Some unofficial representations of brands/icons upset people, but some, like this, are completely charming. I think it must be a badge of brand success when you can be recognised even as a knitted finger puppet, when you're so well known and iconic that a folk medium can summon up your essence. Here's a good test for brand managers - if your brand was a knitted finger puppet; would anyone recognise it?
I got a text yesterday from Neil, inviting me to his Bonfire Of The Brands burning. I thought I'd go because I think his project's rather interesting. It's not just the standard anti-brand polemic, it seems like he's trying to do something slightly more nuanced. In fact I wrote a little piece for his book because it seemed such an interesting thing. (And because I'm a complete egomaniac who'll do anything like that, if people ask.)
Then, late this afternoon, Neil called and asked if I'd go on BBC News 24 to take part in a debate about the whole thing. They had some marketing person on and they wanted me to present the 'other' point of view. (Because as you know, in a news debate, there can only be two points of view 'A' and 'Not A'). And, though wary, because I hate the artificial polarisation of news debates, I said I'd do it. And then I talked to the researcher guy from the BBC and you could tell that Neil's PR person had basically said - get this guy on because he used to work for Nike and now he'll slag brands off and that's just what you want. I could just imagine the big Trisha-style super they'd put up - I Used To Work For Nike, But Now I Hate All Brands. So I said I wasn't going to do it. I'd try and put some more nuanced argument over and I'd just get forced into being polemical. I maybe wouldn't mind that myself, but they'd big up the Nike thing so much and it'd be unfair on them. I love the BBC, but I hate the way BBC news always do that.
So then I went to the thing, down at Finsbury Square and Neil's opening oration followed the same simplistic line; brands are a con etc and it all made me begin to wonder if Neil's not falling prey to exactly the forces he's protesting against.
I bet his publishers are starting to think they've got another No Logo on their hands and they're selling Neil to news outlets as exactly that - the latest rabble-rouser, the latest source of cheap news in the Business Pages. That'll create some publicity, stir up some WOM, get decent placement in the bookshops, guarantee sales. And what's that they're doing? Marketing. And what are they building? They're creating A Brand. All the simplifaction, obfuscation, hype and bluster he's having a go at, right there in the marketing of his own brand.
Is that irony? I'm still not sure.
I still bet the book is more thoughtful than this hypey ranting and dumb PR. He trikes me as a smart and decent man. But maybe it won't be. Maybe my little piece will look rather stupid in context. Ah well. It's only brands, they're not important.
There's a genius post at Re-Imagineering about the multiple perils of sponsorship, branded content and all that guff.
They talk about the earlier days at Disney, when guest satisfaction was priority number one and, though they accepted sponsorship, they didn't let the sponsor's message get in the way of the experience/story. A balance a lot of channels are trying to strike these days (including me).
But then they talk about the dark days when they lost site of that priority and built Test Track at Epcott for GM - a kind of World Of General Motors.
I think I've been to this, and the description rings a bell - an unconvincing, headache inducing reconstruction of a testing facility followed by an uncanny simulcrum of the experience of 'driving along a road'.
This is the perfect archtype of so many branded experiences. They succeed in accurately re-creating the genuine brand experience and in doing so reveal that the brand is deeply tedious and un-inspiring. This is one of the great advantage of television advertising, it can make your brand seem more interesting than it is. It's much harder to do this, convincingly, with something as extended as a ride. Or a website. The growth in this kind of marketing will accelerate the thinning of the brand herd, removing the unremarkable ones and revealing horrible lose-lose-lose situations like this, where Disney get a dull ride, GM remind everyone they've got nothing to say and actual people waste time queuing for something rubbish.
Actually, maybe that's another good way of determining the inherent interestingness of your brand. If it was a ride at Disney - would anyone go? And if you want to get more refined, which Mr Men would go with you?
Jet lag woke me early so I went for a run. Then I needed a reviving coffee so I went to Caribou Coffee. It was nice. Friendly. Welcoming. And somehow completely pointless. Their entire brand vision seems to be 'we're like Starbucks but from one state up'. (Alaska). Everything feels the same, but slightly, slightly different. There's nothing wrong with it but it's depressingly unimaginative. There must be some other way to do a coffee shop than a complete replication of Starbucks.
Or maybe I'm missing something.
What are Coke up to? This looks like something from a corporate report. But it's found its way onto the back of mags like OK. How odd.
Here's a brand that's not getting as much love as it should. Angel Delight. You can make it together. You can lick the bowl. And the whisk. No heat. No cooking. A bit of waiting and a delicious butterscotch goo.
Found this at Hidden Persuader. Tom Bihn makes laptop bags and stuff. This is one of their bilingual labels. The extra bit of French at the bottom translates as "We're sorry our president is an idiot. We didn't vote for him". That's a brand with a point of view.
About this time last year we made the Honda Cog ad. It seemed to go down quite well. Created a bit of a stir. But what's been interesting has been watching the online conversations develop about it. People having been talking about it in all kinds of places - forums (fora?) discussion groups, blogs. And there have been furious arguments about whether it was real or CG. Normally agencies just ignore these conversations, but we thought it would be good to actually get involved and tell people how we really made the ad. So we posted some answers here(scroll to the bottom). It's going to be interesting to see if anyone still cares.
Went to the Apple Store in New York. Very good, of course. In some ways. I particulary liked the way that they'd made it feel like a public, shared space. People were checking their email and browsing for porn on the display computers. And they were lounging around plugged into the wall and using the airport network. And there's a theatre space upstairs where people are demoing products the whole time.
And they have great ideas like apple camp. Where kids can learn stuff about stuff and things. In the store, blah blah blah. All the incredibly obvious retail things which no-one ever does.
Of course the fatal flaw is that it's really hard to actually buy anything. There are always long queues at the sales desk and you're not quite sure who you have to ask to get something, can you just pick one up or do you have to ask someone, and do they have any mini-ipods or not? So, apart from the actual act of buying stuff, one of the best stores ever.
