Lots of chatter going around about Health Care these days. Its got me to thinking, why are Doctors and Hospitals so seemingly immune to consumer feedback?

Generally speaking, I often hear the sentiment from those in the industry that consumers aren't educated enough to know when they are receiving proper health care or not. But since when did that matter in a capitalist society?

Does my mechanic tell me I have no right to evaluate his service to me based on his timeliness, friendliness, helpfulness, and price?

So that leads me back to my original point – why is health care immune to this? And why do we, as consumers, put up with it?

I think the tide is going to change as the Internet forces it to (as will D.C. policy no doubt). But how far and where to is the question.

Doctors argue public opinion will diminish their ability to serve the public. Consumers say they have a right to evaluate service they have paid for.

What do you think?

For more fodder on the issue, check out the following article from the NY Times.

Continue Reading

So with the car industry more or less in the toilet, GM has been forced to streamline — sell off three of its smaller brands: Saturn, Hummer and Saab.

This post will be about Saab, since it's the only one I actually care about. The Economist said it best: "Only the fate of Saab will be of any concern to car lovers: Saturns were sold to people who were looking for smiley-faced service rather than a good drive; Hummers were bought by men who were insecure about their masculinity and by Arnold Schwarzenegger."

Along with Ford-owned Volvo, Saab has been struggling for quite some time. I looked into this matter briefly back in December. The conclusion was that the Swedes built their brands on innovation, beautifully-minimal design, and quirky personalities. As a result, their cars were more than a transportation appliance — they were something that owners fell in love with.

Under the General's ownership, these qualities were slowly diluted in an attempt to gain mass-market appeal and to reach the success of premium brands such as BMW and Audi. However, GM's cost-cutting strategy and copycat mentality failed to address the core of any good brand — distinction. It’s out-performed by BMW and out-prestiged by Benz; it isn’t as reliable or efficient as Acura; it doesn’t offer as much value as Infiniti. Lexus, one of the greatest success stories in the auto industry, didn't compete head-on with the Germans; they owned a completely different space within the consumers mind — unsurprased refinement and impeccable quality.

With new owner and Swedish super-car maker Koenigsegg now in the driver's seat, things are looking up. Koenigsegg should better understand Saab's quirkiness and be able to put the Saab back into Saab. How will they go about finding a profitable niche?

Because I'm a nice guy and I like Saab, I'll give them a sure-thing plan. For free!

1. Green is not going away. While BMW owns performance and Lexus owns refinement, no premium automaker currently has their hands exclusively in the environmental cookie jar. As consumers get more educated and gas prices continue to rise, "green" will be the perfect market position for Saab to pioneer. Make it green, but also keep it fun to drive (this is what will separate them from the other mainstream environmental category — Toyota hybrids).

2. Stick with the beautifully considered Scandinavian design philosophy. It is an area of differentiation in which they have always excelled. This super-clean aesthetic is also the perfect vehicle to peddle green marketing from.

3. Stay away from the mainstream. Especially now that they are owned by a specialty automaker, Saab will never be able to reach the mainstream success of larger brands like Lexus. Diluting the product will only hurt them. People who want a Lexus will buy one, not a partially realized Swedish imitation. Bring back the quirky cars and win back old fans. So long as they stick with building a top-quality product and don't stray from their true vision, they might even create a new breed of car enthusiasts in the process.

You're welcome.

Continue Reading

In this race for ownership of the online social network platform, it seems fairly apparent that Facebook is doing nothing but taking over.   In February 2007, MySpace owned 80% of the market share for social networking websites.  Last December, Facebook passed MySpace in unique visitors and continues to be on the rise.  Not surprising because I can't remember the last time I (or anyone I know for that matter) logged into my MySpace page. Then to top it all off, last month MySpace announced that they had to layoff 30% of their staff.

I can't help but think about a similar fight in the gaming world.

In December 1987, Nintendo owned 70% of the US market share for home video game systems.  Slowly and inevitably, others came into the market space.  Sega first, then Sony, and eventually Microsoft with the X-Box.  By the time the Sony Playstation 2 launched in 2000 and the X-Box in 2001 Nintendo was all but left in the dust.  They had been outdone.  I figured Nintendo would be left as nothing but a great memory of my childhood.

But Nintendo followed one of the core philosophies of branding: DIFFERENTIATION.  They couldn't keep trying to be better than the other guys.  They had to change the game.  They had to be different.  Instead of saying, "Hey everyone, we're better than PlayStation and X-Box", they knew they had to change the conversation to "Oh, yeah, Playstation and X-Box are great, but we're not like them at all."

The result was the Wii.  I don't have to talk about the Wii and how great it is and how it totally changed the game.  The Wii is now the best selling home gaming system, and most people that have either a PlayStation or X-Box also have a Wii.  Incredible.

Very important to remember is Nintendo's intentionality was not to be better, but to be different.

So back to MySpace, I have no clue what the talk is around their office these days, but I hope it's not trying to figure out how to be better than Facebook.  They've already lost that battle.  But there is still a chance for them if they can figure out how to be different.

What do you think?  Can MySpace continue to compete with Facebook without differentiating?

Continue Reading

When was the last time you were asked for "your card"? Or you gave one away? If you're like me it's few and far between.

It seems like today business cards are dying a slow vaporizing death (like Marty McFly in Back To The Future), along with several other print meda in our iPhone/ Crackberry age. It makes total sense. Why do I really need a small piece of paper with your contact info on it? In 1995, before the "you-twitter-face" era, I might not ever see you again. Our brief encounter lost in the passing by happen chance of the ages, but that's not necessarily the case today.

I can easily add you to my contacts, send you a FR (friend request) on facebook, follow you on twitter, or go old school and send you an email. Will I really ever meed your direct contact info?

Maybe, but lets be honest, the real value in a business card is the impression you leave in the mind of the recipient. It's a great way to build the perception you want for your brand. So the question is, what kind of impression are you leaving? Are you leaving one with 3 phone numbers, 2 faxes, a tagline, mission statement, brand promise, national accreditations, car make & model, highschool yearbook photo, and your favorite Proverb?

Instead, maybe you should simply leave someone thinking? Maybe it simply challenges? Inspires? Starts a conversation?

Maybe your message is printed on a steak (there is actually a new process to do that). Not the most sustainable message, but I guarantee pulling a rib eye out of your pocket will start a conversation.

It's hard to do something different and break the norm. Real innovation happens when you don't just accept the way things are, but challenge them.

What are some of the best business card ideas you've ever seen?

Continue Reading

This might be the freakiest billboard I have ever seen!

Here's the story. Apparently there are a lot of accidents during the rainy season in Papakura, New Zealand. Many of which are seriously injurious or fatal. 15 people were killed in one weekend. The local government launched an advertising campaign to slow people down. Apparently its working.

Imagine seeing this billboard driving up I-85 in the rain.

Continue Reading

Differentiation is more than a marketing strategy – its a way of doing business. Before you head out to the streets, you've got to first ensure you have something remarkable to sell. Then you can focus on the remarkable way to sell it. If there's nothing more than a cheap copycat behind the curtain, all of Oz will discover your tricks and be two heel-clicks away from heading home.

This really hit me between the eyes this past week as I watched Clear Wireless rollout their services and brand in ATL. Yes, their branding and marketing efforts were pretty good…nothing hugely impressive, but solid enough. Even so, it was not their materials and ads that ultimately got my attention. It was the fact that they were offering an approach to wireless internet provision that I had never heard of before.

Their attempts at getting my attention is the first time in years I can remember hearing about a new brand and then seeking out more info. I actually went out to their website myself to check out what Clear was all about. With the volumes of sales-based marketing that falls on my calloused ears, I'd say that is quite an accomplishment.

In addition, I can also say that their rollout was uniform and well-managed. Within a matter of a week, I saw my first commercial, heard an ad on NPR, and received a packet (seen in the pic here) in the mail at home – all introducing me to Clear.

Not sure if I'll actually become a customer or not, but I am listening.

Continue Reading

Since watching Food, Inc., I've been very, very hungry. Okay, not really; I've actually always had a tendency to avoid fast food. But deep within my heart, there lies a spot for Chipotle. It stands alone as the only fast food food restaurant I like. (Besides In-N-Out, which is sadly not available here in Atlanta).

So it's a bummer to watch my local Chipotle as they've begun the process of converting to their recently-completed brand "freshening".

"Watered-down" is really the only way to describe it. Without even reading it, I can safely assume words like "frendly," "inviting," and "broader audience" were sprinkled throughout the press release. Unless a company suddenly flips the switch to sell children's clothing or scarves for kittens, "friendlier" is more often than not a warning sign to the demise of interesting design.

The old Chipotle identity wasn't great. Nor was it innovative or very pretty. But it had something that many new "rebrands" miss — personality. The strange choice of Bank Gothic and the almost-Papyrus (somehow they pulled it off) was interesting. The dried up chili, raisin, poo, or whatever you want to call it had character. The advertisements featuring the plump foil with snarky phrases matched their against-the-fast-food-grain philosophy.

The rebrand, "branded extensions" and advertising are nice, clean, simple, dull and totally unnecessary.

All that being said, I'll still continue to eat there, so long as they stick with their "food with integrity" mantra — the fresh ingredients, simple preparation and free-range meat. Here's hoping they find room for "design with integrity" someday.

But am I overreacting? Will the rounded edges help sell more of their round-edged burritos? Or is Chipotle on the fast track to becoming a Mexican Panera?

Visit Brand New for more.

Continue Reading

Yesterday, the Sci Fi channel officially launched itself as the newly rebranded Syfy channel.  The story goes that "Sci Fi" is a category name and therefore couldn't be used as a proper brand name, so they decided to change the name to Syfy.  There has been much debate over the new name, with the majority of the comments being negative.  Interestingly, Landor, the branding firm hired to develop the new brand, has seemed to distance itself from it as well, saying…

“While we’d love to take credit for all the branding initiatives our clients take on, sometimes we just can’t. This is the case with the recent launch of Syfy, the new name for our client, the Sci Fi Channel."

Sounds to me like it's a subtle way of throwing their client under the bus.

What do you think?  Good move or way off?

Continue Reading

With advertising down 23% and circulation cut in half from a year ago, the 76 year old magazine is redesigning itself from the ground up. Instead of being more or less informational commentary on the weeks events, it will now move toward intellectual narratives. Realizing that printed news is yesterdays news it must be more than just straight reporting.

These changes in strategy have resulted in design changes. More whitespace on the pages creating a more story like feel. Thicker paper that is less like newsprint and more like a book. And as attention spans shorten, new type treatment making the stories easier and more interesting to read.

A change in strategy is a change in foundation. And if the foundation changes then the design should as well.

Continue Reading

With a tight race and a price-tag of some $800,000, many have been abuzz about the logo for the 2012 London Olympic Games since its unveiling last summer.

Here is just a smattering of the best on both sides of the ticket:

- "This is a truly innovative brand logo that graphically captures the essence of the London 2012 Olympic Games — namely, to inspire young people around the world through sport and Olympic values".

- "A puerile mess, an artistic flop and a commercial scandal".

- "It's not a logo; it's a brand that will take us forward for the next five years. It won't be to everybody's taste immediately, but it's a brand that we genuinely believe can be a hardworking brand."

- "failed to capture the British spirit".

- "a source of collective embarrassment rather than pride".

- "this is a brand to live up to which will force us to deliver the Games in a way which no other host city has ever done, not a comfortable blazer badge with ‘endearing' qualities or cute London skylines, but a big statement of intent,"

- "a 1980s hangover".

- "We said we'd be bold. We will be. Would you want it any other way?"

This is a deliberate change from previous Olympic logos, which often feature either an image from the city, the Olympic rings, or sometimes both. In essence, London has created a distinct Identity that separates them from the host cities of decades past.

So is that distinction good or bad? Why? Why not?

As fodder, here's a look at what the first London Olympics logo looked like (albeit their 2nd time to host), as well as some previous Olympic host city logos:

---

Cited from ABC News | BBC News | London Telegraph

Continue Reading