On the eve of a special Apple event, it seems the allure of the Apple brand is as strong as ever.  “We have something you really have to see. And touch,” declares the invitation to the March 7^th media event.  Quite a buzz has been building up!

I don’t know if tomorrow’s announcement will impress or disappoint – nor do I know how long Apple will continue to rock our world.  But I remain fascinated by what I can only describe as the magical appeal of the Apple brand.  To try to understand the magic, I looked for clues in Walter Isaacson’s biography, Steve Jobs, and put together this slide show of what the book teaches about brand-building:

brand as business bit:  SmartBlog on Restaurants just published a piece of mine, “So You Want to Try a New Concept?”  In it, I layout the considerations in designing a test that will ensure you get the most learning and value out of it – including:

• carefully evaluating your options before jumping to the most obvious
• selecting a brand name and logo that supports your strategic intent; and
• designing the test so you can fail cheaply and quickly.

Please take a gander at the article and let me know what you think.

In the spirit of New York Times Magazine’s annual Year in Ideas, I’ve compiled an alphabetical digest of ideas, from A to Z, that I wrote, spoke, and passed along over the past 12 months.  The following are excerpts — the original pieces linked. 

By assembling this collection of preoccupations, provocations, and predilections, I realize how random my ramblings may seem at times – but I hope they’ve been helpful to you in some way.  So here we go:

All You Need Is Love – Love is a driver of business — when businesses are grounded in love and when leaders love the people around them, the result is growth and goodness and success and strength. (my op-ed published by the Greenville News)

Belief Repositories – “Belief repositories are fueled by hard evidence but can lead marketing teams to make investments where no experiment or marketing mix model has yet been run.” (Joel Rubinson in a guest post on my blog)

Culture Isn’t Enough — A vital, vibrant culture unifies, aligns, focuses, motivates, and propels.  But it is not enough to produce a profitable business.  Culture must be linked to, and pursued with the same rigor and vigor as, the customer experience. (blogpost)

Decrease Your Deal-Dependence with Differentiation — Differentiation is really the best way for all businesses to address consumers’ new value mindset. (my bylined article published by Franchise Update Media)

Embrace (and Enforce) an Inspiration Policy –  Clarify why inspiration is important to the company, and how people will be supported and encouraged to develop it.  (one of the top10 things i’m going to use from Andy Stefanovich’s book, “Look at More Stuff”)

Failure Is a Gift – “I think of my failures as a gift. Unless you view them that way, you won’t learn from failure, you won’t get better.” (from my three-part recap of Harvard Business Review’s Failure Issue which quoted former P&G CEO A.G. Lafley)

Grow As Slowly As You Can — Growing slowly allows you to make sure you have the right people and allows you to personally foster your culture. (learned from talk by Jason Fried, CEO of 37signals)

Health Is In the Eye of the Beholder –  Health means different things to different people — and that variation is actually good news for restaurateurs. (my bylined article published by SmartBrief for Restaurants)

Innovate Around the Person, Not the Technology — The temptation with any development in technology is to use the new capability as the starting point for innovation.  But this often leads to developments which fall short of or are off base from what end users want and need. (my guest post on CEA’s Digital Dialogue)

Just Because… “Food is served fast, doesn’t mean it has to be the typical fast food experience” – (from my recap of the reality TV show, America’s Next Great Restaurant, quoting Steve Ells, founder of Chipotle)

Kodak Tries to Bring Its Digital Revival into Focus — Kodak is not giving the consumer a reason to purchase. I don’t know that a good brand halo helps if you don’t have the ability to convert it into sales. (my POV quoted in Bloomberg Business Week)

Less Is More — “Trader Joe’s may offer customers less choice. However, in terms of ease of choosing and relevance of choice, it is definitely where less choice is more.” (C.B. Whittemore in guest post on my blog)

Modern Brand Names — Brand names reflect the business climates they’re developed in — modern brand names need to tap into the differentiating power of values and personality. (blogpost)

Not 360 Degree Marketing – “The goal shouldn’t be 360 degree marketing.  Find 10-20 degrees that give the most leverage.” (advice from Tim Maleeny, Ogilvy’s Director of Planning)

On-Stage Leadership – “Leaders are always on stage… it’s a metaphor [to explain] role modeling is the key element. They’re always in the spotlight.” (the philosophy behind Sharp Healthcare’s leadership training, as explained by Director Mark Tomaszewicz)

Progressive Brands Should Turn Their Backs on Sustainability – “Brands have a far more important – a far more exciting – role to play in helping us all move towards becoming more sustainable in our lifestyles.” (POV of Guy Champniss, Managing Director of Meltwater Consulting, as relayed in my blogpost)

Quality… of engagement is a better measure of brand strength than quantity of followers (from my piece “Leveraging ‘Like” Into Loyalty” published by Franchise Media Update)

Remarkable Retail — What makes a retail store an experience so compelling that customers will tell others about it?  Interactivity, a personal and local feel, and an editorial voice. (my e-newsletter recapping a series of Brand Experience Briefs)

Storytelling – “If you’re curating really excellent thought-provoking content, and then sparking conversations around that content, you can build that kind of equity…so that people naturally develop a relationship with you.”(recommendation from Sam Rosen, Creative Director and Co-founder of ThoughtLead)

Take a Crap – I told a CEO to “take a crap” – that is, go sit on the toilet in her restaurants — so she could see how much the details of the customer experience get overlooked.  (blogpost)

Use Your Fear – Survivors aren’t fearless.  They use fear:  they turn it into anger and focus. (one of many business leadership lessons from the book, “Deep Survival” as relayed in my presentation)

Visibility – A logo must achieve impact and contact. The former is about visibility, stating what the brand is and stands for; the latter connects the brand to the customer, making a personal, emotional connection. (my Brand New Perspectives column in QSR Magazine.)

Wallets…are becoming as unnecessary as watches.  Smart phones are easier to use, provide more functionality, and offer greater security.  (blogpost)

X…as in TEDx San Diego – spoken word artist Sekou Andrews opened this year’s event with an inspiring declaration:  ”When our ‘ready’ is ‘able,’ our will be done.” (from my slideshow recap)

You Need More Competition — More competition is a good thing because it generates increased demand, gives customers confidence, builds up infrastructure, and helps you get better. (my bylined article published by SmartBrief on Leadership)

Zappos — CEO Tony Hsieh says, “Every employee can affect your company’s brand.  Not just the front-line employees that are paid to talk to your customers.” (quoted in my speaker video)

Thank you for following, reading, re-tweeting, liking, commenting, and sharing me and my work this year!  See you in 2012 for another year of ideas!

(Welcome to the latest “brand experience brief” — insights from my audits of new and interesting retail and restaurant concepts.)

What:  ihop express

• test concept from the 1500-unit casual dining chain, IHOP
• targeted to “Millennials who don’t do breakfast,” the format is intended to give the younger target “an on-the-go option” since they don’t go to IHOP because they don’t have time, according to a spokesperson

Where:  One location so far – in downtown San Diego

What worked:

• Brand look and feel – A fun, hip brand personality was expressed throughout the concept.  From the signage to the “Flip Kitchen” moniker to the décor and fixtures to the table stands to the crew uniforms, ihop express came across as smart, funny, and stylish.

• Menu – This wasn’t the standard pancake and waffles menu.  In addition to those standbys, the menu included hearty egg dishes, creative sides like “Crepettes” and “Cup O’ Pancakes,” and full lunch and dinner offerings such as Paninis and ciabatta sandwiches.  Ingredients and combinations seemed trend right and branded offerings like Arizona Ice Teas in cans were a great fit for the brand.

• Location – San Diego’s famed Gaslamp area has a flourishing nightlife and is popular among tourists.   The location seems perfect for attracting late-night diners and hotel guests alike.

What didn’t work:

• Food – The food quality and preparation were just OK — not nearly as exceptional as the brand.  The Dough Bites were a little doughy and the strawberries on the Rooty Tooty Fresh n’ Fruity Pancakse were still frozen.  A little more attention to detail should fix these issues.
• Details – Speaking of details, two disconnects stood out.  First, plastic utensils detracted from the value perceptions of the experience, not to mention made it hard to eat.   Also, the coffee bar counter that seems intended for the stay-awhile-and-work-on-your-computer crowd needs to have convenient electrical outlets.  Neither of these are deal-breakers, but the details do matter.

• Syrup bar – The Syrup bar concept is a brilliant idea but the execution was half baked.  Only two kinds of syrups were offered and each was dispensed from separate spigots.  A true “bar” with several different types of syrup and the option to mix them (a la Coke Freestyle) would have been more consistent with the fun brand personality and a more memorable, distinctive experience.

What I’d change:

• The name – “ihop express” undersells this concept, as it only connotes a scaled-down, sped-up version of the full-service chain.  Instead the name should evoke the fresh, distinctive personality of the concept.  For the Millennial target, the concept appeal has less to do with the speed of service and more the relevant brand and menu.

Also most people don’t associate IHOP with lunch and dinner (even if the chain has been serving food for these meal occasions for ages) and so there’s an opportunity for the name to promote the full menu/multiple occasions.  Flip Kitchen, the name of the kitchen area, seems like a great option – perhaps using an endorser brand approach to link it to the parent ihop brand, “Flip Kitchen by ihop” would work.  Alternatively, “ihop eatery” suggests a full menu with a retro-cool feel.

Bottom line:  The concept has a lot of potential – and certainly more appeal than the chain’s core concept.

(Interested in learning how to improve your in-store experience?  Sign up for a Brand Experience Day. We’ll head out into the field to experience retail concepts — good and bad — and then regroup to identify and apply the insights to your business.  Learn more.)

other brand experience briefs:

• Subway Cafe
• Walmart.com
• 77kids

My curiosity was piqued by the headline of a recent article comparing Siri, the personal assistant application on new iPhones, to Speaktoit, currently available on Android phones – but not because I wanted to understand the differences between the apps.  I was struck by how different the two names are – Siri:  short, cute, a person’s name, vs. Speaktoit:  longer, cumbersome, a function.

I got to thinking about what makes a brand name effective and how that’s changed over time.  As I’ve dug into the trends, I’ve discovered how brand names reflect the business climates they’re developed in – and how understanding the relationship between the two can help people develop effective brand names in these modern times.

In the past, brand names have served as labels for companies, products, or services.  The role of name-as-label is description and the purpose is primarily to instill confidence.  That’s why founders’ names (e.g., Disney, McDonald’s, Hewlett-Packard) and functional names (e.g., Burger King, IBM, Weight Watchers) have been popular.  The names tell people either what the company/product/service is, or what it does, or who’s behind it.  Names as labels are about consumer risk-reduction.

But in today’s marketplace, it seems brand names need to do more than that.  Modern names need to stand out, draw people in, and inspire their imaginations.  These days the most effective brand names don’t serve as labels – they’re more like identities.  They declare instead of describe, convey personality instead of confidence.  That’s why we see names like Jack for radio stations, Freebirds for restaurants, and Zappos for e-tailers.  These names as identities are about consumer attraction.

Which brings me back to Siri vs. Speaktoit.  The name Siri is derived from the SRI International Artificial Intelligence Center which developed the technology that powers the application.  Fortunately the founders were prescient enough to understand the technology’s potential and adapted the center’s name into woman’s name instead of forming it as an acronym.  An actual person’s name makes the application seem personal and approachable — the precise attributes the technology needs to attract people and generate trial.

The name Speaktoit Assistant, however, seems pedantic.  While the name clearly describes the technology, its descriptive nature genericizes the product.  It emphasizes what the user can do vs. suggests how the user will feel.  The potential of the technology seems more limited with a functional name and the name almost begs for copycats (I’m sure plans for Talktome, SayIt, and JustSpeak are already in the works.)

And that’s really the point.  An effective brand name conveys – or at least evokes – differentiation.  And while differentiation has long been an important part of brand-building, in most categories today, differentiation is achieved less with features and functions and more through values and personality.  The former are easily and quickly copied and commoditized; the latter, less so.  Modern brand names need to tap into the differentiating power of values and personality.

An effective brand name also supports the primary marketing task, so modern brand names should facilitate the marketing task of today’s market.  Companies have and always will need to assure customers of the brand quality in order to reduce the perceived risks of purchase – but now that is achieved less by promotion and more by identification.  Modern consumers trust brands that demonstrate interest in them and the things they care about – they’re attracted by the sense of affinity.  So marketers should select names that facilitate this connection through identity.

There are two other factors to consider. First, salience. With the growing number of competitors and the shrinking size of screens – not to mention attention spans – the need for salient brand names is greater now than ever before.  Short, pithy names stand out quickly.

Second, if ICANN’s push to add as many as 1,000 new top-level domains is accepted (and it’s looking increasingly like it will), descriptive names will become even less important.  No longer will a company need to spell out that it’s an eating establishment if it can use the “.restaurant”  or “.eat” domain.  So marketers will enjoy more freedom when selecting modern brand names.

Brand names are an interesting sign of the times.  And it’s clear, it’s a brand new world out there (pun intended.)

related posts:

• a tale of two re-brands: syfy and starbucks
• losing more than a brand name
• fundamentals of brand naming

This week’s challenge for contestants in NBC’s reality show America’s Next Great Restaurant was to develop a slogan for their restaurant concept.  Here are my thoughts on the ideas they developed and what makes a great brand slogan in general:

DLYohn America’s Next Great Restaurant 03.20.11 Episode 3 Recap from Denise Lee Yohn on Vimeo.

The other day I found myself doing something quite curious – after having placed an item into my grocery cart, I turned around, took it out, and returned it to the shelf.  That momentary act wasn’t strange because I’m generally a decisive person — but rather because of what caused me to reverse my actions.  My change of heart was prompted by a ½” inch square – or actually, the absence of it.

You see, the product was a box of tangerines and none of contents had a Cuties sticker like the ones I had noticed on tangerines I had purchased previously.  In the split second of surveying the item, I realized they were in fact a different brand of tangerines and so I decided I didn’t want them.  I stopped to consider what had just happened – and it got me thinking about the role of brands and commodity categories.

an orange is just an orange

Generally speaking, produce is not a category in which brands have played a strong role.  Sure, Sunkist oranges

and Chiquita bananas

have been promoted through the years, but most category behavior is driven by price – and in more recent years, by source — organic vs. not or locally-grown vs. not.

But lately, I’ve noticed a trend toward more branded produce.  In addition to Cuties tangerines, products like Cherub tomatoes and Bunny Luv carrots have sprouted up.  In many cases, these branded products cost more than their “generic” counterparts – and yet, despite these recessionary times, people seem willing to pay for them.

It’s curious, especially given the recent growth of private label product.  In practically every other aisle of the grocery store, manufacturers’ brands are feeling the pressure from the store’s brands – the increased quality and consumer acceptance of private label is causing branded goods to lose facings or lower their prices.  But in produce, the reverse seems to be happening.

why branded produce

This trend seems to be fueled by the intersection of the needs of the consumer with the needs of the retailer.  Articles (1, 2)  from Grocery Headquarters magazine explain what’s going on:

Seth Pemsler, vice president, retail/international for the Idaho Potato Commission, based in Eagle, Idaho, says consumers want to buy branded produce in the same way they want to buy certain brands of packaged items. “The whole essence of brands is confidence and comfort; the idea that if I buy this brand it’s going to be consistent.”

“Intensifying competition among supermarket chains and constant price wars over center store items have led supermarket retailers to try to differentiate themselves from the competition through the use of their perishable departments, including produce, analysts say.”  Further, “consumer research continually emphasizes the importance of great produce departments as the primary criteria for selecting a supermarket to shop,” says Bill Goldfield, communications manager for Dole Food Co., based in Westlake Village, Calif.

Consumers are looking for the quality reassurance which brands promise, and retailers are looking for ways to differentiate themselves and give people reasons to choose them.  These complimentary needs have created a win-win-win situation.  Produce companies, consumers, and retailers all benefit from the rise of branded produce.

So it’s likely we’ll see even more branded produce in the future.  I just hope produce brands don’t exploit the situation and end up upsetting the apple cart of mutual-benefit.

what works

The Cuties brand actually strikes the balance well.  A few observations:

• competitive pricing – I’ve found Cuties to be priced only around 10% of above other unbranded options – and with a coupon, the price differential becomes minimal.  It’s clear the company behind the brand understands the price expectations of its target.
• perceptible product quality differential – Cuties are noticeably different from other tangerines because they’re sweet, juicy, and seedless.  The brand has come to embody this quality difference.
• well-executed brand personality – It’s not simply the use of a brand name that distinguishes Cuties, it’s the brand name itself.  “Cutie” is a perfect descriptor of the little orange balls and the name adds value to the product beyond tangible attributes.  Further the stickers on every tangerine reinforce the cute brand personality with phrases like “Root for the Cute” and “Cuties R4 Kids.”

Without these elements, Cuties would be just another brand name slapped on an undifferentiated product.  But with them, Cuties provides a great example of how brands create value.

related post:

• brands, generic-style

To marketers in despair, a rebrand may be like a knight in shining armor. How better to re-awaken the passion for a brand than to create a new name and image?!

Despite the promise of a fairy tale ending, more rebrands fail than succeed.  Executing a rebrand is fraught with challenges and requires some rather subjective decision-making.  The stories of two high profile rebranding efforts currently underway – the Sci-Fi Channel and Starbucks — prove this point.

First there’s the Sci-Fi Channel, which recently took on the name, Syfy (see Variety’s article for background.)  They also replaced a planetary-inspired logo with a stylized name treatment which has a distinctively more playful feel. The new name and identity was rolled out to the media industry in the network’s upfront presentation and a new Syfy Imagination Park at Rockefeller Center in New York City and to viewers during the launch of its original series “Warehouse 13.”

And Starbucks just opened a series of remodeled Seattle-area stores bearing the names of their neighborhoods — 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea for example — instead of Starbucks. In fact, the Starbucks name and logo won’t appear anywhere in the store, with plans for even the bags of the company’s coffee and other products bearing the new name.  While it’s unlikely that Starbucks is planning a chain-wide rebrand, this move raises questions about the future of the Starbucks brand identity, and positioning.

A television network running shows with aliens and a struggling national coffeehouse chain may seem to have nothing in common.  But comparing and contrasting the two businesses’ recent efforts to rebrand themselves actually makes for an instructive tale of do’s and don’ts when executing a brand makeover:

• Rationale behind the rebrands — The two efforts seem to be addressing two different business situations.  In the case of Syfy, the change was made because the network’s executives felt the previous name was too limiting, keeping people away because it conveyed too much geek-ness.   There was a more practical reason as well – “Sci-Fi” isn’t a trademarkable name.

The move has been a long time coming, as the network has been evolving its programming away from exclusively featuring science fiction shows to a mix of programs including “Extreme Championship Wrestling.”  Syfy president Dave Howe explained, “Rather than changing the programming to suit some new brand strategy, we’re changing the brand to fit the programming.”

Starbucks’ change appears to be part of CEO Howard Schultz’s well-publicized efforts to reinvigorate the stalled business by reviving the “theatre” of Starbucks’ units. Throughout the system, equipment, product, and design changes are being made, including refurbishments to give the stores a locally-themed and less uniform look.  Tim Pfeiffer, Starbucks’ senior vice president of global design, explains the new names on the Seattle-stores are meant to give them “a community personality.”

So the Syfy rebrand was undertaken to change the brand image to more accurately reflect the actual brand experience; while Starbucks is rebranding to change the brand image and customer experience to achieve an aspirational position.  Extensive research shows a significantly higher success rate for brand repositionings that are achievable, not simply attractive.

Therefore, since it was prompted by the current reality,  Syfy’s seems an attainable effort; Starbucks, more like a pipe dream.

• Brand targets — The targets pursued by the two rebrands are also quite different. Syfy is moving from a niche audience to a more mainstream one.  Syfy’s Howe explained the rebrand is intended to bring in new viewers with his comment: “We really do think that the [old] name is a barrier to entry for some people.” And the network seems to be well on its way to capturing its broader target audience, with “Warehouse” attracting a solid 3.5 million viewers.

It almost seems as if Starbucks is headed in the opposite direction, hoping to trade its mass market appeal for a more niche positioning.  With plans to serve wine and beer and to host live music and poetry readings, the new stores are intended to attract an older, more upscale, and perhaps more elite customer.

While the changes may serve to differentiate Starbucks from McDonald’s which recently launched an effort to lure Starbucks’ customers away, alienating a large portion of its existing customer base by intrroducing a high-brow image doesn’t make sense if the chain’s current challenge is reigniting growth.

Rebranding is usually used to grow a brand’s prospect pool, per Syfy’s case.  The direction Starbucks is moving in is so unusual, it’s difficult to cite other brands that have adopted a similar path, much less to find ones that have been successful at doing so.

• Name selection — When it comes to the names deployed in the rebrands, neither effort seems to be on-target.  One seems to go too far; the other, not far enough.

By completely eschewing all reference to Starbucks, that company’s rebrand seems to be throwing out all existing brand equity, including its positive associations.  The use of a name that references the neighborhood in which the store is located aligns with the overall rebranding strategy; but it doesn’t speak to the heritage and innovation for which the Starbucks brand has become known – not to mention the broad awareness it enjoys.

The approach also seems ripe as a source of potential confusion or backlash, as people try to make sense of a store that appears to be new and independent but is neither.  Perhaps a better strategy would have been to employ an endorser brand approach (e.g., Coffee on 15th, by Starbucks).

In Syfy’s case, they seem to be hanging on too tightly to the existing equity of the Sci-Fi name, where a clean break would probably be better.  A new name that constantly requires an explanation which refers back to the original one is problematic and limiting for Syfy.  And to appeal to a broader, more grown-up audience, a name with more heft and deft would be more effective.

Syfy’s rebrand has already come under a lot of fire by the network’s fan base, and questions about Starbucks latest move have filled the blogosphere.  These criticisms point to the critical nature of decisions in the rebranding process.  And the juxtaposition of the two efforts provides some valuable lessons.

But because the ROI on the changes have yet to be calculated, the stories of each rebrand are still unfolding.  So perhaps the moral of these two rebranding tales is the same:  proceed with caution.

related posts:

• don’t go changin’ to try to please them
• losing more than a brand name
• fundamentals of brand naming

(image courtesy of OneWinged4ngel)

Haagen Dazs just added a new line — Five — it’s billed as “All-natural ice cream crafted with only five ingredients for incredibly pure, balanced flavor… and surprisingly less fat!“

The move is brilliant!  and I love the name — crisp and simple!

They’re tapping to the sizable segment of people who define healthy food in terms of wholesomeness and natural ingredients — which reinforces something I wrote about last year in the CMO Council‘s Marketing Magnified — that is, healthy isn’t just about counting calories and fat.  There are numerous and widely-differing health and wellness mindsets among consumers, and smart marketers understand and navigate through them to identify the right target and positioning for their brand.

In dropping the Kinko’s name from its moniker, Fedex (formerly Fedex Kinko’s) may be losing more than 6 letters and an asterisk. The name change, announced 6 months ago, is now for all intents and purposes complete but the transition is far from settled.

BusinessWeek’s story on Fedex’s efforts reports on the struggles the company has had since Fedex bought the copy business in 2004.  Apparently the corporate cultures of the merging entities was quite different. and has led to major clashes.  Customer complaints and falling profits for the combined division (down from$100MM in 2004 to $45MM in 2007) give testimony the problems.

Only time will tell whether the company is able to reconcile its internal culture issues.  But interesting brand questions are also raised by all of this.

First, brand elasticity.  Fedex claims that dropping the Kinko’s name and calling its retail stores Fedex Office reflects the current and potential broader array of services offered by the company — and as FedEx Office CEO Brian D. Phillips explains, “Kinko’s is known as copies…FedEx is a very elastic brand.”

Not surprisingly Kinko’s founder Paul Orfalea sees it differently.  “All the things they could have done with that brand [Kinko's],” he laments. “They could be providing online photo processing. They could be the leader in printing books on demand.”

So, which is it?  Is, as Phillips argues, FedEx the brand with more elasticity?  Does FedEx have more “permission” from its customers to enter into new service arenas, while the Kinko’s brand would hold them too closely to low margin offerings like copies?  Or, do you believe Orfalea and agree the Kinko’s brand would have provided the credibility a company with strong roots in shipping needs to enter into the burgeoning world of digital printing?

Second, and relatedly, brand equity. BusinessWeek’s piece relayed the concerns about the change of four customers who were fiercly loyal to Kinko’s — I’m sure there are thousands more out there like them.  By dropping the Kinko’s moniker, does Fedex risk alienating this core fan base and losing more business from a division that’s already hurting?  Or will the benefits outweigh the risk and in the long run it’s better to get it over with now?  After all, there doesn’t seem to be a viable competitor in the space that these frustrated customers can flock to.

I’m curious to hear your take on these questions.