Scandals: can they be good for a brand?
That iconic "swoosh" is easily recognized by millions of people around the world as the logo for Nike. Its influence reaches far and its endorsements are many, so it's understandable that devout sports fans (and anyone that watches the news) remembers when Michael Vick lost his Nike endorsement after pleading guilty to dog fighting charges in 2007.
Just one month ago, Nike decided to renew its contract with Vick. The quarterback has had a moderately successful comeback since signing with the Philadelphia Eagles in 2009.
"Michael acknowledges his past mistakes," Nike spokesman Derek Kent told CNBC. "We do not condone those actions, but we support the positive changes he has made to better himself off the field."
Many are upset that Nike may appear to support criminal activity with Vick's contract renewal. This has prompted me to wonder: does disassociating one's brand from a scandal (like Nike did initially) help or hurt a brand?
I believe a brand that disassociates itself from a scandal will flourish or flounder based on how it has already branded itself in the past. If a company has established itself as a smart, successful enterprise, then the public will most likely reference that image and see the disassociation as a tactical move. However, if the company has defined itself as a continuously error-prone brand that dabbles in illicit activities, then the public will see the company as irresponsible for cutting its ties.
Take Disney World, for example. Several people have died on the park's attractions, but is that what you think of when you ride "It's a Small World?" Probably not. Disney is highly adept at branding itself as a provider of wholesome happiness, so it can quickly disregard an issue and move on without a hitch. The public knows that what the Disney brand can offer them outweighs any scandalous slights.
I think Nike ultimately made a wise decision to terminate Vick's contract in 2007. There was a lot of bad blood associated with the controversy, and Nike probably would have received some flak for it. But, if Nike had ridden it out, I think it would not have suffered a devastating blow either. Nike's brand — a profitable, dominant, and powerful sportswear provider — can afford to take a hit. And although many don’t agree with Nike's decision to reinstate Vick, I think we can safely assume that the brand won't be hurting for business anytime soon.
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Avoid the Noid, Round Two
Mascots are generally likeable characters. Familiar faces like Tony the Tiger and Ronald McDonald often hold a nostalgically happy place in the memories of most Americans.
But let's be honest – who ever really liked the Noid?
Domino's Pizza's short-lived, floppy-eared mascot is making a present-day comeback after a retirement that's lasted for 23 years. The popular pizza chain is using the Noid to promote an online game on Facebook, stylized to resemble an arcade game from the 1980s, in which users with the high score can win a free pizza every minute.
Domino's recently garnered a lot of attention for its brutally honest television commercials that aired nationally during the last year and a half, in which the company promised to reinvent itself as a pizza chain. The ads featured consumers openly complaining about the company's pizza products, followed by various Domino's chefs and supervisors who demonstrated how they had improved their pizzas with better ingredients and techniques. The campaign proved successful, as Domino's experienced a historic quarterly gain in the following year.
It's strange, then, that Domino's would revive a long-forgotten mascot at the height of its own revival. The T.V. campaign was successful in re-branding Domino's from a mediocre fast-food restaurant that makes "pizza that tastes like cardboard," into an honest, committed company that goes to great lengths to listen to the concerns of its customers.
So why hearken back to a time where there was no glory – when all Domino's had to distinguish itself as a pizza brand was a cackling little man in a red jumpsuit? After all, the Noid was intended to be an annoying creature that represented other pizza competitors; ironically, it became known as the Domino's mascot instead.
The online promotion is clearly trying to cash in on a blast-from-the-past moment with the 1980s-themed novelties. However, Domino's should think critically about how it wants to brand itself from here onwards. The company has made remarkable strides in less than two years' time in reestablishing itself as a reputable pizza brand, and it needs to continue that momentum instead of interrupting it so abruptly.
One can only hope that, when the promotion is over, the Noid will hop back its way back into the past where it belongs.
Contributed by Allison Meeks
3 Ways to Name Your Company
Naming a company is one of the most important and one of the most challenging tasks you may face. The name of your company is the first impression you make – it is what your company stands for, and what it offers. So where do you start? When naming a company there are several approaches you can take. From word combinations to new creations, the verbal branding experts at Addison Whitney compiled a list of three major categories you can use to build a company name.
Current Usage: These are words found in the dictionary
Examples: Quaker, Apple, Target
Hybrid: Two words are fused together to form a new word
Examples: PowerBar, Comcast (from communications and broadcast), Citigroup
Neologism: This is a coined or created word
Examples: Yoplait, Kodak, Kashi
The Future of Angry Birds
I told myself I wouldn’t get addicted to Angry Birds. But as soon as I demolished those squealing, snorting little pig targets, I knew I was hooked.
I'm not alone in my obsession; there are over 100 million users who play Angry Birds monthly. The game clearly has a loyal following, and has become a staple in American pop culture.
Rovio, the Finnish company who created the game, recently announced plans to take Angry Birds to the Chinese market. The company wants to increase brand awareness with a lofty goal – to become the first global entertainment brand with more than one billion fans.
Instead of creating new games and expanding the master brand's umbrella, however, Rovio wants to capitalize on Angry Birds alone. Game-themed plush toys, cookbooks, and even merchandise stores are in the works.
"We are betting everything on Angry Birds," Rovio CEO Peter Vesterbacka said unabashedly at the Casual Connect game show in Seattle.
Rovio is depending on Angry Birds' unusually expedient success to carry the company far. According to the aforementioned article, Angry Birds is the third most-pirated brand in China after Disney and Hello Kitty — a remarkable feat, given the game is less than two years old. Even more astonishing is that the game has grown faster than any other technological brand in history in terms of active users, according to Rovio's research data.
These impressive statistics, coupled with Angry Birds' addictive and quirky brand personality, make for a promising run in China. If the game is already raking in the kind of demand seen for massive, established brands like Disney and Hello Kitty, it’s effectively conveying a brand image of desirability and high regard.
But is Rovio, as a brand, being overshadowed by the Angry Birds brand itself? The company claims it wants a billion fans as an entertainment brand — but people may only become fans of Angry Birds, and not of Rovio, its creator. It will be interesting to see if Rovio's tactics will help the company’s brand gain prominence on its own as a gaming innovator, or if it will be always be eclipsed by the Angry Birds game.
Regardless, it's clear that reaching a wider audience of people is vital to Rovio's strategy.
"It’s not all about monetization now," Vesterbacka said. "It’s about keeping the fans coming back and building the brand."
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Does sex sell… at the cost of a brand?
Ever seen a naked woman riding a Vespa?
You will this summer, if you read Cosmopolitan, Lucky, or InStyle magazines. It was revealed in the New York Times this week that Zappos will launch an ad campaign in August featuring nearly naked models doing everything from hailing a cab to playing Frisbee. The campaign touts Zappos apparel alongside its shoe collection, as evidenced by models that need to be clothed.
This venture is just another example of one of the marketing world's favorite mantras: sex sells. The question is do brands end up suffering because of it?
A brand's established image often determines whether sexual advertising succeeds or flops. Brands that already deal in sex appeal can get away with raunchy advertisements because the public understands that their brand embodies that kind of lifestyle. Brands recognized as innocent and unrelated to sexuality, however, can come under fire for a departure from their namesake image.
Take Calvin Klein. The clothing giant has garnered an edgy reputation since the 1980s, and has capitalized on this by releasing several controversial advertisements. Most of them featured teenagers in highly sexualized contexts, and some even depicted violence and rape.
However, criticism hasn't seemed to diminish its presence in the fashion world. In fact, it almost compliments the image that Calvin Klein wants consumers to associate with its apparel: sexy, dangerous, and unhindered by public conventions. When all was said and done, the Calvin Klein brand survived.
Burger King, on the other hand, fared much worse when they tried a similar approach. Its raunchy advertisement from 2009 depicted a phallic-shaped sandwich aimed at the mouth of a woman, with the words "It'll blow your mind away" in huge block-letters. Burger King's brand of cheap, char-grilled hamburgers has virtually no connection to sex appeal, and so the ad got extremely poor reception.
Zappos may not have the street cred to ride the criticism wave like Calvin Klein, but should fare better than Burger King simply by nature of its product offerings. Many are under the impression that Zappos will succeed with the campaign because of its quirky, unconventional fashion brand.
Nathalie Binda, the marketing vice president for Lolë (a women's active wear brand sold on Zappos), praised the campaign in the New York Times article as being "gutsy" and "very Zapposesque." "If there was one brand out there that can do it, it's them," she said.
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Blogger, Picasa succumb to Google's rebranding
The media world has yet to stop buzzing about Google's intriguing new social network, named the Google+ project. It only seems right to follow up on our last post with recent news about some of Google's most valuable website possessions — and how Google+ plays into the equation.
Mashable.com announced this week that Google has plans to retire its Blogger and Picasa brands in order to rename them as Google products. The popular blogging and photo-sharing websites, respectively, are being rebranded under Google's initiative to integrate all of its brands for the launch of Google+.
Blogger will be renamed "Google Blogs," and Picasa will instead become "Google Photos." The changes will be implemented as soon as mid to late August, which many believe is when Google+ will be released for public use.
These initiatives are part of a slowly evolving rebranding process on Google's part that has been in effect since at least 2008, when Google renamed the newly acquired JotSpot as Google Sites. This time, however, the newly rebranded sites will be implemented as features of Google+, although the details of exactly how aren't clear yet.
Google's rebranding endeavor certainly has the potential for greater brand recognition and prestige. If you visit the current Blogger site, one of the top ten most visited sites in the world, it's not very clear that it's owned by Google (Picasa is a little more obvious, with the word "google" in its domain name). Rebranding each site under the Google umbrella not only eliminates any doubt about the site's brand, but also strengthens Google's image of versatility in the online world.
Of course, the payoff may not be worth the integration in the long run. Users may not utilize the new brands through Google+ at all, and Blogger and Picasa loyalists might be upset enough with the obvious commercialization of their favorite sites to choose different blogging or photo-sharing options. Additionally, although consistency is important for the Google brand (Google Maps, Google Images, Google News, etc.), it could erase the unique, image-conjuring identities formerly held by names like Blogger and Picasa.
Whatever the outcome, it will be interesting to see how the shelf lives of these popular sites fare when they are rebranded with the Google name. Do you think the initiative is a clever strategy or a step in the wrong direction?
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Google+: social networking suicide?
Google is a big part of many people's daily Internet routines. They check their e-mails on Gmail, find directions on Google Maps, and use its namesake search engine multiple times a day.
But there is one digital arena that Google has failed to succeed in, and that is social networking. After Google's 2010 flop with Google Buzz, it is still Facebook that dominates the scene. The social networking giant touts around 750 million active users, and is an Internet staple for many. These successes are due to Facebook's strong brand, which conveys social connectivity that is easily accessible by anyone.
Last Tuesday Google announced its new try at social networking — the Google+ Project. The network is very similar to Facebook — users can share status updates, photos, videos and links with their friends. However, one of Google+'s most unique features is their "circles," where users can place their friends in categories ("friends," "family," etc.) and decide which information they want to share with each group.
This venture shows that Google wants a social networking brand position that is distinct from Facebook. Google wants to be associated with something that more closely imitates the connections you have with peers in the real world, where there is secure and personal control over who gets to know what information.
“In real life, we have walls and windows and I can speak to you knowing who’s in the room, but in the online world… you share with the whole world,” Google product management Vice President Bradley Horowitz told the New York Times. “We have a different model.”
A problem with Google's brand strategy, however, is the network's striking similarity to Facebook, in content and in layout. Some users won't want to add a new social network to their repertoire if it has the same look and feel of what they're already using. Google, as a leading web innovator, could have brought more to the plate here.
Regardless, the launch of Google+ shows the world that Google wants to continue positioning itself as a multifaceted and technologically relevant brand. The corporation has been largely successful thus far in its developments from a simple search engine into a go-to resource for news, images, and even as the owner of Youtube. Now it's looking for a way to maintain its image of simplified versatility, and social networking is the next frontier.
Do you think Google+ will chip away at Facebook's hold on the social networking market?
Contributed by Allison Meeks
Why INN's are so Important to a Drug's Life
Every pharmaceutical asset begins with a nonproprietary, generic name, or an International Nonproprietary Name (INN). This name could potentially be the first strategic decision you make for the commercial life of your brand.
But what exactly is an INN name and why do they exist?
Since the inception of the INN naming system in 1950 it has been providing health professionals with a way to uniquely and universally identify each pharmaceutical substance. INN's are not only important in identifying a drug's pharmaceutical ingredients but in providing safe prescription and dispensing of medicines to patients, and communication between health professionals worldwide. The World Health Organization (who manages & issues INN's) issues INN's in English, Latin, French, Russian, and Spanish, and more recently Arabic and Chinese versions are also being issued.
Here Vince Budd, Senior Vice President at Addison Whitney, speaks of the importance INN's have on the success and lifecycle of a drug:
"Although INN’s aren’t actually considered intellectual property, developing an INN is without a doubt a strategic endeavor that many commercial, medical and regulatory officers take very seriously. First, the commercial team of an organization sees this as the first opportunity to put some sort of face or image to the asset. Although WHO would like manufactures to use trivial or fantasy letter strings when building generic names around INN stems, many approved INN’s are actually quite suggestive about the product. This helps some of the branding activities that soon follow. Also, many manufacturers must think about the life cycle of the asset and potential generic competition, which also impacts the type of INN name that is sought. The bottom line is INN development is serious business and the wrong or right name can certainly have an impact on the future success of a drug. "
According to WHO there are roughly 8,000 INN's listed today, and that number grows by approximately 120-150 each year. Every INN must be submitted to and approved by WHO, and must follow their general principles for developing INN's.
Source: World Health Organization
Fast-Food, Version 2.0
Places like McDonald's and Burger King are generally considered classic fast-food giants. The die-hard Big Mac or Whopper fans will always keep them in business, but a new slew of pseudo-fast-food restaurants are giving them a run for their money – even forcing them to reconsider their branding strategies.
These days, Panera Bread has free wi-fi. Noodles and Co. has healthy pasta dishes for around $5. Even Starbucks sells prepackaged deli sandwiches alongside its specialty drinks. But food isn't the only allure of these new fast-food restaurants: their interiors are decorated with fresh, modern art, their staffs are comprised of enthusiastic young adults, and their customers often treat the establishments more as relaxing hang-out spots than eateries.
These brands accomplish what places like McDonald's and Burger King fall short of —associating themselves with a growing class of individuals that will pay a little more for an atmospheric, modern meal. They are able to exude sophistication that is affordable, healthy, wholesome, and accessible — and who doesn’t want to be a part of that?
Lately, the previous kings of fast-food are taking a hint from their newer competition's branding techniques and moving away from the catch-all, fast-food brand of cheap and greasy. McDonald's, for instance, has recently been implementing new restaurant designs with relaxing color palettes and flowing fonts, along with menu items like fruit smoothies and oatmeal. Burger King is said to be revamping its entire restaurant feel, getting rid of the king mascot as well as adding a new Asian chicken salad to their menu.
But ditching the burger brand that the two chains almost single-handedly created could be hard to do, and regular customers might not embrace the changes. These restaurants take a risky gamble on a new trend that might not outlive their own established brands.
Will McDonald's or Burger King reach the new standard of fast-food prestige? Share your thoughts!
Contributed by Allison Meeks
To Infinity, and Beyond... Your Average Branding
It's been almost a year since virtually every college kid wept openly at the conclusion of Toy Story 3 (myself included – I have no shame here). However, Disney doesn't plan on letting you forget Toy Story 3 anytime soon, because the loveable gang of toys is making a comeback — on the big screen.
Disney is trying a new method of brand strategy for the Toy Story franchise. Just when people — especially children — might be forgetting about Toy Story 3 a year after its release, Disney is bringing it to the public's attention again, in the hopes that Toy Story merchandise will enjoy an increase in sales.
Cars 2 hits theaters on June 24, and careful viewers might recognize something different about Pixar's animated short that debuts before the feature film. Instead of being the usual random, hilarious cartoon that has no connection to the actual film's story, movie-goers will be treated with Toy Story: Hawaiian Vacation, a short featuring several characters from Toy Story 3.
"Showing those shorts is a super-smart strategy for Disney," former president of Nickelodeon Film & Television Entertainment and founder of Worldwide Biggies Albie Hecht said in an interview with Businessweek. "It's a way to extend the characters and the brand without its fans waiting two or three years for a new movie."
The Toy Story franchise has much to be profited from. In 2010, the merchandise franchise ranked fourth-largest of all of Disney's merchandise lines, just behind Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, and the Princess doll collection. Given the comparative novelty of Toy Story alongside the decades-old frontrunners, it's an impressive feat.
Woody and Buzz Lightyear toys will no doubt sell for a long time, but for a quick jolt of energy to the merchandise sales, the brand consultants at Disney are making the right move. They've identified a problem — how can we enhance the Toy Story brand to maintain merchandise sales? — and they've implemented a solution in a unique way that won't be seen as an off-putting, generic commercial, but as Pixar fulfilling its animation duties. Without even realizing it, audiences of Cars 2 will endorse the Toy Story brand simply by choosing to see a film produced by the same animation studio.
But what Disney and Pixar will always have going for them is their own namesake brand. The Toy Story franchise is a compelling and heartwarming adventure, but would not have had the same lasting power if produced by a different company. Few can rival the powerful duo's filmmaking abilities, and that's where the true power of their branding lies.
Contributed by Allison Meeks