Image from @cubagallery

I have little patience for self-interested art trying to find its way into the branding conversation. Branding is selfless, in that it is interested first in what is authentic, second in how to represent that authenticity on behalf of an organization, and third (last) on how one's own talents can be used to accomplish this goal.

I love art, and have a deep appreciation for it. I consider the artists I work with to be immeasurably talented. But what makes them exceptionally unique is their ability to listen, understand, and represent – with clarity and distinction – the personality of an organization that exists outside themselves. This requires an ability to set aside one's own personal agenda for a better portfolio, and instead, focus on making that organization better.

I like this about branding. Finding beauty in the most unexpected of places – business.

Starbucks was gaining ground for two decades before their decline came along. What's most interesting to me is that the decisions that escalated their brand decline were made during a period of high growth and a growing stock price – decisions like: creating a record label, a magazine, they started selling too much merchandise (like stuffed animals) in their stores, and started making smelly breakfast sandwiches. Starbucks started looking and smelling less like a European coffeehouse, and more like a fast food chain. The romance was being lost as the brand was commoditized.

And when the economy did decline in 2007 & 2008 – the Starbucks brand was diluted to the point that it was seen as little more than an expensive cup of coffee at a fast food chain. Their stock price soon began to tumble and the brand saw some of its worst days.

When Shultz returned as CEO in 2008 – his first order of business was to return the brand back to their roots – back to the romance of the European coffee experience. He quickly retrained Barista’s on how to make a proper espresso, updated equipment, instituted a return to freshly ground coffee in stores, and attempted to reduce the smell of the breakfast sandwiches. All of this designed to return Starbucks to their brand’s essence.

Even with those changes, Starbucks spent some time in the valley before they began their rebound.

Paranoia may be unhealthy, but it can be a good thing in branding. Otherwise, a brand's best days may produce such a sense of anesthesia that no one can sense the cliff's edge coming.

Disciplined adherence to strict branding rules; logos applied to as many surfaces as possible always in the same manner; experiencing a brand in the same way over and over again – these used to be the rules that equaled unparalleled strength in a brand. Today the rules have changed. Great brands are nimble, and yet still focused – flexible, and yet still dogmatic. They allow for the consumer's voice while still influencing the conversation.

Coke did this in style when they embraced a user-created Facebook page as their own (rather than shutting it down, crying copyright infringement). Coke maintains brand guidelines that keep three core elements intact – the red, the script, and the contoured bottle shape – and then leaves room for expression and variance.

I love a recent article I read by Fast Co. that puts it this way – ‘Branding Is About Creating Patterns, Not Repeating Messages‘. Marc Shillum went on to say:

Consistency in human behavior is not derived from repetition alone; it is about the formation and recognition of coherent patterns…Patterns are the way our brains perceive actions, thoughts, memory, and behavior to ultimately inform belief. They allow for differences while creating a whole.

Brands still need consistency, but in a consumer-driven era where a brand's every action is on public trial – that consistency needs to be expanded to include room for expression.

Relevant brands breathe.

One opinion, on one stance, led to one post, and later led to a viral revolt against the brand.

It used to be wise to ride out the storm – give things a chance to see if the steam would let out of them on their own accord. No more. It took only days for the post to result in such a high level of consumer activism.

Howard Schultz tells a similar story in a 2010 interview with HBR:

Bloggers were putting holes in the equity of the brand, and it was affecting consumer confidence, our people, everything. I woke up one day and went to my desk, and I had 75 to 100 e-mails and phone calls about an issue I had never heard of. There was a sensational story in the Sun, in London, that Starbucks was wasting water through something called the “dipper well.” My phone rang, and it was a reporter asking me to comment on the dipper well. “I have no idea what you’re talking about,” I said. The reporter said, “Mr. Schultz, I suggest you Google Starbucks real fast.” The Sun claimed that we were pouring “millions of litres of precious water down the drain” as a result of the method we used to sanitize equipment. The report was wildly exaggerated, and we had been working for several years to find a better solution, but we suddenly became the target of conservation groups. We had a real problem. The lesson was that the world had changed. Something that had happened in London had created a worldwide story that positioned Starbucks with venom and disrespect.

Brands are formed in the minds of consumers – and there the power remains.

A great example of how little control a brand has, but how important it is to influence brand perceptions with speed, authenticity, and passion.

*Cited from HBR's Lessons from the GoDaddy Customer Revolt

I am not a fan of silence. When people are talking there is a stream and a sense of where they stand. No talking, and I'm left to discern less distinguishable cues.

After some hundreds of presentations – some good, some not so good, some down right difficult – I've learned a few things about human tendency vs effective presenting.

As a human – I want to fill the empty space with explanations and examples. The more I can explain, surely the more you will understand and agree?

Not so.

Visuals need time to be understood, taken in. My talking gives context, but it needs to stop there. Ultimately the person on the receiving end needs time to let the visuals settle into their own intellect and emotions. The more I talk, the more I detract from this activity.

Trust silence. If you have presented good work and explained your rationale well – leave it at that. Ask for questions and feedback – but ultimately give it time.

It shows great confidence in your work to allow it to stand on its own two feet.

Thanks to our friend Alina Wheeler for reminding me of this. Image sourced from AMC's Mad Men.

First, a little defining.

House of Brands
A brand like P&G has a parent brand and then a number of consumer-facing brands loosely connected back to the parent – brands like: Crest, Iams, Bounce, Vicks, & Pringles. The House of Brands pushes equity to the individual niche brands.

Branded House
A brand like FedEx has one master brand even though it offers a range of services – Ground, Custom Critical, Office, & SupplyChain. The Branded house funnels all equity back to the master brand.

Both of these strategies can be effective, but their effectiveness largely depends on where the business is in its life cycle, how far the brand reaches, and how proven each niche service is within the marketplace.

Emergent Brand
New brands typically have the hardest time focusing. What will customers resonate with? What service will make us the most money? Can we survive limiting our offerings? Since the brand is still finding its legs, its smart to keep the brand as one singular entity – a branded house. This allows equity to build into the brand even as the focus may shift and mature throughout its formative years.

Maturing Brand
A maturing brand begins to refine itself – asking the tough questions: ‘what business should we be saying no to' / ‘where should we invest into our own identity' / ‘what type of customer is our ideal'. A business at this stage may have many lines of revenue streams, but none may quite be ready for its own niche brand.

Diversifying Business
As the business continues to grow, multiple services may begin to branch out from the core. As these ancillary businesses begin to grow, the real question of moving from a Branded House into a House of Brands will rise to the surface. Are we Toyota trying to create Lexus, or are we Mercedes creating the C-class?

National Reach
If a brand grows to the point of national reach, this is where I believe the Branded House can really payoff. Having invested most, if not all, of the accumulated years of goodwill, equity, and reputation into one brand identity can provide a brand with more opportunity to gain momentum as a national brand-name. However, this is not always the case. There are certainly times where branching off a brand from the parent can allow a sub-brand to take a risk without marring the reputation of the parent.

What do you think? What's the smarter strategy?

Image from Logo Design Love.

#4 – WE KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CAREER AND A LIFE.

Our friend and advisory board member Alina Wheeler says it best – "Be a citizen of the world".

If we are going to find true inspiration and do unexpected and memorable work – we need to be out in the world doing more than just our work. We need to be experiencing life.

More than that, our worth as individuals is not based on climbing a corporate ladder or the next accolade we receive.

If we're spending all our time working on our career, our career will overshadow our ability to do good work.

We need rest, breaths, and experiences. Our work will benefit, and so will we as humans.

Past Beliefs:

• #1 – We hold each other's feet to the fire

• #2 – We follow through on our word

• #3 – We rise and fall as a team

Whether you like college football or not, it is a cultural pastime for many. Each conference holds its own distinctives – some more loudly than others.

At its core, the charm of the SEC was that it really was one of the last conferences in which all 12 schools were geographically and culturally similar…[But] Missouri's "strong athletic tradition" consists of winning its last conference championship in football in 1969…The same scene we saw [last] Saturday night in Tuscaloosa takes place in similar variations every week in Auburn, Baton Rouge, Oxford and Athens. Visiting fans make road trips in droves, because they can. Missouri, on the other hand, is an average 600-plus miles from the rest of the conference. Walk around an SEC tailgate lot or tune in to the Paul Finebaum Show and you'll quickly learn just how poorly this move is playing with the constituents…As for "a culture similar to our current institutions?" Saturdays in Columbia, Mo., in no way resemble the scene Saturday night in Tuscaloosa.

Its a cultural clash, and seemingly more a chase for short-term profits as the SEC looks to start its own network.

The question is – will this short-term vision undermine the passionate heart and focused brand of a conference with deep roots and storied traditions?

I for one, think so.

Quote cited from Stewart Mandel's November 6 Sports Illustrated article.

When GAP announced their rebrand in '09, they noted the visual change was a move from "classic, American design to modern, sexy, cool".

Tropicana's redesign was said to be a "historic integrated-marketing and advertising campaign…designed to reinforce the brand and product attributes, rejuvenate the category and help consumers rediscover the health benefits they get from drinking America's iconic orange-juice brand [insert other business-sounding words here]."

And when British Airways decided to change their look as a part of their 60 million pound corporate re-branding,

"they decided to ditch the familiar Union Flag tail fins, in exchange for a number of multicultural designs that represented their passengers and their destinations in order to become ‘the undisputed leader in world travel'."

They called these the ‘world colours‘. Margaret Thatcher later referred to the new designs as "awful things".

For all three brands, consumers back-lashed in record timing and the brands went back to their original visual branding. None survived.

These are hard lessons, lessons few can afford to make. So what is at the heart of these missteps, and how do we avoid these during the change process?

First, a few points on where each may have gone wrong:

• Reason for change: In all three instances, no clear reason for change was mentioned when consumers cried foul. With little explanation, I believe the negativity grew like wildfire. Which leads me to a larger point – was the change simply done to create something ‘new' for the brand (for newness-sake)?
• Strategy behind the change: whether its GAP's ‘sexy, cool' comment, Tropicana's long and vague comments, or British Airway's broadening of their brand's focus, each had its roots in either shallow or misdirected strategy. None discussed amplifying the parts of their brand that were already strong.
• Reveal of the change: In each instance, the change came out suddenly and without much build. Anticipation, expectation of change, and outlining the need for change – all before the change takes place – can be powerful allies toward a successful rebrand.

If you're considering a rebrand, how do you navigate around these land mines? A few questions to ask along the way…

• Are you seeking to change, simply because you're bored of your current brand?
• Do you have a brand strategy that is deeply rooted in accurate consumer perceptions?
• Do you understand what aspects of your current brand may have equity, equity worth holding onto?
• What will happen if you don't rebrand?
• Can you explain the reason for change in simple words that anyone can understand?

At the end of the rebrand process, the newness will only last a day. But the impact – for good or for bad – will last for years to come.

Articles cited above: Ad Age | Mirror | PRL

Have you noticed that design is starting to loose that ‘you guys just do artsy stuff‘ label? Its happening everywhere – most notably in the C-suite. Design suddenly matters as more than a nice frill. Its a business discipline.

Fast Company wrote an article this month aptly titled, The United States of Design. In it,  Linda Tischler wrote:

From GM to 3M, in boardrooms and on Wall Street, in Silicon Valley and on Madison Avenue, design matters more than ever. Around the globe, American designers have never been more influential.

Of course its worth noting that Steve Jobs and Apple can be credited with much of this. Before the billions in revenue and a rock-star brand, few considered it likely that Apple could turn the tide against the Microsoft/PC monopoly. And yet today, we widely accept that holes in that monopoly are showing up everywhere – evidenced as many a CEO across corporate America opts to allow their employees to choose Apple machines over PCs. And design was at the center of that groundswell.

Even more compelling is the height to which this design success has grown, burgeoning into a full movement – and a competitive one at that. Businesses opting to embrace design in their products and services are winning, and their bottom lines are thanking them.

American design is becoming a national competitive advantage in a very global & competitive market. Again from Fast Company:

Design can be a critical competitive advantage–if American business seizes this moment…This is all critically important, and worth studying, because in the global marketplace, finding an edge is becoming harder. "We will not be able to remain relevant by competing on such factors as labor or raw materials," says Northwestern University's Andrew Razeghi. As Fahrenheit 212′s Mark Payne notes, in a world where all products start to look alike, design's role and importance expands. "Design is differentiation made visible, visceral, and experiential," he says. "Creativity and innovation are emerging as disciplines because we have no other choice." Design, in other words, can be a critical, and uniquely American, competitive advantage–if the nation seizes this moment.

There is much that we can do to facilitate this American opportunity: bring an even greater professionalism to the industry, connect radically beautiful design with consumer insights and business objectives, and push success beyond the confines of portfolios and design awards and into the stratosphere of customer delight and revenues.

Design is breaking through previous business assumptions. So where does it go from here?

Credits given to Marty Neumeier and his book, The Designful Company – a great book worth the purchase.