Contributing Factors to Great Brands

While scanning Twitter today, I came across a great post from FutureBrand's blog, written by Chris Nurko, which I thought you may enjoy. I like how Chris exemplifies how great brands are more than a logos, and who's actions speak louder than words, which are guided by purpose.

I have posted the writeup below, but you can find the original here:

Branding and thought leadership. 

A UK perspective.

The polling organisation, Populus has just produced in the UK a list of the UK’s most trusted and respected companies. They based this on a poll of 1,000 opinion formers and asked them to correlate which brands were seen as ‘thought leaders’. Let’s have a look…

1. Apple
2. Google
3. John Lewis partnership (Including Waitrose)
4. Amazon
5. Facebook
6. Microsoft
7. Innocent
8. Co-op Group
9. Co-op Bank
10. Twitter

In addition, a thought leader should be able to influence the opinion of those who listen or who’s behaviour or decision-making is influenced by the company or brand. The poll also identified which media most influences thought leadership (e.g. radio, print, tv or on-line). The idea is that if you influence people’s thoughts you influence their perceptions and their decision-making. If you are able to do this it means that a company’s reputation is stronger and therefore of greater value and power. Ok, so far I am with them.

What is most interesting about this list is that no matter whether they are considered by other polls or lists the most powerful, the strongest or whether they are ‘love marks’ one cannot escape the fact that all of them have used their brands to great advantage. They all represent more than just a logo, or a set of values. They actually practice what they preach across a whole experience which the punter (or customer) wants and clearly is willing to pay for or use with loyalty and advocacy. Again, just look at the list. On there for those who are familiar are brands which have passionate armies of devotees. They are product or service leaders. They define their category by innovating and by continuously reinforcing their view of the world with a distinctive language, approach or ethos which is consumer or people centric. They also make or offer great products and services, which once tried either set the standard or ‘lock in’ behaviour to the extent that any other company or brand is a ‘me too’.

Now, what is really interesting is that when you look at the patterns behind these brands you begin to see a very clear list of characteristics for brands to win the minds as well as the hearts.

First of all, you have to have a good product or service. There is no denying that – if you don’t have quality goods you won’t have a quality reputation.

Second of all, ‘thought leadership’ is important when it comes to the things we ‘think about or think with’. So, unsurprisingly – companies like Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook and twitter all come out highly. These are the brands and businesses that are governing our world of communications and entertainment. Broadly speaking, they influence our ‘social technology’ and ‘social media for entertainment’. Where would we be if we couldn’t upload or download? If we couldn’t tweet or ‘poke’? If we couldn’t Google with immediacy and accuracy what we need to know RIGHT NOW!? What is interesting, is that only ONE consumer goods product is on this list – yes, Innocent. Why? What is there not to like..they have led us to understand that Carbonated fizzy drinks, high sugar water drinks and beverages are just not the same as good old ‘innocent’ smoothies or ‘this water’. From woollen cap bottles knitted by grannies to the description of ‘Fruit Towers’ their HQ, the irreverent humour of being straightforward and anti-corporate has influenced our collective conscience and sub-conscious around beverages and foodstuffs. The more natural, the more honest and innocent equals the more thoughtful.

And lastly, there is something to be said for the whole idea of mutuality and shared values, purpose and participation. The fact that John Lewis and Co-op are on this list reveals the extent to which the antidote to corporate greed are companies that are owned by their employees, customers or both. The whole concept of shared values and mutual interests combined with open dialogue and transparency identifies thought leadership with being associated with open thinking! In fact, the degree to which this list uses open thinking and digitally enabled participation, knowledge sharing and communications is a testimony to how branding must evolve and embrace ‘inside out’ and ‘outside in’ management. The ability to leverage on-line and web enabled communications and real-time advocacy, insight and customer communities is the key to future brand success. That is what makes people ‘love’ companies (or rather, their brands) because it facilitates and encourages dialogue and conversation. The fact that many of these brands are American brands is another interesting feature – true leadership comes from the ability to ‘democratize’ information, and to package it in a personalized and interesting manner…Apple leads the pack on this, and deserves all credit for pioneering the view that aesthetics and simplicity go hand in hand. Interesting, I wonder what the least thoughtful, respected and trusted brands would be….? What categories would they embrace and are their lessons in the link between branding and thought leadership?

If you want to be well thought of, you need a strong brand. If you want or have a strong brand – you need to be thoughtful. And, you need to be open to leveraging the participation of customers, employees and opinions at the core of your ‘offer’ or ‘service’.

Just Make It Right

A couple of stories stood out to me while reading the news today, as they happen to have fallen on the same page, and involved well-known brands experiencing potentially catastrophic incidences. They were the emergency landing of the Quantas Airbus A380 due to a Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine failing, and that Boeing had to suspend a test flight of its new 787 Dreamliner after a fire broke out in one of the jets.

The stories got me thinking about consumer tolerance. Specifically, what level of tolerance do people have for brands that fail to deliver on their promise and, instead, horribly screw up?  Because, lets be honest, everyone, even organizations, screw up - it's inevitable and it's what makes us human.

I feel consumer tolerance is dependent on two actions, which are not mutually exclusive:

1. How the brand handle the incident at the onset and everyday after
2. How many times the brand promise neglected (aka - how many times does the brand continue to screw up?)

For Rolls-Royce and Boeing, I don't think their current malfunctions will cause them severe damage because they are acknowledging the problem, taking ownership of it and are looking to resolve the situation.  However, if the issues continue to arise, in one shape or another, I may begin singing a different tune.

If we look at other relatively recent examples, like Toyota and BP, we can begin to learn about consumer tolerance.

Toyota and its massive number of product recalls in 2009-2010, due to unintended acceleration, sticking pedals and anti-lock brake issues, which all ran entirely counter to its brand promise of dependability, reliability, efficiency, innovation, longevity & sustainability, caused severe brand damage. In fact, Toyota experienced a 16% brand value loss due to these incidences according to the Interbrand Top 100 Brand Report.

Being reluctant to initially acknowledge the problem and suffering from three separate malfunctions is where consumer tolerance for the brand became jeopardized.  However, Toyota did eventually own up to its problems and issued massive recalls, over 9 million worldwide, including suspending sales until the situation was resolved. It is these kinds of actions that will help it in the long run.  

Although people will remember Toyota's massive recalls, they will also remember the effort they went to to ensure the safety of its drivers. However, the expectations for Toyota to deliver on its promise are higher than ever, so it can't just deliver on its promise, it has to knock it out of the park.

Then there's BP, whose accidental oil spill, and poor decisions along the way, have left the brand in anguish. Its market value was halved by mid-June and its debt skyrocketed making bankruptcy look very possible.

Pointing fingers of blame, not wanting to take ownership of the situation, not clearly communicating the situation and having the CEO say he wants to his 'life back', after 11 lives were taken and many peoples' livelihoods were compromised, did not help long-term brand trust. In fact, BP didn't even make the Top 100 Brand list, for which it was ranked 83 last year, indicating a massive loss in brand value due to this catastrophic event.

In addition, the news reports claiming BP executives chose cutting-costs over safety had a significant impact on the brand value.  However, the sun may rise again for BP as the preliminary reports from the commission investigating the spill, noted in the Economist, have found no evidence to suggest "a conscious decision to sacrifice safety concerns to save money"

Although people have very limited tolerance for any kind of failure from BP, and even the oil industry as a whole, BP is lucky in that it's in a needs market, where demand is greater than supply, with a low share price making it a great short-term investment. Having said that, if it makes any slight mistake in the near future it will lose all shareholder trust plummeting the value of the organization even further.  

Also, if BP wants to carve out a strong position for itself in the future and influence the future of the energy sector, it needs to get serious about being truly 'Beyond Petroleum' and make some heavy investments in some ground-breaking initiatives, for which they plan to roll out in an attempt to revolutionize how we will consume energy in the future. Only by creating these meaningful reasons to believe, will BP start to alter their brand perceptions. But it has to really believe in what it's doing, or like I read in the Economist this morning, "to do the right deed for the wrong reason, T.S. Elliot wrote, is 'the greatest treason'".

So, overall, I feel people are pretty tolerant of brand mistakes - I mean Volkswagen was originally founded by the Nazi Trade Union and heavily supported by Hitler, yet it became a very popular automotive brand in the 50s and 60s, post WWII, and still remains a brand loved by many.  So, as long as the brand accepts blame, is quick to make things right and consistently over-delivers on its brand promise for a long time after the incident, brands will find that consumers can be tolerant.

Our Online Identities' Impact on Brand Value

The other morning I went for a run using the Nike+ GPS iPhone application for the first time, and mid-run my back pocket started talking to me: "One mile completed. Current pace 8 minutes 23 seconds per mile". Let's just say, I was startled at first, but I've grown to like it as it makes me push myself harder to beat my last pace.

During my run, I couldn't help but think, are our lives becoming real-world video games?  The online and offline worlds have merged so seamlessly that they're now building off each other. We can check-in to virtually any location, earn points, badges and even titles, like mayor, based on the activities we perform. Take the mid-term elections that happened in the US a few weeks back - people could check-in to polling stations across the country and earn an "I Voted" badge once they placed their vote, indicating they took part in the elections.

And with the emergence of augmented reality we can place a digital layer over our current environment to learn about our surroundings.  Not to mention the real-time texts, BBM messages, Facebook updates and Tweets we seem to be constantly sending out to note our current emotions, thoughts and activities.

But what does this all mean to brands?

It means new behaviors are emerging and with that, I believe brand value is beginning to evolve.

Like the Harvard Business School suggests, "You need to know more than ever how consumers are redefining value", so lets take a look at the Millennials, who are, currently, spending more than any other generation, according to the 8095 Whitepaper that was recently released by Edelman, and they represent today and tomorrow's most dominant consumers with a predisposition to keep going back to the brands they like.

Within this segment, I see three key behaviors emerging, which demand new forms of value-add from brands. These behaviors are fueled by mobile technology and social platforms working together:

1. Reverberation - taken from the 8095 Whitepaper, is the idea of being in constant connection with your peer group to seek advice and opinions in-the-moment. This is commonly done through BBM (Blackberry Messenger) and Text Messaging.
2. Hyper Sharing - this is our newfound desire to share practically everything that is happening in our lives, from what we're feeling to eating to seeing. This is done through Facebook updates, comments, posting photos, Tweeting, etc.
3. Expressive Association - this is where we express our personal identity and values through virtual associations. It was found that 86% of Millennials, globally, share their brand preferences online as brands rank top with religion and ethnicity as online personal identifiers. Liking, checking-in and badge collecting are common means to associate.

These emerging behaviors are making the speed at which brands can gain or lose trust increasingly more rapid, as they eliminate any delay between the actual brand experience to sharing that experience with others. And it's important to note that, good or bad, and they usually lean positive, Millennials will write about their brand experience online, and this has a direct impact on whether or not their peers will adopt your brand.  So it's essential brands get their experience right every time a consumer engages with it - from any touchpoint. This only enhances the need for strong consistency and brand understanding from within the organization. 

Secondly, as these behaviors stimulate the need to continually communicate something about one's self, to enhance his/her online identity, a product/service must provide extended brand experiences that give customers something to share. Take, for example, my Nike+ app, it allows me to automatically update my Facebook and Twitter with my running stats so I can share my progress with my friends. Or, for instance, Starbucks rewards its visitors who, most frequently, check-in to its store locations through Foursquare with discounts and other perks.  Millennials look for brands that have a long history of caring for their customers - gone are the days when you can classify a brand as a product or a service, as all brands, today, are in the service business - the product is only the loss leader.

So, if the role of the brand to is to drive demand for a product/service and provide the reason to select it over one of its competitors, we can look to these behaviors, and ask ourselves, "how are we providing status, bragging rights and rewards for our customers' online identities?"

Focusing on the Bright Spots - The New MySpace

Note: Image of MySpace's new logo from Mashable article The New MySpace: Screenshots and Videos

Finally, a rebrand that makes sense. This week MySpace relaunched its brand, which will still be a few months until it is completely rolled out.

I'm always hesitant to fully comment on whether I think a rebranding effort was a stroke of genius or not because brands take time to position and to earn the perceptions they are aiming for. This is because through actions they have to deliver on their promise and then they have to do that consistently.

From what I've seen so far, of the new MySpace, I like the direction they are taking it.

MySpace used to position itself as a social networking site, a "Place for Friends", and hit its peak in 2007  with 100 million users. But then Facebook took the lead and offered more relevant features for social networking and its users.  Leaving MySpace alone, irrelevant and frankly not as social.

What did survive on MySpace was entertainment - it became a great place for artists to be discovered and enjoyed.

What I like about this rebrand is that MySpace too a good look at how the market was positioning them, which, inevitably is what they are best at delivering on, and came up with its more focused purpose and brand promise - to be the leading entertainment destination that is socially powered by the passions of fans and curators.

This isn't just a site redesign, nor is this a complete brand overhaul. Rather, they are actively positioning themselves and purposefully delivering on something they have become known for over the years - encouraging users to share and suggest music, film and TV programs, while providing the tools to make this possible.

Note: Image of MySpace's new homepage from Mashable article The New MySpace: Screenshots and Videos

In my opinion, there is a difference between crowd-sourced rebranding initiatives and rebranding based on observing how the brand is used.  Often, consumer have a hard time articulating what they want, which, through a crowd-sourced initiative, would produce a limited repositioning. But, by listening to and observing the elements of the brand consumers find most relevant, a meaningful positioning and brand promise can emerge.

I was once at a marketing conference listening to Chip Heath, the author of Made to Stick and Switch, talk about embracing change, where he noted that to embrace change, we need to focus on the bright spots. These are the areas where the organization performs well in and can be easily maximized and owned.

I think MySpace has done a good job at focusing on the bright spots, which I feel aids a brand repositioning.

However, it seems as though MySpace is positioning itself to compete more directly with YouTube, which is another online social entertainment hub. So I'm interested to see what MySpace will offer that will be significantly different and meaningful to draw in consumers.

So far, the new MySpace brand promise seems to be focused on the curation and discovery of new entertainment content versus YouTube's dedication to user generated content (UGC).  But it will be interesting to see in YouTube will feel threatened and make a move to capture the market MySpace has positioned itself to win.

Lastly, with regards to the logo, I couldn't help but notice it took a similar approach to the Aol. logo, created by Wolff Olins, where the logo is flexible to the content around it, which makes sense considering they are both content providers.  

However, I feel there are subtle differences between the logos. Where the Aol. logo blends into the content forcing the viewer to focus on the content, the MySpace logo emphasizes the content is in your space and is personalized to you - at least that's the vibe I'm getting from it.

Check it out for yourself:

I like the new flexible logos as they seem to reflect the current environment where brands need to be more responsive to the continually changing environment around them, and these logos lend themselves nicely to this.

I look forward to seeing how the new MySpace positioning unfolds and how users respond to it.

What do you think of the relaunch of MySpace? Do you think it's enough to make them relevant once again?

Please Mind the Gap

 Note: Image from the Guardian article 'Gap scraps logo redesign after protests on Facebook and Twitter'

I hear that phrase so often, now that I'm living in London. But after the Gap's logo change and then non-change event, I can't help but think of the organization when I hear it on the tube, almost as though it's saying "please don't mind the Gap they're figuring things out".  I may seem a bit late commenting on this, but I feel there's so much to say.

First, I'm a firm believer that if you're going to change your logo, there needs to be a strong rationale behind the change and usually some brand innovations (i.e. new products, services, etc.) to provide the reasoning behind the change in identity. In fact, a few months ago, I mentioned this in a post regarding the rebranding work on Reebok and Comcast.

I understand Gap's need to evolve to become more competitive and relevant in the market - something they've been struggling with for some time now. However, spending time and money on a new identity may not have been the most wise investment.

For all intents and purposes, the Gap logo didn't have any negative associations. Rather, the brand may have appeared stale, which in turn the logo would naturally adopt this perception. However, actions have a greater opportunity to revitalize the Gap than a new logo.

I mean how can the Gap compete when they are struggling to define their positioning as consumers' fashion consumption habits have evolved from conformity through khakis , in the 90's, to the desire to be a unique individual, today - something Zara and H&M are delivering through their fast turn around times.  Not to say a retailer focused on the basics can't be successful - hello J.Crew. You just need to own a position in the market.

So maybe looking at these core brand elements, and focusing on positioning through innovation, would make Gap fresh and relevant again, rather than trying to seem new with a new identity.

The second part of this whole logo fiasco was how much impact the consumer community had. And, frankly, I was impressed that the Gap was so quick to respond.  In my opinion, a week to scrap a logo, which usually takes a lot of time and resources, is fast. Yes, there is speculation that this may have been a PR stunt due to the seeming lack of effort put into the redesign. But, it's still great to see a brand respond to the voices of the consumer, especially when they are clearly right!

With over 2000 Facebook comments, in conjunction with negative twitter sentiment, it is clear that Marty Neumeier is so right - the brand is not what the organization says it is, rather it's what the consumers say it is.

Mind you, I was intrigued when Marka Hansen, president of Gap Brand North America said, "[we] missed the opportunity to engage with the online community" and "if and when that time comes, we'll handle it in a different way". Does this mean they will crowdsource their next new identity? 

Two things come to mind when I think of this:

First, I personally don't think consulting the community every time a brand wants to evolve is ideal. People instinctually don't like change, so if you're regularly consulting them on all major changes, this process will inevitably slow down impacting the brand's need to evolve and change with the times - something consumers don't always see.

Don't confuse this with the positive crowdsourced changes/ideas that come from initiatives like MyStarbucksIdea.com or Dell's Idea Storm. Lets call these micro-innovations, which are a great way to tweak the brand experience and involve consumers.

However, some brands need to make larger changes to evolve, but it should be to adjust the sails to stay its course in reaching its overarching brand purpose, while maintaining relevancy in a way that doesn't confuse the brand in its market space.

Second, I'm fairly certain this consumer reaction would not have happened if the change was relevant to consumers and reflected some kind of positive change.

I'm very curious what the Gap will do next. I sincerely hope they focus more on innovation & getting back to their roots to begin to reclaim a dominant position within the market, while enhancing their brand value. After all, it has been clear that people are still very passionate about the brand.

In London and Transitioning Between Brands

Note: Image from Doug88888 on Flickr

It's official - I live in London, and as of Sunday all my boxes are unpacked!  Now all I need to do is build my bike, which is my new mode of transportation - exciting!

Thank you for your patience while I've moved across the pond and replanted my feet. I hope you enjoyed the posts by Sean, Ben & Steve as much as I did. Thank you guys for contributing some great content to More Than A Logo.

Moving to another country, in another continent, has been really exciting and rather eye-opening from a branding point-of-view.

In our daily lives, we count on organizations/brands for a lot. From managing our money with banks, protecting our goods (and even ourselves) with insurance, communicating thanks to telcos, buying food from grocers, to even washing our hair with a particular shampoo.

Some of these brands become so fixed into our daily lives that we forget we even had a choice in selecting them.  But because of this move, for the first time in my adult life, I had to select all new brands to align with - it's been quite the task.

Selecting all new brands means a mass exit of my previous brands, which also created an interesting dynamic.

Overall, the customer relationship in this situation, where the customer's life is moving in a new direction, can be seen like a figure eight, which builds off my original brand experience cycle, which emphasizes the need to nurture existing customers to maintain their long-term value to the brand and to grow the overall customer base through recommendations.

But in this instance, multiple brand experience cycles come together, beginning to form a figure eight as the customer begins to leave one brand experience and enters another, with a new brand:

This whole move, and changing of brands, made me realize that often brands forget that there is always the possible opportunity that consumers may re-enter the brand experience cycle down the road. But even more importantly, previous customers are still key in growing (or reducing) the customer base through recommendations.

So the section where the customer leaves a brand is essential to maintaining that positive relationship, for whatever the future may hold.

What I found when leaving my essential brands, like telcos & banks, was how ill-prepared they were in the customer exit process. And, worse yet, how the employees felt they no longer needed to provide good service - clearly never having seen my figure eight analogy before - haha.

It was this bad service & inability to consistently deliver on their brand promise that has resulted in losing my business for the future. In addition, they won't receive any positive recommendations when friends & family ask me about their service.

On the flip side, there were other brands, like my insurance company and dentist, who were so kind, courteous and helpful with my transition, that if I move back to Canada, I will remain a loyal customer, and in the mean time I will gladly recommend them, perpetuating the figure eight.

So after liquidating my life, I've been faced with the daunting task of creating all new brand relationships. With minimal points of reference, I had no idea where to start. So, go figure, I started by asking around, reading reviews, etc. to get my bearings.

This made me realize that the days where we collected information from brochures and other corporate collateral to make our buying decisions are long gone.  If anything, that information only reconfirms the decision the consumer already made.

So, going back to the experience cycle, nurturing existing customers and consistently delivering on the brand promise is essential to growing the customer base. This acts as the foundation of today's advertising, which is primarily becoming WOM from friends, family, tweets, Facebook comments, ratings & reviews, 3rd party videos, etc.

Once you get a customer through the door, I found, the first impression is key. This involves how the customer feels they were treated, and how they feel all the other customers within their vicinity were treated.  This gives them an indication of what the future of the relationship will look like in the future, and if it's good and remains consistently good, you'll have a customer for life!  If it's bad and/or inconsistent, not only have you lost a customer, but they usually take a few more customers with them through negative word of mouth.

So the key is delivering on your brand promise & never assume when a customer leaves they will never come back. Stay true to the brand and always nurture your customers...even when they are leaving you.

I look forward to blogging more from London. I love this city...where else can you go to a museum and lie in a pile of 100-million hand painted porcelain sunflower seeds?! Too much fun!  

The Value of a Logo

A logo is often the fastest way to build brand recognition. It is the easiest way to consistently apply a visual brand, and is usually the most powerful single visual or verbal brand asset companies possess—apart from their name. In some cases, where a company suffers the misfortune of a poorly crafted name, the logo can become brand asset number one. How well a logo performs for an organization is often a reflection of the company’s willingness to see it as an investment, one they continually have to nurture.

Without constant investment, a logo can become a visual crutch, a go-to that receives little effort and certainly no evaluation of specific needs. It winds up centered on the top of the letterhead and placed with the same heavy-handedness on every other piece of marketing material. In cases like this, the logo had better scream, "This is how we are different and why you should care about us"—a tall order for any symbol.

Unfair Expectations

It is likely that no other piece of graphic design has the unobtainable expectations placed upon it that most clients have for a logo. It is widely thought by clients that a logo should represent every aspect of their positioning—something just not possible. When attempted, the logo is a tangled mess of ideas without focus, failing to please anyone. Instead, a logo should be designed to provide a glimpse into the brand, a visual cue as to why the audience should care about you. It is a symbol that often avoids depicting what the company does in favor of reflecting a company’s qualities.

It is also often expected that a new logo should have the same impact as known brands. In reality, it takes time for a logo to build associations with its audience, developed through experience with the brand. It is not impossible to think that many of the logos we accept as good today would be swiftly killed if presented by a designer to most clients—would the Google logo survive most committees? Would most clients say yes to simple logos like Nike and Apple without adding just a little bit more?

These examples are successful in large part because of their ability to work within a larger, ever changing visual brand. They have developed meaning through time and are now viewed as a stamp of the brand’s promise to its customers. More logos would be successful if the expectations put on them were realistic. A logo should:

1. Be an honest reflection of the brand's positioning and promise
2. Provide differentiation from competitors
3. Allow for easy recognition and associations
4. Be based on a strong creative idea
5. Be able to be used in a variety of ways (black and white, color, large, small)


Creating Trust

A good logo accomplishes all of this, usually through a simple solution without being cliché or trendy. It provides clarity of focus, becoming shorthand for the values of the organization, and the anchor of the visual brand.

Once the audience has an experience with the company, the logo becomes a badge, reflecting their perceived expectations. The company’s own behavior as well as marketing must then do what they can to influence these perceptions, encouraging the logo to become a trustworthy symbol that the customer can rely on every time, providing a clear competitive advantage.
_________________
Steve Zelle is a logo designer and brand identity consultant. Based in Ottawa, Canada, he operates as idApostle and is the founder of the community driven design website Processed Identity. You can reach him through his website or on Twitter.