Brand Love Hate

When Your Favorite Brands Re-brand

I was in the dairy aisle when I knew something was wrong. Looking farther down the aisle, where I normally would see my favorite Tropicana orange juice (lots of pulp plus calcium), I instead saw a wall of unfamiliar OJ. Tropicana had re-branded, and I was lost.

That was dramatic yet real - after years and years of the same familiar packaging, Tropicana changed its product design, a change that made differentiating its varieties and flavors almost impossible. I originally thought the criticism was silly, but Tropicana then added visual keys to the shelves in supermarkets to help customers find their favorite OJ (and to not accidentally buy tangerine-orange, which I almost did many times).

The good news in this case is that Tropicana listened to customers and decided to revert to the old packaging! I think all the analysis in the blogosphere was both impressive and cut to the heart of the real problem - it's not that we love the old packaging, the new designs were just too similar and confusing. I'll be happy to have back the same old color-coded cartons.

Another recent case of a favorite brand re-branding is Pepsi, which moved from its lively blue and silver design to a dark blue (almost purple) packaging with a now-distorted version of the iconic Pepsi brand mark. While the similarity of color at least allows me to still find the product, this change is boring and really subdues the packaging. I would have much rather seen a retro look with the classic Pepsi mark untouched, rather than it being degraded this way based on popular trends.

(Ahem, Tropicana is a Pepsi brand and both projects were done by Arnell, NYC.)

A Reason Not to Use AOL Mail to Send Out Your Resume

Today I received a resume via e-mail for one of the openings at my company. At the bottom of the well-written e-mail cover letter was the following footer message tagged on by AOL (which owns TMZ):

The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser.

Get the TMZ Toolbar Now!

A word of advice to job seekers - use Gmail or spend $50 for the year to get e-mail at your own domain. It's worth the time and/or investment to make a good first impression.

If These Kids Work for You, it’s Time to Fire Them

Employee photography is a requirement for effective corporate career Web sites. And if not possible, no people photography at all is better than stock photography. Employee imagery should be reflective of the company, its workplace and culture, and stock simply can't pull it off. Check out the happy, perfectly diverse and balanced group above - it looks like your company, right? I've seen that image on career Web sites and in recruitment materials for company after company, and even used it for an employee communication project about eight years ago. While providing what almost every company wants in its employee imagery - diverse, good-looking, seemingly professional people who can smile - it's fake. And even worse, it looks fake. It's not reflective of any type of work or unique workplace whatsoever.

Where stock photography really breaks down with job seekers is when they start seeing it in multiple places - for different companies - and it's clear that these pretty people can't work at both. This results in an appropriate question - if your employee images are fake, then are your employer promises as well? A career Web site should reflect the organization and help candidates determine if they are a good fit - but how do either happen when the content is not believable?

Stock photography in employer branding efforts only makes sense from the standpoints of budget and convenience. Some will say that real employee photography is too hard - it can cost a lot of money, is a ton of maintenance as inevitable turnover occurs and is a project never really completed if you want to reflect the company as it truly is today. But it's authentic, and that's a requirement. Otherwise you can use this smiling group as others have, and have job seekers question all of your recruitment messaging.

AT&T Brand Hate

I have been catching up on my InfoWorld reading and came upon an interesting Enterprise Insight column about AT&T and its customer service practices. David's phrases near the end - "gotcha approach" and "negative brand equity" say it all - no matter how much a company advertises or says it's new, its brand is defined by the experiences and relationships it fosters - or ruins - with customers.

Flickr and Blog Search for Brand Experiences

As someone who still enjoys video games, I was interested and intrigued by the recent launches of the Nintendo Wii and PlayStation 3 "next-generation" video game systems. I wanted to track the events, but ideally from the warmth of my home and my laptop, rather than from the front lines. Enter Flickr and Google Blog Search. I watched and searched the sites to hear (and see) the success and horror stories of gamers (and eBay profiteers) who were standing in line to secure their systems. I was really impressed with the results. On the days of and shortly after the systems were released, Google Blog Search included stories from gamers who blogged their experiences, from successful purchases to retail store snafus. Even better was Flickr, which via cell phone cameras and wireless broadband-enabled laptops, delivered photos right from the waiting lines themselves, including the launch events here in New York City.

While this "news" is not as refined as what comes off the wires via the online news sites, it's much more immediate and incredibly more real. Hearing about the Sony Store experience in Boston and seeing gamers in line live from the Toys R Us in Times Square was much more compelling than the boiled-down stories from the mainstream media. There was a lot more to wade through, but I got a real sense of the launch experience fandom and fanaticism from actual gamers - more than just an article.

Milwaukee Says, "I'm Not Drunk" but Might Be

This past week, Forbes magazine published the results of a survey that named Milwaukee the "hardest-drinking city in America." The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article that discusses the survey, which I expected to "answer" the results and publish residents' alternative views, ends with this line:

"I have had people stay with me from London and Chicago, and they can't get over how much liquor we can hold and how much we drink."

OK, so much for the answering. Maybe the local businesses will step up and defend Milwaukee?

The above T-shirt is from Brew City, a Milwaukee firm and Web site that sells city-branded clothing and gear. Here is the Web site page copy for this item:

Forbes Magazine recently ranked US cities by the "drunkest", and much to our (non) surprise, Milwaukee came in #1! We were trying to figure out if this is a good thing, but gave up since we were all out late last night and have splitting headaches today. Either way, this is further proof that Milwaukee is the Beer Capital. We raise our glasses to all who are helping to raise Milwaukee's ranking! Cheers!

So much for the defending and the Milwaukee brand. Check out the Brew City home page and you'll even see the phrase "Milwaukee Brand" next to classic beer logos.

I have no issue with Brew City's business - its items are actually very nice and funny as intended. But for a city battling a history, reputation and TV image ("Laverne & Shirley") of beer, as well as capital city in Madison making strides in research, technology and a positive national image, Milwaukee might not need T-shirts reiterating its recent "win."

I lived in Milwaukee, Wisconsin (I put the state in there in case you're wondering exactly where this magical beer palace is) for nine years and enjoyed my time there immensely. As someone who doesn't drink alcohol, I found Milwaukee to be no more "drunk" than Chicago or New York City, and much more livable. Downtown Milwaukee and its southern offshoots (The Third Ward and Walker's Point) have great restaurants, coffee shops and businesses, one of the nation's best music festivals, a river walk, public market and yes, an art museum, but in my opinion the city needs to stop leaning on the Calatrava as its shining star. There is more to do than drink and there is more to see than those white wings. Milwaukee is a place where people and families can live nice lives - it should focus on that story rather than playing up its "brand drunk."

Top Global Brands 2006

On the way back from my road trip, I picked up the latest BusinessWeek magazine, which features a cover story on the Top 100 Global Brands. Seeing that the top brands haven't moved much since last year, I spent time looking at those that have gained and lost the most ground on the list. The big gainers were Google, Starbucks, eBay, Motorola and Hyundai. Starbucks is a favorite brand of mine (and I don't even drink coffee) because it hitches its wagon to the customer experience. Starbucks rarely advertises, although its signs on every corner of major cities do a pretty good job. But what you know about Starbucks comes from what you experience in its stores, either good or bad.

Seems mostly good - Starbucks was up 20 percent.

The big losers were Gap, Ford, Kodak, Heinz and Intel. Of those, I think Intel is the most interesting. Despite Apple beginning to use Intel chips for its latest Macs and what seems to be good industry feedback on its latest processors, the company faces strong competition from AMD (especially in the server market) and also has confused the marketplace with challenging processor names.

If you check out the article online, the slide show and data table are both nice features.

Brand Degradation and Outsourcing

The effects of outsourcing on brand perception and reputation is an interesting topic, and Fortune has a good story in its May 1 issue on New Balance's experience in China with a troublesome contractor.  The Chinese court process sounds unbelievable.

Buzz-o-phone Podcasts Customer Rants and Raves

Via Micro Persuasion, I can't stop listening to Buzz-o-phone. It allows consumers to call a phone number and share their brand love and/or hate. Nothing special? Well, it then publishes those messages as MP3 files via an online player and RSS feed. You can hear a woman rant about her Sears experience then a guy rave about his favorite coffee. Some even reference one another. Via trackback, AdRants predicts that companies will take advantage to promote their brands via the site. I wonder, are they even listening? My initial thought was that crank calls would be a problem, and although there are some, they are so dopey as compared to the real customer feedback that they just make the callers look stupid rather than ruin this great site.

List Time - Good and Bad

Two anticipated yearly lists came out in the last week or so - Business 2.0's 101 Dumbest Moments in Business and Fortune's 100 Best Companies to Work For. I think both can have a huge effect on brand perception. For example, the fact that three of the 101 dumbest moments in business in 2005 included Wal-Mart does not seem good for the retailer. And in the recruitment marketing biz, we are always referencing the Fortune list as the ultimate workplace award to promote with candidates.

Looking at a company from the Fortune list like Wegmans Food Markets, which took the top spot in 2005 and is number two this year, it is doing everything right to make the most of that placement: (1) Home page logo promoting the award that links to a press release. (2) Careers Web site that leads with the news as well as a call-out box listing Wegmans historical placements in the Fortune "best companies" list. (3) And the Wegmans tagline "Every Day You Get Our Best," which can resonate with customers, employees and job seekers, is a great, complementary touch. I've never been in a Wegmans store but it seems like a pretty cool company. Meanwhile, Wal-Mart... not so much.