One to watch...

The Co-op has just announced its takeover of Somerfield's - making it the fifth largest supermarket chain in the UK. I've seldom read a more ambitious statement from a CEO, "This is great for our business and in my view propels us back to the Premiership of food retailing. People talk about the big four. I hope people will soon talk about the big five.” He talks of the deal leading to a renaissance of the Co-op brand. 

And I think he's got a point. The headline in Times Online was, "The Co-op ready to capture the magic of the Sixties with £1.6bn Somerfield deal." Indeed in 1967 the Co-op had 25% market share and was Britain's biggest grocery store. But I hope they do more than get bigger, I want them to recapture some of the essence of sixties shopping - cleaner, simpler, sustainable.

The Co-op have been doing a huge amount of re-branding and advertising lately to establish their ethical credentials and do have a great deal of credibility in the area. I think they are also poised to be the really green supermarket. There's a gondola of green ideas that will both tap into their core values of social responsibility and co-operative practices, suggest that intangible nostalgia of 'when things were better (and more green)', and create a modern, ethical brand with new ideas for the current environment.

Already I'm hoping that they come up with genuinely new ways of selling fresh produce, less packaging, less air miles, more seasonality. They are 'the UK's largest farmer', according to their website, which gives them a great opportunity to take control of the supply chain, get organic, sort out their chickens and eggs (chickens first presumably) and provide produce in a sustainable and responsible way. I'm hoping they re-introduce the habit of getting your deposit back on your bottles - glass or plastic. As a child this was always a useful way of getting a bit of cash to buy a few sweeties. Perhaps revolutionary re-designs of their shops to reduce energy use, capture natural energy, re-cycle stuff, fill your own bags etc etc. They could way out-green all their competitors. They already have over 4,000  branches (I think this must include some banks and funeral directors as they only have 3,000 grocery stores after the takeover...) powered by wind and water. They are the UK's most eco-friendly retailer (YouGov Online Poll 2007). They sell over 180 Fairtrade products.

The Co-op has so much brand authenticity. From their website, "A co-operative is a business, but more than this, it is a group of people acting together to meet the common needs and aspirations of its members, sharing ownership and making decisions democratically." This seems so right.

I want them to do well. I want them to save the planet. After all they are "good with food". And I'll keep watching.

One that got away...

Little Big Planet is one of our 'ones that got away'. We were asked by Pete Smith at SCEE (Sony Computer Entertainment Europe) to go along to Media Molecule and help them out with a name for a game back in 2006, with the working title Craftworld.

What we found was a rather chaotic 3 room studio in Guildford and a vision to build the maddest, most cute interactive game you have ever played.

Pete very cannily negotiated a special naming deal with us a few years ago when we first developed MotorStorm, with a fee upfront and then a 'success fee' only payable if we nail the name they eventually use. 

What we ended up doing with Media Molecule was more than a name, but not the name itself - although I would argue we came up with lots of great names - Pete just didn't happen to pick one of them, because he suddenly got inspiration in his car one day and thought of the name (it just goes to show anyone can come up with a great name - well at least one Pete!).

We helped Media Molecule bring a bit of focus to the concept (Pete had told us what an insane idea it was), and helped them hone the proposition into something that Sony eventually found palatable enough to back with some real money.

So we have a very warm feeling about Little Big Planet - it feels like one of ours, we just didn't happen to have coined that exact name - and we didn't get our win fee!

Perception? Reality?

Some brands seem to work better in my head than when I encounter them for real. This experience is often paired with a twinge of sadness. A strange empty nostalgia for something I can no longer grasp. One such brand is Woolworth's. It's poor performance is well documented but in my mind I still expect a brand experience that fulfils my internal brand image.

I suspect outside the UK, may be in the States, or South Africa, New Zealand or Australia things are very different. In a description by The Exquisite Art Company in South Africa, "The Woolworths brand is a symbol of quality, consistency and trust, earned through its efforts to continually innovate and adapt to market demands." 

A far cry from our UK experience summed up neatly in this Brand Healthcheck in Marketing Week by Pragma from October 2006, "Shopping at Woolworths these days can hardly be described as a pleasure. A cacophony of visual noise bombards you (half price, price crash etc) setting the expectation of cheapness and bargains. Aisles are often cramped and stock piled high, the in-store radio is often loud, as are the gawdy colours of the merchandise." Pragma also kindly give some good advice, headed up with "Re-establish traditional core brand values with a modern interpretation." 

I'm thinking it's unlikely that any of Woolworth's management team were reading Marketing Week that day. Just in the way that I have a nostalgic brand vision built in the 60s and 70s, Pragma look back to thirty years ago for clues, "The brand stood for convenience, value and reliability." Convenience is an odd value these days, it seems too easy. Convenience is all sorts of things now: shopping from home, getting everything in one place, easy to park... What is convenient about Woolworth's is that it is always there. It is in the middle of every town. It is even in those odd seaside towns when you need to buy a CD player for the holidays. But in my head it is full of useful stuff. And often it has the useful thing I'm looking for. It does household (although this seems to be diminishing), it does toys of the bright plastic variety, it does games, it does children's sandals, it does dressing-up clothes. But it doesn't do much better, or more reliably than anyone else. And I think it has so much potential. It could be the Google of shops - you want something - you'll find it here.

Inspiration for the current Woolworth's team could well come from the rather eccentric Woolworths Virtual Museum. It's rich with history, innovation, architectural confidence and price quizzes. It's delightful. I found out that the first modern record department was in Leicester (the very shop in which my own Woolworths internal brand picture was created) in 1965. The Annual Report described it, "The gay record corner is well-equipped to meet the demands of the most with-it teenager."  The site also evokes the Fablon, floor tiles and cafeteria I remember so well.

There are a few high street retailers that fall into this mis-match between the brand in my head and the one I walk in to. WHSmith is definitely one. Smiths used to be an Aladin's cave of, well, magazines, books and stationery. I still remember a rather cramped store in the Market Place in Leicester that was a treasure trove of 'going-back-to-school' goodies - and had wood panelling. Over the years the range has been denuded and 'rationalised', the book offer has been canabalised by the likes of Warterstone's, the environment has been modernised and sterilised, yet cluttered in an annoying way. I still want to go in to Smiths and enjoy a browse and buy a good pen, but the experience I get seldom delivers the brand I expect. 

Boots has faired little better. Again the march of modernisation has delivered a discomforting mixture of sterility and disorganisation. A blandness in the design and signing leads to an almost perpetual sense of an inability to find anything. Added to that discomfort is the blaring '3 for 2' signs that are always difficult to fully know which products they actually relate to.

I don't know whether these are just the ramblings of an old nostalgic, or whether there really is a lesson to be learned about getting back to core brand values. I certainly believe that a focused, differentiated offer is a good start. A clear purpose and aligned brand experience is a joy. Some experiences fulfil the brand in my head: Waitrose, Cath Kidstone, The Apple Store, Starbucks, Waterstone's, Carluccio's. The Marks and Spencer brand perception helped it survive a rocky time recently, people felt good about it long after the reality had slipped, resulting in a rallying 'Your M&S' campaign. Things are looking hard again, so can their brand pull them through?

I hope Woolworth's can re-invent. They're not in a good financial place and it's hard to invest when the competition and potential returns look challenging. But a clear purpose and genuinely differentiated offer would be a good starting place.

A brand icon for the noughties

A couple of months ago I was disappointed to see that my local Oxfam had closed – and I assumed that the newly opened Oxfam Books round the corner was now a replacement rather than an addition to the empire.

How very very wrong. The shop has now reopened as an elegant and inviting Oxfam Boutique. No smell of old ladies. Junky white elephant stuff artistically displayed round the back. Appealingly labelled fashion items. I loved everything about it.

Oxfam has been the gold standard of charity shops for longer than I can remember. It has also clearly articulated what it does – tackle poverty, probably most accurately the effects of poverty, as perhaps the political implications of ‘Make Poverty History’ make the task a tough gig. What struck me most poignantly, whilst standing in the Oxfam Boutique in Chiswick, was the brilliantly successful brand that could both be the face of fundraising in innovative, topical and reciprocal ways, as well as the face of effective, credible aid giving.

In the 60s we had an Oxfamilybox at home.

The innovative idea was that you made the box up (it arrived as a flat piece of card) and passed it around at mealtimes when you were appreciating your food and worrying about ‘starving Biafrans’ – the first serious famine that I can remember – and maybe the first one that got decent TV coverage. My interest in graphic design was kindled by the brilliant name/perpetual branding that ran right around the box. It still plays around my mind like one of those Escher staircases that has no end. 

Oxfam had been born in 1942 as the Oxford Committee for Famine Relief and openend the first of its shops in Oxford in 1948. Their innovative thinking and willingness to invest to accumulate (for which charities always gets criticism) has now really come of age. The boutique has beautifully captured the freecycling-recycling vibe in an elegant way. Those canny enough to know have always used charity shops as a source of ‘individual’ fashion – especially those amongst us with an art school background. The concept of reusing cast-offs is so green that it hurts. So much more ethical than the five-minute thrill of the Primark frenzy (despite the fact that we are now stressing over those children who are unable to help provide for the family as it’s unethical to employ them – help!) The boutique has cleverly divided its sustainable fashion into five categories (or is that sub-brands?):

• Loved for Longer (which I think is a lovely idea) – high quality donated fashion
  
• Fair Trade Fashion – labels like Green Knickers, People Tree and Wright and Teague
  
• Reinvented (which I think is truly inspired – and inspiring) – pieces reworked by young designers and fashion students
  
• Made with Love – accessories made by volunteers
  
• Good Fashion Sense – designed to be different: organic, recycled, alternative fibres…
  

This is brand success indeed. I felt a mingled sense of pride, ehthusiasm, nostalgia – and more importantly probably, a strange willingness to pay the not inconsiderable prices attached. We are no longer talking ‘jumble sale’ prices – a trend that has been eeking in over the past few years but now seems more justifiable. And the very definition of a brand.

The whole Oxfam identity has been recently overhalled and refreshed by Interbrand. The new strapline, ‘Be Humankind’, which I think is delightful has met with, I think, surprising, controversy. Some people say they ‘don’t get it’. Some say it’s not campaigning enough. I think it has a touch of the Oxfamilybox about it. A compilation of appropriate words in a new and moving way.

What can we learn from this as a brand story? It’s a brand with authenticity, focus and purpose. It has been modest in its expansion over 60 odd years. It’s invested where it had to to create reputation, recognition and convey a message. It’s lucked into a trend. Respect to this brand icon.

Small is the new big.. (or how we run a distributed agency)

If you happen to be a fan of 37 Signals (which we happen to be – and if you don’t know who they are – try this {http://www.37signals.com}) you might read their blog {http://blogcabin.37signals.com}, which recently had a great quote about size – ‘“If you think you are too small to be effective, you have never been in bed with a mosquito.” -Betty Reese.

Now we are a decidedly small branding agency – there are less than 10 of us. We have been bigger, but about 5 years ago we decided we wanted to be smaller.

We tend to see the ‘branding agency landscape’ roughly fitting into 3 sizes:

The big – probably over 100 people, maybe lots of offices around the world, working on huge brands, and soaking up miles of PR related column inches and blog pages. You know the ones – Interbrand, Futurebrand, Landor, Wollf Olins – often the grand-daddies of the branding world.

The medium – these are the 30 to 100 guys – with a big tidy business, maybe more than one office.. more ‘middle aged’ – happy with their position, doing good work for established clients – but somehow less ‘newsworthy’.

The small – the 1 to 30’s – one office, maybe hot young gunslingers on the way up, or more long in the tooth and ploughing a more lonely furrows on the way down. Maybe one big client and a few smaller ones, or lots of ‘prospective’ breakthrough clients.

Except we don’t really fit into any of these – because we work differently – and a lot of it is thanks to our friends at 37 Signals… and we think it’s the future for a lot of businesses…

We are small, but we have a number of offices, on several continents. We have a range of clients – from HUGE to tiny. But the way we work now – well I don’t think we could have done it even 5 years ago very easily.

We use a suite of tools that help us stay small, stay connected, keep us apart (in a good way – less travelling), help us manage our business, organise diaries, manage our clients, keep them connected, store all our crucial documents and data, and most importantly help us to be creative. Sounds good eh? And it doesn’t cost much…

This is what we use….

1. Phones for ringing people

2. iChat for quick chats {http://www.apple.com/uk/macosx/features/ichat.html}

3. Basecamp for project management {http://www.basecamphq.com/}

4. Highrise for storing and logging all our client-centric correspondence and ‘stuff’ {http://www.highrisehq.com/?source=37s+home}

5. Backpack for our ‘corporate intranet’ {http://www.backpackit.com/?source=37s+home}

6. Campfire for running online chats {http://www.campfirenow.com/?source=37s+home}

7. Macs and iPhones because we love them (one of our partners does own a PC - but it’s days are numbered…)

8. A few great applications like Keynote, Pages, Numbers – but most things end up as pdf’s.

9. Some local servers, but once again, their days are numbered…

10. Small IT bills – few hundred dollars a month max

What we don’t have (now) is:

1. Any IT staff – or indeed any ‘junior’ staff at all

2. Big servers with VPN and tricky stuff like that

3. Large maintenance agreements to manage big hot servers and ‘kit’

4.Trouble finding stuff like files and presentations and pictures etc..

5. Anxiety about ‘stuff breaking or crashing’

6. large pieces of capital investment

7. No time to talk and meet with clients

8. There are probably more things but I’m bored with this list now…

The four core products (which all run in a browser) – Basecamp, Highrise, Backpack and Campfire do everything we need, and help us do things better, without the need for IT support or training. You should check them out to see all the things they do, but the most important thing they are is SIMPLE.

What’s the downside? Er…

Well, theoritically there are of course some potential downsides, but any risk is still much less than the alternatives – at least as far as we are concerned.

The benefits however, are that they allow us to manage our clients and their work, and our time and our ‘stuff’ more efficiently, and quicker, and easier. They essentially allow us to get on with what we are paid to do, help solve our clients problems with minimal problems.

This article was written straight onto a section within Backpack, edited (or at least looked at) by all the partners. All our work is managed in much the same way – so whether an assignment is in the USA, or London, or somewhere just outside Paris – we can work and share our ideas, thoughts and conclusions – without the automatic need for unnecessary plane trips, or long tiring journey.

Don’t get me wrong, we do get out though, and we spend lots of time with our clients, wherever they are – in fact that was one of the reasons we chose to work this way – more time dedicated to our clients.

Our objective is to add real ‘grit’ to any branding project, to ask the ‘unaskable’ and challenge the status quo. I guess our role is all to often to be the ‘mosquito in the bed’ – and we have found that by spending less time and effort managing our business, we can spend more time and effort helping our clients to run their businesses.

Bzzzzzzz