Firebrand

In the last few posts we have been talking about the aspects of brand identity as laid out by David Aaker in “Building Strong Brands.” We have been focusing on the interplay of ‘Brand as Organization’ and ‘Brand as Person.’ No organizational policy affect a companies perceived personality more than dress code.

Imagine going into Quicksilver’s office; what clothing are the people wearing in your imagination? Now go into the corporate head office of Bank of America? I doubt people in the two companies are wearing the same thing.

We all know that people’s perceptions of us are effected by our clothes. If we didn’t think that than we wouldn’t take so much time, effort and expense making our own clothing reflect our personality and goals? A company is the aggregate sum of all it’s people, and how those people are dressed are going to effect not only how the company’s personality if perceived, but the actual personality of the company. If a sales person is in a suit and tie with a clean haircut than I am going to expect that person to be all about business and rather stiff. That is going to change my interaction with them, for better and worse. I will ask my question clearly and expect a clear and concise answer. Great for a bank. If the salesperson was dressed more casually, I would be more inclined to have a more casual conversation with them with a better opportunity to develop a relationship. I would also think a more casually dressed sales force would be less knowledgeable, unless it was in certain vertical’s such as Quicksilver’s surf and snow fashions.

This does not only effect the customer facing people in the company. The way the back end people dress will affect their work and decisions. That work and those decisions will effect the personality of the brand down the line. A tight formal dress code is going to influence decisions to be knowledgeable and safe. A more casual workplace will be more free spirited and potentially more creative. This is because dress code is a clear direction from management on how they want the company’s people to be perceived; people will pick up on this and act accordingly if only unconsciously. People will make decisions and behave their way to that desired perception.

Have people dress to the personality you would like your company to have.

—

By Colin Finkle. Colin Finkle is an award winning industrial designer who works with large multinational brands everyday designing retail displays for FX Displays in Toronto, Canada. He is the principle designer at Firebrand Creative. He also writes for AMD’s FireUser.com blog.

Interact with the Firebrand community – Please Comment or Email.

The views expressed on this weblog are mine alone and do not necessairly reflect the views of my employer, FX Displays.

I have been re-reading David Aaker’s “Building Strong Brands” and this like alot of posts in the coming weeks is inspired by the book. Aaker spells out the 4 aspects of brand identity: 1)brand as product, 2) brand as organization, 3) brand as person and 4) brand as symbol. To expand on Aaker’s thinking, brand as organization is the precursor to success in brand as product and brand as person.

Let me quickly run through the aspects. Brand as product is the attributes you want associated with your products and services. Brand as organization is the brand of and for the people in the company; for example, “Company X: never leaving a stone unturned for innovation.” Brand as person is the interaction between the company and the customer on a personal level (“Skype always seems so friendly!) And Brand as symbol is the graphics and colours that people associate with your brand.

To me, the foundational aspect is the brand as organization. We have talked about brand dissonance before, but it is when the face that a company is trying to show to consumers is completely different than the company actually is. It usually comes out in a scaring article, or a bad customer experience. I had that experience with Fido recently. I didn’t appreciate the brow beating I received from the commission hungry, clearly offshore firm they hired to tele-market their mobile internet stick, especially since their ads are filled with cute puppies and friendly yellow graphics. If your brand image and your organization have different values and personalities, than customers are going to get an uneasy feeling about dealing with your company. The same feeling in fact as when they hear a dissonant chord in music, interestingly enough. (Joker Theme by Hans Zimmer is a good example, if you dare.)

Brand as organization drives both brand as product and brand as person. To use that “Company X: never leaving a stone unturned for innovation.” as an example once more, if management fosters that culture of innovation throughout the company than the products will truly be innovative. If a company says that they are innovative to the outside world, but their culture is risk averse than their products will not be innovative. If  company says their products are innovative, but they are not than they are going to loose credibility and the brand becomes a liability. I often hear a chicken or the egg argument to get there unfortunately. “If we want to be innovative, do we brand our self as innovative and let the employees rise to that brand?” No. You brand internally as innovative and foster a culture of innovation, then when you have something to show for it (a class leading product perhaps?) than you show off that innovative culture to the outside world. This is simply because culture change takes longer than brand image change, and in the time when your brand is dissonant you will be doing damage to it. This is not just true of innovation as a trait; the same rules apply if you want to be known as friendly, customer service focused, quick to respond, serious, professional… anything and everything.

This internal to external branding strategy is why CEOs with marketing based mindsets do so well. They know how to foster a culture because they spend as much time marketing and branding to the companies employees as they do to it’s customers.

—

By Colin Finkle. Colin Finkle is an award winning industrial designer who works with large multinational brands everyday designing retail displays for FX Displays in Toronto, Canada. He is the principle designer at Firebrand Creative. He also writes for AMD’s FireUser.com blog.

Interact with the Firebrand community – Please Comment or Email.

The views expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views of Colin Finkle’s employer, FX Displays.

You have to consider the wording of your advertising of copy very carefully because it has a great impact on your brand. Just as with everytouch point of your brand, you need to approach it from the perspective of your customers, particularly your target market. A message using the proper language directed at your target audience can be recieved, where otherwise it would be ignored. In the long term, it has a marked impact on a customer relationship particularly on how they percieve the personality and consistency of the brand.

The most obvious example is talking with children. Say Fisher Price came to me to design a new Power Wheels ridable car, and I found out that kids wanted better wheels and a larger battery for more play time per charge and designed it. If I was marketing to the parents who might buy it for their kids I would say: “The Power Wheels’ Kawasaki mini rider has a new 6V Lithium Ion battery for less charging, and full rubber tires to roll over anything.” (24 words) Not very effective for a the child though. More effective copy in children centric media would be “Roll over anything with the Kawasaki Power Wheel’s awesome wheels! And  the rider keeps rolling all afternoon!” (16 words) Both convey the same information.

Here are the differences-

• Maturity of language: “Tires”, “charging”, and voltages doesn’t have meaning for the children. It should be noted that overly sophisticated vocabulary should be avoided in any situation; few appreciate it.
• Need state: Parent’s need stats is to compare, while a kid’s just want to have more fun.
• Length of Meme: Kids would prefer shorter sentences, and will be taken with the sentence that speaks to them ignoring the rest. Car buyers want more structure with a linked sentence, that are quicker to the point.
• Tone: The tone of the car buyer line is calm and fact’s based. The wording of the kids one is agressive and gets the kids imagining the moment of play with phases like “rolling” and “awesome.”
• Personality: I want the car buyer line to feel like it is being said by a impartial reviewer. On the kids side, I would like it to come from a 10 year old boy because the target market of 6-8 year old boys look up to their older peers.

Question of the Post: Is the same wording and tone always effective for the same target market?

—

By Colin Finkle. Colin Finkle is an award winning industrial designer who works with large multinational brands everyday designing retail displays for FX Displays in Toronto, Canada. He is the principle designer at Firebrand Creative. He also writes for AMD’s FireUser.com blog.

Interact with the Firebrand community – Please Comment or Email.

In the last post, we reviewed CPM. I highly recomend you go back and read that post because it will make this post more meaningful. We also talked about how advertising in places that target audiences that match your target market may make sense even though they will command a higher CPM. Now to take it up a notch.

Advertising to people who need your product at some point is the first step. But to take it into the next level, you need to advertise to people who need your product and where they need it right now! A few examples:

- a movie billboard near a movie theatre
- a poster for golf clubs in a pro shop
- a gas ad on the radio in rush hour
- a wine affiliate promotion through a wedding planner
- a skateboard logo painted in a skate part

Targeting your advertising to a specific audience will increase your meaningful impressions. Placing your advertisements in places where people need your product right now will increase how many people actually purchase based on the advertisement, i.e. conversions. This is why point of purchase (POP) promotion is so critical for mass merchandise, because patons are right their ready to react to the ad and purchase; but I could talk about that all day as a retail fixture designer.

Let’s break down the gas franchise advertising on the radio in rush hours as an example. Sure, having a nice rich advertisement on the TV is nice, and most of the audience will be drivers. But none of them are jumping off the couch hopping into the car and filling up after the TV spot… unless you have some screaming deal going (if you do: firebrandblog@gmail.com!) But if you advertise on the radio in rush hour, you are reaching people who are in their car right now possibly watching their guage swing down to E in traffic. They are much more likely to convert. Even if they do not buy gas based on the ad, the impression will be much more meaningful because they are in that need state right now. They will be engaged with the ad; that is a much more valuable impression.

Another good thing about that example is that the radio CPM will probably be lower than the TV CPM. So you are getting more meaningful impressions, those impressions are more  valuable (greater conversion) and you are doing it for a smaller price. Now that is the power of thoughtful advertising.

Question of the Post: Where can you advertise where your patrons need your product or service right there?

—

By Colin Finkle. Colin Finkle is an award winning industrial designer who works with large multinational brands everyday designing retail displays for FX Displays in Toronto, Canada. He is the principle designer at Firebrand Creative. He also writes for AMD’s FireUser.com blog.

Interact with the Firebrand community – Please Comment or Email.