Can the Dove brand, so long targeted at women, convincingly extend into a men’s range? That, suggests the Brandgym blog in a typically thoughtful piece, is the wrong question (the right one is can it make a decent profit). Nevertheless, from a design perspective it’s an interesting one. Common wisdom would suggest that while women have no problem adopting male brands, the traffic struggles to go in the opposite direction.

But I think Dove stands a decent chance for two simple reasons. Firstly, the target is quite narrow (40+ men) and I think the insight is bang on: speaking in The Grocer, Brand Manager Paul Connell notes “We recognise that getting the girl and racing fast cars is just not a relevant brand image for men over a certain age. Purchasing personal care products continues to be a chore for many men who can still be found using unisex or female products.”

I couldn’t agree more – sadly I fall into his target demographic but even so it’s a constant irritant to me that basic male grooming products all seem to occupy the same design pigeon-hole, a world of superfluous rubber grips, italic silver type, and go faster stripes (with the word “sport” slapped on for good measure). Patronising, generic, ugly and, worst of all, such muskily branded products look like they are going to make one reek like a sixteen year old who has just discovered Insignia.

For these reasons I normally cast about the supermarket aisle in vain for a more visually neutral alternative, one which I hope does not smell of the locker room. I generally end up buying the least girly looking unisex brand. So to my mind, so long as Dove plays things visually neutral (rather than doing “one for the boys”), it stands a good chance of winning over ditherers such as myself who just want something “clean” in all senses of the word. And as a brand with a locked in sense of purity, Dove is well placed to convince on this point. Secondly, there’s another point which bodes well I think: the head of design at Volvo once noted that “If you meet the expectations of women, you will typically exceed those of men”.

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 »

Autoweek’s best in show at this month’s Detroit motor show was the Audi E-tron all electric concept car. While we are all used to such concepts never seeing the light of day, there seems to be serious intent to make this one work.

I think it’s interesting for a couple of reasons: first that even luxury brands are developing alternatives which can broadly be considered greener. And that they are doing so with the understanding that their consumers are not prepared to compromise on what they love about the brand – the press release focuses, as does the design, on performance first, electric power second: “Imagine a new Audi supercar. 0-62 mph in just 4.8 sec. 230kW and 4,500 Nm of torque. Incredible looks. Its four motors drive each wheel individually, making it a true quattro. This new Audi is a classic – instantly taking its place in the ranks of the world’s most exciting automobiles. And it runs on… Electricity.” The stumbling block of course is creating a production version of the battery which can give the car a decent range. But that, we are assured, they are working on. The benefit for petrol-heads is very fast acceleration. So, a future where green issues can be folded into a decidedly un-green demographic.

The second point of interest for me is that this design feels like a very “Audi” piece of behaviour – a great demonstration that they are a smart thinking brand, who can resolve a seemingly impossible task through engineering expertise. There is a sense of precision and machine driven logic in this concept a million miles away from the fluffier green communication of brands like Honda.

Final notion – why is it only the auto industry who so dramatically brand build via worked up ideas? Could the same approach not be applied to FMCG?

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

As a Luddite whose sausage fingers struggle to text, I’m ill qualified to comment on cutting edge technology, but from a design perspective I think the Nexus One fails to exploit the Google brand’s design potential. In product terms (from what I read) the screen graphics are a leap forward in resolution and animation, and there is, as one would expect, lots of clever utilisation of Google’s content. Combined, these should make it a worthy rival of the iPhone. But, even allowing that Apple is simply a cooler brand, the Nexus looks (to me) unlikely to generate enough desire to give Steve Jobs a sleepless night. Because while it might have arguable product superiority in some areas, the product styling looks generic  - same size, shape and colour as the iPhone, with branding on the back looking like an afterthought. The New York Times described the design as bland.

What does Google look like in your mind’s eye? To me it’s bright, white and primary coloured - kind of like the Benetton of the online world. Google Chrome’s identity (notwithstanding snipes that it looks like an old Simon computer game) shows that Google’s equities can look suitably glossy and aspirational (in screen terms the Nexus seems to be delivering on this). In a world of techy monochrome uniformity they could have owned the territory of bright, glossy colours and established an iconic Google artefact as opposed to copying category norms. They have chosen not to.

Perhaps, as some have speculated, Google are less interested in generating profit from the phone than they are in using it to preserve advertising revenue for the search engine. Perhaps they aimed to make design as a moot point, choosing to focus debate on product comparisons they could win rather than style comparisons they might well lose? But if so there are many precedents where product superiority has failed against less able but more desirable rivals. Whatever, it’s going to be interesting to see if they beat the iPhone’s 1% share of the market, or indeed wield the same cultural influence.

KFC have created a bit of buzz around their plan to pay for the instillation of fire hydrants and extinguishers in Indiana. These will carry images of the colonel to promote “fiery” chicken wings. Above, a mascot lookalike meets the fire chief. Obviously the spin is around good corporate citizenship, and smart media placement in a world where we are becoming blind to traditional advertising messages. Or awash with them…

A couple of observations: the media plan has probably generated far more free publicity for KFC than the modest $7,500 investment in branded hydrants itself will gain. But I wonder, against a corporate agenda of creating goodwill, if such “smart alternative” branding will not irritate as many folk as it engages – does the world need anymore visual clutter? KFC says it wants people to see it helping communities. Would it be possible to achieve this ambition without visually polluting them? Or might the brand be open to accusation that it is acting a tad disingenuously?

Below, images from Sao Paulo, which famously took the municipal decision to de-brand the city. Leaving a few ugly ex-signs, but certainly a more novel skyline. Back in 2007 the move got 70% approval from its citizens – now that’s good will.

Image from TreeHugger.com

In an article on the big design and branding stories looming in 2010, The New York Times noted that a proposal “to help consumers monitor their environmental impact by introducing a global system of identifying the carbon and water footprints of products and their packaging is to be discussed at the World Economic Forum’s annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland, later this month”.

Having a universal system (presumably some graphical device with numbers) would offer consumers the benefit of simple and comprehensible information, and would offer brands the chance to clean up their packs (diverse brand led sustainability messaging keeps popping up like measles, potentially confusing consumers and cluttering designs). But on the other hand, if a universal system is adopted, will it quickly become so much easily overlooked graphic wallpaper (whereas brand led initiatives can offer information in engaging and amusing ways which cause a double take)? In a perfect world one hopes for a new design so elegant and clear that it begs to be read for its own sake (much as the London Underground map achieved). Failing this, which alternative do you think will be the most engaging or influential – a universal approach or an idiosyncratic brand led one?

In either case one of the challenges of footprint information is to make it tangible – is a 75g carbon footprint on a pack of biscuits a reasonable or awful thing? Those of us without a mathematical or scientific brain need analogies or comparisons which  make the numerical meaningful.

In the meantime, with the Copenhagen Climate Conference yielding a compromised result, it appears that many politicians lack a mandate for change. And much research suggests that many consumers want brands to “fix” the problem for them rather than be asked to do much themselves. While it is to be hoped that the few who make their purchasing choices based on footprints and the like will grow, for now corporations and brands have both the opportunity and burden of leading the charge.

Here in agency-land and on our close neighbour marketing-world we generally take it as read that the rare brands who have true values and equities are in possession of something priceless. But Cadbury’s message to its shareholders (urging them to vote against Kraft’s hostile takeover partially on the basis that such values might be lost) is an interesting test case for whether such an intangible asset holds worth for the typical investor. Cadbury are making an emotional pitch – that their Quaker roots are manifest in being a “good” business (one who have sold 40m Fairtrade Dairy Milk bars since the switch in July, quadrupling global sales of Fairtrade cocoa). History, soul and legacy, it seems to be argued, should not be cheaply sold for short term (and arguably undervalued) gain.

As someone who appreciates brands, particularly uniquely British ones, it’s easy to see the merit in this pitch. But the choice will ultimately lie with hard headed shareholders. It’s going to be fascinating to see if they perceive a worth in the brand’s values which makes financial sense to preserve. Let’s hope so.

Goodness is a consistent Cadbury message

Gap: Gosh, she must be tall

In a good article rounding up the noughties Word magazine points out that one of the biggest but most subtle changes in our world has been the rise of Photoshop. With even news photography becoming questionable, we are now living in a world where we can no longer believe our eyes. Re-touching is nothing new – it used to be the province of craftsmen delicately manipulating photographic prints. The fundamental change with Photoshop is that now everyone can, and does, airbrush reality. And with the technology so accessible and user friendly, restraint and common sense often go out of the window. We all know that every model and famous face in every magazine doesn’t share the same plastic sheen because of a quirk of genetics, and there can’t be a food photograph on a pack in the UK which has not at least been colour corrected digitally. But what does it mean for brands?

Photoshop disasters, from which the images shown here are drawn, offers a fantastic guide on how not to improve on reality.  While putting yourself in a good light makes sense, if consumers can’t trust your promise, they can’t trust your brand. Simply put, with all the airbrushing now at our disposal, the responsibility on visualisers, art directors and clients to ensure that what they are cobbling together is a true reflection of reality has increased. That means having a good eye for proportion, detail, lighting, colour – all the things, ironically, that a decent realist painter might have. As a single example, I recently headed off at the pass an image of food on a fork where the scale of the fork suggested that the product was the size of a truck. This wasn’t down to deliberate manipulation, just an ill considered (but potentially dangerous) piece of comping.

Our head of visualising, Stephanie Heasman, offered a couple of interesting observations for this piece. Firstly, that with so much ability to “fix in the mix” the image, she is seeing a drop in the general standard of the photography she is presented with. The best photography gets things right “in camera”. Good photographers cost more, but they’re worth it. Secondly, legislation and a general desire for food to look natural rather than synthetic has seen a big reduction in the amount of re-touching demanded by clients – less is definitely more. The days of plastic food and such-like are over, but my advice would be to keep a sharp eye on how you present yourself, lest you lose consumer trust or end up a Photoshop disaster.

Does that hair look natural?

Does that head go with those hands?