The Return of the Infomercial: What makes beer taste good?, Sex tips,Safe driving & more...

In my last post I mentioned about how Ikea have are phasing out their 100 watt bulbs and are now only selling their energy saving ones to display their commitment to the environment also along in line with California's state wide ban on the 100 watt bulb. But this change does not come easy as it involves educating consumers about the benefits and features of energy saving bulbs. This approach has been found quite favorable by many brands who have now taken to educating consumes about benefits in their product category, rather than just promoting their own brands. The return of the Infomercial?

This type of advertisement was used by the beer makers Samuel Adams in the US, in which they educate consumers that Beer tastes better when it comes in brown bottles, and fortunately for them all their beer is available in brown bottles. So is this truly for the benefit of the consumer or the brand? or do they both win?

This is also used in educating people for social benefits. One major problem in the States (and elsewhere) is
texting while driving, and to combat this the auto industry is coming up with a range of solutions which includes having an array of gadgets, hands free of course, on the dashboard to help, such as Chevrolet's voice to text feature which  enables you to access social media via voice controls.But is this enough? Often enough people have to be educated about the benefits and dangers of such devices, and one such example is Ford's campaign in US high schools to educate about safe driving.

Sometimes educating people is the best way to gain new customers. P&G have created a new microsite targeted towards men in which they educate them in virtually everything from money to career, relationships & sex etc. Through this they hope to create a central destination for men to go to when need information and they wish to discuss matters, a segment which has high growth potential. In the past, these type of sites have usually been targeted towards women, but now there is a growing realization that men would find these sites useful and they would use them, so men are not that different after all....But what does P&G hope to gain from this? Besides the fact that they offer products in all these areas and experts on the site would recommend their brand over others, thus creating a brand community of followers. P&G also offer a range of household products, and since men are increasingly active participants it can be hoped that their loyalty will extend to these brands as well. Check out the website: Man of the House

What is a Brand? Defined by what it says .. or what it does?

What is a Brand? Is it defined by what it does?

Recently a lot of brands have been more pro-active when it comes to social and environmental concerns, do these efforts reflect at all what a brand is about?

Toyota recently launched a crowd sourcing effort entitled 'Ideas for Good', where they invited developers to create apps that addressed social needs within their society out of which the 5 best app winners get the Toyota choice of their pick...hybrid of course. In this way Toyota wins threefold, it not only gets to promote its cars, re-brand itself as being socially conscientious and help others as well. They have a good chance of succeeding because this re-branding effort is reflected in their production of cars which are more environmentally friendly.



As Toyota are promoting their existing range, Ford have started promoting their almost complete electric vehicle the 2012 Ford Focus Electric even before its release. The campaign is centered around promoting discussions about electric vehicles (or EV) and the environment. Ford have been successful in the past with their social media campaigns, and while it is a good idea to create a buzz, such promotions need to be carefully monitored. Firstly, they have to ensure that there isn't too much hype that the car cannot live up to & Secondly, they will have to address consumer concerns such as 'range anxiety' which most electric vehicles face so as to curb the negativity on the actual product reviews. Maybe this would have been a good research initiative rather than a promotion?

Ford Focus electric badge

Levi's WaterLess Logo

While some brands promote their social goodness others prefer taking a low key approach where actions speak louder than words. I'm talking about Levi and their sustainable WaterLess denim, where they have cut back on the amount of water required to make their denim by 28% and that times 1.5m pairs is a significant amount, 16m liters less to be specific. This is an excellent initiative where by Levi's have demonstrated their commitment to the environment without all the bells and whistles, and the best part being....it costs the same! Although now it would be ideal if this would be done to ALL their denim, then they would be truly be called an environmentally friendly brand!

Ikea's Energy Saving Bulbs

Commitment to the environment is demonstrated by California's state wide ban on the 100 watt bulb, which has been picked up by retailers such as Ikea who have stopped selling th product and have switched to 75 watt bulbs instead, and sure they may be a little more expensive but it means lower electricity bills in the long run.  If you have the power to make a difference then why not??

What is a Brand? Farewell Ronald!

What is a Brand?: Is it based on its content? or the people who use it?

A prime example is Apple and the iPad in particular. While Apple has its own identity, when it comes to the iPad they have advertised it based on the apps it has, which indirectly defines its capabilities. While this is great, its different from most of Apple's positioning as its based on functionality rather than Apple's lifestyle branding. It also means that the iPad in itself does not have its own identity but its made up of what others think of it which in a way is very "social" of them as it depends on people (or app makers in this case) together to create what a brand stands for. As Apple describes it 'iconic', 'fresh', 'news', 'stories', 'teachers', etc...

Another brand who are defined by what they serve are McDonalds, once supposed to be restaurant for the entire family are now defined as 'fast food' and all the negative connotations that dredges up. Therefore it comes as no surprise that Ronald McDonald is being let go. While he has served as the mascot for a long time, fears of him appealing to younger children are behind this move. Overall it looks like a good idea, especially since they have been undergoing a brand change for awhile now, by cutting ties to the old image, McDonalds is on its way to re-positioning itself as an adult(?) healthy fast food option, and Ronald could be re-positioned as a mascot for the Ronald McDonald's house charities.


If I am to say that a Brand is defined by its content, what about Dunkin Donuts' latest move to position themselves as healthy? They are to introduce a new menu with healthy, protein based, wholemeal food, but this is somewhat at loggerhead with the image of a "Donut" which is definitely not healthy...so what are the chances of success for this brand extension? It would certainly require a massive image overhaul  and definitely it would be a good idea to start making healthy doughnuts. If a company wishes to change its image, it has to be done holistically and not just in those sections which are desirable.



Speaking of an image overhaul, Wikipedia is determined to change its status of not being allowed to be referenced academically, by inviting students and academics to submit their research papers to their ever-growing database. And having big names such as Harvard, California-Berkeley and George Washington University participate is a definite plus. And its about time as well, maybe with this effort Wikipedia might be finally accepted as a scholarly source, as the term 'Wiki it' is almost synonymous as to 'Google it'.


Branding usually meant that a company could choose how it would want itself to be represented, and they would take great pains to ensure that their products would be picked up and used by the right people to maintain that consistent image, and this is mostly true in the case of Luxury brands. In the case for cars, is the brand defined by how it positions itself or by the people who drive it? The Porsche has always been a sports car but their recent campaign, for the 911,  suggest otherwise. In it the car is put to a variety of uses generally reserved for a family car. In their statement if the car is used for everyday purposes then why not accept it? I'm a little unsure about this theory because then Porsche will not be a sports car but a family car, as it is to be defined by the people who use it. So will this help or harm the brand is yet to be seen.

What's in a Brand? Logos

What's in a Brand?: Is it defined by its Logo? OR even its Font?!

Starbucks' New Logo

Starbucks is still making news in regards to its logo change. Some are critics calling it too radical as it  alters  its trademark style and color combination which it has fought so hard to protect, as well as gets rid of all words going only with its mermaid icon. While I'm quite sad
 to see the distinctive color combination go, on the other hand I quite like the new direction. Starbucks has become such an iconic brand that it no longer needs to mention its name for people to recognize it, the mermaid in itself in quite recognizable and by focusing on it only its able to convey what the brand is. Another plus is that by removing 'coffee' from its name they are no longer restricting their brand to be viewed only as a 'coffee' house (although that is its primary produce) but it acts as a signal that its shifting into a lifestyle brand where it is to be viewed as a product to be consumed for leisure as it shifts into making available other drinks, as well as to be found on supermarket shelves.

While I feel Starbucks' logo change has been successfully carried out, I cannot say the same for the many other logo changes that have been cropping up (and yes there have been many). In these disturbed times, companies often feel that re-branding themselves to appeal to changing audiences always has to start with a change in logo design and I'm not sure why. A logo should only be changed if it provides added meaning, and recently a lot of brands have changed their logo design to no additional advantage, and even to an extent where it can be harmful to them. A few examples include: NBC, Seattle's Best Coffee, Kraft Foods and of course GAP. All of these have removed the distinctiveness of their logos and in such the distinctiveness of their brands. For eg: NBC's peacock symbolized that it was the first to offer color and sure it may not be relevant now, but it meant something and based on it, they were able to build strong brand. Ok so it may not have any value at the moment, but what does removing it achieve?....Nothing....!

Nokia New font & old font

Some companies like Nokia are even going so far as to change their font in order to "re-brand". Sure a font is important...but not when its one of the few (or only) changes made to help keep a brand afloat. Also it does not help when you can't tell the difference between the old and new fonts...unless you look really really hard. Nokia was good, Nokia was great! and we have all owned a Nokia at some point or another, but it is my personal belief that they need a lot more to help the brand rather than just a negligible font change. The main reason Nokia lost out was because they could not keep up so I'm going to wait and see what else they have up their sleeve as part of their re-branding strategy.

On special mention, I have to give a heads up to Lacoste who are trying to protect their logo and quite literally. Lacoste is a supporter of the 'save your logo' project which aims to encourage companies to support endangered species which act as a logo. A commendable project which not only does good but also says a lot about a brand and its commitment, and everyone wins!

Consistency (re)looked

One of the most fundamental aspects of managing a brand is its consistency, if an image needs to be maintained it can only be achieved if its done so from angle internally as well as externally. Lately there seems to be a lot of buzz especially in 'Green' department, some companies go out of thier way to ensure they stick to their principles while others....well...not so much.



Electrolux's Green Vaccum

Hats off to Electrolux for ensuring thier new green model is actually green! They've been trolling the world's  oceans to collect plastic refuse in order to create thier new model, which is a good way to reuse waste as well as clean up our oceans. It may not seem a big deal but combined with thier use of social media to generate buzz about thier new products, it is definitley a strong foundation on which to build a green, environmentally friendly green brand.

General Motors seems to have taken a page out of Electrolux's books by recycling booms to soak up oil from the oil spill to make parts for the Volt...making the Volt more green??? GM is going all out! Not only that GM is also recycling or reusing 97% of its waste which depicts an overall commitment to the environment...so now they just have to ensure all thier other cars are green as well...you can't get more committed than that!!

There is a fine balance to be maintained between brand extensions & consistency, and Oprah is one person who has managed that very well, especially with her extension into her own network, OWN, as long as her network hosts the ssame type of shows which she has been involved in and is line with her magazine, her fan base and brand consistency can be sucessfully maintained.

On the other hand there are some brands who do not maintain thier consistency very well, one such example I came across was KFC, who recently removed the 'Fried' from thier name in a bid to appear more healthy. From surveys conducted it was found that people viewed chicken to be a helathier version than beef which would KFC a natural advantage, but by having upsized combo meals and 'breadless' sandwiches does not confirm this healthy image.

Anotheer inconsistency is the Comedy Central new logo......its a coomplete reverse of their original colorful, whacky one, where the colors are dark, serious, formal and what looks like to be an altered copyright symbol...was that done intentionally?? not sure, but for one thing it does not convey the fun, and laughter which is what the channel is all about.

And finally, we all have a lesson to be learnt from GAP, don't say something which is not true, as the customer will find out! GAP's promotional bags for thier feed USA campaign proudly boast the line 'Made in the USA', when the tag clearly reads otherwise....'Made in China', now if this is not a classic case of in-consistency I cannot find a better example.

Consistency & Representation

Ok, I'm a fan of the Virgin brand. It's fun, versatile, adaptable and manages to stick to its brand concept...along those lines Virgin is planning to launch a range of 4-star quality hotels, for the high - end traveler, trust them to find an area in which there is scope for potential development..! 

Zippo Fragrance

Speaking of brand consistency, or in-consistency in this case Zippo is planning to extend into fragrances (say what?!). Zippo is known for its lighters, in fact there is an entire brand community based around the Zippo brand, so when they decided to expand into candle lighter's, it was not great but ... ok especially when compared to fragrances. Sure there are not gonna be any brand communities around the candle lighter (yes even if its themed), but fragrances are such a diversion from their core brand, which is about a certain culture & style. But maybe I'm being overly critical. If done correctly maybe the transfer of brand ideals would be successful, as it depends on the characteristics of their target market as well as how they identify with their brand, although if they are not careful, Zippo might just be the next Ed Hardy. 

ING's Charles

Brand representations, as I like to call it, is how people view your brand, which might not be the same thing as what companies intend to portray..so I'm not sure where ING was going with this....ING are a strong financial brand, and in Australia they decided to change their brand ambassador from Billy Connolly (the comedian), to a talking orangutan. Now if you're anything like me, my first question was why would you use a comedian to promote a financial product?? Sure, humor in advertisements is great, but who would take a comedian seriously especially when selling insurance! Sounds like a bad joke to me...so naturally my second question is why use an orangutan instead?..no matter how smart he may appear to be. If played correctly ING have the potential to develop him into brand mascot, which could be quite memorable. 

GAP - Old & New logo

Logos play a very important part of brand representation, as they are the one stop for brands to convey what they stand for to consumers. Recently GAP tried to redesign their logo, and i say try as the end result was quite dismal to say the least. The GAP logo is iconic and classic, it has stood the test of time and is easily recognizable, so why would you want to change it?? Especially since its not part of an overall re-branding campaign but an attempt to encourage customer involvement with the brand, by asking them to comment on the new brand and to go one step further by designing their own logo. Normally I would say increased engagement and participation by customers is brilliant, but the logo is one of the most important ways through which a company can represent itself so why leave it in the hands of people who may not understand what the company is all about? Although to be fair any one who would go through the trouble of designing a logo would have to be highly involved, but it also encourages others with not so favorable views to air what they think as well. 

Chevrolet in an aim to reposition their brand, or in other words to develop a strong position for themselves, are trying to find a niche for themselves in the market. In response, their campaign focuses on images from their old campaign, in an aim to remind people why they used to love Chevy so much...which is cute and nostalgic, but its a technique used more to reassure and support your existing customers rather than position yourself in the market. 

Branding is a tricky topic and its not easy getting it right. 

How green is the brand?

Lately there seems to be an increasing splurge of brands 'going green'..is this just another trend or are companies bowing to consumer pressure for environmentally sustainable alternatives..? or could it just be that these brands truly care for the environment??

The industry in which this is the latest (and long overdue topic) is the automotive one in which the buzz word is the 'Electric Car'. Currently the most hyped over is the Chevrolet 'Volt'and I say hyped with good reason...as I will explain shortly

The Volt does seem to be a nice little car, with plenty of options of hybrid or electric (depending on how green you're feeling that day), and while that's good as it can be adapted to any driving situation, it might be a little unfair to term it as an all electric car. But its the marketing of it that has me a bit ruffled. It seems Chevy are trying to legally apply the term 'range anxiety' for all their electric car rivals, now I'm not sure how smart this is, as it will adversely affect Volt as well, if its to be promoted as an 'all electric vehicle'...you can't get everything, but it does seem like they are winning all the awards...but then again you know what they say about expectations.. I for one can't wait to see the reactions of when the car finally releases.



Nissan's Cube

On the other had Kia's 'POP'; Nissan's 'Leaf"are competitors to the Volt. While Chevy aims to scare away customers from their competitors, Kia and Nissan on the other hand are trying to engage them. The POP concept while limited, seems edgy, cute and is able to build a personality for the car, in the way only Europeans can do. This may be able to engage young youthful consumers, while the Volt would appeal to older suburban families, especially when you consider the size, the Pop looks like an electric version of the Smart Car. Nissan's leaf on the other hand, is in tune with Nissan's overall branding concept of innovation, combined with its other offerings of the Cube, it depicts their dedication and commitment to re-inventing themselves to gain a better positioning.

It would have been a shame to see, Toyota's Prius (the original hybrid) not take advantage of all this hype on the electric car. They plan to expand its product offering, by making the Prius into a brand in itself and extend the range of cars available under it. This is a good move by them as, when competition increases, by extending the product offering you can appeal to a wider target audience and solidify your base against competition. This would work to Toyota's benefit, if in the case they decide to introduce an all electric vehicle, it would be easier to get customers to switch across , and this can be done within the Prius range itself.

Volvo has gone all out to show its commitment to the cause. What is considered to be a world's first, is a six month experiment is which a family will live in a climate smart green home in Sweeden and will drive a Vovlvo C30 Drive Electric Vehicle. This will not only generate media interest, its excellent combination of sponsorship and product placement which will allow Vovlo to test how the car will be used and maybe plan for the families of tomorrow...

Now to justify why I said hype is because, while the concept is great, and let's admit it we do need it, electric cars would need electricity which more often that not are generated by coal plants, so even if we were all to drive them, it would increase electric consumption, hence more coal burning...and how good is that really???

Also for the concept to be truly adopted there has to be major change in infrastructure by the government to support this, and this could take awhile. How many people would want to adopt it, when its use is quite limited? Maybe car manufacturers should lobby the government for more support?

Since I'm on a green run today, I thought it would be a good idea to examine other 'green' brands....

Ok firstly...fear advertising rarely if ever works....a classic example is the ad for 10:10 campaign i.e. if you don't cut back on your carbon emissions you will be blown up (yes that's right by a button) and this includes children as well...no one is safe! I'm not sure how this is supposed to connect and engage the audience. While the ad is quite disturbing to say the least, Fear makes people want to avoid the topic and run in the other direction, not to mention its not quite realistic...am I the only one who think this is not helping the cause?? Have a look at it here.

KFC has displayed its commitment through it re-usable (recyclable??) food packaging containers although an adoption of 100% would be preferable and the complete phase out of foam and paper would be excellent. 

Sun Chips (of Frito - Lay) have come out with bags which are 100% compostable, although a 'tad'noisy to say the least. While this was excellent, the noise proved to be its ultimate downfall, as it was too loud to be consumed publicly, so while the thought was great it is important to see if the product will be adopted before launch, and to understand how committed consumers are to the cause...but kudos for trying!! *two thumbs up* that they were willing to risk the ire of customers to make a green point. 

P&G's is another company that is hopping onto the green bandwagon by trying to make a positive difference. By encouraging people to recycle, educate themselves and other about the environment they can collect 'Green Stamps'which can be redeemed for merchandise via RecycleBank...if something's boring..why not make it fun? and learn something along the way? P&G's campaign not only shows its commitment but its helping to make a positive change by getting people to take an active part in changing how they think about the environment. 

Goldman Sachs tried to hop onto but fell off horribly from the green bandwagon....I'm not sure why they would try to appear green when they are facing a multitude of other branding crises, but by simply taking out an ad in the paper and saying you're green just does not cut it any more and neither does it generate any good feelings, people believe in positive outcomes and until this can be achieved, it is better to stay away from the green topic as it does more harm than good. 

So why is green marketing good and does it actually make a difference? While not many consumers would always think green while shopping, it does make a difference. If implemented correctly, with positive outcomes, the brand can engage with customers and create a shared meaning. Today branding is not about positioning but about relation, especially in the age of social media, its not enough just to tell people what you're about but to show them as well so as to create a platform through which to engage the customer and create a shared meaning.....