Starbuck’s new logo…

Starbuck’s has rolled out it’s new logo and connected materials involved with it’s new identity and 40 anniversary, and unlike other major retailers who have recently rolled out a new logo, this should present nothing but huge upsides for the company.

The identity that is replacing the current identity is not so far removed that it will cause discomfort among fans of the brand but it distills and simplifies the imagery. This is crucial, especially for Starbucks because what they offer is nothing if not comfort. However that does not mean the company can not move forward, this simplification of the existing logo will allow Starbucks to move forward in an international scope while still feeling like it is the “local” brand it’s always been.

In the past I’ve been critical of Starbucks for some (in my opinion) mistakes as it pertains to brand value versus quality/price, but this is not the case. It is a smart and classic logo with fresh and relevant design behind it in the form of newly designed collaterals and products.

“Simple”

In looking for answers, simple is almost always better than complicated.

One challenge we face when consulting is that our answers to our clients needs are usually more complicated than the simplistic cocktail chatter that usually is the end result from a lot of folks “research” into reaching out to new audiences or even re-establishing contact with existing ones.

Here are two good ways to make the complex easier to understand.

1. break down complicated answers. Engineers use the credo; “break it down, break it down”. By breaking down a large project into smaller easier to do pieces, people can understand the project better, communicate what is more effectively, and build complex things because it is not so overwhelming.

2. Teach a few people, and gain evangelists. Once committed, people will follow you practically anywhere – but no one like to be the only ones. By building up a team of evangelists you will have people help make the complex simple.

You can’t afford  to become complicated when someone is looking for you for you to be “simple”.

A New Year: What not to say…

“That’s not the way we do things around here”

When you say this, you’ve established a concrete way of thinking about something. Even worse - what you have established is that the ordinary or current way is always the best way. Even when it is not.

We hear companies talk about thinking “outside the box”, “encouraging change” and “being empowered”. When you speak of actions in an established tone such as this, you have taken a big step in ending new ideas and approaches.

You might very possibly turn your best employees into your new competition as well.

A tip of the hat to Seth Godin on this one…

The New Gap Logo.

Pretty much everyone you may know who has any kind of voice currently about design and brand has probably commented on the new Gap logo designed by Laird and Partners - probably negatively.

I’m not saying those people are necessarily wrong.

Good News
I don’t believe that this particular logo is going to be around a very long time. This is especially true since the Gap has come right out and asked to see other peoples interpretation of the Gap logo via social networks, etc. (link) 

Bad News
It is clear that retail is changing and that the Gap - is changing as well. The problem is - no one really thought the Gap was too out of touch as it was. It does however have a problem in that it owns Old Navy - a brand that is constantly picking away at the bottom of its price line and Banana Republic which takes away from the Gap at the higher end of it’s price spectrum. Basically the Gap has squeezed itself into a tough spot and needs to be really creative here to come out on the top end.

The other problem for the Gap is how does it compete with H&M, Uniqlo, and a few others that have aggressively entered the space the Gap once had a stronghold over? Stylistically these brands seem more cutting edge and cool. While the Gap seems more corporate and suburban. That may not be fair - but that is the perception.

If you count the numbers, the company is showing no signs of growth, with prices at $18.25, (down 13% decrease since the beginning of the year) they are also telling analysts that they are forecasting difficult sales ahead. The Gap said that their sales fell 2 percent in September.

Recent Success
The 1969 Jeans have been an unrivaled success for the Gap. I believe that this new approach to it’s identity was shaped to reflect a bit of the marketing that was done around the roll out for that product. The Marketing for that product line was fresh and well thought out - tweaking this new identity more towards that could be an easy way out. In all honesty, tweaking your identity towards a past marketing campaign is not exactly a great idea either.

The next 90 days for the Gap will be critical. They need to walk a fine line during the holiday sales season and at the same time rethink this new position they have staked out in the market.


A few reference points:

The Gap logo on Twitter 
Umair Haque | Harvard Business Review (a great read) 
Fast Company Design 
Laird and Partners 
Craplog.me - make your own Gap logo 

Reinvention for better or worse at the The Wall Street Journal

I’m not talking politics here, I’m talking brand.

The current state of the WSJ looks and acts more like USA Today than what we think of as the WSJ and that is a far bigger problem than anything else. It speaks softly but strongly about a product that has given up the higher ground that the paper was known for and instead has decided to move towards infographics and bullet points.

I’m a former reader of the WSJ and really am now only a part time reader. I never bothered to spend too much time in the editorials, but I found the reportage strong and smart, written by people whose reporting I trusted and respected.

Yesterday (Sunday September 27th) The Wall Street Journal presented it’s latest move in the “Battle of New York”. The WSJ debuted a new weekend lifestyle section today called Off Duty. This lifestyle approach has been something the WSJ has been toying with on and off for the past couple of years – including last years one off Magazine that wanted to compete with the Times Sunday magazine. (Which was enjoyable, but a second issue would be nice.)

You really have to wonder about this approach. It doesn’t seem to build the WSJ in any way that really makes sense. Brands that build, do so from the core of the brand out – in other words, you build from strength.

Not to put too sharp a point on this; “lifestyle” is not the core of the WSJ’s brand.

From a brand perspective this is ham fisted and shallow. I’m sure most of the readers of the blog know a bit of the back story here (Rupert Murdoch bought the WSJ to basically take on the NYT). The answers to the questions that are continuously raised by interested parties on the current changes at the WSJ almost always come back and provoke more head scratching than anything else. This is not exactly the kind of response I look for in a daily newspaper.

The thing is, Murdoch is a hell of a businessman and to bet against him is something most people wont do. However this new WSJ is really two newspapers in one. Monday – Friday focused on world events and business and on Saturday it becomes a lifestyle newspaper of sorts. The WSJ needs to figure out who and what it is and do so rather quickly. Changing to a general daily newspaper from a more focused and specific publication seems like a long stretch and total reinvention is not something that the average WSJ reader is looking for.

A bit of our past… Basis on NPR

In March of 2009 we were contacted by American Public Media/NPR’s Marketplace Morning Edition to comment on branding during a recession and specifically about Starbucks. They found our humble blog while searching for “recession brands” and decided to get in touch.

Celebrity clothing lines and Brand

Brand consultants often talk about “expanding the brand” because – let’s be honest here, its what our clients want and pay us for. Almost weekly we hear of some celebrity starting a new clothing line – and the numbers the investors put in are always pretty interesting (too much or really cheap depending on the deal).

A few notes to consider:

• The lifespan of these kinds of clothing lines is by all intents – short. The average deal is no more than 3 years
• Celebrity clothing brands are volatile, because their success is closely tied to one person whose popularity can fluctuate violently. (see; Gibson, Mel)
• Celebrities often don’t wear their own upscale clothing at high impact events (Oscars, etc.) often because they are paid to wear other designers clothing.

So where do celebrity clothing lines work best?
The most successful celebrity lines have lower price points, are pointed directly at the mass market, and are sold nationwide. (Target, etc.) Mid-line clothing, sold exclusively in department stores (Macy’s, etc.) make less overall and fade away faster.

Where would I put my money if I were going to pursue a celebrity?
I would look really hard at dead celebrities. A great example is Steve McQueen – his image is perfect with the current fashion and really there is no way to be hurt by some kind of crazy antics because he’s dead. That might sound a bit pragmatic, but while you may want to expand your brand, you need to protect it too.

What we learn by watching “Mad Men”

I watch the TV show “Mad Men”. It airs on the AMC network. I’m going to assume you’ve heard of this little program by now  - especially if you are in any kind of creative or marketing space.

The Agency setting at fictional Sterling Cooper has a lot of inter-office drama as do the characters lives. Don’t let that stop you from watching the interplay of the creative approaches used in the offices and boardrooms. To me that is the hidden secret of the show.

A couple examples follow (a win and a loss):

WIN: In season one, the agency is trying to sell cigarettes in an age when people are starting to believe that they cause cancer. I mean what’s the best way to sell death? Ignore that completely and tell everyone that they are “toasted” never mind that all cigarettes are toasted – be the first in your space to announce it and everyone else is a follower.

In the real world: Lucky Strike was the first in that space (it’s also the client in the episode).

LOSS: A soft drink is about to launch and wants to ride on the coat tails of a popular new movie, in this case “Bye Bye Birdie” with Anne Margaret. The agency goes out a produces a shot by shot remake of the scene with a model singing about the soda – it flops in the board room and no one ever see’s it. The reason? It’s not Anne Margaret.

In the real world: Pepsi has used this approach with far more success in working directly with the “real thing” (by that I mean actors/actresses/singers, etc.).

What has become interesting to me is that in both of these cases, the real differentiator is authenticity. Lucky Strike is actually toasted and Pepsi’s advertising with popular stars has proven to be successful. Let’s not loose sight of the fact that tobacco would go a little too far in later years with the PR and safety concerns. The fact is; it’s a good story and shows a strong glimmer of process behind it.

Overthinking the Logo

Logos are funny creatures. Employees (and especially boards of directors) can become completely indignant at the idea of changing a logo. People become fiercely opinionated about colors, symbolism, image use, etc. and all of a sudden, everyone is an artist or graphic designer.

While it’s great to have a logo that means something, resonates strongly with a particular audience, or is loved by all of top management, the fact remains that these attributes simply are not necessary. There may be some backlash from this, but I’m going to say it: sometimes a logo just has to look good and be easy to use.

There are a couple things to remember when developing a new logo. Remember these, and hopefully the experience will be a little more bearable and you will walk away with a usable, iconic logo:

• The logo is not for you or your employees; it’s for your customers. You don’t need to love the logo like your own child in order for it to be effective.
• If you are trying to create a logo that has symbolism in it that no one would understand without it explained to them (i.e. “the three stripes here stand for the three pillars of …”), then don’t bother. You won’t have the opportunity to explain it to 99% of the people who see it.
• You don’t need a 100% consensus on a logo for it to be effective. Design-by-committee will always produce a bland result.
• You probably aren’t going to create the next Nike “Swoosh” so don’t even bother trying!
• Focus on ease of use, simplicity, and scalability. These are the factors that will really matter once you start using the logo.

Having a well-thought out, symbolic, and robust logo that everyone loves is a perfect scenario. Sometimes, however, we have to be realistic, get some work done, and deliver a product that does what it needs to.

Article by: Harris Eisenberg

Reasons to Be Cheerful, Part I
(initially broadcast March 16th, 2009 at our old blog - How Branding Works)

Our  first Podcast is now available.

Matthew Langley, Director of Branding for Basis and host of this blog, takes you through his commentary on current branding topics. We hope for this to become a regular feature and welcome your feedback on our initial broadcast. We also intend to make this available via iTunes, so please stay tuned for information on that in the future.

Episode 1: Reasons to Be Cheerful, Part I
This episode covers; Marketing during a down economy, and commentary on Tropicana’s re-branding and its retraction.