Click here to download:

Google_Navs_It_Up.zip (176 KB)

In case you have not noticed it, Google has slowly begun the process of making some "simplicity sacrifices" related to their expanding universe of product and service offerings. Take a visit to the Google Mobile site, the Google Voice site, and the new Google Nexus One site and you'll quickly see that the "simplicity of design" that was presented back in March 2009, isn't living up to the consistency strategy that was initially outlined. Many of the branding guidelines that were originally outlined, along with the supporting functionality of the related websites do not support the simplicity strategy.

I am not saying this is not bad or good. I also understand that these may be viewed as "stand alone" brands. It does, however, highlight the necessary evil when adding complexity to product offerings and the need to support the marketing of these on the web.

The takeaway: A defined strategy needs to have room to evolve over time with the changing business climate.

So, I was daydreaming today... wondering just what is really going on behind the scenes of the Tiger Woods scandal and thought I'd put my Xtranormal account to good use and peek into the public relations management nightmare of the decade...

Disclaimer: This is a parody element. The content of this post should in no way be construed as factual. Public figures used in this posting are portrayed for satirical purposes only. All other characters are fictional. Any use of real names or trademares is related to parody. Any similarities to actual persons is also pure coincidence, and not the intent. It cannot be emphasized enough how coincidental any fictional entities are to any real life individual, entity, or character. Content rating: NC17.

“The Hut”, “The Shack”… what do these "names" really mean to you? If you believe Pizza Hut and Radio Shack, they stand behind their efforts at weaving these new “nicknames” that may evolve into the future brands for these American staples.

AdAge profiled the obvious confusion with Radio Shack’s positioning shift with the introduction of “The Shack”. Critics, including myself, feel that this marketing effort is only a surface level approach to solving a much larger problem for the company… notably the retail chain’s ineffective positioning in the marketplace versus other big box retailers and customer service struggles at the store level. While Radio Shack may not accurately deliver the right positioning, trying to make a branding switch under the guise of a marketing campaign tells me everyone at the company is not singing from the same song book.

Back in June 2009 MSN Money highlighted Pizza Hut’s issues and thoughts behind their brand switch. According to the article, the fast food chain will now brand some stores as simply “The Hut.” Obviously there is some testing underway. The company has added a range of non-core items to its menu, including pasta, wings, desserts, etc., but does its target audience really identify with these new offerings, or merely see them as an extension or alternative choice. My guess is like “Wing Street,” this positioning will not resonate with the audience and will further dilute the chain’s positioning.

The common thread with these two companies is their inability to focus on what matters most to their core customers, and not catering to fringe influences or fads. Is Pizza Hut a pizza joint, an Italian restaurant, or a hot wing stand? Does Radio Shack sell radios (who has a radio these days, by the way?), electronics, or is it really a cell phone stand? Right now, both companies are guilty of trying to be “everything to everybody.” And that is never a good thing. Re-branding may start with a new name, but it must be supported at all levels of the company and continually tie back to the real needs of the prospect and existing customers.

Come on. Really? When I opened my Adage email today I saw a headline titled “Apple Wants to Take Bite Out of Big Apple”, I was sure the story would be about a new marketing effort by the warm fuzzy company. Wrong.

Apparently, a new green-themed campaign to help elevate “The Big Apple’s” environmental efforts features… you guessed it, an apple. And apparently any apple used today to promote something directly infringes on Apple’s ability to build and market computer and other media hardware and software. Not my words, here are theirs:

“Any defect, objection or fault found with [GreeNYC's] goods and services marketed under [GreeNYC's] marks would necessarily reflect upon and seriously injure the reputation which [Apple] has established for its goods and services,” the claim states.

I know we now operate within a “convergence” marketplace. However, it is unreasonable to think that one company should be able to hold control of a mark within any and all categories it feels may diminish its own mark. Whatever happened to category ownership? Examples include Delta Air Lines and Delta Faucet Company. I know that brands that grow have a much larger mind share. But what if we give these brands carte blanch outside of their category? More importantly, what happens when this brand begins to falter down the line (Air carrier, are you paying attention?) Would we then give the “second” stronger brand in another category the ability to capture control back? Could we then assume that the “second” company in another category that gets “bigger” has the ability to take the first company’s mark, domain, etc.?

When I read it, my mind instantly flashed back to an article that I read on The Onion in 1998 about Microsoft taking action to patent ones and zeros (0, 1). While this was sarcasm at its best, it pointed out the obvious self-importance that Microsoft was feeling for itself at the time. Has Apple finally arrived to the same place? Someone in Cupertino should give this article a read and realize they are now the pot calling the kettle black.

Rock-and-roll was all about building iconic brands, before branding was cool. The 70s and 80s proved that consistent branding translated to big dollars for many classic and metal rock acts. From a hundred feet away, you could easily spot one of the above logos on a signature black t-shirt and know exactly what music group it was.

Walking the isles at the local music shop, you could quickly spot a new album by Boston, Kiss, or Iron Maiden, simply from the unmistakable brand. While the music industry is currently getting blasted about their inability to stay in check with consumers, they were well ahead of other industries who continue to not understand the value of building a consistent brand.

Album artwork often offered the most consistent brand reinforcement over time. Many bands of the 70s and 80s had a defined logotype and design style that carried from album to album. While general creative themes changes over time, many musical groups opted to deliver a consistent feel. This consistency build brand loyalty for teens, looking to embrace their rock Gods. Essentially, music promoters recognized the power of building a brand, and ran with it.

With the migration to digitally downloaded music, the industry is going through a change. Gone are the days perusing the isles at the local music shop. "Albums" purchased through iTunes now offer "e-booklets," essentially the album / CD artwork in digital format. Even though I was programmed to be hypnotized by this artwork and copy, I'm sure today's musical youth - along with me - don't spend the quality time reviewing the nooks and crannies in the online version of "album liners."

If you were a musical consumer from the 70s and 80s, I'm sure you'll be able to easily identify what musical groups are associated with the above. Can you name them all?

The holidays are wearing me out. It seems that the holidays are experiencing "vanilla-ization." It's really hard to tell the holidays apart when making a trek through the stores. One holiday blends into another. The products stay the same. Only the colors change. The real run begins with Halloween, which from a retail perspective, now kicks off before my birthday, in early September.

When I was a kid, it never started before the beginning of October. As Christmas retail and hype back peddled into Thanksgiving, it was an easy move for retailers to push the others back. My example, relates to my childhood and how one brand affected me as a child.

A definite favorite, Peeps, have gone multi-holiday. They used to be only available as marshmallow chicks, then later, rabbits. Now they have morphed themselves, depending upon the holiday, into snowmen, pumpkins, Christmas trees, and hearts. The "special" treat that I used to wait for all year, are now available at four distinct times of the year. Vanilla.

I think the "master" plan is that one holiday, or another, will be marketed to consumers at all times. Will my children look forward to Peeps in the same way that I did? Will they really be craving for Peeps in the shape of shamrocks, stars & stripes and whatever relates to Labor Day and Memorial Day?

Since the "vanilla-ization" of the holidays will probably continue this way... probably not.

I would have never thought that I would associate meatballs with a brand. The first time I walked into Ikea, I was also introduced to their cafeteria. Sure, lots of retailers have quickie snack stands, but Ikea has taken the comfort of the cafeteria and put its Scandinavian spin on things. In addition to adding an excellent value to the shopping experience, I would have never have thought about how the cafeteria can help build a brand in the mind of consumers.

When shopping at Ikea, it is often an afternoon-long process - even if you know exactly what you are going to buy. Often, kids are also involved, so without a place to take-five, shopping in the mega store could easily get deadly (for the parents, not the kids). Yes, you can get the standard American chicken fingers and French fries.

But the bonus are the things you wouldn't expect at a cafeteria. In my case, I am drawn to their Swedish Meatballs... a staple and star of their menu. These days, I often find an excuse to slip away to Ikea, not to shop, but to take in a plate of meatballs at lunch. I never would have craved meatballs. Now, I often find myself looking for an excuse to have lunch there. I now not only associate the tastiness of the meatballs and sweet lingonberry preserves with the Ikea brand, but I also have linked the other pleasant aspects of their cafeteria, including cleanliness, relaxing environment, consistent food service, as well as an escape. These associations are truly priceless to a brand.

Now, if I could only find the Exit when I'm ready to leave as easily as I can find the cafeteria when I get there. Such is life.

In a world full of post-green political correctness, how can a successful company deliberately continue using a branding tagline that was created at the turn of the century (last one, not this one) and that makes no sense in today's fight for a better environment.

Last week I was driving down the street and suddenly a sign (not from God), jumped out and smacked me in the face. It was for the well-known brand, Sherwin-Williams, who still uses the "Cover The Earth" tagline prominently in their logo. I was shocked with my new "awareness" and made it a point to look into this further. This sign must have been a leftover from "the olden days."

When scouring their site for some additional history, it was interesting to find that the mark is not only an active focus, but it was the feature of their 2005 investor's report (PDF warning). The mark was originally used back in 1905 and probably made good sense in those days. In looking at this story in greater detail, I was relieved to find that I am not the only one thinking the same thing. The Onion was well ahead of me, publishing a story about this back in July of 2002.

I even found the same thoughts on other blogs as a casual topic of discussion. From a branding perspective, I'm not sure how much longer Sherwin-Williams can grasp to the nostalgic brand without someone, or some activist, turning the tagline into an easy target. There are too many political, economic, social and environmental items on their plate, to leave this one open.

I know that we all know that the company really doesn't literally want to "Cover The Earth" in a layer of latex paint. But can't the company retire this to the advertising retirement center? I'm sure there are some good new positioning options out there for the company that still cast the company in a positive manner and are good for the environment too. Anyone?

While I was downtown this past weekend, visiting the Children's Museum of Atlanta, I had a few minutes to stroll past the recently completed Georgia Aquarium. It, along with the future new home of the World of Coca-Cola Museum, sit on a piece of land that Coke acquired during the 1996 Summer Olympics. The land sits directly across the street from Centennial Olympic Park, home to many of the big media events of the 1996 Summer Games. Together, the two tourist destinations will continue to build Atlanta's downtown as a hot spot of activity.

Walking between the aquarium and under development Coke space, I happened across a wall, made of plywood and painted to mask the construction space. On it, I found a very nice logotype that I couldn't resist snapping a photo with my phone camera (see grainy image above).

The combined space for Coke and the Georgia Aquarium is called Pemberton Place, named after the druggist who created the secret Coca-Cola formula, John Pemberton.

When I saw it, it was sad to think just how many would visit the site without the knowledge of who the space was named after. Only the true Coke-aholics and those interested in advertising lore, will really appreciate it.

The branding for this new area of downtown Atlanta was created by Salt Branding out of San Francisco. The logotype is tastefully done, using organic structures (water and greenery) to create the negative space of the Coke bottle "hobble-skirt" shape. Great job, Salt! I can't wait to see the completed Pemberton branding elements that will support the park.