New formats of existing retail brands seem to be popping up all over the place.  Best Buy Mobile was introduced a couple of years ago as a store-within-a-store concept — the company then launched standalone Best Buy Mobiles and recently announced plans to open 40 more this year. 

Petco just launched Unleashed (with more personalized service and “hipper attitude” than the original format) and Baskin-Robbins has been testing Cafe BR (featuring a make-your-own-sundae bar and higher-end desserts such as fondue) and BR Express (a smaller store focusing on soft-serve ice cream.)

These new formats seem to be a great way for retailers to appeal to more shopper need-states.  A need-state is defined by a group of consumers who seek similar product benefits and attributes in a particular usage occasion.  Need-state segmentation overlays usage occasions onto attitudinal classifications.

For example, in the snack foods category, there might be some consumers who are looking for a snack to tie them over between meals, while others are looking for something to eat post-workout (two different usage occasions) — but they share a desire for healthy alternative (same attitude).   Unlike attitudinal or demographic segmentation approaches which classify consumers into discrete groups, with need-state targeting, a single consumer can experience different need states over time — and thus be reached in multiple ways.

Typically need-states have been used by manufacturers to drive product development.  By understanding different purchase drivers, manufacturers develop different product variations and brand extensions — e.g., a healthy snack food that’s packaged in portable packaging might fulfill one need-state while a more traditional pack lends itself to another.

What’s interesting is that more retailers are getting in to the game.  Best Buy Mobile is targeted specifically to people shopping for cell phones and services.  These consumers may be the same ones who browse the aisles of the big box retailers’ regular stores in search of the latest gadget, but when they are specifically looking for a mobile solution, Best Buy wants Best Buy Mobile to be their go-to store.

Likewise, Petco’s Unleashed boasts a smaller format, is located in high-traffic locations, and emphasizes community — perfect for the pet parent who is already passing by the store and needs to drop in for a quick purchase or some friendly advice.  Baskin-Robbins’ Cafe BR concept seems more like a destination (a great post-movie date place), while BR Express’s name makes its target need-state clear.

With these new formats, these brands expand their appeal, giving existing customers more options and reaching new customers who previously hadn’t found the brand relevant or convenient.

New formats also provides other benefits:

• emphasizes select brand attributes — Best Buy Mobile is described as having “one of the largest selections of carriers, handsets and accessories available anywhere, as well as a highly-trained staff to help customers make the most of their mobile phones…Employees undergo at least 80 hours of intensive training, as well as continuing education on mobile phone technology and trends.“  As such, the new concept shores up Best Buy’s credentials in wide selection and knowledgeable staff.
• reinvigorates the brand image — Unleashed has a more urban contemporary feel than its master Petco brand.  By embodying these attributes, Unleashed helps update and improve Petco’s brand image.
• opens the brand to new opportunities — Jimmy Fitzgerald, VP of concept innovations for Baskin Robins’ parent company explains the chain’s new formats by saying: “This allows us to open doors and go into places we really don’t fit — upper-scale malls and downtown locations.“

So it seems these new retail formats hold a lot of potential for their parent brands.  It will be interesting to see how well they do — and who else jumps on the new retail format bandwagon.

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.

The development and management of a corporate brand is often a stumbling block for companies.  the same business leaders who understand the role of brand when it comes to products, grapple with applying it to the corporation.

Thankfully the brilliant international business school professors Mary Jo Hatch and Majken Schultz have provided some help. Their latest book, Taking Brand Initiative, serves as a culmination of the decade-long research and analysis they’ve conducted on corporate brands.

A particularly useful framework from the book relates to assessing the strength of a corporate brand by determining whether or not there are “Vision-Culture-Image” gaps.  They define Vision as top management’s aspirations for the company; Culture, the organization’s values, behaviors, and attitudes; and Image, the outside world’s overall impression of the company.

By identifying where gaps may lie, companies are in a better position to develop strategies that develop their corporate brands into assets for competitive advantage.  There are some other great tools and frameworks in the book as well as examples from companies like LEGO, Intel, Nissan, and Johnson & Johnson.

I hope those of you who employ a corporate brand approach in your brand portfolios find the book helpful.