Brant.ie

Right, where were we?
 

I’ve just spent the weekend in Berlin with two close friends and am heading back to the Netherlands on what seems to be continental Europe’s slowest train. Apart from returning home absolutely knackered and a few pennies lighter, after a visit to some car museums, I’ve been inspired to write a post about branding in the car industry and specifically, BMW.

Ever since the late 70′s, BMW has produced high performance versions of its standard road models. They have been referred to as M Cars as they grew out of the BMW motorsport division. The M Cars tend to have an exponentially better performance than the standard models that they are based on. For example the M5 has a 6.3L V8 engine outputting 560BHP that delivers a top speed of 190mph and a 0-100kmh of 4.4 seconds. When compared to the entry level 5 Series, the 520d, the performance is light years apart: the 520 has a 2.0-litre, 4-cylinder diesel engine with a power output that is a third of its distant cousin the M5. This is also reflected in the 0-100 performance of the 520d at 7.6 secs. If you’re a car buff, you’ll know that 3.2 seconds on that parameter is an absolute ice age. And that doesn’t even consider the handling difference (brakes, steering, etc…) between the two cars. I know what you’re thinking, I’ve chosen the weakest of the 5-series to compare it to, but I’ve done that for a reason, which I’ll get back to. Add into the mix that all M-models are tested and tuned at BMW’s private facility at the iconic Nürburgring, and you can appreciate that you’re getting a clearly better car. In fact, the skin and skeleton of the cars are all that the 520 and the M5 share in common with each other. This is naturally reflected in the price. In Ireland, the entry level 520d will set you back €50,000, whereas an entry level M5 is almost 3 times that at €135,000. All in, the M-Sport range of cars represents a super luxury extension of an already premium brand.

How BMW visually distinguishes these cars from one another is the primarily through the use of the distinctive M-Sport badge on the exterior and on the interior of the car. There are some other minor visual touches which only the eagle eyed would spot, namely air vents between the front wheel arch and doors and usually a twin set of double exhausts. However, I think it would be fair to say that the primary visual device used is the M-Sport badge. And here’s my big issue with BMW: namely their usage of this branding device. As you’ve seen from the comparison of the product attributes and their relative pricing, comparing the M5 to the 520d is like comparing Economy Class on an airline with First Class both in pricing and experience. The only thing thing in common is that they are both on an aircraft, otherwise they’re aeons apart.

So you’d think BMW would be keen to protect the equity in the M-Sport badge that it has taken decades to build? In fact, quite the opposite is true: for years they have offered M-Sport packages on all their standard models. So you could order that 520d I mentioned earlier directly from BMW, get the 520d sign taken off it and replaced with an M-Sport badge and have other M-Sport insignia placed all over the car. Giving the general impression that the car you have to all intents and purposes an M5. Yes, you will not be getting M-Sport level performance and you won’t have the vents and exhausts. But to the lay eye on the street, you will be driving an M5. So whilst you might be getting none of the functional benefits of the M Sport brand, you are certainly being given free access to a certain amount of the emotional benefits. I find this quite staggering. BMW have spent years building and investing in the M-Sport proposition, but now they are allowing people access to this at a fraction of the cost. I would nearly go so far as to say that what they are engaged in is tantamount to counterfeiting of their own product.

A lot of the times things like this in marketing are subjective and mostly great branding is completely a matter of one’s point of view. Bearing that in mind, for me what BMW are engaged in is counter to a lot of what I hold fundamental to branding. The symbiotic and critical link between a brand’s functional and emotional benefits on one side of the equation and pricing on the other side for me forms the heart of any great brand. A great example of the flip of the BMW situation is that urban legend about LVMH destroying any Louis Vuitton stock left over at the end of each season. Either the consumer pays the prices that LVMH set or they don’t get access to the Louis Vuitton experience. Destroying your own production is an extreme measure and, from what I can tell via Google, it doesn’t necessarily to be true. But it’s a nice anecdote in any case! BMW, however, are at completely the opposite end of the scale. In allowing consumers access to the what-should-be holy grail of the M-Sport badge for a third of the price, BMW haven’t expanded the product proposition, in my humble marketeer’s view they’ve undermined it.

What up, all? I was planning on having a nice couple of days of R&R after the mother of all house moves in the last few weeks, but Dutch bureaucracy intervened. We have however settled down nicely in our house, although something very Truman Show-esque is happening with our on-street parking. Every time I move the car to go somewhere, even for just 5 minutes, someone else is in my space when I return. Hmmm…they’re watching me.

Anyways, back to the blog. I guess there could really be only one thing that I could blog about this week. And that is of course the controversy kicked up by the advert created by JWT India for the Ford Figo. As you’re probably not aware, the Ford Figo is a mid-ranged compact based on the European Ford Fiesta. I had only briefly scanned the story and the adverts in question at the end of last week. Initially, I had mistakenly assumed that the adverts had actually been commissioned by Ford India to the local affiliate of JWT there. However, it was only through discussion with one of the people I follow on Twitter, Cian O’Regan, that I was corrected. The adverts were neither approved nor commissioned by Ford and were created on spec by JWTI. It seems pretty unclear whether or not Ford India are / were actually a JWT client. Ford certainly is globally, but I don’t know about local. Anyways, what we do know is that uncomissioned, unapproved creative was uploaded by JWTI creatives to the excellent Ads of the World website. Have a look for yourself below (click on the images to see larger versions).

To be fair to the creative team behind this, I can see where this probably started. Namely, the Schumacher execution and the relatvely still playful ideas that it suggests. Having said that, they mustn’t have been F1 fans as quite what Michael Schumacher’s link to the Ford brand and the Figo is, is anyone’s guess. However, whatever the problems of this execution, they’re still within the realms of social acceptability with it. But how they made the leap from this to the next 2 executions is just incomprehensible. In my 15 years in marketing, I can’t think of any advertsing that has crossed a line so much as this: the inferred thoughts behind the Berlusconi execution are just disturbing. A post on the Ads of the World website tries to explain how humour doesn’t travel across cultures, and, whilst I get that, is there any civilised society whereby kidnap, fetish and rape are seen as acceptable inclusive humour? Having said all that and whilst this blog is supposed to be about marketing rants, I more wanted to look at the fall out of this advert and how Ford has dealt with it, rather than analyse creative that doesn’t really warrant it.

I don’t think it’d be an understatement to say that the Twittersphere and the mainstream media in general exploded when this came to light. A quick Google search of ‘ford figo berlusconi’ delivers a hit count of nearly a million articles after only a week of the controversy. An article on the site where the creative originated gives a good flavour of the type of coverage that this got. Fair to say that Ford had a bit of a PR crisis on their hands, then? What was interesting about Ford’s response what that, realising the potential damage to their brand internationally, the response was not in India, but rather global. I’ve searched a lot on the Ford India site and I can’t find any statement from the local company about this as it appears that they’ve been cut out of the loop. Having said that there is absolutely nothing on the official Ford website, Twitter feed or Facebook page about this. True, they have responded to Fb user comments on their official post, but they have not lead from the front in this regard. Additionally, from what I can tell, it appears that they responded to certain users on Twitter about this, however, the manner in which they have done so as on Facebook isn’t great. I know what you’re thinking: like Ford give a toss about the need to impress me or something. But, as this is my blog, I guess I’m allowed that liberty here and if you don’t agree with me, well you can bugger off somewhere else! I will give you an example though of what I mean by their measured social media response. Firstly, their is no official line on what you would consider their live media channels: their website, Facebook or Twitter. There’s an article on PR Daily that shows the below statement as an official Ford statement but I guess that must be from a classic press release issued in the traditional manner. All of the statement seems fine, but then I guess it would only be a total moron who would try in any way to defend or even explain this behaviour. Having said that issuing classic PR releases isn’t really the most direct way to get to the consumer nowadays, is it?

We deeply regret this incident and agree with our agency partners that it should have never happened. “The posters are contrary to the standards of professionalism and decency within Ford and our agency partners. Together with our partners, we are reviewing approval and oversight processes to help ensure nothing like this ever happens again.

Secondly, when you look at Twitter, there appears to be a very measured and calculated response from Ford in relation to people commenting on this. For one reason or another when you search Ford’s TL on Twitter, you cannot see any responses to peoples tweets about this. Whether or not that is intentional or accidental, from my point of view, I don’t think that looks good. To me it comes across as an attempt to hide. I did however find one Ford response to someone’s tweets about this by searching other TL’s. Interestingly, it was in response to a lady called Esther Buckareff, whose Twitter profile tells me is a “documentary media director”

@bi_advertisingActually, @ford didn’t apologize. WPP, did. This is what Ford needs to do to fix this. bit.ly/XCo7kS Go Further.

— Esther Buckareff (@ebuckar) March 25, 2013

@ebuckar @bi_advertising You’re incorrect. We did apologize: prdaily.com/Main/Articles/…  ^SM

— Ford Motor Company (@Ford) March 25, 2013

Maybe there are other people that have been tweeted to by Ford about this and correct me if I’m wrong, but there’s something a bit cloying about this approach. It feels like they’ve responded to a person who matters or to use that dreadful “key opinion former” term and are ignoring everyone else. I realise that this does happen in reality in PR, but it’s the fact that they’re doing it plain sight and not behind closed doors that makes it more uncomfortable. What’s also interesting is that they’re directing the Tweeter in question to an article on PR Daily rather than an official post on their website or Facebook page, an article that just happens to be complimentary of Ford’s handling of the crisis. Finally, from what I can see on their Facebook page, they have posted one response which is buried in amongst hundreds of consumer responses and you really have to search for it.
 

In the midst of the biggest crisis to hit their brand in a number of years, Ford are posting images of Henry Ford telling us about his friends. It just doesn’t seem right to me: it’s the social media equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes and shouting “nah nah nah, can’t hear you”. However, in spite of what I think about Ford’s handling of this crisis and it’s lack of transparency and leadership, the general consensus from articles that I’ve seen on the web have been mostly complimentary about them, the PR Daily one being a good example. And that’s what it all about, isn’t? Perception. If the perception is that they have done a good job and resolved the crisis then that in itself is enough. It’s a valuable mantra I heard very early on in my career from an experienced marketeer that I’ve come back to time and again: perception is reality.

Bloomin’ hell. What a last few couple of weeks it’s been. I haven’t blogged in over a month, due to the mother of all workloads: both personal and professional. I quit my old job, which finished with a load of brand plans, have emigrated and I am about to start a new life abroad. In the middle of all of that, our little son got ill with gastroenteritis, which was an experience to say the least. Anyways, I hope to get back to normal service soon enough.

I had originally started writing this blog post on the train on the way into work 3 weeks ago and have sort of done a re-write since. It was a piece of activity that was originally brought to my attention by an old classmate of mine from school Trevor Madigan on LinkedIn, who has recently set up The Vision Lab, which aims to create a vision of how technology will enable Governments of the future (you can follow the discussion here on Twitter). It’s a viral / AV piece by a brand that I know little about, Under Armour, other than the fact that they kit out small time football teams. Check it out below:

It’s the kind of activity that the marketeer in me absolutely loves. Why? Well a few reasons. Firstly, it follows a narrative style that has been used in a few of my favourite adverts from the last 18 months. Namely, the non-celebrity, egalitarian / proletarian, handheld street level view of sporting endeavours. To a lesser extent, the adidas “All In” advert from two years ago employed a similar creative device and to a lesser extent again, the Sky Sports F1 launch advert also did that. I get that both of them do utilise celebrities, but the story-telling documentary device remains similar. For further on these adverts, you can check out my blog posts on adidas here and on Sky Sports here. Secondly, whilst it’s technically advertising, I don’t believe that it fits into any particular predetermined type of advert. It’s not there to raise awareness on UA, as it hasn’t appeared on any traditional media types: TV, cinema, VOD, etc… I guess you could argue that it’s viral nature aims to increase people’s emotional link to UA as a brand and hence raise the Consideration measures for the brand that the target has. But that seems tenuous enough. Anyway, my point here is that I think that one thing that marks great brands apart from the competition is the type of activity that they implement and that their ideas don’t need to follow any the classical parameters of marketing disciplines (ATL, BTL, PR, Social Media, etc…). This piece of activity doesn’t strike me as something that was briefed in as an advert, as it’s something that crosses a number of boundaries: NPD, ATL, Digital, etc… Good examples of this that I’ve come across since I started Brant are Norte from Argentina and C&A from Brazil.

Finally, like all good brand positionings, this creative stakes out a unique territory for the brand. What’s the point in taking Nike or adidas head on with their usage of the world’s leading sports stars? A much better approach is the one that UA have taken and positioned themselves as a brand that doesn’t represent the establishment and offers an exciting view of the future. I guess the only issue now that they actually go and deliver on it, and produce stuff like that bloody amazing body suit that appears at the end of the advert.

Bloody spam and bloody WordPress. I’ve had to write this buggering blog post twice after being screwed about by the back end of my site. Arrgh. I wrote it originally offline in Word as I do, added in the HTML code where necessary via Excel; as it’s much easier that clicking on things 100 times in WP. Then when I copied what I had written and clicked on one single image to enlarge it, all of my copy was lost. So frustrating, as I use my spare time to write this blog. Not only that after I wrote that post last week about American Airlines the amount of spammy comments I’m seeing via the back end of the site has just sky-rocketed; to the point whereby genuine comments are not coming through. Which was irritating as I really enjoyed writing last week’s post and felt that it’s certainly one of the better pieces of work that I’ve done on the blog since I started it 18 months ago.

Anyways, all of the above is by the by and I’m sure no-one other than me really gives a toss about it. This week’s blog post content was brought to my attention by the Dublin agency Bloom via their Twitter feed. I worked with them years ago on a brand that I used to manage and have continued to follow their work as I have great amount of time for the people there. Although, it wasn’t Bloom who were responsible for the campaign in question, it was the London agency, RKCR/Y&R Advertising. It was also on a category that I’m mad about: cars. However, having just got rid of my Porsche Cayenne Turbo, I reckon that I might have finally kicked my petrol-head tendencies for good, much to my wife’s pleasure. To paraphrase what a friend told me last year “The two happiest days of your life are when you buy your first Porsche and when you sell your first Porsche”.

The car brand in question is Land Rover and the model is Defender. I must say, it was never a car I’ve warmed to as a car enthusiast. I’m much more a fan of the creature comforts when it comes to cars and the Defender is absolute the anti-thesis of this. However, the marketeer in me has always respected and been interested in what they have done as a brand. They have a fairly unique and differentiated product offering in the Defender, certainly compared to the rest of the 4×4 market. Additionally, it’s a brand that has great heritage given its roots in Britain’s rebuilding efforts after World War II and all the emotion that that evokes. It’s great to see that the brand owner has never adulterated or modified it in order to get it to fit trends or current consumer interests. It is what it has always been: I think that there’s a great brand truth in that, in spite of the fact that only a small number of the world’s great brands have followed this same path.

The creative developed by RKCR/Y&R clearly follows from the previous print campaigns that have run on the Land Rover Defender in the past few years (The Passport and Toolkit creatives can be seen above). Whilst it is in the same vein as those creatives, I think it’s fair to say that it’s an embellishment of that creative idea. Firstly, it’s more than a simple print advert, which is what the others are. From what I can make out, it seems to be a full fold out map that has been produced. Whist RKCR/Y&R describe it on their own website as a print campaign; I can’t imagine how that’s going to be implemented in traditional media. Perhaps just as a simple insert? Anyways, on first look, the map looks like it is simply a map of the world, however only on closer inspection to you find that every single land mass, country, island; every single element has been created out of the silhouette of the Defender shape. The full creative can be seen below, simply click on the image to get a larger version of it.

If you’ve read this blog regularly (heh!) or even infrequently, you’re probably not too surprised to hear that I like it. It does a number of things that I like to see in advertising creative. Firstly, its subtlety: I’ve always admired brands that act in a subtle fashion. Not only does it speak of a confident brand, but it also sparks intrigue in the target consumer and people come to the creative and your brand out of genuine interest having been drawn in. Secondly and building on this point, the attention to detail in the creative is just superb. As the folks in Bloom pointed on their tweet that brought this to my attention I can imagine this advert took weeks to produce. Attention to detail in all elements of the marketing mix is an important message to send to consumers; as it talks subconsciously of a product made to the highest standards. Finally, as limited as the copy is on it, I must say that I love the copy-line: 70% of the world is covered by water. The rest is covered by Defender. Sorry to get all grammatically nerdy on you, but the fact that they haven’t used an article, be it definite or non-definite (i.e. The or A) is a clever touch. Firstly, it sounds slightly unusual as a sentence in English, so it garners stand out in that regard. It’s a type of linguistic approach that has been used to varying degrees of effectiveness. Adidas and their “Impossible is Nothing” tagline being a good example of it. And secondly, the lack of an article makes its sound more elemental in nature. By that, I mean that things like land and earth are generally referred to in a similar manner. Whether intentional or not, it’s a very rare example of a piece of copy delivering on what I would imagine to be a brand truth.

A lot of the time I write these blog posts, they are specific to the content itself rather than a debate on marketing theory (or the limited amount I know about it!). The last few posts I’ve written are practical examples of that: the Selfridge’s No Noise concept, the post about Cohiba, etc… Sure, I’ve ended up straying into the area of theory on both those posts, but that’s only to illustrate what I’ve like or disliked about a certain piece of activity, rather than to have a musing on theory in isolation.

The reason that I’ve prefaced this week’s blog post with that comment is because what prompted me to write this post is the launch of a new visual identity by American Airlines and the fact that I don’t want to comment on it specifically. Primarily because I guess I’d stray into such subjective territory of “I Like It” vs. “I Don’t Like It”, not to mention the fact that I genuinely haven’t made up my mind what I think of it. I think it’s a good topic to choose as the branding of airlines is always a good source of discussion for public debate. Obviously, a lot of established airlines are physical representations of a country, as they are frequently referred to as flag-bearers. As consequence, this opens up a whole well of what national identity means to a particular nation. Sure this is changing with the massive growth of low cost carriers like Ryanair and EasyJet in the last decade and multi-national carriers such as Emirates. Having said that, the traditional and established carriers still have the tag of flag-bearer associated with them. The most famous example of the flag-bearer debate must be the British Airways Ethnic Liveries debacle of the late 1990’s. I remember being in my first marketing job in Prague and the letters’ pages of Marketing Magazine being chock full every issue with passionate submissions from marketeers on why it was a brave move or a stupid one.

For the uninitiated and the reason that I’ve decided to zero in on it, American Airlines previous visual identity had been one of the longest unchanged brand looks in marketing history. Introduced in 1968, it had remained almost completely untouched for nearly 45 years. The first aircraft to bear the previous identity is the one above that appeared in LAX in 1968: the only addition being the proud eagle between the two A’s on the tailfin. I had thought that it was the longest unchanged visual identity in recent use, but fellow Gooner and all-round design and branding guru Bill Wallsgrove of Brandvoice pointed out to me that there are brands out there (Tate & Lyle, Bass) that have much older and more permanent visual identities. Nevertheless, 45 years is still an extremely long period of time for any brand not to change its visual palette. In support of this change, AA have released the following video.

The video does suffer from some marketing bollox, but to be fair to it, it also does a great job of talking about AA’s heritage. In support of this video, they have issued the following blurb.

For more than two years, we’ve been building toward a time when the outside of our aircraft reflects the progress we’ve made on the inside. Today, we’re excited to reveal the next step in our transformation. We’re inspired by what we make possible—by our ability to connect you with the world around you. As we advance toward becoming a new American, we’re moving forward with great purpose and respect for our history—challenging ourselves to progress, to modernize, to innovate and to place you at the center of all that we do. We invite you to be part of our evolution.

In spite of AA’s size as an airline and a brand, I was still pretty blown away when they said it took them 2 whole years to commission this visual identity. I was reminded of this piece that I wrote last September on Court Line, the 1970’s UK charter airline and how their phenomenally unique visual identity was created from scratch in just 6 weeks. Having said that, I imagine the brief that the brand people at AA were working too was somewhat more challenging than a one line “create an airline with a holiday image” that was the remit of the designer behind the Court Line look. I imagine the amount of stakeholders sticking their oars into the AA process was quite something. Additionally, I’d also wonder to what extent the powers that be in AA actually wanted to change visual palette. In truth, this change was probably more forced upon them than anything else, as they allude to in the video above. For cost, safety and efficiency reasons, modern aircraft (Boeing 787, Airbus A350) are now nearly exclusively made from composite materials (see below) and not metals. This means that they can’t buffed to a shiny finish like a sheet of metal on an old aircraft could. And it’s pretty obvious from the shot of the prototype A350 below, not painting them is not an option.

As I said at the start of this blog, I was less interested in talking about my own view on it – rather I’m more concerned with how it’s going down with consumers, given that its previous look is nearly half a century old. I think it would be fair to say that this new visual identity does not appear to be going down well. From journalists to the guy who designed the previous livery, the reaction has been nearly overwhelmingly negative. I’ve put a selection of articles and tweets below from journalists, marketeers and consumers alike.

Good God, American Airlines. What have you done? skift.com/2013/01/17/ame… (I liked United’s tulip logo, but this seems way worse.)

— Rob Pegoraro (@robpegoraro) January 17, 2013

Funny: American Airlines Claims to Improve Customer Experience With New Logo – Forbes onforb.es/Y19Dfs

— Augie Ray (@augieray) January 25, 2013

Something Lousy in the Air: @paulgoldberger Analyzes American Airlines’ Disastrous Redesign vnty.fr/Sy45Kd

— VANITY FAIR (@VanityFair) January 23, 2013

American Airlines Rebrand – Lipstick on a Pig senseimarketing.com/american-airli… via @senseimarketing

— Sam Fiorella (@samfiorella) January 21, 2013

American Airlines Rebrands Itself, And America Along With It trib.al/5iWbfib

— Fast Company (@FastCompany) January 23, 2013

Some of the reactions to it were along the lines of “I don’t like the font”, “I don’t like the lines on the tail”, which is principally the territory that I wanted to avoid getting into when I started writing this post. A good number of the negative reactions seemed to question the need for change, i.e. a lot of people preferred the older livery. However, they seemed to be unaware that AA basically had no choice, as I have highlighted above. And others such as Sam Fiorella from Sensei Marketing questioned the need for the redesign, given the customer service and technological issues that have dogged American for the past few years. So, in reading all the reactions to the branding, what are my take outs from it? Well first of all, I don’t necessarily consider all the negative feedback as an entirely bad thing. Specifically, I’m referring to those who question the need for change: this indicates that they had some kind emotional link to the previous livery, perhaps demonstrating that it was a brand that they had grown up with and that its nostalgia held a certain cachet with them. Of course, pissing those consumers off is probably not the best way to harness that nostalgia, but still there is some positive hidden in there. Secondly, more importantly and as Sam Fiorella’s article brilliantly illustrates, as with all things in marketing you can’t look at something like AA’s visual identity in isolation. If the re-launch of the brand offers the people at AA an opportunity to deliver on the promise of a greater product, well then fine. However, if all that happens is a few planes getting a spray job and the customer service issues remain, all this will be superfluous. I think this captures the essence of the marketing challenge that they face. Namely that a consumer’s perception of a brand is multi-faceted and driven by a number of factors which work both in tension and symbiosis with each other: experience, product quality, visual identity, pricing, channel distribution, etc… Tinkering with one doesn’t necessarily mean that the others will fix themselves.

You wait a few weeks for good content and then loads of great stuff comes along in one go. No sooner had I finished writing last week’s blog when I noticed the UK digital agency Kerve posting something on Facebook. The UK retailer Selfridges has teamed up with a number of significant brands (such as Heinz, Marmite, Beats by Dr. Dre) to forge a very interesting initiative. The concept is called No Noise, one that is attempting to give consumers a retail sanctuary in the modern overloaded world. I’ll let the official blurb explain.

As we become increasingly bombarded with information and stimulation, the world is becoming a noisier place. In an initiative that goes beyond retail, we invite you to celebrate the power of quiet, see the beauty in function and find calm among the crowds.

Specifically, how they then claim to achieve this reduction in “noise” or clutter, if you will, is by unbranding or debranding brands. This is how they explain it themselves:

Join us as we pay homage to minimalist design with a carefully curated edit of fashion, accessories and beauty products. Plus, some of the world’s most recognisable brands have taken the symbolic step of removing their logos in our collection of de-branded products – including Beats by Dre, Levi’s, Marmite and Crème de la Mer – each creating exclusive collector’s items.

The reason I decided to blog about this is because the marketeer in me loves this idea. It understands and exploits what is at the heart of great brand identities. To my mind, for Selfridge’s to make the claim that these brands are now somehow debranded is one of two things. Either it is a failure to understand the basics of branding and I don’t think that it’s credible for me to level that charge at the retailer and the brands in question: they most certainly do understand great branding. Therefore, it can only be a great misdirection for the retailers and the brands to make the claim that their goods are now somehow de-branded. The genius in this idea is that the removing of the logo from a good number of the products in this De-Branded Space does not unbrand them. To my mind, it achieves the opposite effect: rather it causes people to pay more attention to them. It encourages people to linger on that brand, much more so than they would normally do had they not been “de-branded”. Sure, there are some examples in the store like Crème de la Mer and Levi’s, where you do have to question why they got involved in it. However, when it works (like it does on the Heinz products and Marmite for example), it works brilliantly.

I guess ultimately what this activity proves in the case of brands like Heinz ketchup, Heinz Baked Beanz and Marmite, is that the brand is not just the logo. In fact it is so much more: it is the contoured shape of the bottle, it is hue of blue used on a tin can, it is the proportionality of the label to the rest of the pack. I think this is a great example of what I’ve always believed in: that the strongest brands in the world have always been and will always be consumer goods brands. Be they fast (e.g. Coca-Cola), medium (e.g. Apple) or slow (e.g. Audi) moving goods brands. More so than mobile phone companies, insurance providers, gas companies: which to my mind are unpackaged commoditised services and don’t have the tools in their arsenal that an FMCG brand does. I think a key element in this also is price and the impact it has on a consumer’s perception of a brand and it’s symbiosis with it. I guess it’s why I’ve never bought the argument that things like Google, Twitter or Facebook are genuine, fully fledged brands as they are unpackaged, completely free online services. Hmm…I’ve probably just talked myself out of ever getting a job in any of those industries. Anyway, that’s by the by. This Selfridges No Noise store is superb work and I’m just annoyed that none of the brands that I’ve ever worked on were involved in this!

Wow. Feels like an age since I’ve written a blog. I took a nice long break over the festive period and got my batteries completely and fully recharged. I’ve dusted off the cobwebs in my mind and found a good piece of activity to comment on. This week’s piece of activity comes courtesy of the excellent AdverBlog and isn’t really by any brand per se. Rather it’s a piece of activity done by a media owner in the Netherlands called Interbest Outdoor.

The idea behind the campaign (if it’s right to call it that) was to draw attention to the power of the outdoor medium. It’s not an uncommon occurrence to see media owners run campaigns like this when sales are lower than they should be. Although it tends to happen more with radio than anything else from what I’ve seen. However, whilst the objective may be quite standard, Interbest’s route to achieving this certainly wasn’t. The tagline for the campaign was “The Sooner You Advertise Here, the Better” with the creative hook being a rather heavyset unattractive middle age man who was found to wear progressively less and less clothing. The campaign was created by Y&R in Amsterdam. According to any of the articles that I can find on this, they say that Interbest changed the creative every day. I find that a bit strange / hard to believe, not to mention the fact outdoor cycles are 14 days long. However, that’s by-the-by. Have a look at the creative below and judge for yourself.

This creative does something that I really like and have made reference to on the blog in past. Namely, it is an idea that not only works within the medium it is communicating through but also best utilises the fundamentals of the medium. Either in digital (see Intel’s Museum of Me from 2010) or Interbest’s activity in this space are both great examples of this.

Nice one.

Must be the run into Christmas or something but there really has been sweet FA to bother blogging about in the last few weeks. Naturally there have been a lot of Christmas TVC’s doing the rounds, but I just find most of them so boring: they nearly all seem to be for retailers or Guinness. And I really find nothing noteworthy in them, unless there against-the-grain ideas, which none of them are.

I was going to give up the hunt until I stumbled across something that peaked my interest. It was still Christmassy, but at least it was a print advert and I haven’t blogged about that in a good while: it feels like I’ve done a huge amount of social media and TVC stuff in the last few months. Anywho, it’s a print advert for the German hardware brand Stihl and their leafblower line. I didn’t know this until I started researching for this post, but they are the world’s biggest chainsaw manufacturer. Like all the creative that I have blogged about in the 18 months since I set up this blog, it follows the very simple template of “product / product function is hero”. Additionally, I think great print adverts for premium brands (which Stihl appears to be from its pricing) adhere to the simple mantra of less is more. This advert is no different: beautiful uncluttered photography supported by a simple pack shot. Click on the image below for a bigger version.

Anyways, not much more that I can say about a print advert for a leafblower. Also, it’s Sunday evening and I’ve had a bit too much mulled wine at this stage, so I’m going to bugger off for dinner now! Merry Christmas!

This is just brilliant. Got this from a colleague on e-mail this morning. Apparently it’s over 2 years old. Click on the image for the full PDF.
 

 
Kudos to The Quiet Room!

A “From The Archives” blog post on the cigar brand, Cohiba.