BrandDigital | BrandSimple: The Blog

Michael Dell had a brilliantly simple brand idea right from the start. Tailor-made computing solutions. The idea was made more brilliant given how beautifully it was wired into the business strategy. No middle man. Lower prices. The positive perfect storm for any brand organization. Profits were gangbuster from day one. Build it and they will come. Which they did, and do, by the millions.

The man and his machines continue to make the cover of business magazines. But now, not always for the best reasons. Yes, the Dell brand is still in the very successful business of made-to-order. Made emphatically clear by its new branding campaign, “Purely You.” I think the adverse news stories have something to do with what’s missing from the “purely me” equation. In short, to be more effective, it has to apply to more than just the guts of the hardware. For a brand idea to be successful, it has to work from the inside out. Apply to everything associated with the brand experience. Advertising, product design and functionality, customer service, tech support.

Don’t get me wrong. “Purely You” is a dynamite simple idea. It’s just not being employed broadly enough to have much impact. Given my opinion, what would I suggest? It would help if the outside design of the Dell products were as nifty as the inside engineering. It’s a competitive category. Looks matter. Also, how about making me feel like it is purely about me when I interact with the Dell folks online or on the phone? I’ve heard complaints from even the staunchest Dell advocates on this issue. Then, without compromising the business strategy, would it be possible to make the Dell kiosk experience more personal? The brand idea is “Purely you,” not surely you.

I like Dell a lot. It’s a great brand. I just think that in coming up with its new brand idea it should have looked beyond the inside of its products. Too myopic. Ask Apple. Ask. HP. Ask IBM. The most powerful brand ideas succeed because they’re brought to life from the inside out.

Disney’s recent decision to take on the childhood obesity issue was a healthy move. Not just for a nation of chubby kids. But for the brand.Adding high quality food fare to its high quality entertainment fare seems the most natural of branding ingredients. We all know kids love sugar and spice and everything not so nice. We know they love the cartoon characters that cleverly market these foods. We also know kids love Disney. Kids do not always listen to mom and dad when it comes to eating their veggies, but they might listen to Buzz Lightyear.

As parents face the challenge of getting their kids to eat right, Disney is coming to the table at just the right time.

Its new nutritional guidelines for both its licensed food products and the food it sells in its theme parks are sure to put pressure on other marketers of kids’ food products to do the same. (Sesame Street and Warner are already in the game.)

In the past, if a cartoon character promoted a food you could bet it was full of sugar and low in nutritional value. Disney’s raising the bar can only add to its reputation as a responsible family brand. The Incredibles Oatmeal. Mickey-shaped organic ravioli. Fresh kid-sized produce from the Disney Garden. Healthy food. Healthy branding. Healthy kids. Great recipe.

Interesting and true what Laura Ries had to say about CEOs as pitch people. Sometimes a great notion, other times absolutely not. When advertising is one of your brand’s branding tactics it’s important to fully recognize why, when, and if to put your CEO in front of the camera. The fact that a CEO is likeable, well respected, and may even have camera presence are important things to consider. Then, of course, the CEO must be seen as genuine. The real deal. When looking at the issue from a branding perspective (the view from my window) another critical thing to consider is whether your CEO’s appearance on air will truly reinforce the equity of the brand. In other words, is it a worthwhile business strategy? One determining factor is whether the person at the top resonates “brand-ness.” Are the person and the brand personality inextricable? If this is the case, using the CEO for branding purposes makes lots of sense. Frank Perdue, for example, looked and sounded just like the finicky chicken-picker he was. We believed him when he told us his chickens were plumper and juicier and tastier. Martha Stewart is the essence of homemade perfection. She lives her brand promise, in her house and, if we pay attention, in ours. Oprah as brand is undeniable. She embodies the simple idea of personal empowerment and applies it to everything she does. James Dyson is vacuuming up mote loads of dollars because he, too, is so intrinsically united with his company’s brand identity. As for Richard Branson, his personality is as cheeky and clever as the businesses he runs. Of course, every good CEO must be the ultimate brand advocate. The person who supports the brand better and more fiercely than anyone else. The person who ensures that the brand’s promise is driven home both inside and outside the company. This doesn’t mean the CEO should literally operate on the outside. Most CEOs can talk the brand talk naturally, but they can’t walk the walk without tripping up. This means they’re best left behind the scenes to do what they do best ? run the company. Unless you are at a critical crossroads, unless there is really good business reason to do so, I’d carefully consider whether to use your CEO as branding tool. Unless your CEO and your brand have matching personas, I’d vote to keep the great and powerful Oz behind the curtain.

You raise your eyebrows. You shrug your shoulders. You wink. You drum your fingers on the table. All human reactions. All very subtle reactions clearly visible via Cisco Systems teleconferencing products. But in promoting this enhanced capability, Cisco doesn’t tout the technology, the features, the bells, or the whistles. It touts the fact that you’ll be able to see the nod of the person sitting at the head of a table 2,000 miles away. The person who agrees with your idea. Seeking affirmation that you’ve got a great idea is human. Cisco knows this. And it knows what it’s doing with the introduction of its new brand campaign, “The Human Network.” Building a brand on the end benefit is nothing new. It’s been done a hundred times before. What makes Cisco’s use of an end benefit in its rebranding efforts so powerful is how delightfully simple a brand idea ‘human network” is. Cisco has long been a leader in its category, but in going for a brand identity beyond its wares, it’s given its well-respected brand name a strong emotional base on which to build for the long term. Cisco’s “human network” branding communications don’t mention shared port adapters, interface processors, or integrated service routers. They beautifully integrate stories of what was made possible for people as a result of this technology. Eight-year-old leukemia patients whose fears are calmed through interaction with specific Web sites. Budding entrepreneurs who can easily link to online mentors. Fifteen-minutes-of-famers who want help filming and downloading their YouTube masterpieces. Big business MIS managers who don’t have to worry about getting all the right puppies in the box for the annual board meeting. “On the human network, anything is possible,” states Cisco’s newly designed Web site. Its products and services may be smartly engineered to enable a human network, but its new brand identity is just as smart. Cisco identified something new, yet as old as time for its refreshed brand identity. It’s not about the stuff you make, but the people who use it. What they use it for. And why they’re better for it. To brand well is not necessarily human, but in Cisco’s case, it is.

Go to www.join(red).com, click on Manifesto, and you’ll read that “(RED) is not a charity, it’s simply a business model.” I agree. It’s a terrific business model. (RED) is also a terrific example of what makes for a powerful brand. Why? First and foremost, the most powerful brands on the planet are based on ideas that are simple to understand. (RED) products save lives. What could be simpler than that?

Buy (RED) branded products and you’ll help eradicate AIDS in Africa. More than this, when you pull out your (RED) American Express Card, your (RED) iPod Nano, your (RED) Motorola cell phone, when you don (RED) Converse sneakers or an item of (RED) Gap or Armani Exhange clothing, you’ll be recognized as someone who supports this incredible initiative. People want to get credit for supporting good causes. (RED) allows them to do so in a practical and very meaningful way. Second, when a brand is based on a simple idea, it leads to brilliant branding ? the things that convey what a brand stands for. (RED) branding is brilliant. Start with the name. It’s a color. What could be simpler than that? The brilliance was in imbuing this color with emotion. Giving the word red, itself, a topspin. Colors have been associated with brands for eons, but not in the way it’s been achieved with (RED). Along those lines, wrapping (RED) in the warm “embrace” of the parentheses makes the name iconic, gives it personality beyond the name. Then, there’s the actual color, which serves to emotionally connect the idea to everything associated with the (RED) brand, from advertising to products.

The speed at which (RED) has taken off is proof of its inherent power as a brand and the brilliance of its branding. (RED) has created an instant community, one of the most difficult things to achieve in brand building. The fact that companies are “embracing” a brand not their own is also huge. The Gap has done a particularly good job aligning with (RED), most notably with the folks who model the (PRODUCT) Red Gap clothing in its beautifully produced advertising spreads. While most of the people and companies teaming with (RED) are inherently cool, or hot, this only adds to the desire to take part. Driving the AIDS message into the mainstream mindset through commerce is as brilliant as the branding. While pink and yellow have done a good job in branding causes, Bono and Bobby Shriver in creating (RED) have taken color as a branding tool to an even higher level. They’ve turned (RED) into a money making business model that benefits both the companies that sign on and, more importantly, those suffering the ravages of AIDS. They’ve done it by adhering brilliantly to the most basic laws of building a powerful brand. More power to them. Let’s save more lives.

When one company acquires another, the conventional business strategy is to hold off making any changes until you gain an understanding of the new company, its operations, its culture, everything. The conventional wisdom accompanying this sound business strategy is that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. In most cases I would support both of these conventional pieces of advice. In the case of Google’s acquisition of YouTube, however, I’d recommend something completely unconventional. Jump right to your brand strategy. Replace the name YouTube with GoogleTube, do it fast, and drop Google Video altogether. Google currently has a huge advantage over its competitors based on both its scale and its status as a verb. It’s become almost utility-like in its ubiquity and functionality. Google’s dominance as a computer experience is huge and it’s becoming increasingly apparent that whoever has the most bandwidth wins. It’s also apparent that life in the Internet world moves at warp speed. I respect Google’s desire to respect the happy guys at YouTube but, from a branding point of view, it should quickly and seamlessly integrate YouTube into the Google user experience thereby expanding its bandwidth exponentially. Anyone looking to play catch-up would have to be able to run pretty darn fast (if they had the money to get into the race for eyeballs in the first place). While conventional wisdom has its time and place, the time isn’t now and the place isn’t on the Internet. Call it unconventional if you will, but call it GoogleTube. Google’s business strategy and its brand strategy have always been ahead of the curve. My advice is to concentrate on the brand. I have no doubt the business will follow.

I love Bold Moves; the Ford Motor Company’s new branding initiative. Not because it’s a classic BrandSimple idea — the kind of smart branding story I use to illustrate the points in my book. I love it because it’s a great idea in general. BrandSimple explains why simple, relevant ideas build successful brands. In short, when a brand is based on something simple to understand, the people inside a brand organization “get it,” which means they can do all the things necessary to bring the brand to life. This, in turn, means consumers can “get” what the brand stands for and, equally important, have good reason to believe in it. I get Bold Moves. Consumers can get BoldMoves. It’s an idea that’s simple to understand and the company’s using it to drive all the right moves, inside and out.

Not that Ford asked, but I have a bold (if not downright brazen) branding idea. It came to me while I was stuck in one of the few Ford Hybrid Escape cabs in midtown Manhattan traffic the other day.

What would happen if somehow Ford could replace all New York City taxicabs (For those of you who don’t visit NYC that often, my guess is that 95 percent of the cabs on the street are made by Ford) with Ford Hybrid Escapes? I know it’s a wild proposition, but thinking about it is sort of fun. It would be the ultimate bold move. Ford could announce how much fuel it was saving hard-working cabbies every month. Between tourists and movers and shakers, NY cab riders are probably a nice target. Ford could measure the improved air quality in New York on a regular basis as a means of maintaining noise on the airwaves. The initiative would create tons of good will with anyone who cares about the environment (all of us, I hope). It would set an example for all car manufacturers that bold moves are required to change perceptions about the industry. And, it might even prompt other taxi-dependent cities to take similar action. Yes, I know it would be expensive and maybe logistically impossible to really do. And, yes I know I should spend more time walking to work instead of daydreaming in taxis. But, just imagine the buzz it would create. That, to borrow boldly from another well-known BrandSimple brand, would be priceless. Just a wild idea.

Retailing is a tough business. Start to fool around with things that have drawn people to a particular store for generations and it becomes even tougher. Fool with the very name of the store and it has the potential to become downright unpleasant. When Federated Department Stores merged with May Department Store Co. last year, it acquired a number of venerable brand names, Marshall Field’s among them. For those of you unfamiliar with the venerable city of Chicago, Marshall Field’s is more than a place to shop. It’s one of the cherished symbols of the Windy City. It’s a department store associated with all sorts of traditions, from the landmark-status architecture of its flagship store, to its clocks, to its luscious Frango mints. When Federated announced that it was going to rename its newly acquired Marshall Field’s stores as Macy’s, it signaled some very unwelcome winds of change. People were up in arms, staging demonstrations, signing petitions. How do you successfully change the name of an institution, in essence rebrand it, without losing equity, not to mention new generations of patrons? You take a good look at what made the store an institution in the first place. You identify the things that drove the emotional connection people had with the store, and do your best to keep these traditions intact. In the case of Marshall Field’s, now Macy’s, it means keeping up the tradition of the elaborately decorated Christmas windows. It means selling made-in-Chicago mint-flavored, Frango cheesecakes. It means keeping the store’s designer boutique, 28 Shop, right where it’s always been. Perhaps most important, it means communicating to the loyal employees that they are a vital reason the store has been so many loyal customers.

There’s no question that the Federated decision to change the names of over 400 of its newly acquired stores to Macy’s was a very smart and extremely rational business decision. Being able to focus resources on Macy’s as a national brand rather than fragmenting resources across multiple brand names affords it great economies of scale in advertising, operations, and manufacturing. Its ability to attract thousands of people to Macy’s who have experienced it only through the Thanksgiving Day parade is a tremendous opportunity. Its ability to keep those loyal to their local shopping destination is a bit more difficult. By recognizing that people care more about store traditions and values, rather than the name on the awnings, was an incredible insight. Keeping the emotional connection will, hopefully, keep these partisan shoppers coming in. While the Marshall Field’s name will appear on, yes, one of its traditional bronze plaques by the front door, the bigger signage will clearly state Macy’s. Federated understood that the “way to shop” a name change was from the inside out.

Stop & Shop might be cooked. King Kullen could be dethroned. Publix may take a licking. That is if they and every other traditional supermarket chain don’t look into some major re-invention strategies. Consumers are demanding more from their grocery shopping experience than stale Muzak and employees who offer up freeze-dried smiles. To put it more bluntly, traditional grocery stores are fast becoming commodities, which in the world of brands means, “Sorry Charlie.” To win in any category, even a category as basic as the weekly groceries, you’ve got to stand for something compellingly different, and you’ve got to make good on your promise. When it comes to filling shopping carts these days, you can’t brand down the middle. You’ve got to come up with something consumers haven’t seen before and make sure it’s something they want. What do they want? Whole Foods recognizes it’s wholesome and organic. Fresh Direct, convenience. Wal-mart and Costco have proven the value of value. And Stew Leonard’s, for those of you lucky enough to have experienced this chain, looks at shopping as entertainment (if you call dancing cows entertainment). Consumers aren’t necessarily fickle, but they are inundated with brands. (Brand Attention Deficit Disorder wouldn’t be too extreme a description.) While your business strategy might be selling groceries, you’ve got to get people in the door with a unique brand strategy to get carts (full carts) rolling in the aisles.

It was a classic example of how the simplest brand ideas lend themselves to the most brilliant executions. In this case, the simple idea was a secret. More specifically, it was Fisher-Price’s brilliant branding decision to generate gotta-have fever around its T.M.X. Elmo launch by getting fifty carefully selected people to keep a secret. The simple idea was to create the kind of mystery usually associated with product launches in the highly competitive high-tech industry. And mystery was an understatement. The spectacular execution of the idea had folks at Fisher-Price, a unit of Mattel, laughing – all the way to the bank. It was a coup of immense proportion considering first, the huge and fickle market of character-based toys and, second, the fact that Elmo was not even a new character. His enormous success ten years ago was no guarantee customers would storm the stores once again.

Why was the simplicity of the idea key to the coup? Simple. It’s easier for people to understand something simple. Give them an idea they can immediately “get” and they’ll immediately be able to come up with a hundred wonderful ways to bring it to life. In Elmo’s case it was “Let’s get the people we share the secret with to sign a confidentiality agreement that playfully threatens drastic repercussions for exposure.” “Let’s hold off shooting the launch commercials until the day of the launch.” Let’s keep the furry little guy locked in a silver case.” (Is Elmo an animal? Should I call the ASPCA?) Perhaps most incredible, “Let’s get toy retailers to make space for the new Elmo, sight unseen, an entire month before his secret identity is revealed.” The idea and the way it was carried out was infectious. People got it – and they wanted to play. Everyone in on the secret kept it. Retailers made room on the shelves. Even the snarkiest of bloggers had no clue what to write about. Instead of trying to generate interest by way of borrowed interest, promotions, or hyperbole-filled sales material, Fisher-Price generated not merely interest, but genuine excitement. The secret was tickle me simple and the execution was a hoot.