JKR

Putting brands on Facebook might sound like a lame idea, but Coke, who have the most popular brand page, can claim over three and a half million “friends”. Not only that, but they didn’t have to lift a finger, as the page was originally the result of a couple of Coke enthusiasts.

David Taylor’s “brandgymblog” has a great round up of the brands who are socially networking successfully: http://wheresthesausage.typepad.com. His blog is generally well worth a visit – we regularly cross paths with David on projects and the speaking circuit and his analysis of what’s going on “out there” is always of interest.

Back to the topic of user generated content, Sharpie (the American pen brand) are using their online presence to showcase lots of consumer creativity using their products. It’s a really neat idea, as it exploits connections to other sites, puts the consumer at the centre of the story, takes minimal effort, creates buzz, inspires different product usage and best of all, positions the brand as selling creativity rather than pens. Here is what the site looks like…

And here are a couple of things that have been “Sharpied”…

We have been a bit snooty about “crowd sourcing” in the past but Sharpie show that handing control over to “amateurs” can be a really powerful way to build brand equity with little effort.

‘Besides, nothin in the world’s more expensive than free’ (The Reverend in The Wire).

The latest “Big Idea” book to catch hype is Wired editor Chris Anderson’s “Free: the future of a radical price”. Like most folk with a ready opinion on the topic I haven’t actually read it yet, but the synopsis is interesting: Anderson’s observation is that “information products” (e.g. most stuff available online from music to news) are increasingly driving a trend for goods being given away (or stolen) and this in turn is creating a new paradigm for economics.

Of course little in life is truly free. Indeed Anderson’s book, somewhat in the face of his theory, is analogue information retailing at £9.49 on Amazon. Nevertheless in the non virtual world of FMCG constant discounting of household brands is creating an equal sense of how we perceive products. It’s always harder to value something that is given away (the image above is of discarded free newspapers in Paris).

One observation I would make is that we have worked on several “premium” brands that were in reality permanently sold on deal. Their image held strong while extra effort was invested in their image (smarter physicals etc) but when this investment ended their stock quickly fell. If a brand is essentially an idea attached to a product, the idea needs to be cherished and constantly polished to ensure that the intellectual property continues to be valued. Failing to do this drives products into being commodities, and commodities are sold on price not prestige. To this point both Harrods and Harvey Nichols are both very clever at making a sale look like a prestigious event (see below) rather than a bargain bazaar.

Meanwhile Anderson’s book has been criticised for some factual errors resulting from research in the less trustworthy waters of free information online. Which speaks volumes.

Australian super brand Vegemite is now owned by American producers Kraft Foods. If this wasn’t enough to trouble the Aussies, for the first time since its birth eighty five years ago, the brand is looking to create a product variant (a census of 300,000 antipodeans concluded they wanted a more spreadable version that didn’t require butter). This has predictably led to local newspapers and websites inundated with loyalists urging Kraft not to ‘mess with the Mite’.

But Kraft have a cunning plan: in 1923, a national naming competition was held in Australia to put a name to the yeast extract spread. The winner was Vegemite (initial poor sales led to renaming it ‘Pharwill’ for just one year in 1928!). The new variant is repeating this approach. What better way of paying homage to the brand’s legacy and getting the good folk of Australia onside? And creating huge PR. And generating a name with soul and a right to take its place on the shelves alongside the parent.

Aussies seem to have an innate gift for nicknaming things. Names submitted to date include Kangamite, Aussiemite, Velvetmite, Vegelite, Vegesmooth. In other words the same stuff that would certainly come from a slightly flat brainstorm. But coming from the public, all names that are perfectly good to go.

It’s helpful to have someone in mind when designing a pack, and it’s understandable that we are usually briefed to target ‘opinion leaders’ rather than the herd, but the reality is often interchangeable pen portraits of the same bland person. It’s most common in alcohol brand briefings: we are invited to “meet” a guy who is invariably mid twenties, starting to become more discerning, enjoying his career and relationship, appreciates good food and the occasional night out ‘just with the guys’ (the devil!). While he might be the poster boy for a responsible drinking campaign, a few minutes immersed in his upwardly mobile world and you want to knock the smug smile off his face. Just as an aside on female pen portraits: surely there are more stripes of young women than indicated by moodboard’s populated (seemingly exclusively) by the unholy trinity of Cheryl, Davina and Paris?

While such personifications are not really a problem, they aren’t much help either – as one colleague often remarks, if you want to see who you’re designing for, hang out at a motorway service station for an hour. Real life is far more inspiring and instructive than these anodyne ‘guys’ ever are. It would be refreshing just once to get a pen portrait that begins “Meet Smithy, he loves life but at his age life seems to be all about big Friday nights….”

Apologies if this reads like a long whinge but I’m trying to make the point that if the start point is always the same, there is less chance for a distinctive design outcome, which is, after all, the endgame…

Men and women are pretty similar – men after all begin life in the womb as females (it’s why we chaps have nipples). But, considering humans share 95% of their DNA with mice, small differences can mean a great deal. We have looked in a little depth at how men and women respond differently to design, and have observed some basic principles. To collapse an hour’s charts into a couple of sentences: science and simple observation suggest that women are generally more aware and appreciative of nuance in design, be it colour, tactility, form etc. So building in design detailing can appeal to women but won’t put men off (they simply won’t notice it). However, while women are perfectly happy to buy into “male” aesthetics,  woe betide anyone who patronises females by overtly targeting them in mainsteam life (eg the world beyond packaging destined for handbags or bathroom cupboards).

Little wonder then that Chicago Town’s “Gorgeous” range is underperforming, combining as it does crude aesthetics with rather patronising visual content. Still, The VW Beetle advertising of the Mad Men era, once considered revolutionary,  throws up a few examples that now read as fabulously archaic. Perhaps Chicago Town were going for a genuinely retro sensibility?