BrandsAmongMany

Not long ago, I stumbled onto the twitter feed of DesignSojourn (and started following him immediately). Also known as the Design Translator, Brian Ling is an industrial designer based in Singapore. He also writes an excellent design blog that also runs under the name Design Sojourn.

The other day, Brian posted a rather provocative statement/question on Twitter:

While we’re strong proponents of the value and power of marketing – or marketing done well – I’m just not ready to jump healong onto the bandwagon for this one Brian. Marketing certainly can make a huge difference. A good marketing effort can throw up a smokescreen that will make a poor product appear better than it is. But that marketing effort won’t make a bad product any better. Eventually it will be exposed for what it is.

On the other hand, a great product – a truly remarkable product – will sell itself for the most part. Create something that solves a need and does it well, and people will hunt you down regardless of your marketing. Of course, a strong marketing effort on top of a remarkable product will be nearly unstoppable.

So, in short: The difference between good and great is not limited to marketing. Marketing can elevate a crappy product. A great product can get by without marketing (sometimes). Keep in mind, though, that a poor marketing effort can be damaging no matter how great your product.

Anyone have any differing thoughts?

We’re all for the little guy. You’ve seen our Wal-Mart post. We’re fans of the farmer’s markets. I opted to hold off on the purchase of a sorely needed new belt this weekend in favor of the guys at Tanner in Portland.

On that note, the local coffee shop, Think, that opened around the corner from the POKE office has been a regular stop for those moments where a quick jolt is a desperate necessity. Case in point: on a slow Monday morning, the need for a sip of iced, caffeinated goodness crept up and just wouldn’t go away.

sidebar: why IS iced coffee always more expensive than hot coffee??

I learned a while back, before my personal boycott, that Starbucks is nice enough to pour my medium iced coffee into a large cup on request. That works out perfectly for me because I can dump a bunch of milk in without feeling like I’m missing out on something. It also avoids the coffee-to-milk-ratio dilemma that inevitably ends with a very full cup followed by a puddle of coffee when I go to secure the lid.

Realizing that I always end up struggling to get the mix just-so, I asked the crew at Think this morning to do the same thing…only to find that they refused. I could have a medium coffee with “room for milk” or a large coffee with the same, but that was as far as they were willing to go. HUH?

Yeah, one could argue I was cutting into their margins by 10 cents or so…a couple for the extra cup size and a few more in milk. But really? Can any local coffee shop these days afford to alienate their customers? I just didn’t want to pour out 1/4 cup of coffee to add the milk.

As I’ve stewed about this during the day, it’s brought to light a couple of questions about little guy vs. big guy. Where should we, or do we, draw the line in support of the underdog? They tend to cost a little more, but that cost usually comes at the benefit of some added value. More service, better product, or even just a cordial smile and a “hey, how’s your day going?” Take any or all of that away, and you’re left with a more expensive version of exactly what it was you were trying not to support in the first place.

I’m not about to rush back to Starbucks because of this morning’s discovery. But I’m also not sure I’m going to rush back to Think either. Might be time to find a new coffee shop close to work. Or suck it up and drink the never-quite-satisfying cartridge coffee that we have in the kitchen.

You’ve probably noticed, from a number of places around the web - ourselves included, the closing statements from Portland-based clothier Nau. Widely respected for their responsible business practices and unique line of clothing, generally considered a mashup of Patagonia and a luxury manufacturer (take your pick, I’ve read Prada a few times among others), Nau’s closing was mourned by many. And rightfully so. Their open, transparent style of conducting business paired with what can only be described as a remarkable product line, along with an interest in sustainable and charitable practices, set an example that every company should strive to follow.

Amidst the outcry and lamentations, however, some good news has sprouted. Rather than tuck tail and hang heads, the crew at Nau has fought to overcome their hardships. Their words can certainly express more accurately than my own what they’ve accomplished:

When we announced in May that Nau, Inc was closing up shop, it triggered an enourmous outpouring of sentiment from you, our customers. Your response, coupled with a deep belief in what Nau represents, inspired a group of former Nau employees to see if we could pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off and take another shot at this thing.

And they’ve managed to do just that. The Nau name, along with “the bulk of the company’s assets” were purchased by a fellow Portland company called Horny Toad who also produces a line of outdoor-inspired urban clothing. Horny Toad will not, however, simply eat Nau for lunch and take what they can. Nau (now called “version 2.0″) will continue to live on under the leadership of a number of former employees including founder Ian Yolles and head designer Mike Galbraith, free to learn from their previous mistakes and continue in the traditions that established such a devout following their first time round.

The folks over at Treehugger had a chance to talk to Ian about what changes would be implemented with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. It sounds like one of the biggest changes will be the company’s distribution model. This time, they’ll forego their branded stores, opting instead to sell in both outdoor oriented retailers as well as urban boutiques, “Stores that get functional and stylish” according to Yolles. Probably smart given what we can imagine their rent must have cost for a store in Beverly Hills.

Nau also has plans to continue its Partners for Change program, though they’ve explained that their philanthropic endeavors, while still “industry leading”, may dip below the 5% bar they’d set during the existence of Nau 1.0. In the meantime, Nau is continuing their open communications as they share their rebuilding process (along with pics from what looks like a stellar rafting trip) with the world via The Thought Kitchen, their company blog.

We’re thoroughly excited to see that Nau is back and we’ll definitely be keeping an eye on their progress as they work to rebuild themselves. Until they relaunch with version 2.0, probably sometime in August, you can still buy some of their previous line at half off on their website.

Ok, I know that Apple is a favorite point of discussion amongst blogs like this. Someone is always standing at the ready to either praise or blast them for their newest…whatever. And I usually try to keep out of the fray. You’ll notice that we didn’t post yet another “ZOMFG, Apple released the 3G iPhone, let’s go stand in line for six hours!!!!!” post. But now that a few days have passed, and the initial shock is wearing down a little bit, I’m going to pick up my tradition of stepping back for a moment and trying to take a look at what’s really going on behind the excitement. Last September, it was the Starbucks partnership that prompted my musings…

This time it’s AT&T. Or is it just Apple? The web has been absolutely on fire with discussions of the newly released iPhone 3G. Most of that discussion, however, has been the usual fanboy discussion and the incredible lengths to which people have gone to acquire the device. Apple has reportedly sold more than 1 million devices since launch. According to Fortune, twenty one states are completely sold out. Sounds like heaven, right?

Maybe not so much. Reports from users are coming in every second, and the outlook is a little grim. A thread on Howard Forums has caught some attention and spurred a number of other discussions regarding both AT&T’s preparedness for the massive influx of new 3G capable devices, as well as questioning Apple’s hardware build. That led to further complaints on Macrumors.com, which in turn pointed [me] toward a similar discussion on Apple’s support forums.

General consensus: something is rotten in the state of Denmark. Complaints from 3G users around the world are coming in, reporting a variety of problems all pointing to either a major issue in AT&T’s 3G network - a reasonable deduction for US users - or in the new iPhone’s hardware itself - a more reasonable explanation given the worldwide issues. 3G-ers everywhere are complaining of slow connection speeds (the supposed benefit of the new 3G network), dropped calls, lack of signal, etc. - all in areas supposedly covered by their service provider’s network.

I’ll readily admit that I’ve pretty much caved and plan to do something that I vowed I wouldn’t - purchase an iPhone under AT&T. In fact, I’ve already made the call to Verizon to find out the exact date on which my contract is up (August 11 for anyone interested). But this is definitely enough to make me think twice about that decision. We can only hope that the issues will be fixed quickly, either via a firmware update from Apple (assuming that a software update can fix the issue) or some attention from the various service providers around the world. I realize that 3G is a newer technology that’s still being rolled out in many places, but if the reality of the system is that 3G speeds are slower than EDGE then maybe we’ve jumped the gun in the interest of “getting it out there”?

I’m sure that just the title will spur thoughts of a few brands that fit the mold…McDonald’s and Starbucks come to mind quickly. And lets not forget the mother-ship, the one that’s putting all the mom-and-pops out of business (quite happily): Wal-Mart. In fact, the brand has become such a popular point of discussion - I remember reading case studies on Mr. Walton in *shiver* business school - that a number of visualizations are popping up around it’s growth.

Toby Segaran put together a great video on his blog Kiwitobes.com back in March. Can’t seem to borrow it, but its on his site and worth a watch. More recently, Nathan over at the Flowing Data blog mapped a similar visualization using modest maps.

Both tell a similar story, plotting a time lapse of Wal-Mart store openings from the 1960’s till 2007. My immediate reaction - as well as many other commenters - was that it looks like a foreign attack on the human body. A quick scan through the comments reveals terms like “virus”, “infection”, and “cancer”. Of course, those have to be balanced out with “Looks like a successful company expanding to meet consumer demand.”

So…which is it? Is it both? Can a viral, cancerous brand really be the ultimate measuring stick for success? One of the most interesting parts of this exercise, to me, is the fact that all these videos show is factual information. No opinion passed, no judgement made by the creators, and yet the reaction amongst viewers is so visceral and the terminology comparing the spread of Wal-Mart to things that attack us as people is so common.

Wal-Mart certainly can’t be much blamed for social responsibility. They can, however, be granted an incredible saavy at making money. Once again, we’re dancing that fine line between the two. Can’t say I’m a huge fan, but then I try to keep away from Starbucks as well.

Do you get the point? You should…

Great point from the Stuff That Happens blog by Eric Burke.

Last night, as a friend and I sat in my apartment, we found ourselves discussing the benefits and drawbacks of Flickr vs. Facebook as a photo sharing platform. Her feeling was that Facebook is a far more prevalent sharing system across the general public of 18-30 somethings. Despite being a purpose-built photo sharing site (and subsequently social network), her experience with Flickr is limited - primarily because she’s had no reason to use it.

Alternatively, I use Flickr all the time and have relatively few pictures on Facebook. Of course, this was a moment of two worlds colliding. Neither of us was necessarily wrong, but rather we have different interests in how our photos are used and shared. What bothered me was that I really couldn’t decide which platform would better serve the needs of the situation we were thinking through (I’m supposed to know these things, right?).

Though I hadn’t given up on the thought, I had moved on for the time being until I noticed this article this morning. Dean over at the PhotoPreneur blog wrote an interesting discussion on the finer points of Facebook’s privacy policy - you know, that thing you never actually read and just click accept every time you sign up for something new online these days. It was this statement that really caught his attention:

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorize sublicenses of the foregoing.

Yes, there’s a lot of legalese to get through in there, but the gist of the statement is this: by uploading a photo to Facebook, you’re granting them the right to take, change, use, and even resell your image in whatever manner they see fit. Concerned by this revelation, Dean turned to photographer/lawyer Bert Krages for clarification. Krages explained that this statement essentially gives Facebook the right to take all of those images of you and your friends and turn them into a giant stock image library to which you will have no rights or recompense even if they use your mugshot.

While that’s probably not the end of the world for all of those shots from random 21st birthday parties or bachelor party antics, it does create reason to pause for photographers considering using Facebook as a means of attracting new clients to their work. It should also raise a red flag for branded group pages: be careful what you’re throwing out there for your group members to drool over unless you don’t mind the work wandering elsewhere.

As a counterpoint, it appears that Flickr’s use of member photos is limited to promotional purposes, a practice that’s pretty much par for the course when it comes to online hosting/sharing sites.

My reaction overall? Shame on you Facebook. Seriously. Isn’t it enough that you’ve slapped more advertising in front of your millions of members? Or that your shameless issuing of branded “gifts” is getting worse? Or that you got a multi-billion dollar offer to buy part of your…whatever it is you think of as your assets. You start running around making money off member photos, I think you just might begin to see a backlash. Maybe.

The evolution of digital technology has created expectations in consumers that brands simply don’t live up to.

This has been a defining principle in my thought process as I’ve grown into the digital realm. In fact, we’ve spent hours discussing just this thought around the tables of POKE. What is the difference between marketing of the days of yore and communication in today’s connected world? I’m gonna go out on a limb and start with…expectation.

We’re used to getting what we want, and getting it NOW. We’re used to being connected to the process the entire way through (straight down to the automated, geographic tracking on the package as it makes its way from Des Moines to Timbuktu). We’re used to picking up the phone and sifting through twelve automated menus and three Indian call centers to find out that we dialed the wrong customer service number.

So, what do we expect these days? Well, as this post bounced around my drafts folder, Tom managed to put it into words quite nicely over at Made With Computers:

We want more.

More information, services, ideas, more of each other and more value from you, the brand we grace with our attention. We also want to manage our relationships with your company, and to have_among other things_ instantaneous transactional capabilities. These expectations are increasing, not going away. To matters worse…

We also want less.

Less emails, less hold times, less crap snail mail and really - less interaction with you. That is of course, unless we want more interaction with you. Then, you know, give us that too.

And, as Tom goes on to point out, the line in the sand (read: trench, canyon, black hole…) between the brands that seem to get this and those that do not is almost unfathomable.

Of course, the benefit to this is that it doesn’t take much to impress me as a consumer anymore. All you have to do is overturn a few of those expectation - preferably in a positive way. Have a human answer the phone. Give me a correct answer to a question when I call to ask (are you listening Bank of America??). Make information easily accessible - AND CORRECT - on your website; believe it or not, I’m willing to spend the time looking for it on your website just so I DON’T have to call you (because I don’t trust your humans anymore).

Ladies and gentleman, the world is changing. Those of you who decide to keep up - or (gasp) rush ahead with us - will flourish. The rest of you…we’re getting tired of your ways. The backlash has already begun. Don’t let it hit you in the ass on your way out.

Stop and think for a moment about brands that you believe in. Not brands that you love or those that make amazing products at the expense of everything else, but brands that you really believe are making a remarkable product and taking an approach that’s worth believing in. Those brands are hard to find.

No matter how much we love our Apple computers, no matter how beautifully engineered the Porsche Carerra GT is, no matter how much we utterly adore the little blue box that Tiffany sells their jewelry in, they’re still not brands that inspire the utmost confidence from beginning to end. At least not in my opinion. One brand that does come to mind, though, when I stop and think about those that I really don’t mind spending money with is Patagonia.

I’ve been a fan for years - ever since I got into outdoor sports. First because of their solid products and their lifetime warranty (don’t know if they still do that). After working retail in the industry and learning more about Yvon Chouinard, the founder of Patagonia and Black Diamond, my respect for both brands only grew.

It wasn’t until a recent jaunt through the Patagonia website, however, that this caught my attention:

Build the best product, cause no unnecessary harm, use buisness to inspire and implement solutions to the environmental crisis. -Patagonia’s Mission Statement

It struck a chord, especially having given some thought to my previous post on companies focusing their attention on outcomes and product rather than profit. I believe this mission statement summarizes these ideals quite succinctly. Make something remarkable. Create a world that your employees and customers want to live in. Strive to inspire. How could I not feel good about this company? They make no excuses for the fact that they’re in business to make money, but they openly try to do so in the best manner that they know how.

Sure, we can fault them if we try. “Why only give 1% back?” “Why run a business that requires product to be shipped all over the world?” “Why, why, why…?” But if you’re asking those questions, you’re kinda missing my point. I’m not expecting capitalism to go away. I’m expecting it to be carried out with a conscience. And, in my mind, these guys are doing just that. Need more proof? Read about Leading the Examined Life. Or take a look at what the company is doing to make their own practices more environmentally sound.

“Control, vision and determination are the three fundamentals of modern racing, speed is a byproduct.”

Ok, so maybe its a little odd when I start comparing Nicholas Cage quotes to branding ideas, but hear me out. There are way too many brands who treat profit as the measuring stick by which they determine their worth and well-being. Yes, companies, for the most part, are out there to make money. That’s kinda the point. But it doesn’t have to be.

There’s been trend occurring lately. Companies that are blatantly out there running after money are getting a bad rap. They’re starting to feel just a bit too money-hungry. Starbucks is one that tends to jump to my mind quickly. What used to be an awesome little coffee chain has become the Wal-Mart of the caffeinated beverage world.

The Macaroni Grill is another. I remember eating at the original restaurant; it was a family favorite when I was growing up. The first one was in this incredible building in Leon Springs, Texas. From the outside it looked a bit more like an old saloon, but you walked in and it just had this aroma and sense of warmth. Unfortunately, it lost its soul as the chain grew. Now all the Macaroni Grills, much like Starbucks, look exactly the same. The original restaurant isn’t there anymore; it was flooded a few years ago.

Funny enough though, so was the original Rudy’s BBQ (which happened to be located next door). But you know what? After that flood, fans of the restaurant’s (absolutely stellar) BBQ came out to help them rebuild the location because they missed the food. Talk about customer loyalty.

The brands that are strongest today are the ones that go out of their way to create actual relationships with their customers. Yes, these companies make money, but they do it differently. They do it by creating a true sense of value and belonging that people can take part in.

As I thought more about these brands, I came across Bo Burlingham’s book Small Giants. He sums up the notion quite succinctly in his introduction:

[Small giants are] interested in being great at what they do, creating a great place to work, providing great service to customers, having great relationships with their suppliers, making great contributions to the communities they live and work in, and finding great ways to lead their lives…The wealth they’ve created…has been a byproduct of success in these other areas.

Profits are a byproduct. Focus on the other areas of your business. Do them well - remarkably well - and the money will come. But it will come with something greater. It will come with a sense of pride and accomplishment. It will come with employees who are willing to fight for you - people who care as much about your brand as you do. It will come with a customer base who are willing to put their own lives aside to come help you, just so they can sit at your tables together and eat BBQ.