The brandgym blog

The fastest ever image wrapper change in history

This post a team effort between me and our first ever guest blogger, Calli Robertson. I met her at one of the WTS? Live talks I did a couple of weeks ago. Nice one Calli!

Interesting to see that Virgin have pulled out of the business where the brand was born: record stores. Virgin Megastores have been sold in a management buy-out. And this has prompted another example of what seems like "image-wrapper branding": change the logo, but not a lot else.

The new owners have trumpeted what they call "the fastest ever re-branding in (entertainment retail history)" to zavvi. The new MD, Simon Douglas, says that Zavvi will "...deliver a new brand that lives and breathes entertainment and delivers high quality enthusiastic service to existing and new customers."

But what has changed in this "re-brand". New product range? Nope. New service style? Nope. New store design? Nope (though to be fair, they do claim to be working on this). The result is the same old stores, but with a much less well-known and rather dodgy brand name. It would have been much better to work on innovation of the business, then announce the new name.

We guess they may have been forced to changing the name quickly by Virgin, as part of the deal. But then don't over-sell the change as a re-branding. Just call it what it is: a new name.

The biggest load of brand bollocks ever

Jonathan over at Dim Bulb has brought to my attention the worst example of image-wrapper branding I have ever seen in my whole life (i.e. "screw the product, let's just change the logo"). This is so bad, its hard to believe its not a spoof. Even Hugo Gaines, the fictional dickhead marketing director from the WTS? book, would have been pushed to do something so daft.

The company in question is Whitbread's Premier Travel Inn.  To quote from the official press release,  the issue was that:

"Throughout 2006 an extensive research programme was conducted and showed that whilst the PTI product is market leading, the brand does not have the recognition it deserves, especially with leisure users

So, they are "re-branding" with a spend of £13 million, plus £9 million of capital expenditure, making £22 million. Oh, and their largest ever advertising campaign. And the change being made? Cue drum-roll ....dim the lights....hold on tight....they are changing from Premier Travel Inn to...Premier Inn.

Yes, that's right. £22million to take out the world Travel. A word which, as Jonathan points out, they added in the last re-brand back in 2004 from Premier Lodge to Premier Travel Inn. And now, to Premier Inn.  And just listen to this load of old bollocks from their marketing director, Gerard Tempest. True "Hugo-speak" that is so cringeworthy I couldn't have written it better myself:

"The re-brand will over-arch everything in the business, and be used as an opportunity to springboard our “guest obsession” activity even further forward.”

Un-be-bloody-believe-a-bubble. Let me just say that last bit again. "An opportunity to springboard our "guest obsession" activity even further forward". Hugo lives and breathes.

And to end, I love Jonathan's take on the added value of this bold branding move:

"What will this mean for consumers?  Well, by reducing the corporate name by 1/3, it will be easier to remember. There are probably cost-savings to be had, too: signs can be made smaller, and lighting them will cost less; perhaps a smaller logo will use less paper and ink on statements and correspondence; stitching the logo on company uniforms will require fewer spools of thread."

When it comes to brand bull**** and buzzwords, truth truly is stranger than fiction....

No wonder branding gets a bad name...

... when you have stuff like this, from Jeff Kay via Paul at Ideas Sandbox. Fast food brands splashing cash on attractive food photography, but failing to invest in actually delivering a product that looks anything like it. All spin, and no substance. All sizzle, and literally in this case, a crappy sausage.

The question Paul asks at the end of his post is the right one: "Does your company under-deliver on its promise? Are you offering a version of reality doesn't match the promise?" After all, delivering on your promises is what brands are all about. I define a brand as :

"A name & symbol promising a known and trusted experience appealing to head and heart".

For the brand vision book, I did research on making and breaking brand promises to a panel of 1000 consumers in the UK, and the results were pretty damning.60% of them agreed that brands promised more than they delivered, with only 36% disagreeing.

Contrast the fast-food con tricksters above with some food and drink brands who deliver in buckets on what they promise, and whose business is doing well of the back of this:

- Gu: ice cream heaven
- M&S: chocolate puds that live up to their food porn advertising
- innocent: product passion

Dell tries to advertise itself out of the doldrums

Dell's decision to appoint ad agency Mother to drag it out of the doldrums hit the headlines this week. Another brand investing in the emotional sizzle of a new ad campaign, instead of sorting out their sausage/product.

Not long ago Dell were producing eye-popping profits, with a direct distribution model that was lauded as a superb supply chain innovation. But just when your think you're hot, suddenly you're not. In the year to January net income fell by 1/3. In response, Michael Dell returned as CEO, prompting comparisons with Steve Jobs' return to save Apple in the late 1980's.

So, what is Dell's problem, and how to solve it? According to Marketing magazine "The company's brand personality is in need of a shake-up." And wait for it.... "This is where Mother, famed for creating funky ads for Coca-Cola to Boots, fit in". The article goes on to describe how Futurebrand's marketing director (take a deep breath) "Urges Dell to move beyond its functionality message towards a more aspirational position more in tune with today's consumers, who are much more emotionally attached to their PCs". So, a few funky ads with lots of emotion is what the brand needs.

Dear, dear Dell.

The only thing a new ad campaign will do is create an image wrapper that tries to hide up product shortcomings. "Dell equals dull" is how Marketing's editor aptly puts it, saying that his Dell PC "gets about as much emotional engagement was my toilet cistern".

Contrast this with Steve Jobs first big move, which was to focus all his energy on rejuvenating Apple's product line. Jobs was of course lucky as hell to have the help of ace designer Jonathan Ive, the true hero of Apple's revival. He's the genius behind the delicious design of the iMac, iPod, MacBook and iPhone. Its these products that create such an emotional bond with the growing ranks of Apple enthusiasts, not the advertising. Indeed, Apple ads have one main job, and that's to show off the product. This design is so good that the products effectively sell themselves.

Dell would surely be better off sorting out their product issues first. Should they stick to the low cost/high function model that made them famous, in which case they have a big job to regain an edge in the face of more competition from brands like Acer and HP? Or can they go for the more challenging goal of radically improving design, whilst still being affordable; the Zara or Top Shop of PCs?

Oh, screw it. That's far too hard. Let's make an ad....