Anyone with an interest in brands must have a mixed set of emotions right now about the economic effect on some historical brands. I'm torn between a faint nostalgia for what was, a frustration around 'what might have been', a smug 'well that was on the cards...' and a terror that everything's about to implode and go down the plughole...
Viyella is the latest victim. And another example of the brand in my head being very different to the brand on the ground (or indeed down that plughole). Inevitably the brands/companies that are going down have been dipping over years, maybe decades or even centuries. I can't help feeling Viyella's problems may have started with the name. First developed in 1893 and registered in 1894, the wool/cotton mix fabric was the first branded fabric - and named after the unlikely location of the mill where it was made - Via Gellia near Matlock. This sounds a lot like it should be in Italy to me - and admittedly potentially quite glamorous.
However, from my own acquaintance with the brand, from the 1960s onwards - the name always conjured up more musty old ladies rather than svelt bronzed Italians. I do know exactly how the fabric felt, I know exactly what it was good at, I have a kind of 'muscle memory' of the product. It was a beautiful mix of merino wool and cotton that "combined lightness and fashion with warmth and durability," according to Wikipedia. It hang with elegance. It could be plain or patterned. It was great for children's clothes and military shirts. But - the name was more like Crimplene - pure polyester. And the fabric - the core product of the brand - no longer exists.
So, whilst I'm a strong believer in the theoretical ability for a brand to be able to move away from its primary product - it only does this successfully when it takes on emotional associations and a sense of meaning to its customers that makes sense of new stuff. Indeed the very act of innovation can improve the brand. But despite everything that Viyella has done over the last 40 years or so, I still associate it most with the actual quality of the fabric. I don't have a new positive internal image of what it stands for. It feels to me as if some jewel, some tiny, shiny, brand essence, some super-compressed atom of ingenuity conjured up by the Sissons brothers of William Hollins & Company in 1893, got mislaid.
Viyella, of course, was also taken over by the march of society. Our urge for ever more instant gratification, our embracing of greed and shopping, our enthusiasm for almost disposable clothing has fed the erosion of good, quality products, the perception of benefit from durability, and our ever decreasing skills in dress-making and repair! A short revival of Viyella as a fabric occurred in the mid-80s with the likes of Laura Ashley developing 'modern classics' - and indeed some delightful girls' dresses, one of which I still have handed on from a friend's daughter. But this didn't really halt the trend. Sadly, with the re-evaluation of value, skills and longevity that will surely follow the cataclysmic crunch we are currently experiencing, Viyella (the fabric) would probably have a surge in popularity.
As I cycled across Chiswick Back Common in the miserable drizzly rain yesterday afternoon I was cheered by the wonderful bubbly giggling and chattering of innumerable small children. The local primary school were out on the tennis courts, the five-a-side pitches and indeed the soggy grass for their PE - and enjoying themselves. In the face of the deepest, sharpest slow-down/recession/depression of recent times these diminutive innocents were as happy as the proverbial Larry. Brand 'child' is alive and kicking.
The experience was somewhat enhanced by the fact that I had indeed cycled through the grim weather to the big Sainsbury's just to buy some strawberry shoelaces. Inadvertently I had promised these to my own diminutive innocent as a bribe to get her to go to drama club. I didn't know then how hard they are to find - but as I searched various newsagents and convenience stores I remembered the packet at home that had distinctly borne a Sainsbury logo. So I pushed on to reach the superstore. The marvel was that I scoured the store for the sweetie section, located the desired product, found they were '3 for a pound' which coincided beautifully with my requirement for 3 packets - and managed to check out and leave the shop having spent only the one pound. I was probably bucking the typical Sainsbury shopper trend as their profits are up 15% and there were healthy queues at the checkouts of well-stacked trollies.
I however felt strangely noble in my reserve, and of course very worthy on my bike. The lovely cheerful children was the added icing on top of the strawberry shoelace success. How hard times make us appreciate the small things. Next wave of optimism - preparing for the upturn...
I am simultaneously intrigued and horrified by the new development of Westfield London at White City. Week after week Design Week announces the design of a flagship designer store in the centre. It must have created a huge boom for retail designers over the last 12 months or so and must, I believe, create job opportunities for the local population - which must be a good thing. It has a 'village' of high-spec designer outlets, it has a rich mix of high street standards, it has 'anchor' stores like M&S, Waitrose and Debenhams. It has 50 restaurants. It has a fourteen screen cinema. It has a gym, a luxury spa, a new state-of-the-art library, and even a wildlife centre (of which I have no details) - so it must be good. So why my feelings of discomfort and mild horror?
It's big - very, very big. It has been built on what Time Out's Maggie Davis described as 'what was a vast area of wasteland.' Well, I'm sure that is true in many ways - but I happen to be rather a fan of those odd gaps in cities that you always think, 'Why has no-one built on that?' They are often populated by sprouting purple buddleia - a favourite with butterflies, and turn out to be the home of some long-lost snail or microscopic worm thought to have become extinct in Roman times. They create a breathing space in the proverbial concrete jungle. And this wasteland in particular had the last remaining buildings from the Franco-British Exhibition of 1908 - a fantastic place, its pearly white surfaces giving it the enduring name 'White City', including the Olympic Stadium used for the 1908 games and host to 8 million visitors. The incongruous white arched hall that used to be next to Shepherds Bush Station was one of the remaining structures until its demolition.
So there's a curious nostalgia, a sense of loss, based on lots of stuff I never really saw - but somehow connected me back to the past, past pride, past achievement. Something I feel should be recognised, respected and remembered.
The things that irk me most about the new mega-mall (apart from the homage to retail and potential wasting of young lives as mall rats), is its total lack of respect and recognition of the local area. The name is purely a global brand building exercise of 'the largest listed retail property group by equity market capitalisation.' (www.westfield.com) Every development - in the USA, Australia, New Zealand or the UK, is pre-fixed Westfield. When I first saw the Westfield name on the hoardings surrounding the building site I innocently thought maybe it had some connection to being in West London. How very wrong. The naming of the site as Westfield London doesn't even recognise its westerly position. A corporate quip quoted by John Ryan in his article for Retail Week suggested that Westfield had succeeded in 'rebranding a London suburb.' Urgh. And since when was Shepherds Bush suburban anyway?
Then there's the hideous green glass exterior. It has that two tone green effect that just reeks shopping centre and makes me feel mildly ill. The 4,500 parking spaces - that'll be fun at going home time on a Saturday afternoon - especially if it's a match day at Queens Park Rangers.
Underlying its detachment from the local area is the way almost every article describes White City and W12 as amongst the most deprived areas of London, if not the UK. So a Prada shop and a Tiffany shop are going to be a real boon to the locals. No surprise the 80 security guards and 680 CCTV cameras will ensure that no hoodies contaminate the pristine, marble-floored galleria. This of course is an outrageously poor understanding of both the local community and people who like wearing hooded tops.
And finally my feelings are well summed up, again from Maggie Davis's piece in Time Out, by the 'crude red 'Westfield' logo the size of a bus' attached to the 'ugly green, metal-panelled exterior.'
Surely in this cathedral to good design and taste, with its top New York architects and cutting edge retail, we deserve a good logo that looks like it might have been created within the last 20 years.
I have been meaning to write an article about the new ads from Microsoft, you know the ones – with Bill (Gates) and Jerry (Seinfeld). I had developed a theory about just what Microsoft might be up to, but before I could put the proverbial finger to keyboard, the interweb became awash with rumours that the ads have been pulled, or have possibly ‘done their job’ – depending on the spin you believe.
For those of you who haven’t heard about them (where have you been?), or seen them – here they are (assuming youtube continues to show them that is).
So what was Microsoft up to?
Well before I go too far, I have to express an interest in Microsoft, having just worked on an assignment to help rebrand most of the advertising revenue generating businesses within Microsoft – snappily called Microsoft Digital Advertising Solutions (MDAS for short) into – wait for it – Microsoft Advertising.
Now I know you may think that job didn’t need a whole heap of consultancy thinking, but as I like to think – great brand ideas in hindsight should always look kinda inevitable. The fact was that working with Microsoft was a delight – and that they really do have more big brains than you can shake a stick at, but unfortunately they are mostly huge brains that would rather focus on technology and products and functions and ‘neat stuff’ than branding – so this is where we came in.
So, far far away on another Microsoft planet (it really does feel that big) some big Microsoft brains have been pondering the ‘b’ word (brand – keep up), and why they aren’t the most loved brand on earth, as they rather feel they should be.
For 25 years they have increasingly dominated the I.T. world – particularly with those two huge cash cows, Windows and Office, but somehow their enormous portfolio of industry dominating products and services still doesn’t seem to add up to a great brand – why not?
Well, like most brand problems, the answer is incredibly simple, and incredibly complicated all at the same time. For why?
Microsoft is a very very complicated company (however hard it tries to simplify it’s organisational structure), with some very complicated products, services and propositions. It has a vast workforce of smart people coming up with smart things – and mostly what Microsoft loves best is coming up with more and more new smart things.
I have to admit I have sat through more than one meeting at Microsoft where I hadn’t the least idea what they were talking about (but hey, I am a brand consultant), and as I have already said – Microsoft is an awfully big and complicated place.
On the other hand, you have a company like Apple, that has been socking it to Microsoft on a daily basis for the last few years with their ‘Get a Mac’ campaign – you know the one – ‘Hi, I’m a Mac, and I’m a PC’ (I’ve included a few just for fun – see below).
Obviously Apple aren’t the only competitor, but for brevity lets stick with them.
I may be an aknowledged Mac fanboy, but even the most diehard Microsoft fanatic has to admit that Apple have successfully positioned themselves through this campaign at the expense of Microsoft, and we have heard barely a peep from Microsoft in defense.
Apple want their brand to stand for simplicity and elegance, with a hip and stylish panache, because they truly feel that the purpose of their products is to be simple and elegant – ‘they just work’. Their vision is delivered through the customer experience, and they are fanatical about every aspect of the experience – user interface, visual identity, websites, products, they all seem to be guided and created by one hand (and we all know who – right?).
The fact is Apple probably has the single most well managed branding programme on the planet – and it shows. They clearly pay top dollar for design talent, but what most impresses is the sheer attention to detail – it ALL looks so consistent – not in a uniform, dull and boring way, but in a beautiful, stylish cool looking way. And make no mistake – this cost a lot. But it works.
Alas Microsoft just doesn’t have such a well connected vision to experience. In fact Microsoft seems to think what it does is just too diverse to have any singular visionary idea that can be translated through a consistent brand building experience.
Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of really smart branding people within Microsoft, but the empire is just so large, so very VERY large, that very few people get a sufficient overview to draw a sufficiently singular and collectivising vision together, and the organisation doesn’t have the will or the discipline to deliver a consistent and desirable customer experience.
Microsoft is run much more as a business than a brand, so where all decisions within Apple feel like they have come personally from the hand of Steve, the decisions passing up and down the layers of management in Microsoft just don’t appear to have any cohesiveness – and that’s assuming you actually understand what most of the guys are talking about, because from my very limited experience and perspective, the one thing Microsoft really seem to enjoy is complexity.
And so this is where I think the super smart guys from Crispin Porter & Bogusky came in – the hottest advertising agency on the planet – and tasked (or challenged – you choose) to come up with an advertising campaign that will help to reposition Microsoft (and most likely create a repost to the Get a Mac campaign) with some sort of coherent Microsoft vision.
Crispin Porter & Bogusky have made a reputation creating smart, funny, insightful and effective advertising (and like all advertising guys – they all use Macs! But like a challenge) and the feeling is, if they can’t do it, nobody can.
But what is that singular vision, and how to coalesce it into a 30 second advertisement. We all know advertising on it’s own won’t solve the vision thing (right guys?), but I’m sure the Microsoft troops and their friends would at least like something to make them feel better about being at Microsoft.
So what was the big idea (at least so far…..?) because much of the commentary (and there has been lots) in the blogosphere has been along the lines of ‘what is this about?’
Well, for what it’s worth, here is my view on what the advertising is all about….
Apple is cool – the ads are cool, the products are cool, Steve J is cool.
Microsoft is not cool, the products are not cool, and Bill G (and Steve B, especially Steve B) are not cool.
But…
Apple is kinda smug. And PC (John Hodgman in the Get a Mac ads) is kinda sweet in a not cool way. And whilst Microsoft is not cool, it is useful, and it is successful, and and (take care now – hold back the Microsoft instinct for world domination) it creates some useful products which – ahem – mostly work.
So….
Lets portray Microsoft (ie use Bill – because he IS Microsoft – and incidentally, who knew he could be so funny?) as a personality living in a dreamworld of hyper normality – Shoe Circus, Grannies that mow the lawn – ie create a rich everyman world where Bill (Microsoft) is part of – a world where Apple wouldn’t fit in, because it is just too cool and elitist.
Microsoft is anti-cool, just like the rest of us. And by making Microsoft just like the rest of us, they mis-position Apple as an outsider.
So if Microsoft is more like us (warts and all) then we are going to feel better about them, and feel more and more that somehow Apple are just too smart, too slick, too….. unlikeable.
Of course, to follow through with this strategy, Microsoft would have to build that sense of ‘us together in un-coolness’ into something wide and deep, and then drive it into the muscle of the business.
It could be a brand that reflects what we are actually like – ordinary, funny, kind, quirky – and it could help us do the things we really need to get done, and the things we actually want to get done. It could be our friend, someone you would have a beer with (not just a Starbucks), someone you would welcome into your home without worrying about how tidy your house is or whether they will hit on your wife or daughter.
But as I have said, they just don’t have the instinct, will or discipline to collectivise that vision into a consistent customer experience. And more significantly, I don’t think many of the senior executives will want to jump on the ‘us together in un-coolness’ bandwaggon. You need great discipline to subvert your own instincts for the greater good of the brand vision.
It’s a size thing, but it’s also a culture thing, and in the end I’m not sure Microsoft really have a culture that understands or accepts the basic principles of singular visions and connected collectivised customer experiences.
But hey – it makes a gazzillion dollars a second and has bred more millionaires than any other company. So who knows what will be the next move on brand Microsoft – I for one am looking forward to what Crispin Porter & Bogusky do next, and three cheers to Steve Balmer for giving them the chance…
Thornton’s, the chocolatier, announced improved profits this year. Profits were up 19.6% for 2007/8 as compared with 2006/7. The really big news was, though, that in the press release ‘brand’ was mentioned as a success factor. Mike Davies, Thornton’s Chief Executive was quoted, “Underpinning this growth is the strategy we have been implementing to return Thorntons to sustainable, long term profitability by investing in the brand, developing innovative products, modernising the in-store environment as well as attracting and retaining the best people.”
What is really lovely, from a brand observers point of view, is that all the elements in his strategy are aspects of how to develop a great brand. With the central premis of ‘investing in the brand’ he then surrounds that with three major deliverables of brand experience – and thereby the customer’s reason to choose Thorntons.
1. Innovative products – no brand can exist without a genuine customer experience – the brand promise must deliver at the point of impact – the quality and ingenuity of the product is defining – just as Apple has achieved, again, with its delightfully brand endorsing iPod Nano-Chromatic – a rainbow feast for the eyes before they even reach your ears. Thorntons products had begun to be less than you hoped for rather than the classic brand goal of ‘exceeding expectations.’
2. Environment – the total brand experience and all that. The benefit of having a brand that has an outlet is that you can control and enhance the shopping experience. Chocolate is a gift of a product to work with – smell, taste, colour, texture…... Thorntons has (at least) twice been the theme of Marketing’s Brand Healthcheck. In 2001 Nick Moon of Futurebrand offered the advice, “See the film Chocolat and apply the little shop philosophy.” In September 2006 Futurebrand’s Jasmine Montgomery mentioned that, “Bizarrely, the brand fails to dazzle most where it has the biggest opportunity – in its own retail outlets. Plastic bins, crowded shelves, busy packaging, cheap plastic price frames and overuse of ‘offer’ stickers on the fascia contribute to an overall diminution of the brand experience.” Her advice,”Refit all outlets and remove all ‘free’ and ‘special offer’ window stickers. The windows should be the seducers of women.”
3. Best people – this is one of our favourite brand tenets – and so often not closley enough connected to brand programmes. It is essential that brand positioning works for the people in the company and is delivered internally in such a way that it motivates and excites. We always recommend working with HR to develop recruitment and remuneration processes that build the brand and reward brand behaviour. It’s not really just about getting and keeping the best people – it’s all about the right people.
So it seems that a focused and committed approach to investing in the Thorntons brand is really paying off. Their promise of ‘The Art of the Chocolatier’ is coming to life. A comment on Qype noted, after a visit to the new shop in KIngston, “Thorntons was just re-opening, after a brief but effective revamp. I didn’t recognise them at all…This new store is the first of five to open in the UK. Known as project Ruby, it’s bright, fresh, and very inviting. The counters are white marble, with tantalising display areas, each with their own distinct appeal: children, traditionalists, ice-cream lovers and sophisticated palates are all catered for. The feel is more modern, cutting-edge and deli-delights than olde world chocolate shop.”
Hats off to Thorntons for embracing the potential of real brand development. May their success continue. (I’m still looking out for the chocolate ears…)
