Creative & Collaborative Partnerships

Note: This is The Hudson's Bay Trading Coin from 1855 

In the last couple weeks, I've had the privilege to attend a couple trend briefings. One from nVision: Radical Times - Radical Response? And another from LS:N Global: The Wisdom Age.  I find trends very interesting and always inspiring. So it's certain my next few posts will be inspired by what I've heard at these events.

One topic that I found particularly interesting was the idea of the trader generation, mentioned at The Wisdom Age. Essentially, this is about everyone being a brand with something to say; we want to contribute and be a part of things we believe in -- the idea of B2B and B2C is long gone. Rather, we are all traders, buying and selling / giving and receiving.

The rationale and strength behind this trend began to make more sense when I went back and looked at my notes from the nVision conference.  There, I learned that 70% of people want to learn more, 50% of people want more experience, while only 30% want more stuff. Making it quite evident that people are looking for more self-fulfillment than material objects.

I think this stems from various things, but social networking and shaping our personal brands in very public arenas have played an important role in this shift. People are looking for ways to express themselves and appear interesting, unique and someone with a point of view - much like how we approach positioning brands.

We can see this in a few other stats, like the importance we place on having lots of friends has more than doubled since 2006. And interestingly, yet I'm sure it will come as very little surprise, there has been a 700% increase in the purchase of photo equipment since, I believe, 1980 (I apologise, I didn't capture the exact date range in my notes). And lastly, there has been a 40 point increase, from 21% to 61%, in the desire for personal creative expression, since 1980.

Knowing this, it's fair to say that it's important for brands to give people, more specifically their consumers/fans/ambassadors an outlet to express themselves or get involved with the brand in some way. However, there must be a reward to do so, as 70% of consumers would be interested in contributing ideas to a brand only if rewarded to do so.

The level of the reward obviously depends on the level of involvement, and the type of reward can vary from something that is monetary in value to something that contributes to their daily life.

In fairness, this isn't new. We saw this years ago with the creation of Nike ID or the ability to personalise Kleenex boxes and M&Ms. But it's evolving to be a bit more sophisticated and the benefits aren't just personalised products.

Looking at an oldie but a goodie, Threadless, has done a great job creating a highly collaborative business model that allows users to contribute designs while being able to purchase others. We also, saw this with the Keds Collective, which encouraged people to create their own custom trainers, then put them into the collective market to sell. For every pair sold their would get a percentage of the profits.  This idea was then taken to the next level with the release of Kaiser Chiefs' latest album.  People were asked to create their own album from a selection of 20 prerecorded songs and then create their own cover art to reflect their selection. For every one of that person's album sold, they receive a pound. Another unique example involving consumer involvement and creativity, is Heinz using Facebook to encourage people to send a personalised call of soup as a Get Well gift to friends.

Brilliant!

We're seeing people's creativity tapped into, which creates the IKEA affect, increasing brand affinity. Not only that, these brands are providing people with amazing stories to share with their community/friends, elevating their personal brand.

So, when thinking about a brand, we need to start asking ourselves, 'What are we going to do to create a creative and/or collaborative partnership with our consumers that will create a meaningful role within their lives beyond its base products and services?'

Steve Jobs Built His Click

Note: Image features on the cover of The Times on Friday, October 7, 2011

This week came with a bit of a shock -- the death of Steve Jobs -- a man who had impacted the world as strongly as Johannes Gutenberg (inventor of the printing press) and Thomas Edison (inventor of the lightbulb).

I think we all knew the inevitability of this, but I don't think we expected it to be so soon.

In the past, I questioned whether Jobs was telling time - continually executing on and creating the Apple brand, without enabling others to deliver on the brand independently -- or building a clock -- creating an internal structure that provides a brand compass, enabling the brand to sustain itself well after Jobs' departure.

After his first medical leave, Apple's share price plummeted, indicating the market's lack of confidence that Apple was able to remain successful and drive long-term demand without Steve at the helm.  Truthfully, I, too, felt pretty confident he was only telling time up to this point. And perhaps he was only telling time.

But clearly, Apple took note, because after each subsequent medical leave, the share price dipped less and less, indicating that the market was beginning to believe Apple could remain strong even without its iconic and legendary co-founder leading the way.

So this is proof that Steve didn't just tell time by developing tools for the mind that advance human kind, but he built the clock too!

"We will honour [Steve's] memory by dedicating ourselves to continuing the work he loved so much"

--Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, from his email to the Apple Staff

Having said that, the real test will be a year from now, when we will see whether Apple continues to change the world in a beautiful and impactful way.

Now, in memory of Steve JObs, a person I would call a brand guru, here are a few of his philosophies, which I believe have led to Apple's brand success:

• Apple's innovations come from saying no to 1,000 things to make sure they don't get on the wrong track or try to do too much
• The human brain craves meaning before details. What does it mean in one sentence (i.e. iPod = 1,000 songs in your pocket)
• Don't bother to create manifestos, mantras or guidelines - LIVE THEM.

Thank you Steve Jobs for teaching and inspiring us for so many years!

Just a Thought: Customers are the Brand

While living in London for the past year, now, I have only had three instances where a car almost hits me while running. Oddly, the three vehicles to almost hit me were all BMWs, and since two of these 3 occurrences happened this past weekend, it had me think, "BMW doesn't like me very much, and frankly, if they keep trying to hit me, I'm not going to like them at all."

This internal dialogue inevitably turned to a thought about branding, and how a brand's customers end up representing and communicating the brand's positioning via their actions. After all, it wasn't the BMW that was almost running me over, it was the drivers, but still I thought of it as the vehicle.

I guess Abercrombie & Fitch recently began to notice who wears their clothes ends up reflecting the type of brand it is, hence they've asked Michael “The Situation” Sorrentino, from Jersey Shore, to stop wearing its products. 


Looking at the kind of people who associate themselves with your brand (i.e. wear, drive, use, etc.) defines the kind of brand you are. So maybe it becomes a question of targeting. If A&F didn't have half naked teenage models standing out front of its stores, with blaring clubbing music at all hours of the day and oozing of an offensive amount of cologne, maybe it wouldn't appeal to a half naked all-hours partier like "The Situation".

A&F's stores are designed to appeal to people like "The Situation" drawing them in, and then they act surprised when he's actually wearing their products? If they genuinely want to stop attracting people like "The Situation", the brand experience must change to reflect they type of people they wish to attract and feel are better suited to the brand they are or want to be.

So maybe BMW should have a test for prospect customers to see if they make the cut for being BMW drivers, which I hope includes those who don't want to accelerate when they see runners. Who knows maybe the quiz to be selected as a BMW drivers will make the brand more exclusive and stimulate greater demand... just a thought.

Louboutin isn't Louboutin without its red soles

Image created by the amazing Garance Dorè

If you are a woman, or have some interest in fashion, I'm sure just by looking at the red soles of these drawn shoes, you're already thinking Christian Louboutin. A shoe brand famous for its vibrant red soles. I once saw a program on TV about luxury shoes, where Mr. Louboutin was interviewed on where he came up with the idea to paint the soles of his shoes red -- he was sitting around with one of his friends, who was painting her nails, when he started to paint the sole of a shoe and fell in love with how the shoe looked from behind. Then the rest is history...well, until now.

Recently, Louboutin has taken YSL to court on the basis of trademark infringement,  as YSL is selling shoes with a red sole.  Unfortunately, the judge does not believe a designer can trademark a colour. In fact, he "has made up his mind that no fashion designer should be allowed a monopoly on colour because as artists they need to be able to use a full palette".

Personally, I think the wrong argument is being made here. Sure the colour is essential, but more importantly, it's the location of the colour -- on the sole of the shoe -- which makes it quintessentially Louboutin.  So rather than fighting so hard over a colour, Louboutin should be registering the design element of having a red sole as its trademark.

Frankly, I had no idea what the Louboutin logo looked like until a few years ago. Up to that point I only recognised the brand via the red soles. In fact, my friend, Jade, gave me a business card for her friend, who designed accessories for a shoe brand she couldn't remember the name of...this is the card she handed me:

I didn't need to turn the card over; I knew exactly what company she worked for -- Christian Louboutin!

If we're looking at this business card alone, it's clear that Louboutin considers its red soles a powerful trademark for its brand.  I would consider this an excellent example that brand identification lies beyond the logo.  Look at Apple, they even go as far to register all its products, from the shape of its iPad to its desktop icons and apps. We can also look at Coca-Cola and the original design of its glass bottles. The brief to design the Coca-Cola bottle was to create something that when held in your hand blind-folded you knew it was Coca-Cola, and when shattered into a million shards of glass you knew it was Coca-Cola.

This goes back to Martin Lindstrom's concept of smashability. The idea here, is that you should be able to take away the logo from the product and/or service, and instinctually know the brand it comes from. Louboutin clearly has this going for them just like Apple and Coca-Cola, maybe even more so, since Louboutin's logo seems secondary to its red soles.

I truly believe Louboutin must win this case over YSL selling red soled shoes. Simply for the fact that red soled shoes are a key brand identifier for Louboutin. And if we agree on the definition YSL's lawyer gives trademarks - "merely the right to indicate the origin of a product or service" - than Louboutin will win. Having said that, if they keep fighting for the colour rather than the combined power of the colour and its location on the shoe, they won't win this case. The power of the red sole, as a trademark for Louboutin, is not so much the colour as it is the location of the colour.

Google+: A new playground for the same games

I've been wanting to write about Google+ for some time -- not to critique the new social platform, as I don't think it's worth making a full-on critique until I see how people use the platform and if they use it at a sustained rate like Facebook.

However, Google+ has grown at an incredible rate - 18 million users in 21 days...something that took Facebook 2.5 years to achieve, as stated in the below presentation. What interests me most about this, was something I was asked a year ago, "Is Facebook a fad?"  The answer has been made clear by the launch of Google+. Facebook may come and go, but the behaviour it has strongly influenced is not a fad and won't go away.

In essence, the playground may change, from MySpace to Facebook to Google+, but the games will remain the same. If anything, people's social behaviour will only grow and evolve to a more elevated social level. After all, we've always been social creatures, and the tools have evolved to allow our social behaviour to stretch farther, to more people and faster.

So, it would be silly if brands avoided joining the social conversation, and not develop a strategy on the role its brand can play in the online social environment.

Here's a presentation I came across the other day, which I felt was a good summary of how organizations should start looking at Google+...enjoy:

Google+ for brands_ogilvy

View more presentations from John Bell

Redefining Athlete and a Brand

I love it when I see a brand take on a meaningful role, aka positioning, and integrate it into every single one of its touch points creating a wonderfully fluid story no matter where you begin interacting with the brand -- and Puma has done just that.

Puma has taken its, in my opinion, tired brand, and run neon lighting through it to reinvigorate itself to make it relevant to people who aren't typically the primary target of sportswear brands -- the after hours athlete. People who like to wear trendy sportswear in casual social settings.

This all started with an award winning and moving campaign featuring a classic voiceover creating a rallying call and celebration for after hour athletes:



The success of this campaign has clearly leapt from its TV and print campaign to create a more long-term positioning for the brand and further establish its support for the after hours athlete by creating tangible brand experiences.

I first noticed this on my daily walk into work through Carnaby Street -- Puma has completely redesigned its retail experience to appeal to the after hours athlete.

Even the inside of the shop is filled with foosball, pool and ping pong tables, along with mannequins wearing clown wigs and posters featuring after hour athlete mantras.  It's a massive expense and undertaking to redesign your stores, so it's clear this is a positioning Puma is dedicated to.

Not only are they creating some fabulous retail theatre for the brand's positioning, but they are also creating offline social events to encourage people to get together for after hour athlete activities around the world.  Actually, I think that's another thing I love about this whole re-positioning initiative - it's talking to a global youth audience.

I'm impressed with Puma's repositioning. They have found a truly unique segment to gear their products and experiences towards, and are making a clear effort to owning and mastering this space.  Not only that, their communications have been used to stimulate a movement to take part in Puma's support for those who enjoy recreational, late night, social activities.

Today, for a brand positioning claim to be truly valid, the organization must stand behind its claim through actions. These actions involve the retail experience, products, engagement activities, and any other consumer touch points. This is where Puma is succeeding and Reebok has missed the opportunity. I look forward to seeing more from Puma and all the fun things they can do with their new positioning.  Having said that, only time will tell if this brand position is meaningful enough internally to continue to be delivered upon, ensuring the brand remains relevant to the market stimulating long-term demand.

What Makes a Fashion House Iconic?

One of the things I love about living in London is that there are always cool and inspiring exhibits going on, and recently there was one such exhibit, which seemed to combine my two favourite things -- fashion and branding -- with or without knowing it.  The exhibit was called the Masters of Style: Celebrating the Stories behind Italian Fashion. 

In celebration of the 150th anniversary of the unification of Italy, the exhibit featured six of Italy's iconic design houses: Giorgio Armani, Dolce & Gabbana, Salvatore Ferragamo, Gucci, Missoni & Prada.

          

Going through the exhibit, which featured the fashion labels' favourite images and ads they felt captured the essence of their brand and Italian heritage, I began to see clearly how fashion brands, particularly luxury fashion brands, define themselves.

Fashion is a tough business for a variety of reasons, a few being:

• Each label has to create something new, fresh and innovative every six months without fail
• Collections have to appeal to a global audience
• The personal viewpoint of the creative director, who may or may not be the founder of the label, should be integrated
• All the while, the brand's heritage and founding personality must be maintained 
• Not to mention they are faced with unforgiving critics that could kill the brand with one little slip

There is a lot of pressure continuously placed on fashion labels, so it's no wonder only a few succeed and even fewer rise to being iconic.

I think the way fashion houses define their brand allows them to be flexible enough to combat these tough market conditions.  After reading about and observing the images chosen by and for each label, it was very clear that fashion brands are defined through a combination of two things: 

1 - A stylistic point of view, such as Armani's  precision cuts and subtle colour palette, or Missoni's passion for colourful knitwear.  Style is forever, and from that point of view fresh fashion can rise to the surface each season. However, a strong stylistic point of view is the red thread that tells a unified brand story across seasons.

2 - Emotions they wish to evoke. There are functional brands, which provide tangible utility such as Google or Apple, and the have a brand purpose to continually provide function well into the future. Then there are emotional brands. These brands aim to stimulate various feelings and aspirations for those who engage with them. Dressing is a personal and often emotional (not in the terms of being sad, but in reference to being based on personal feelings), Miuccia Prada said it best back in 2007:

"For me, dressing is a versatile instrument that helps you express what's in your head … -- a relationship with a man, with society. Sometimes you want to appear powerful, or serious or rich. All of us want to represent something. When you meet someone, among the instruments you have – like dialogue – you also have clothes"

So it's only natural that fashion labels define themselves on the emotions they wish to create. For instance Dolce & Gabbana evokes irony and Mediterranean sensuality in all they create; Prada aims for bravery and wit, while Armani elicits elegance, understatement and assurance.

Having a strong stylistic point of view combined with a set of emotions you wish to kindle, creates a powerful and unique positioning within the market. It's brands like those featured in this exhibit that have stayed true to these key elements that have allowed them to rise to an iconic status and maintain that status over the years.