BrandsAmongMany

So yesterday morning I got a friendly email from a reader named Lornie:

Hi Danny,
Have you seen this yet? not sure what to make of it….
http://lifetakesvista.com/
Lornie

At first glance, of course, it looks like any other email I get from various PR people looking to promote the newest campaign by agency X or company Y, most of which I ignore (I’m not usually too interested in playing shill for some company’s new TV campaign). The only thing that led me to look into this one a little further was the fact that Lornie’s email didn’t come from a PR company account and didn’t name agency X or company Y. Well, that and the fact that I actually hadn’t seen the Life Takes Vista effort yet.

So after taking a quick look at the Life Takes Vista site, my immediate question to Lornie was…

What’s your connection to the campaign?

To which she responded:

zero. i dont work for msft. (actually unemployed at the moment) not sure if its from msft because i searched the web and didnt see anything on this…or theyre trying to be stealthy!

At first I took her answer at face value. But, in the midst of looking further into the campaign to ready a post, I stumbled onto a couple of other blogs who heard from a “loyal fan”, Lornie:

jkOnTheRun
James Kendrick’s Twitter
The Ranch
Flickr

Of course, these aren’t the only blogs talking about the effort. There’s still the lingering question of who the heck is responsible for this campaign (blatant rip-off?). It doesn’t appear to be an official Microsoft effort. In fact, there’s discussion around that question in a couple of places:

AdRants
CrunchGear

Hrm. As CrunchGear points out, this feels either like a very smart effort by a couple of ad students to get themselves noticed (feels like a reach to me) or an effort by a couple of bored Crispin employees who didn’t get the idea through during the original effort. A little further digging reveals that the Life Take Vista site is being hosted by a company in Denver under anonymous administration - only a stone’s throw from Boulder…

Suddenly Lornie seems less like a friendly reader and more like a PR agent that she seemed like to begin with. Lornie, I’ll be the first to offer my most sincere apologies if I’m wrong - we appreciate a tip as much as the next guy - but this one just feels dirty. A search for the email address the tip was sent from reveals nothing, which would be rather unusual given how many forums, websites, etc. most digitally savvy ad students are signed up for. And a search for Lornie’s full name also reveals nothing…no Facebook profile, no LinkedIn account, no personal website…nothing.

So short answer…I’m not sold. This feels like nothing more than a covert, subversive attempt to get eyeballs on a rip-off campaign. Which it seems to have accomplished - along with building a wealth of negative brand equity. Kudos!

J. Crew has been widely lauded lately. They’ve taken huge steps toward separating themselves from competitors like GAP and Banana Republic by bringing a distinct feel to their brand. Unique partnerships and tactics – like offering vintage Rolex watches and high end, created just for J. Crew pieces, as well as their recently opened Tribeca Men’s Store – have set the company in a league of their own.  But, despite the company’s recent rise as one of the premier mid-level fashion brands (Is it just me, or is it a little scary when $70 shirts are “mid-level”?), consumers are standing up and taking note of their sometimes questionable statements and actions facing loyal customers.

Perfect example? While poking around in hopes of finding a coupon or free shipping code for an order I was placing, I came across this short but interesting thread of comments. A distinctly unhappy undertone from a few customers was compounded by this statement, presumably from a J. Crew employee:

Just so you know, we’re onto the people who abuse coupons and we will now check all pre existing orders to ensure you have not used the same coupon twice.

That, of course, instigated even further negative response from the contributors. Complaints of poor service and a decline in quality are most prominent – an issue that I’ve noted myself based on my latest order. I’m still waiting for a sweater that I ordered on Sept. 24, and I’ve received not follow up or further indication of when the item might ship (despite it being listed as “in stock” when the order was placed). I also had a couple of items that were simply dropped from my order due to “lack of availability”, but that I was able to reorder the following day.

For a company with this kind of following, and make no mistake, they do have a following, moments like the comment above are just about inexcusable. Perhaps it’s true and they are cracking down on coupon use, but there’s no reason to broadcast it to the world. We can only hope that this was a random incident by a proud employee.

Perhaps this is a perfect demonstration, then, that larger companies need to start thinking about social media training. They need to understand that their employees actions have resonance for their brand. Sexual harrasment training is mandatory at just about every sizeable company today, and that’s an issue that only costs them money in the event of a lawsuit. Social media mistakes are a daily occurance, but go unchecked at every turn.

There’s money to be made in this folks. Someone step up and make it happen!

Every once in a while there’s a new spot that pops up and takes the (ad) world by storm, quickly becoming the “talk of the town”. The latest in that genre seems to be from the fashioneers over at Diesel. This mashup has been flying back and forth across our office (and across the web) since the middle of last week, so I figure it’s high time to give it a nod.

No, it isn’t a masterfully genius piece promoting their newest jeans. In fact, if you blink you might even miss the branded payoff. But it is funny. Diesel has taken a selection of the grandest of ’70’s porn and made it SFW. ish:

Apparently this amalgamation of cartoonified skin flicks is intended to promote their 30th anniversary celebration, coming up on October 11 (get it? 30th anniversary…’70’s porn…). Though I have to admit, even after watching it a couple of times, I didn’t pick up on that fact until I stumbled onto the associated website.

So, no, I’m not going to sit here and delve deeply into the brand value of such a creation. This one, we’re going to take at face value and simply laugh at. So enjoy it.

Oh, and on a side note. We had a group of ad school folks here at POKE last week and decided to share this gem. Mid-way through, one of the students exclaimed loudly

Hey, that’s from Debbie Does Dallas!

and promptly turned bright red. Can you spot the clip?

We were selling rich women their own fat asses back to them.

Yep, here we go again, quoting movie lines to make a point about branding. Hey, not my fault if Ed Norton has a way with words (Not sure what scene I’m referring to? Have a look here.).

So, the question is…are we? As marketers (advertisers, branding gurus, digital desperadoes, call yourself what you will) we sell ourselves on our expertise of many areas. Sure, we call it “marketing” or whatever, but when it comes down to it, we’re selling our understanding of human nature (psychology), our ability to tap into that in a manner that will gain attention (creativity), the potential of that message to have an impact on the people we’re talking to (strategy), our ability to sell our ideas through to the client (salesmanship), how well we can actually create what we’ve said we can create (production), and a slew of other bits and pieces that we encounter along the way.

That’s a lot of “expertise” – a lot of different minds – that comes together to be successful at this thing we do. That’s lot of points along the way for something, even the smallest point, to go slightly awry. It’s no wonder, then, that we might occasionally get caught up in our own heads. It’s easy for us to get excited and see the potential behind an idea that makes perfect sense to us, based on our background, but has little meaning or resonance for the “average joe”. It’s easy for us to get caught up in the excitement of buying back our own fat asses.

This begs the question: how much of what we do, especially digitally, actually reaches out into the “real world”? How many of the soccer mom’s in Wisconsin engage in the newest methods of digital communication – the mechanisms that we often consider the forefront of the digital revolution?

Consider this: just the other day I found myself explaining Twitter to a project manager at a popular traditional “hot shop” that we’re partnering with on a current project. If she didn’t know what Twitter is, can we expect the masses to encounter a message that we propagate using it as a distribution tool? Probably not.

Perhaps more importantly, though: do they have to? If the mechanisms that we’re using to reach the influentials are successful, does it really matter if the soccer mom hears directly from us? Isn’t that the point of targeting the influencers - so they’ll spread our message to the masses? Aren’t the social media tools that we use to spread our gospel really just weapons in our arsenal that can be used to reach the specific people we want to hear about our cause because we know that they’ll help spread the word?

Or more simply put, are we buying or are we selling the fat asses? And do we have the gumption to accept the voice of reason and understand when we’re getting caught up in our own heads? I don’t expect a simple answer. It will vary by company, by project, by client, by concept.

But as soon as we lose awareness of the question, we lose our ability to control the answer. And once that’s gone, we’re just another cog in the fat ass economy.

As I was writing up a post for our sister site, ThingsAmongMany this morning, a thought hit me regarding branded art partnerships and their prevalence in advertising…

The lines between art and advertising have been a blur for as long as either has existed. The cycle of one borrowing from the other, borrowing back has been a never-ending process that has spurred both amazing breakthroughs as well as bitter fights – just look at the popular case of Sony vs. kozyndan. But lately, the notion of branded artwork has made a jump to the forefront. Scion commissioned popular artists to contribute to their Want 2 B Square campaign. Microsoft has made similar efforts for their Zune and Xbox branding. A slew of other brands that seem to allude me for the moment have also jumped at the trend.

The latest I’ve noticed, and perhaps the best use of branded artwork that I’ve seen to date, is a recent effort from Green Works, a brand that creates plant-based, environmentally friendly cleaning products. Green Works commissioned British graffiti artist Moose to create a 140 foot long mural in San Francisco’s Broadway tunnel. The catch? Moose doesn’t work with the standard spray paints and wheat paste. His work is called reverse graffiti.

Invented by Paul “Moose” Curtis, a then kitchen-hand in Leeds, reverse grafitti is the process of creating artwork on a surface by cleaning it. Not quite clear? Have a look at Symbollix, Moose’s agency for creating branded works of reverse grafitti or watch this vid on the San Fran project:

Of course, branded artwork has a downside sometimes as well. It’s often considered “selling out”. It associates a brand with a specific artist’s work and often creates an image for the brand that it simply can’t live up to. Of course, those brands can afford to pay for that image and the artists are agreeing to its use (most of the time). What do you think? Should the trend continue?

Remember that little anecdote about “word of mouth” we posted recently? Here’s another example…

Think about this: when consumers LOVE your brand or your product, if you’re lucky they’ll tell their friends about it. It’ll jump to mind when someone says, “hey, do you know where I can get XYZ around here?” If you’re really lucky, you might find a blogger who will share it on their site. Then, maybe, it’ll get picked up and spread. Maybe.

But when consumers are UPSET with your brand…you’d better watch out. They’re gonna tell the world through every outlet they can get their hands on. And they’re willing to work for it. They’ve got that little emotional fire burning in them and only some good, old fashioned retribution will put it out.

See what I mean?:

Need further convincing? How about the Fail Me Is More Like It site that an annoyed customer created during the MobileMe debacle?

“Word of Mouth” is one of those popular catch phrases these day. Everyone wants to know how to make it work for them. There’s not really a secret key to make it “work for you”. There is, however, a really, really easy way to make it work against you: piss off your customers. The notion that people will be vocal when they’re upset, but don’t say a word when they’re happy is pretty standard. You’ll always have a disproportionate number of complainers willing to bash you your product compared to the silent masses who happily go about their daily lives with your product in tow.

Case in point…
Sean Howard of CrapHammer fame tweeted this the other day:

The tweet links to this post on Bikeforums.net, a popular cycling message board. (As far as I know, Sean isn’t a cyclist, so how he stumbled into this post, I’m not sure, but it probably got passed to him by someone.) The post, by Bikeforums user ReachHigher, outlines her story of a recent visit to Wal-Mart via bicycle. Due to the lack of bike racks outside the store, she opted to walk her bike into the establishment (a practice that she’s apparently done before), only to be turned away by the “greeter”. The arguement that ensued involved a removal of clothing in protest to a policy that the store manager seemed too flustered to back up. We’ll let you read the rest here, since the story itself isn’t the prime purpose of this discussion…

The main purpose here is to point out just how quickly certain stories will spread across the web. The day that Sean tweeted this, I believe the discussion on Bikeforums was at about 2 pages. It now sits at 15 (at the time of this posting). A quick search reveals a number of other sites that have picked up on the story:
Bikeforums.net
The Consumerist
Fark
Digg
BNet Industries
Liberty Forum
The Outskirts
The Nerd

Unfortunately, the stories that spread like this are far more prevalent than the positive ones  (which do happen though, check out the Zappos Story if you’re not familiar with it yet). Regardless of whether your story is positive or negative, though, this is a perfect demonstration of the power of the spoken word. Whether someone is touting your new business to their friends at work, or venting their frustrations about a major retailer, the word will spread.

Certain things can help that will help your word along. Here’s a few quick thoughts…
Finding the right people: who is going to “get” what you’re doing and who you are? Who’s going to enjoy and appreciate your efforts and be willing to spread the word? Those are you Brand Evangelists. Cater to them.

Tackle everything that comes at you, good or bad: What would you do right now if you were Wal-Mart? Ignore the situation? How about taking part in the conversation? Don’t make excuses, don’t throw money at the problem, but take an active role. Maybe install a bike rack?

Be honest: This is probably one of the most important things ANYONE can do. As soon as companies try to hide something or change the rules, people are quick to call BS. Honesty is always the best policy. Most people understand that businesses are around to make money. Do so in a responsible manner, and they’ll be more likely to work with you rather than against you.

Have some other ideas? Do share? What do you look for in a company that you find yourself telling friends about? What are you quick to bash someone for?

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.