Trevor Phillips, Head of the Racial Equality Commission made some shrewd remarks in his recent â??speechâ?? on race relations in Britain in 2005, and flagged up some important warning signs about â??sleepwalking into a ghetto cultureâ?. He also hinted at a solution to our problems being a better shared understanding of British-ness. There are two important questions here. 1. What would Britishness be? 2. How would we learn this Britishness? It seems that whenever there are problems regarding communication and understanding, whether it be in corporate communications or these slightly more weighty issues of natinal identity, that the default response is to say we all need to be â??on-messageâ??, â??on-brandâ?? and â??singing from the same song sheetâ??. Not only is this unrealistic, but it imposes a rather sinister subtext of the answer to our differences being an imposed mono-culture. Business and society in general would do well to learn from examples where different view points are tolerated and can even be a very creative force for good. So long as the lines of communication are open, strong and honest we should be able to tolerate (and maybe even enjoy) strongly opposing views, whether this relates to being â??onbrandâ?? in corporate life or â??onbrandâ?? as a citizen of the UK.
Published on October 3, 2005 4:36 pm.
Filed under: Brand, Design, General, Society + Politics
This week Justin King, Chief Exec of the Sainsbury group, called for a check on the dominance of Tescoâ??s in the UK Supermarket market. (â??More Hereâ??) His claims, which seemed to some to be a case of sour overpriced organic grapes, lay around the power Tesco weilds as market leader when it comes to developing new sites, to the exclusion of Sainsburies and Adsa et al. Of course Tesco rebutted these allegations, claiming â??mostâ?? British consumers had access to at least two or three supermarkets therefore Tescoâ??s position as number 1 was a result of the consumers â??free choiceâ?? and not something they would ever take for granted. The issue of choice is an interesting one here in that choice only really exists from a very small range of possible options – the big companies having run local independant traders out of town a long time ago, and the factors determining that choice being a tightly controlled combination of value for money, cost and â??perceived qualityâ??. We are now all aware that supermarkets run to their own internal logic which results in some appaling products reaching our shelves, produced via intensive farming methods which are bad for the environment, and probably bad for us. The emphasis placed on superficial appearance at the expense of nutritional value is worrying. But that internal logic which specialises in making something from nothing can even make money from this, producing nicely (and wastefully) packaged â??Qualityâ?? ranges – the leverage leading consumers to chose these premium products being the shoddy quality of the rest of their ranges.
An interesting gap currently exists for a â??goodâ?? alternative to the supermarket. This means more than producing heavily packaged â??organicâ?? potatoes (40% of the crop being rejected because theyâ??re not round enough), or putting a miniscule fraction of your massive profits back into â??community causesâ??. It would mean redesigning the way a supermarket works, creating value for the consumer in something resource-light and sustainable, and eschewing the current logic of the market which results in broiler house chickens spending their steroid fuelled short lives sitting about in their own excrement. The supermarkets can argue all day about whether theyâ??re benignly just giving consumers what they want or whether those â??wantsâ?? are created in a system that has reduced the possible choices in such a way to create a demand for what theyâ??re offering. Sainsburies and Tescoâ??s can scrap about whether one has better access to new developments than the other but the fact is if youâ??re going to play in that particular market youâ??ll sooner or later get dragged into working by itâ??s own rules. The only route out seems to be to create a different market with different needs and different products and services, which can play by a different (better) set of rules.
Published on October 3, 2005 4:22 pm.
Filed under: Brand, Design, Environment, General, Society + Politics
One phenomenon of the recent â??Make Poverty Historyâ?? campaign was the emergence of conspicuous consumption as a means of political protest. Attending the G8 demonstration on the 2nd July (2005) in Edinburgh, it was interesting to view the number of branding and merchandising opportunities exploited by the organisers and associated groups. The most bizarre of these was the â??Scottish Socialist Partyâ?? stall selling red â??make capitalism historyâ?? wristbands, demonstrating either a profound economic nievety or well developed sense of irony – (I rather uncharitably suspect the former rather than the latter). The white wristbands have been in themselves an interesting way of communicating and disseminating an idea. By using the endorsement of every wearer of the causes of the campaign, a wearable advert has been created, like a physical manifestation of a viral campaign.
Of course this was originally hit upon by â??Nikeâ?? with their livestrong campaign, who for all their dubious operating methods, are amongst the shrewdest of operators when exploiting new marketing channels in the most effective ways.
While it would be easy to criticise the percieved dumbing down of political causes for mass consumption, the interesting question would be whether this (and other) campaigns have more impact and effect by drawing in a bigger constituency through modern marketing methods. Is the environmental and social impact of the production of all these pieces of merchandise justified by a bigger voice for the campaign and its causes. So do the ends justify the means? Answers on a recycled postcard….
Published on October 3, 2005 3:42 pm.
Filed under: Brand, Design, Environment, General, Society + Politics
At a talk last week on â??Creative Fearâ?? by Jonathon Ford of London Agency â??Pearlfisherâ??, I had the crushing misfortune to sit through my seventh rendition of the â??how Innocent drinks startedâ?? story. I would give you a synopsis of the story here in case you havenâ??t heard it, but for the fact that there are only seven people in the country who donâ??t know it and they all live in caves (with no Wi-Fi access). I would urge those in charge at Fruit Towers to make up a new story, if only to save the sanity of those of us who are subjected to it on (what now feels like) a daily basis.
It seems that â??Innocentâ?? are now the most frequently referenced brand success story from which we can learn. As a result weâ??ve seen an explosion of copycat design styles, though most of the imitators are missing a vital point. Success will come from learning from Innocents approach, not from copying their â??outcomesâ??. By outcomes I mean their design style, their tone of voice, their copy style – which is where most of the dumb copiers seem to be looking.
How did they appproach the issue of their brand? Well to me it would seem they didnâ??t. At least not at first. Of course all the guys starting the company are savvy and from a marketing and media background, but Richard Reid, one of the company founders, insists that from the outset they have been keen to â??keep the main thing the main thingâ??. For them this meant making a great drink which was better than anything else on the market. Their packaging, tone of voice, and everything that communicated about Innocent seems to flow from this very simple idea, not as a bolt-on or seperately pre-conceived marketing strategy.
So what can we learn from this? In many ways the brand, currently seen as their strongest card, could become their downfall if it becomes something in its own right. Why? Because it then becomes a driver in the company and successful organisations need to be driven by what they do. Of course communication is important, but if it doesn’t flow from something substantial of genuine significance then that’s where companies ‘brands’ fall apart – (not in the incorrect placement of a logo or incorrectly reproduced pantone). If Innocent want to be smart about how they progress from here, they should employ designers to think about shaping what the company does, not just how it communicates or what it’s bottles look like.
Published on October 2, 2005 2:14 pm.
Filed under: Brand, Design, General