Let’s go back about 10 years…when you talked to most companies, you heard the word passion thrown out a lot: “We’re passionate about our customers.” | “The difference is our passion.” | “Passionate about your IT solutions.“…you get the gist. Passion was the word of the day.

Passion may have meant one thing then, but in today’s economy it is a true indicator of survival.

Newspapers, car companies, real estate agents, financiers, restaurants, and the like are all seeing tough times. And while not 100% true, you do find a common denominator amongst most of the companies failing to hold on – their customers were just that…customers. People buying a service or a product just because it made sense, or was based on a momentary want, or even just a reactionary purchase. Ever heard someone say, “I love my Pontiac!“? Pretty sure that’ll be a “no“. And who’s fighting for GM? Answer: the employees – not consumers.

Meanwhile, the survivors seem to be the brands that either serve a true need (medical professions, car repair, etc) -OR- brands that people are passionate about to the point of not allowing it to fail.

I’ve seen several incredible examples of this on a local level as of late, one of which is Paste Magazine.

Paste is all about music, film & culture. Over the past year, they’ve seen some tough times and are in the process of fighting the trend in print to say goodnight and goodbye. Their strategy? Appeal to their fans by asking for their financial support. And they are just that – fans of Paste (not just customers). The result? Paste has raised some $150K and counting.

No more customers. We’re in the age of fans.

What a brand should strive for in the long run is flexibility — the ability to move beyond simply reappropriating and repeating the same graphical elements. Coca-cola is one of the few who have achieved this. But it hasn’t happened overnight.

Years — decades even — of putting serious tender, loving investment into their brand have helped to engrain Coca-Cola red into our minds. We can identify immediately with a glance of the ribbon or the script.

Their marketing efforts have never really been about the product, or competitive products (ahem, Pepsi) and simply focused on creating a feeling of joy. No matter the method or channel, the message is always the same.

Perhaps their greatest strength has been their steadfast avoidance of gimmicks and trends. Coke has repeatedly shown their appreciation for (and dedication to) design (commissioning the ‘Coke Side of Life‘ poster series, innovative and quirky commercials). While Coke is out having fun and making us feel good, The-Other-Cola-Brand continues to struggle and play catch up by riding the latest fad. (Free advice: the worst thing one can do to appeal to the youth market is to try and be cool. Ask Scion).

With that said, let’s celebrate the season with a nice little set of limited summer cans.

Alittle over a month ago I posted a client spotlight for The Breast Cancer Diaries (read the original entry here), and now it’s time for an UPDATE!

We helped our friends Linda and Ann develop a parent non-profit brand to support their amazing documentary on Breast Cancer and increase corporate and donor sponsorship for their cause, The cause of hope.

Hope can be communicated in multiple platforms. From a bird, to a Greek goddess, to a simple flower blossom, we explored multiple analogy routes. However, Ultimately Project Pink has a great story to tell, and it’s rooted in Ann’s story and struggle against breast cancer- not any other. We wanted to give a face to the Project Pink story, and make it authentic and unique, not create a sub-story. The name “Project Pink” is unique in itself. The double P’s have a sense of distinction and give us an elegant solution, as well as include a subtle hint of the breast cancer ribbon repeated in the cursive letter forms. One intentional design element for the identity system is the circle shape core. It serves as a flexible platform for the visual landscape. For instance, a stylish bag given out at an awareness rally for college females might have the decorative flourish element behind it, but the “stamp” or more simple version might be used for embroidering hats or scrubs, all while maintaining brand consistency. For color we wanted something vibrant and bold, not pale and forgetful like most BC organizations, and with a name like “Project Pink” there’s no escaping the use of anything other than pink (that would cause alot of confusion and distraction).

The project doesn’t just end with the identity- The party is just getting started! Next we are designing chic boutique kits to distribute among key locations and for young women diagnosed with Breast Cancer packed with all kinds of Project Pink goodies. The kits are just one small step to bringing one big change; hope. We are honored to help contribute to such a beautiful cause (on the inside and out).

Here’s a snap shot the new identity:

The online battle for Television is just getting revved up.

With the Networks yanking their user-posted programming from YouTube over the past couple of years, NBC started the bout with their online offering – Hulu. FOX, apparently seeing no need to recreate the wheel, went along for the ride publishing their programming via Hulu as well.

Now CBS has entered the conversation with its competitor – TV.com. A late-comer to the game, they appear to have followed Hulu’s model almost entirely…with one exception. They launched their platform both online and via iPhone app, something Hulu has still yet to produce. FOX is also riding shotgun on this venture, with their programming available on TV.com.

So I’m curious – who’s got the better strategy?

Is it NBC, first to market with an excellently solid brand, platform, and library of shows?

Is it CBS, for following NBCs convincing lead, while improving upon their launch with the inclusion of an iPhone App (its worth noting that iPhone Apps generated some $45 million in revenue last year)?

Or is it FOX, riding the coattails of both platforms with little risk or upfront investment, while still getting the views and the ads?

My vote goes to Hulu, but I’m still watching to see who hits the KO.

We’re always looking at, talking about, and learning from the great brands of the world. Its just more fun and probably more constructive. Plus, Craig is an eternal optimist and positivity guru, which is highly infective.

Still, are their lessons to be learned from the dark side? I think so…

Driving down the road last week, as I passed what appeared to be some attempt by U-Haul to give a new look to their trucks, I thought about how no amount of visual change to their brand would ever convince me to use U-Haul again. I’ve had too many terrible experiences with their service. Which leads me to one of the key principles of branding – a brand is much more than the visual communication of who you are. Your brand starts with WHO you ARE. The visuals are one slice of that pie. Good brands start with a foundation of excellent services, products, staff, environments, systems, etc, etc. All of these pieces construct a complete brand. So while visuals are hugely important, a great visual Identity for a terrible business is still just lipstick on a pig.

So what makes a bad brand? Here’s a look at my own personal bottom 3 – the worst brands I’ve encountered in recent memory. And this is not about the visual side of these brands, but rather about the other components of their brand that do not convince me to return:

1. U-Haul: as I mentioned above, U-Haul is by far one of the worst, most frustrating experiences I’ve dealt with over the years as a consumer. My worst experience involves a 12 hour round trip that resulted in a waste of 2 days due to a failure on U-Hauls part to provide the truck they had confirmed would be available to me. My reaction – I always use Penske now. More expensive, but WAY better service, follow-through, and equipment.
2. O’Charley’s: the food is ok; not great / not terrible. But what puts O’Charley’s into my #2 spot is the number of times I have had issues with my food – mainly human articles (hair, etc) located within the recesses of my meal. Strike 1 – ok, its just an accident. Strike 2 – now I’m really grossed out and worried. Strike 3 – goodbye forever.
3. 1and1: this one was tough, as my displeasure is equal with both my experiences with Cable service providers & web hosting. But after much deliberation, I decided that my #3 spot should go to 1and1. 1and1 is a website hosting provider that boasts a 99.9% uptime. Not sure where that stat comes from, but it must exclude the Atlanta area…there is no way we have experienced 99.9% uptime. Most frustrating of all is their customer support. During the last outage we experienced, you could not even call their support line because not only was their hosting down, so were their phones. No matter, we’re moving on. I promise, its not us, its you…all you.

So what would it take to convince me to reconsider any one of these brands? A lot. But starters would be both a very public and a personal address dealing with the errors of their ways – think JetBlue. Next, a very specific gameplan on how they would tackle these issues. And last, results. I’d want to see them follow-through with their promises. And at the end of that, a visual rebrand would be a great way of culminating all the changes they had made to their brand. Then I’d believe that it was more than just lipstick on a pig.

It’s specialness never really occured to me. I suppose that having grown up with the trademark green-capped, clear plastic squeeze bottles, it was just another staple in the kitchen. It was always at the tables in local Pho restaurants. When I was a kid, the “Rooster” brand sriracha chili sauce was as ubiquitous as ketchup in Southern California.

Now, it has started to become an ever-present condiment across the country — found everywhere from Walmart to mom-and-pop bars to Michelin-starred-chef Jean-Georges Vongerichten’s kitchens.

Aside from being boosted by the growing number of conscious culinary types, the Rooster sauce’s formula for success is similar to many other strong brands:

A compelling story -> An authentic product -> Unique identity and design

David Tran, the founder, built a name for himself from making and packaging chili sauce by hand in Vietnam. After finding his way to America, Mr. Tran moved from Boston to Los Angeles in search of peppers. Within a month he started making sauce again and soon local pho shops stocked the product and the occasional American consumer began squirting it onto hot dogs.

While not having the most refined or sophisticated design, the bright red and green bottles definitely don’t lack the ability to stand out on store shelves. And each one is decorated with a “logo” featuring — not peppers or flames or a fire-breathing pepper — but simply Mr. Tran’s astrological sign, the rooster. As more and more new brands follow generic, accepted (ahem, “market research”) formulas to build their identities, the art of story-telling and simple, honest design that isn’t focus-grouped to death is quickly becoming a rare phenomenon.

Regardless of whether Rooster sauce will one day become as symbolic as a bottle of Heinz or a can of Coke, it’s admirable that they’ve stayed true to what they love and what they believe in despite the national attention:

“We’re happy to see these chefs use our sriracha,” said Huy Fong’s president, William Tran, the 33-year-old son of its founder. “But we still sell 80 percent of our product to Asian companies, for distribution through Asian channels. That’s the market we know. That’s the market we want to serve.”

They haven’t changed the quirky package design that most designers would scoff at. They haven’t changed their name into something that most Americans can pronounce. They don’t have a “web 2.0″, totally-awesome flash site with games featuring the rooster. And I hope they never will.

Photo: Robert Yager for the NY Times

Yesterday, I attended AMA’s signature luncheon featuring Kyoo Kim, VP of Sales at MSNBC.  Kyoo was discussing how to market the news in the new millenium.  It was a fascinating talk and ensuing discussion, but I normally don’t remember the majority of what was said.  Usually at something like this, I will walk away with one nuggett that hits me pretty hard.  And about half way through Kyoo’s talk, these words hit me over the head…

“The days of expecting people to come to your website is over.  You have to take it to everyone else via social media tools.”

As discussions about the value of Facebook, Twittter, LinkedIn, etc continue to be interesting to watch, I see this as an amazing insight on a piece of their value and how to think about them.  I may soon share some recent stories of how I’ve seen personal success with integrating these into our online strategy at Matchstic, but until then, I won’t just be visiting your website, and I guess you won’t be visiting mine either, eh?

I’m not a die hard fan of Elvis, but I am quickly learning to be.

Back in February we had the privilege to help create a strong and sustainable brand identity for the annual “Elvis Cruise” for our good friends at Sixthman & Graceland. We wanted to help gather the Elvis tribe for an exciting Elvis-only floating event that redefined the Elvis experience. After our strategy session we narrowed the focus down to “The Floating Church of Elvis”, with good reason. The “congregation” connects directly with the southern, bible belt, roots, and celebration of his adoring fans, and the “floating” part reveals the core distinction of the event. From memorabilia to friends to former band members, even Elvis’ private jeweler onboard, The Elvis cruise is covered from head to toe in everything Elvis, hence this years concept “Blue Suede Cruise”.

He was THE innovator of his day. His collaboration of gospel, jazz, country, and rock n’ roll was unheard of. His courage to take risk and be different is remarkable. In my limited world of heroes, Elvis is now in the building.

Check out the website: http://www.theelviscruise.com and some of the final executions:

Facebook isn’t yet profitable. Twitter hasn’t made a dime.

So are they successful…or not?

The success of Television shows are based on a tracking system that can’t truly keep up with DVR, internet views, and folks who wait for the show on DVD. And shows that people love are canceled every season as a result.

Were the shows really doing poorly, or were the numbers poor?

The current state of the U.S. economy is largely viewed as unsuccessful because of where the housing market ordeal has led us. But the stock market was doing just fine before the bubble burst, despite the fact our government was in the hole some $10 trillion dollars.

Was the stock market really that healthy?

Businesses may talk about how successful they are as a multi-million dollar company, but what are their actual profits like?

Is it about volume or net? Number of viewers or fan loyalty? Number of applicants or retention? Singular strength or diversity?

Arguments can be made on either side of these numbers, but its the consideration of both sides that I believe to be the key in determining real, sustainable success.

Stand-alone numbers lie. So we’ve got to look deeper – past the large, board-focused, advertising statements about how we’re successful – and take a hard look at the not so pretty truths of those same numbers. There’s more gold in the hard truths than there may be in the numbers you’re hanging your hat on – gold that can change the course of your business decisions for the better. No more sticking to the tried and true, just because one set of numbers says its working.

Focus Groups. Market Research. They’re part of the oppposing side of a never-ending battle fought by designers. Very few have found commercial success while being able to stand their ground creatively.  Pixar Animation Studios is one of them.

According to a recent article in the Times, Wall Street and toy manufacturers are concerned about the commercial prospects of “Up,” the studio’s newest film. Despite Pixar’s spotless track record, many “industry watchers” (greedy shareholders?) are complaining because “[they] doubt younger boys will be that excited by the main character and the the lack of a female lead.” Meanwhile, retailers see slim merchandising opportunities from the lead cast of characters.

In the midst of these ridiculous “analyses”, I find it truly commendable that Pixar is continuing to just do their thing — to make the movies they want to make, regardless of potential for peddling cheap Happy Meal plastics (seems like these critics didn’t bother to pay attention during Wall-E).

Robert Iger, Disney’s chief executive, said it best: “A check-the-boxes approach to creativity is more likely to result in blandness and failure.” It’s the kind of thinking that has ruined many big studios.

These days, it’s rare to see any organization show this kind of boldness, especially in such a high-level player as Pixar. Kudos.