The Observer newspaper reports a huge anticipated sales boom in lipstick. It’s a result of the “lipstick effect” when women react to uncertain times by scaling back spending on designer clothes and handbags, but splurge on cheaper luxuries. Selfridges reports an average cross-brand rise of 12%. Bold colours are the trend – another timeless response to doom and gloom as we discussed here. Spring will see the biggest brand names launching major ranges of “statement colours” in a small war for share.

So, with millions at stake isn’t it curious how generic lipstick branding is – same materials, textures, colours, shapes. And any branding is typically very discreet and plonked on the lid.

In the advertising we get a set of competing interchangeable celebrities, generally with a product and logo tucked away at the base of the page. While understanding the appeal of celebrity endorsement, why is the advertising so generic and unmemorable? Here’s a test – can you name the famous names behind the packs which head this post or these current (lavishly expensive) advertisements? (Answers, as they say after the “jump”.)

Are lipsticks the last bastion of understatement in a world of garish fashion branding? Is it because women want their lipstick to become a discreet part of their personal style rather than a badge of brand affiliation? If so, it runs contrary to a world of statement handbags, eyewear etc.

Is it because the brands are chosen in a context of strongly branded point of sale? If so, once bought, such branding becomes invisible, and the chance to promote via being out and about is lost.

Am I just being a bloke and missing the fact that for women the differences are subtle but clear?

When all that separates these interchangeable sticks of red wax and lead is the branding upon them, and with a war to be waged, how odd that such a uniformly forgettable approach to standing out is chosen.

Anyway, click here for the answers if you are as confused as me: Read more »

The cool looking sign above is prominently displayed across a wealth of material in my local London branch of American Apparel and it made me wonder if the brand has considered how well it travels (it’s sold in eleven countries). I did a little light digging on the brand’s website to understand its intended message and, combining this with what I intuit from the sign myself, here are a few observations made through British eyes:

1. American Apparel typically uses nubile lovelies who can themselves be seen as “made in the USA”- we are being invited to buy into that glamour. No problem - we’ve been admirers of American style since the dawn of Hollywood.

2. The brand comes from the home of the t-shirt so can claim product expertise and a sense of quality. Again nothing new - American products from Zippos to Levis have typically been viewed in the UK as well made (even if the production is now actually foreign).

3. The claim chimes with another strand of American Apparel behaviour: “Legalize L.A.” which refers to its proud employment of a high proportion of Latin Americans and touches on related immigration issues. From a foreign perspective one can only think: your country, your business.

4. The clothes are not produced in a sweatshop – well that’s of universal appeal.

5. But here’s the sticky one: within The States this message infers that in a time of recession it’s patriotic to invest in home-grown products. As one ad says “When you buy American Apparel you’re not only buying great products. You’re contributing to California’s tax base”. Gee thanks - this makes the a-ok hand logo the equivalent of flipping the rest of us the bird. We might happily lap up the idea of American cool and American quality, but asking us to celebrate our contribution to our own trade defecit is a little rich. I’m aware that I’m being quite Colonel Blimpish. And that so long as we think the clothes make us look sexy any perceived cultural imperialism will be an irrelevance for most consumers. But I do think this highlights the importance of local sensibilities for global brands.

Still, American culture has a self-confidence which generally does pride in an engaging, convincing way. When we had our own “I’m backing Britain” campaign in the late sixties it quickly became a bit of a joke, typified by the buffoonish Tim Brooke-Taylor in the Goodies. This considered, perhaps we self-deprecating Brits are fair game for foreigners to lord it over? Of course, this is all a storm in a teacup when the vast majority of products seem to come from China, but one man’s bombastic pride can be another’s poke in the eye.

Image: noluck on flickr

A report on BrandWeek reveals that many consumers are defecting from “iconic brands” to cheaper private-label alternatives (in contrast to several UK reports, but hardly a shock in the recession).

It was a big study, analysing purchasing patterns of 34 million U.S. shoppers for two years across 685 leading CPG brands and 24,000 retail stores, but do you agree with BrandWeek’s analysis? “Offering coupons and samples does not necessarily seal the deal. CPG marketers need to get more creative, and fast. They must find new ways to reward loyalists while also luring prospects to their brands.”

Here’s my view: sales promotions and suchlike aside, iconic brands have in their design DNA a sense of “come to me” rather than “what can I do to convince you?”. That’s partly what makes them “iconic” (as opposed to simply massive). True icon brands might better weather the storm, and be better placed to enjoy the upturn, if they don’t meantime devalue themselves by always carrying promotions etc. Adding value through better design, and the confidence this projects, has particular charisma in troubled times.

This, perhaps, is one way to lure new consumers in - Coca Cola was ranked the best global brand last year by Business Week. This is put down to myriad reasons, from innovation to better management, but the brand has certainly reconnected with its iconic routes with revitalised and more single minded design of late.

So push or pull? I guess if the pull (e.g being more single-minded by amplifying distinctive graphical equities) is executed powerfully enough, this in turn can facilitate some engaging pushing which feels like iconic brand behaviour rather than just another bogoff offer.

The figures shown on BrandWeek

(Photo: Flickr.com by Neato Coolville)

Gunther Kilsheimer passed away this August aged 86. Like many in the world of branding, he wasn’t exactly a household name himself, but his work was. He was integral in the design of the Toys ‘R’ Us logo and sign. According to the website of the company he founded, Kilsheimer “designed a sign for one of the founders of the company, Mr. Bill Bederman when the company was still called “Children’s Supermart Toys”. Along with a new image, Mr. Bederman wanted a more upscale sign, one with individual channel letters. When Gunther showed Mr. Bederman the cost to have that many letters in the title Mr. Bederman asked for a name change. The result was “Toys ‘R’ US”. Only the “R” had to be backwards as if a child had written it.

A good example of pragmatic thinking begetting a creative solution. And of a savvy client. In our straitened times I think it points to the notion that cutting back can actually deliver more, not less, if one is smart enough to see the opportunity.

Getting your note ready for Santa? Upmarket U.S. retailer Neiman Marcus can sell you a £152,000 fold-up plane, should you already have most things (but lack a conscience about your carbon footprint). Parachute optional (seriously). Or perhaps you would prefer the Leica Hermès limited edition? Some exclusive lenses and, of course, a leather carrying strap, “handcrafted by Atelier Hermès”. Comes in a linen-covered, silk-lined box and a snip at £8,500. Evidence here that the luxury market is a well which did not run dry during the past twelve months.

But beyond “cool by association” points, the Leica camera seems slightly unimaginative. More visually engaging is the Chivas Regal 18 Year Old with its limited edition makeover by fashion designer Alexander McQueen. Sold “at a significant premium” from the usual design perhaps, but at least it’s offering something special – a bottle which needs no gift wrapping to engender a sense of seasonal celebration.

Conspicuous consumption seems to be back loud and proud in time for Christmas, but the smarter brands are, as always, using the opportunity to reflect and dramatise the product’s qualities, rather than simply adding an ostentatious price tag or partner. Mind you, would you turn up your nose if the camera appeared under your tree?

M&S are letting us know they are competitive. Makes sense. But doing it in such a functional and unalluring manner throws all the equities they have built up as the UK’s premier “food porn” merchant in the bin. And when it’s done at the same time that they are stocking other brands for the first time, perhaps M&S equities are getting fuzzy? It’s another example of how focussing on price, price and price while failing to capitalise on more emotive brand values leads to forgettable communication. While the supermarkets engage in an arms race which forces them to discount, the brand name products are again let off the “switch and save” hook.

When the upturn arrives the supermarkets will have failed to convince us they are much more than competitively priced grocers. Interesting that out of all of this, Waitrose Essentials approach is being imitated and challenged because it played back to preconceptions around their brand (in a visually appealing way) and so was a notable success.

Above, for the style conscious but penny-wise man about town, a styling gel which squeezes every last drop from the pack and is styled in an engagingly utilitarian manner. And below, for the style conscious but less frugal oligarch about town, “L’Essence de Courvoisier”. A nice drop of brandy produced with Baccarat and a team of “thirty skilled craftsmen”. The liquid is suspended in an innovative teardrop, and the stopper acts as the diamond on the ring. If you have to ask “how much?”, it might be beyond your pocket as they say…

Both offer proof that, at the value for money and super luxury ends of the scale, structural design can be the most significant way of dramatising the brand’s ethos and usage, and both indicative of the way design is responding to the downturn – not necessarily by going back to basics.

In the week that the makers of Jolt cola petition for bankruptcy protection, citing the principle cause as the threefold price it pays for re-sealable cans over the industry standard ones used by its more famous rivals, we wonder if bespoke structural packaging is in the dock, too?

With the twisted glass bottle a relatively minor format in the UK nowadays, it seems that even when your name is Coca Cola, the dis-economy of scale associated with customised packaging just isn’t sustainable in the today’s competitive environment.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is clear that others have learned this lesson the hard way – even when the consumer gained superior convenience as in the case of Nescafe’s hot can, Stella’s take-home mini-kegs, or Quaker’s short-lived resealable cartons, their sales were minor compared with core formats.

Yet brands shouldn’t give up the pursuit of enhanced tactile or functional packaging. When we worked on the embossed Stella Artois can back in the 1990’s, it provided positive confirmation of its premium status and helped it accelerate away from the pack, one of a number of initiatives that ultimately made it the biggest alcoholic drink by value in the UK. As Stella invests its packaging pounds in new initiatives like the chalice glass, it has withdrawn its embossed can, while Heineken has taken the mantle with its outstanding barrel can, one of several pieces of quality packaging that have helped the company re-position it at the premium end of the beer market.

So, although high cost custom packaging may ultimately become a luxury one can’t afford, it certainly has a valuable role to play in catalysing brand renovation, something we can all raise a glass to!

This article has been written by Andy Knowles, jkr.

Along with generic price war advertising, supermarkets are all promoting their own value lines, which generally share a common design aesthetic…

When launching a line of hundreds of products to be dotted about a giant supermarket it clearly makes sense to go for a simple and impactful design system. And using one’s brand colours makes equal sense. And if you are selling a “no frills” line then the easiest way to communicate your proposition is to get rid of the visual frills. But does such an approach, taken to extremes, look so basic that it devalues both the products and the store?

I won’t forget an impassioned argument put forward at a jkr company chat by designer Martin Francis a few years ago, where he laid into value own label packaging for looking not just cheap but ugly. His point was not a designer lovey one - rather he was saying that everyone, no matter what they are spending, deserves to have nice looking packs - why make folk feel like they are getting the cheapo rubbish with design to match? Making the basics range look more attractive might confuse a “good, better, best” strategy, but I suppose there are degrees of design refinement that can be applied. At the other extreme of the product spectrum Chanel No. 5’s box is simple and basic but it has enough nuance to also be beautiful. Still, Coco wasn’t stuck with making a bright yellow pack look appealing.

John Ruskin, who thought deeper and knew more than most of us ever will about aesthetics, was a progressive champion of the importance of art and beauty for the “common man” - although his writing came before the age of the soundbite, so I’ll leave the last words to him. “A thing is worth what it can do for you, not what you choose to pay for it.”

Rights owner Chorion, the home of such children’s favourites as Noddy, OLIVIA and the Mr Men has seen annual sales lift by more than a third to £53.7 million. According to Chorion’s chairman, in Monday’s Guardian, “when things get tougher, people veer towards the things they know and love. It’s a lot like comfort eating”.

This is clearly true and is driving the slew of brands and branded activity invoking childhood nostalgia. The Guardian itself spent last week reprinting old kids’ comics as a giveaway. But it feels like the opportunity to face hard times with brave and inspiring design is being lost in this avalanche of mawkish behaviour. Adults are boosting Chorion’s profits, with the likes of “Little Miss Chatterbox” helping to sell 1m Mr Men t-shirts a month in the States. We are becoming a culture of big babies, and branding is playing its part in dumbing us all down. But one can’t argue with sales success, and as Chorion’s chairman notes “ Noddy has been through the recession many times before”.

Our prediction in January that recession is an auspicious time to invest in a brand’s future is looking hollow, though it was not unfounded. In September’s “best global brands” edition of Business Week, they point to the high proportion of famous campaigns created during times of economic challenge. A quarter of the post 1945 ads in Advertising Age’s “top 100 ad campaigns of the 20th century” were launched in a recession. For example BMW’s “the ultimate driving machine” was born in the oil crisis of 1974. It’s still paying dividends for the brand today. Martin Puris, who came up with the slogan, states in the Business Week article - “I love bad times. In good times people are less apt to try new things. In bad times they have to start to do things better”.

Comfort branding might be tactically savvy, but is it missing the real opportunity? And do we want to be remembered (if we are remembered at all) as the generation of brand communicators who were given opportunities both economic and in new media technologies, but could only look backwards to the past?