What if one day, all macaroni and cheese was packaged in a plain white box with the name of the brand in black letters at the bottom? And it was the same with all other packages in the grocery store?

Store shelves would be pretty boring, and there would be nothing to differentiate one brand from another.
Read the Rest of the Entry.

When I was born, I was brought home in a 1980 BMW 528i sedan. I grew up loving that car. In fact, it stayed among the family, was sold to my uncle, then on to my great uncle. The family owned it so long it had to be named. That’s what you do in the south when a vehicle hits a certain age…you name it. Buckey!

Since that first 5 series, I have seen no fewer then 10 BMW cars come and go in my parents’…well…father’s garage. I watched this iconic brand evolve, developing sleeker lines, tighter suspension, and meaner exhaust. In fact, the exhaust on a finely tuned 500 horsepower V10 is truly a work of art.
Read the Rest of the Entry.

2010 brought us much to scoff at and some to gawk at as brands continued to evolve. The theme continues to be that of simplification of brand identifiers as we move deeper into the second decade of the new millennium. I can’t help but ask, is this simplifying of marks good for the brands? Is it good for us? Are brands losing some or all of their personality as they become more streamlined or organic, or reduced to just graphic blobs? Will brand identities eventually become merely an expression of ambivalence to even their most hardcore constituents?
Read the Rest of the Entry.

04.01.09
BOLTGROUP FLASH!
By Jamey Boiter

National brands where anything will do—or—that will do anything are everywhere in this down economy. What is happening to the backbone of our national brands right now? And how can we reverse this trend?

I wrote an article before the election on how I felt, from a brand strategist perspective, that Senator Obama would win the election in part because a strong, cohesive, and consistent brand had been built around the true constructs of what the candidate inherently believed. In contrast, Senator McCain’s brand was a reflection of the unorganized, disjointed, and inconsistent campaign that had evolved around his candidacy, and was not reflective of the true character of the candidate. The same is now apparent with consumer brands across nearly every segment and channel. Extrinsic forces are applying pressure to some brands to ignore their foundations and the compelling truths on which they were birthed, and to make drastic changes not reflective of their true character.

For instance retailers, specifically big, powerful retailers, seem to possess incredible control over brands they do not own. They are forcing short-term and often inappropriate changes in the visual manifestations of a brand’s identity in order to differentiate it—not from competing brands inside the same space, but from itself in a competitor’s store across the street. Particular brands, like Hunter Fan for instance, will look differently in every store it’s sold. Whose idea was that? The retailers wanting product differentiation between what they sold and what their competitor sold. The end result? Consumer confusion and brand dilution.

Brand dilution is becoming more prevalent because manufacturers are more concerned with short-term sales rather than long-term equity. Brand managers seem to be taking less ownership (and stewardship) of the brand’s foundational pillars and history with their core constituents. Is it because they don’t understand, or that they don’t plan to be there very long, so any lasting effects of brand degradation will be the next guy’s problem? From the retail perspective, buyers often don’t plan to be in that position forever either. If they get their numbers up right now, they are off to the next summit. And one of the sad realities is, too frequently aesthetics aren’t even considered in driving out these changes.

The other prevalent issue right now is modifying brands just because you can. There is way too much ego in this business (mine included), both on the creative and client sides. A brand manager or EVP of marketing wants his / her fingerprints on a 100-year-old brand before he or she moves on. Boom, there goes all the equity. Or a creative director feels ubiquity and consumer preference are not good reasons to leave well enough alone. This type of selfish dictatorship on a brand can be disastrous with irreparable damage to its character and essence.

Consider the recent Tropicana rebranding debacle that lead PepsiCo sales of the product to plummet 20% in the first month after launching the new, “clean, squeezable” package. Typically, with any rebranding or updating of packaging, there is some short-term lift for the product. None here. Thirty-five million dollars was spent on a notion that their brand needed updating. And then, instead of really going to the market to understand what may have precipitated the need for any sort of change, they just brought back the original package. Only time will tell if the equity lost can be reclaimed by this legacy brand that previously defined “straight from the orange” with its ubiquitous straw-in-the-orange illustration.

When a brand is not working the way you want it to, it does not mean the problem is always with the visual identity or aesthetics of the brand. We must do our homework, immerse ourselves into the brand to understand the compelling truths, and understand the position it holds and why. We must investigate to understand what we do not understand. Then we use our skills of analysis, assimilation, empathy, intuition, and design to realize the latent opportunities deep inside the brand and innovate.

And sometimes that means doing nothing to change the brand.

When BOLTgroup goes to work for a client, we go to work for the brand, to hold true its pillars, whether they exist or whether we are being hired to create them. As a keeper of your brand, don’t let the daily breezes blow away the equity of your greatest asset. Make sure there is evidence that supports or warrants a requested change. By building from the ground up with sound justification of the position, personality, and value proposition, and having the empathy to know your audience, you can create a brand proposition that will be desirable and believable. And just as important, it will be defendable against anyone who wants to change it into an “anything will do” or a “will do anything” kind of brand.