons brands can learn from bands
I operate in two worlds. By day (and often into early evening) I craft brand-focused communication programs for a variety of mission-driven organizations. By night (and often into early morning) I write, perform and record with a band as part of Boston’s vibrant independent music scene.
There’s always been a synergy between the two, as I often draw on my marketing and branding experiences while managing promotions for my bands. The last year or so, however, I’ve noticed the tables have turned a bit.
Nowadays, however, I find myself bringing my DIY music marketing experiences to bear on my branding projects at Sametz. Music blogs focused on independent artists have become an excellent source for current thinking on building connections in our increasingly noisy, fragmented world.
With limited resources, independent bands must make the most of every opportunity. At the same time, they’re less encumbered by red-tape and drawn-out decision making processes, and more willing to take calculated risks. As a result, musicians and bands are out in front of many mainstream marketers. Consider…
One step beyond…
Bands understand from the get-go that their music effects different people in different ways, and often fulfills a variety of needs beyond the simple “entertainment” a particular genre offers.
Bands purposefully promote the social aspect of their music: the emotions it triggers; its power to inform and educate; its ability to conjure memories; and so on. Businesses should take a similar approach. While they are undoubtedly important, take a step beyond your core value proposition to see what surrounds it. Your constituents aren’t monolithic, after all, and neither are you.
People are people…
Artists have always understood that personal connections drive success. Putting on a great show is important, but it means nothing if you aren’t building personal connections in the process. And playing a show is often the easy part; it’s the time before and after the set spent hanging with the club staff, the sound person, other bands––and the audience––that really makes a difference.
Organizations should follow suit; people aren’t likely to become loyal to your brand unless they have a (positive!) sense of the people behind it.
I want my ____ TV…
Successful bands understand their role as mini-media companies. Via websites, photostreams, Twitter, blogs, video channels and other social media outposts, bands produce a mosaic of content with a particular voice––one that people find valuable and regularly worth tuning in to.
Businesses must understand that on the Web, entertainment and commerce are quickly becoming one and the same. The ability to engage is more important to brand-building and the bottom line than anything you can say about the “speeds and feeds” of your programs, products, or services.
It takes two to make a thing go right…
Bands are always collaborating: sharing audiences, leveraging resources, and cross-pollinating ideas. Whether they’re working with an engineer, a producer, a club owner, or other musicians, artists are constantly moving and existing outside their immediate orbit.
As a result, bands (independent, working bands anyway) rarely become isolated. They are in constant touch with what’s happening creatively around them. Business should look for opportunities to work outside of thier comfort zone; to experience new ideas and new ways of doing business.
Here, there, and everywhere…
Bands have always understood that it’s far better to be discovered by fans than forced upon audiences. When a listener “discovers” a band, they feel a sense of ownership which soon breeds feelings of loyalty and advocacy. By being everywhere it matters to be––from social media sites, to blogs, to internet radio, to soundtracks of all kinds, and beyond––bands strive to be visible enough to “get found.”
Marketers, of course, now call this “inbound marketing”… but bands have been doing it for years.
Looking for cues to help craft your inbound digital marketing strategy? Instead of reading xyz marketing blog, take a few minutes to study how your favorite artist (or the local band you keep hearing about) is using their website as the hub of a broader inbound strategy.
Independent artists aren’t so “starving” anymore. Many are savvy marketers who could teach us a thing or two about communicating effectively in our complex world. And chances are, someone you know or someone within your organization is a working, independent musician.
Learn from them… and then, please, buy a CD.
What do you think? What else can brands learn from bands?
Categories: Branding, Outside the Square
Roger Sametz at the National Arts Marketing Project
We’re pleased to point you to an article by our president and CEO, Roger Sametz, on the front page of the National Arts Marketing Project this month.
“Brand Control to Major Tom: The New Rules of Brand Management” explores the challenges that brand managers face in this ‘new age of extreme participation’:
“No, you haven’t lost control. The notion that you can manage your brand by making and distributing messages and materials that you want “out there” is becoming quaint.
Rather, now, monologues need to be replaced by dialogues; formal market research needs to be paired with attentive listening; “advice” is offered round the clock; participation in social media is now table stakes; and customers and prospects who have always trusted friends to help them make decisions often have a huge network they can carry around with them to consult.”
You can find the full text of the article here.
We welcome your comments on the article in the comments below — let us know what you think!
And special thanks to the National Arts Marketing Project for connecting us with your passionate group of constituents!
Categories: Branding, Outside the Square, Strategy and Management
Branding, social media, and the challenge of “flexible design”
We’ve been talking a lot recently about the flexibility of design systems in the context of ubiquitous access to image manipulation software and social media—it’s a reality potentially filled with potent toxins for rigid brand systems.
Even flexible brand systems—say JetBlue’s variable livery designs, or 2×4′s logotype for the Brooklyn Museum—require skill and finesse to develop and manage. They’re flexible, but not accessible…so they don’t really confront our new reality.
One aspect of that reality is that the logo—as sacrosanct standard bearer of the brand message—is growing ever more vulnerable to misinterpretation and reinterpretation (not to mention recontextualization). While mega-brands like Google and Coca-Cola might be able to withstand, or even thrive upon, occasional hijinks and folk interpretations, not many identities possess the ubiquity for such feats of stamina; they’d emerge from the experiment diluted or destroyed.
People are tech-savvy these days, even if they’re not visually savvy. They may not intend harm, but they will—with the best of intentions—cut’n'paste, scale, color, crop, and even redraw logos as they see fit. There’s not much to be done about that…unless we can start designing logos—or, perhaps more aptly phrased, “visual grammars”—that embrace the vulnerability that technology has foisted upon them.
Can we come up with visual systems that busy, tech-savvy (or not) people without the time or inclination to read a brand standards guide can intuitively understand, recreate, embrace, and promulgate?
One possibility is a flexible, rules-based system that doesn’t rely on proprietary software, images, or even colors; but instead presents a formula that embraces variety while delimiting possibility.
The rules would have to be simple enough for anybody to follow, and require no special technology (or, for that matter, any digital technology at all). But, they’d have to produce an outcome that, upon repeated applications of the rules, was always recognizable while being almost always unique (Sol Lewitt comes to mind as a parallel in the art world).
On the spur of the moment, here’s a quick test of the idea. A set of rules for my monogram (ASB); let’s see if it works…
- “a” and “b” should be in lower case; “s” in upper case.
- all three letters should be white and contained within a red shape.
Can I break it? Here goes!
Did I break it? Can you?
Twitter
LinkedIn