Posted by admin on January 6, 2011 – 2:09 pm
Everyone has now heard that Starbucks has removed its name from its ubiquitous green circle-encased siren. This symbol-only brand identity is very risky given the backlash against Starbucks in recent years. Starbucks has been accused of being too big, not offering sufficient employee benefits and for offering coffee mainly from non fair-trade sources, and sweets and pastries that contain more calories than most people need to consume in an entire day. I have not seen them do much to address these core issues. And now this move sends a signal that “we are so big and powerful, we don’t need to use a name.” That’s a risky position, especially internationally where Starbucks is intent on growing its brand presence and where the United States is viewed as being less than humble.
I predict that the only good outcome of this for Starbucks is the huge number of blogs and media coverage.
Posted by Karen on March 31, 2010 – 11:55 am
I read this morning that Facebook plans to abandon its “become a fan” button and to replace it with the option to click “Like.” I’m becoming a fan of this idea. Friends have sent me countless invitations to become fans of their favorite cupcake shops, political candidates and TV shows. I wondered why I should be a fan–a loyal brand follower–if I had never experienced the taste of that red velvet cupcake, read a political candidates’ stance on the issues or watched and fell head over heels over Glee? Branding is an emotional connection to people who have experienced and been moved by your product or service.
If I were more of the following kind, I might become a fan just to make a friend happy but it doesn’t mean I’d actually be a fan. The new “Like” button offers an opportunity for us to create more brand authenticity and for brands measuring their profiles online to really know who “likes” them instead of counting hundreds of potentially meaningless fans.
Posted by Karen on January 28, 2010 – 9:08 am
I woke up to the news on NPR that Toyota is recalling yet another million-plus vehicles in addition to the 4 million it has already recalled. The last line of the story suggested that Toyota brand is at risk because it is know for “safety.” Looking at CNN and a few other websites, I saw the same language about safety repeated. My branding instincts mde me question this claim. Of course, we want to think that all automobiles are safe. When I think of safety and automomobiles, I think of Volvo. I do not drive a Volvo and I do not have any interest in driving one. But after years of seeing their commercials, reading news articles and brand cases studies, I know that they “own” safety in the automobile category. I decided to look at how Toyota has integrated safety into it’s brand since this is a key message coming through in media coverage.
A long history of branding
Toyota has long been aware of the power of branding. In fact, in 1936 they hosted a contest in which people could submit ideas for the company logo. (It’s still in use today on the corporate headquaters building). On the Toyota website, the company is very clear about its brand values– hard work, good neighbors, globalism and diversity. To me, the brand also represents luxury and lifestyle (Lexus) and their committment to the environment (Prius). Although I know that they also manufacture a lot of gas guzzling trucks, minivans and SUVs, too.
Over the years, they have positioned their brand around the pleasure of owning a Toyota product and less about feeling safe in one. Just look at past ad campaigns of the past. “Oh what a feeling,” “I love what you do for me,” “Get the feeling” and “Moving Forward” are a handful of past campaign slogans.
Here’s one other thing I noted about the Toyota brand: it wanted to be known for “stopping to fix problems” before they got worse. Aha. If that’s the case, they should have lived up to this brand value back in 2007 when they got the first reports of gas pedal/floor mat problems in their Tundra truck. In that case sticking to their brand could have meant a full inspection of their vehicles, offering consumers early information about what to look for and having them come back in for safety inspections. Sure, it would have been expensive. But they would have maintained the trust of their customers and perhaps they’d be able to ride out the recent financial crisis becuse brand loyalty means repeat customers.
Instead they have a huge mess on their hands today. Consumers who once enjoyed the experience of owning a Toyota are feeling quite the opposite. And now other auto manufacturers are seeing this as an opportunity to migrate Toyota customers to become new customers and potentially loyal brand followers by offering discounts on their own models. Brands are very powerful and a significant investment for an organization. Not living up to a brand is essentially disinvesting in a company and as we see with Toyota it can devastating to a company’s bottom line.
