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

When advertising is worth having

Browsing the magazine rack in the newsagent the other day it was interesting to consider the decision factors that make one choose one magazine over another. Classically the full face stunningly beautiful female works well. The other great persuader is the free stuff stuck on the front. My daughter was scrubbling around at my feet where all the children’s comics were. What’s stuck on the front is often her first selection criterion. She could choose a cute notebook and pen decorated with puppies, a clear plastic ‘mobile phone’ with lip gloss in, or an attractively pink Barbie necklace. However, she was finally won over by an inflatable ‘Pinky-ponk’ on the ‘In the Night Garden’ comic, a BBC sensation for the under 5s. A combination of play value, intrigue and affinity for the ‘character’ was powerful stuff.

Most women’s magazines are well padded with free bags, flip flops and sarongs – consistent with the theme of the magazine – fashiony things – but not fully coherent with the brand or furthering one’s understanding of it.

There’s an interesting thought that really good advertising should actually have its own intrinsic value – one should feel that something has been learnt, experienced, discovered just by seeing an ad. The Guinness ‘Surfers’ is an example of an ad that is of such quality it almost has a life of its own – its iconic ‘tock followed tick’ and poetic use of CGI on the white horses has given it an importance beyond selling Irish stout. However it is empirically associated with and expressive of the core brand idea – you have to wait. Levi’s ad, featuring Bottom and Titania and reminiscent of Buz Lurhman’s Romeo and Juliet, added refreshing cultural wit to an evening’s viewing – and to the impression of a pair of Levi’s jeans.

What interested me on the magazine rack was this month’s World of Interiors ‘freebie’. Completely coherent with WoI brand but also a generous and useful gift from the brand being promoted – Farrow & Ball. Somehow the rather low-key yet confident act of merely giving away their new colour card underlined the integrity and individuality of their brand. The plastic wrapper was emblazoned, tastefully, with ‘Be the first to have the new Farrow & Ball colour card.’ Getting information about the product range of a paint manufacturer was enough to persuade me to buy a particular magazine – extraordinary.

I smell a rat...

A recent article in The Guardian, highlighted the complex balance between consumer branding, city facing corporate names and the intracacies and vulnerabilities within brand architectures. Consider these two statements, only lines apart in the article: 

”...a major fall in group profits at Rentokil Initial as the support services group saw a slump in its school meals business.” 

“However, the flooding this summer has forced thousands of rats above the surface of the nation’s streets, leading to an increase in demand for Rentokil pest control.” 

Do you think the rats running around the kitchen had anything to do with the slump in demand? 

Unfortunately for Rentokil Initial – the corporate name – the fact that their school meals division has a delightfully wholesome and idyllic name – Eden – presumably to help distance them from in the first place Initial – the division of Rentokil Initial where they sit – primarily known for cleaning services (not that appetising) and secondly from Rentokil (pest control – definitely stomach churning) – seemed to pass by the Guardian journalist, Terry Macalister, entirely. He probably felt, if he was aware of it at all, that it was irrelevant to the point of his business article. 

However, as we know, customers have a nasty habit of not staying in their nicely defined ‘target audience’ group. Some rascal who may well be interested in business, say someone perhaps working, also has children who may well attend school. This inconvenient consumer already fits into the two audience categories of business and parent, not unconcerned with the quality and efficacy of his/her child’s school lunch. 

The headline I think, as headlines are, was designed to catch the attention of this two-headed reader, “TV chef plays role in Rentokil meals slump.” Incontrovertably linking pure Rentokil with school meals, and bringing in the TV viewer/Jamie Oliver fan too. Well, there always was a dodgy apple in the Garden of Eden – a lovely name can’t hide your connections. Maybe time for a rethink of either the company name or the services they get into.

Do you get it?

by Eric Goodstadt 
CEO - Brand Guardians USA 

The separation between those who get it and those who don’t continues to grow... 

Putting the brand first is the difference between growth and stagnation. 

Recently, Fortune Magazine published their annual edition of America’s Most Admired Companies; if you study these annual lists like I do, you would see something very distinct and telling about today’s business environment. All top 10 companies are known for focusing on a higher purpose beyond financial performance. Ironically however, they all are also among the top financial performing companies in the world. 

What is this correlation between a higher purpose and significant financial performance? 

As a former executive member of a few public companies, I saw first hand the pressures to meet the streets expectations. These pressures could, and often would, force executive teams into decision-making purely based on financial results, rather than what was in the best interest of the company, the clients and employees. For me, one of the final straws during my career was listening to a CFO’s plan to add a million dollars to the bottom line profits. His route to do so was by deferring a larger portion of the healthcare cost to the employees, whom at this point were already carrying more than 60% of those expenses. 

When you look at the top 10 admired companies, you see an impressive group of organizations that act purely on their beliefs and have amazed the street by consistently performing financially. Whether it is GE’s Immelt bucking the cut throat tactics of Jack Welch for a more nurturing culture with an emphasis on becoming an environmental responsible organization, or Howard Schultz of Starbucks offering part-time employees a comprehensive healthcare program. Each of these companies and their leaders ignored the street and followed a higher purpose to drive their actions. Although this idea of a higher purpose may sound spiritual, it is actually a sound business strategy grounded very effectively in their respective brands. 

For Howard Schultz it was has been written many times over that he never created Starbucks to be the best coffee maker in the world. Instead, he wanted to create a special respite, or 3rd place for humanity, in our hectic over anxious society. With this brand essence, Starbucks does a lot more then just make innovative and delicious drinks. They are among the most charitable organizations in the world, they offer comprehensive healthcare to all employees who work as little as 20 hours a week, and they consistently create environments that reward their customers with the respite the brand promises. 

Conventional wisdom would say to cut back on the funding to third world farmers for education and clean water, as the charity is too far removed for the average consumer to care. Conventional wisdom would also say to eliminate expensive healthcare costs for part-time employees (just ask Walmart, which is no where to be seen in the most admired list) and to replace those expensive, soft, and cushiony lounge chairs with cheap durable plastic ones. In the end, while conventional wisdom may provide short-term financial benefits, it has always been the long-term consequences that Howard Shultz has been concerned with. His vision for Starbucks has helped countless people in third world countries have a better life and has also provided over 145,000 employees and their families with quality healthcare coverage. In addition, if you judge success by the consistent throngs of loyal people jamming their tranquil store locations, Starbucks has succeed in achieving not just third place status but quite possibly a 2nd place stature among its customers. 

Some will argue that Starbucks, while admirable, is quite unique and shouldn’t be an example for all to follow. To counter that argument, let’s take a look at a company that once was the darling of the street, until the star lost its shine in the 1990’s only to be resurrected by an unconventional choice for CEO. 

AG Lafley was universally agreed to be a shocking selection to take over the CEO position of the ultraconservative Proctor and Gamble. The spiky gray haired CEO looked more like an advertising executive then a groomed successor to the CEO position, but he has proven to be the wisest choice the company could have ever made. P&G has become one of the biggest companies in the world on the basis of maximizing productivity and efficiency of its value chain. 

In its long storied past, the company would have never be confused with a leading design company, as it traditionally chose to sacrifice style and design for low cost production. However, as the technology age has exploded and the consumer has migrated to experiential buying preferences, AG Lafley saw that P&G’s tried and true operational behaviors were no longer valid in this new world. Ignoring his critics and some long time P&G traditions he sunk millions into redesigning packaging of the companies most popular products. In addition, Lafley consolidated brands counter to P&G tradition, creating flagships like Mr. Clean, as well as forced his management to look outside the P&G walls to find new innovative ideas. 

So while the street criticized Mr. Lafley for sinking millions into the redesigning of a $4 shampoo bottle, it was Mr. Lafley who realized that for today’s consumer the design of the shampoo bottle and how it looks in the shower is just as important as the product itself. 

In the end, both of these companies, and the other 8 organizations that appear on Fortune’s list of Americas Most Admired Companies, know something that unfortunately most companies refuse to accept. They know that if you put the brand first and execute the brand promise for the benefit of the company, customers and employees, the financial rewards will come. 

So whether or not you are number 1 GE, embracing its brand of innovation to create environmental friendly solutions, or number 7 Apple destined to be the enablers of melding life and technology, or number 8 Google who is determined to create unique user experiences (for both consumers and employees), it is finding your central purpose that will lead your company to its greatest success. No one can argue with the financial performance of these top 10 companies, and if each one of them achieved this success by honoring the brand holistically, wouldn’t it make sense that your company could benefit form doing the same?