Mandate from the Top

As humans we have a tendency to want the easy way out. A quick fix. If this weren’t true, the world wouldn’t have weight loss pills, get rich quick schemes, or an illegal drug problem.

Companies are no different. When revenues are down, they wanna figure out how to fix it quickly and easily.  Often a company will call for a rebranding to turn things around.  The problem with that is that the external brand is only a reflection of what exists internally, and more often than not that’s where many of the problems lie.

So if you’re company is struggling and needs a new way of presenting value to customers, just know that first you need to look internally and figure out how to change what you do to add more value.  Then go through the process of rebranding and reintroducing new and improved brand to the world.

Before you reintroduce yourself, make sure that:

1. Leadership is united in the new direction.

2. Your not just talking about new value, but you’ve made the appropriate changes internally to add that value to the customer.

3. All employees believe in the new value you’re adding and take ownership of making it happen.

At the end of the day, a good logo alone can’t fix a bad company.

Network Solutions, a long-time player (and a solid one at that) in the website hosting business, was recently rebranded.

Although I’d love to comment on some of my thoughts/confusion on their new logo, let’s keep away from the subjective and look solely at the objective strategy & positioning of their recent rebrand.

For starters, I can say one positive is their overall look and feel. While being a bit on the generic web 2.0 side, it does add a more sophisticated look to a web hosting company – something that stands out relative to their competitors.

Their redesigned site is also easier to navigate – another positive move.

But the biggest strategic shift may be the way they have both bundled and named their services. They’ve moved away from terms like “Domain Name“, “Ecommerce“, and even “Email” – and instead created a branding platform that adds their “ns” in front of each and every one of their service offerings.

• Rather than using an industry term like, “Domain“, they’ve opted for “nsWebAddress™”.
• Instead of “Email“, they’re calling it “nsMail™” (and if you want to upgrade to business class, its “nsMail™ Pro“).
• Instead of “Ecommerce“, its now “nsCommerceSpace™”.

Their formula: take an existing term that’s been used for years, modify it slightly, add an “ns” in front…and presto – you’ve got yourself a uniquely branded service!

Well, not really.

I’m not sure these names do anything at all, other than confuse and create more terminology to an already over-saturated web vernacular.

So let’s hear it…hit me back with your thoughts on their approach…

We often help organizations walk through the process of rebranding.  The need for rebranding can come for several different reasons, one of which I wrote about a little while ago.  Sometimes though, people feel they need to take their company the rebranding process when there is absolutely no need to.  In fact, it very well could be detrimental to the organization.  So recently I started making a list of times when companies don’t need to rebrand.  So with that, I’ll kick off the first of several reasons not to Rebrand your company…

1. Don’t Rebrand when you just feel like a change.

Entrepreneurs are innovative people by nature.  Their ability to not accept the status quo is what drove them to start out of the box companies and build amazing businesses.  But sometimes once things are more established, that need to innovate and change can possibly be applied in the wrong places.  Change is a powerful thing, but never just for the sake of change.  I’ve personally had conversations with entrepreneurs who just get antsy and want something different.  The problem here is that your customers are becoming very comfortable with your company, they recognize the brand identity, and it makes them feel safe and comfortable.

You shouldn’t have Rebranded example #1: Tropicana

A great example of this is the whole Tropicana debacle earlier this year.  The “straw in the orange” has always been a staple of the Tropicana brand, and it’s what everyone looks for when wanting great orange juice.  But for some crazy reason, someone decided after 24 years, they should get a new look to their packaging.  Now, in this NY Times article, it is being related to the disaster that was New Coke.  But Tropicana fans have gotten their way and Tropicana has gone back to the loved straw in the orange design. (thanks to Aaron Lake for sending me this example)

You shouldn’t have Rebranded example #2: IKEA

Another example I just this morning read on another blog I often read, idsgn.com.  Here is the entry I read that shows how IKEA, unexplainably (to me as a loyal customer) after 50 years changed their main font from Futura to Verdana.  As silly as it sounds to say, I find comfort in those little price cards with that very recognizable Futura, or to me IKEA, font.  Now, those catalog spreads look more like Office Depot than IKEA.  I hate the change.  It makes me uncomfortable.  I’m sure someone had the thought, “Hey, after 50 years we should change this.”  That sentence makes perfect sense, except for the fact that this customer doesn’t want change, he wants IKEA.

What do you think?  Can you think of any other examples?

I recently read this interview with Rick Klotz, owner/designer of the apparel brand Freshjive.  It’s a really interesting read in which Rick explains his growing distaste with the concept of branding and how he’s decided to not use any logos on any of his new products.  He’s not sure what the outcome will mean, but he’s following his heart with this move.

I would like to make an argument that he still has a brand, he’s just changed his brand strategy and let the visual identity flow out of that strategy.  It’s not possible to not have a brand, but you may base your brand on having little “logo” value, which is fine.

What I love most about what he’s done is that he has built his brand to be authentic to who he is on the inside.  Anytime brands try to be something that they aren’t, they lose the power of great communication.

What do you think?  Is it possible to have no brand at all?  Or is this just a “no-brand” brand strategy?

Thanks to my good friend and old co-worker, Mike Scully, for making me aware of this.

Who has the better strategy here?

• Is Pepsi better at “staying with the times” while coke is stubborn?

• Did Coke just happen to get it right the first time while it’s taken Pepsi over 100 years to get the right logo?

• Or are both just different, yet equally strong strategies that fit two different organizations?

What do you think?

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.

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?

Anyone else think this rebrand was pointless?

Designing a logo is a story. It’s a tale of drama, adventure, comedy, and sometimes head scratching confusion. Often you finish the journey smoothly, but sometimes you make several stops along the way.

A few years ago we developed the identity for the Tabernacle, arguably one of Atlanta’s most popular music venues. It’s an old renovated church right in the heart of downtown, across from Olympic park. The outside seems ordinary, but the inside is far from it. Walls of clouds, color, angels, and folk art cover every surface. The Tabernacle is famous in Atlanta and we were proud to help them standout even more.

This is the story of the Tabernacle Logo.

The Tabernacle Tale from matchstic on Vimeo.

Did we end up with your favorite?