Design, advertising, branding, marketing, business, user experience, and the ether that binds them all together.
by Jason M. Putorti
Lead Designer, mint.com
Founder, Novaurora
It seems that a lot of people, myself included, have been wondering what Starbucks is doing. The reintroduction of the original logo left a lot of people scratching their heads. I’m not sure what it means, nor do I like it visually– I’m not sure who does. Anyone?
The general vibe out there is that Starbucks is floundering due to people pinching discretionary spending in response to rising gas prices and 70’s style stagflation. So I was actually interested for once to have a look at this particular annual report which came in the mail. It shows that growth is still strong at Starbucks on the revenue side. From 2005 to 2006 Starbucks added $1.4B in new revenue, from 2006 to 2007 they added $1.8B.
My friend Miche said yesterday that, “Starbucks should be the Target of the coffee world.” By that he meant how Target’s brand is that of affordable chic, and with the growing preference of independents in major cities and the possible loss of some brand caché, maybe this is what they need to do in the US.
Howard Schultz seems to be taking a more evolutionary than revolutionary approach: “The transformation agenda we are implementing includes improving our U.S. business by introducing new, exciting products and programs for our partners, and store enhancements to increase our focus on the customer. Immediately, we are slowing the pace of our U.S. store growth and closing under-performing locations. We are accelerating expansion and increasing the profitability of Starbucks outside the U.S. We will reignite our emotional attachment to our customers and restore their connections with our coffee, brand, partners and stores. And we are building for the long-term—both in ensuring our support functions are focused fully on advancing the customer experience, and expanding our exceptional international success story.”
Despite watching Starbucks’ stock lose half its value since I bought in, I’m sticking with him… for now. I’m interested to see what happens, and I think Howard gets it.
What do you think?
Recently one of my friends, Christina of Branding Brand, was quoted in a Pittsburgh Business Times article about, of course, branding.
I feel I have to comment on this article because it really doesn’t explain what a brand is, I’m not sure why the author left this part out. A number of gems offer attempts to explain, but range from falling short to incorrect.
To put this matter to bed, again, I’m going to tell my readers that a company’s brand is what everyone else thinks about it. What is top of mind when you think about Apple or Amazon? Think of a brand as a personality. Companies are brands, products are brands, people are brands. Take yourself for example. Every interaction someone has with you has the potential to move their opinion of you in one direction or another, or influence what they think of your personality. The same can be said about a company. Highly successful brands own singular words in your mind, something Al Ries and Jack Trout wrote about in Positioning. My favorite example is Kleenex.
A troubling snippet from the Pittsburgh Business Times would be from Jim Cipriani, “What you are trying to uncover is what is unique … about what the company is offering. It is tough to brand something like toilet paper. People just look for the cheapest.”
This my friends is a contradiction in a few ways. First, affordability is in fact a brand characteristic, and a legitimate one. Wal-Mart anyone? Southwest Airlines? Both have spent a lot to brand themselves as affordable. Affordability has a legitimate emotional appeal, spending less money on one thing allows you spend more on another, and lead a richer life. Wal-Mart quite literally with, “Save Money. Live Better,” and Southwest as, “a symbol of freedom.” Cheaper tickets equals more travel. Second, if toilet paper is so hard to brand, then why are there so many kinds? When you think about the softest for example, what do you think of? Charmin, Cottonelle? Not so hard is it. Those products have positioned themselves in a crowded marketplace, and have been successful. There’s no such thing as a commodity anymore. It’s been proven time and time again. You can position and brand anything. The list is endless.
Kate Tomlinson of Ripple Effects tells us that, “A brand is an all-encompassing thing in the marketplace.” Yes, thing. This is confusing and ultimately off-base. A brand exists in the minds of consumers. Your job as brand custodian is to affect it. Your tools are all the tools of communication: visual, written, verbal. You must be your brand. If you’re Lexus, you want your customers to think luxury. Everything from the typography in your brochure to the voice in your television ads has to just ooze it. If you want to be friendly and approachable, your e-mails and ad copy should be playful. If you want to be exclusive, maybe you talk down to your customer a little bit and make him feel less of a man. No joke. The most interesting man in the world is in fact more interesting than you.
Of note is how the author cites how Heinz is spending $100 million in two years on advertising and marketing for its 57 varieties moniker, and then later the explains that, “Advertising doesn’t build credibility, publicity does. Get your message out through the media and online.”
PR is without a doubt more cost-effective for small upstart firms, but advertising maintains brands and cultivates the company personality. To say advertising is dead is just inaccurate and simplistic. I would have to guess that it’s said only to motivate small business and encourage disruptors. GEICO has built their entire company on playful pop-culture advertising and supported it with customer service. FedEx vs. UPS is an interesting example. Over the past several years FedEx has shown a playful side with their advertising, whereas UPS has been more serious, “what can brown do for you?” Back to Heinz, I am 25 years old, and I for one really have no idea what 57 varieties means anymore, and I’m sure they realize that at Heinz. I know historically what it is being from Pittsburgh, but I struggle with association. To me Heinz means ketchup, Pittsburgh, and diners. 57 varieties maybe means authenticity if I think hard enough. If this isn’t what Heinz wants me to think, then it’s indeed time to spend some money. To be fair to Heinz, they have done a great job (they’ve had over 100 years to do it), and of note is that they do not call all their products ‘Heinz’, they own a huge number of independently branded product lines. If 57 varieties is to be put into the public consciousness more, I would focus on the values of quality, authenticity, taste (supposedly) common to all Heinz products.
In conclusion, do a little digging for yourself. Read Al Ries, Jack Trout, David Ogilvy, or talk to a good agency. Understand that the key to successful branding is not, “consistently repeat[ing] your message so the public remembers it.” I for one wouldn’t find that appealing.
This could be an example of retro gone bad. Only time will tell, but I pray that Starbucks is not seriously considering keeping their original logo. I have to assume this is just a publicity stunt. However, all press isn’t necessarily good press, and this move reeks of desperation.
What were they thinking? Let me take a shot at it:
Another twist… I just happened to come across the Citibank logo. When you put the logos side-by-side now and step back, they really look scary similar.
Read more on this ridiculousness at BrandNew
My friend Nina sent me this article yesterday on the design of the Obama campaign. I was a little annoyed because Newsweek beat me to it, but I’m going to write my observations here anyway specifically about the web site.
I’ve already written about how design = credibility. Here I’m going to go past that to write about a great example of how design can communicate in subtle ways to match and further communicate your brand values.
First, for those of you who haven’t seen it yet, check out Obama’s web site.
Now this is no way an endorsement of his candidacy, and my friends know this (wink), but just take your time and look at the pixel perfection of just the welcome page that asks you to sign up. Soak it in. Notice the sparing use of the red, only found in the logo stripes and the call-to-action to sign up. Even the skip signup is beautiful– the button is suggested, rather than placed, with a partial outline and a background glow… use it to move on to the main page.
This site, truly moves me. The whole thing, if nothing else, is VERY different from any other campaign website I’ve ever seen in the past 8 years I’ve been paying attention. And what has Obama been telling people since the start of his campaign? He has successfully gotten his designers to communicate exactly that without spelling out: “here is something different.” The power of design at work right there boys and girls.
Continuing to examine the site, I find all kinds of goodness. The inspirational message on top and the image of Obama almost looking into the future seek to inspire the visitor just as his speeches do. The ethereal airbrushing and lighting in the background feels very warm and welcoming to me, unlike all the harsh lines and hard edges elsewhere.
And yet even with all of this difference, it still to me feels very American and patriotic– as much or more so than the others. How? A few things Obama has done here: first the logo. No candidate has ever done this before. Andrew Romano pointed out how George W Bush used ‘W’ on his bumper stickers, but this is beyond that into the realm of using a swoosh or an Apple icon instead of the company names. Now don’t think that this is a no brainer, because in a political campaign it isn’t. I’ve worked on a congressional campaign before, and even making the candidates first name pop more when they are not well known is very risky because the recognition of the last name is key on the ballot. Obviously with hundreds of millions and the media recognition Obama has received, I think anyone not living in a cave knows his name, but the logo and the change type on his signs and everywhere is pretty forward thinking.
More little things… take a look at the top right of the site and all of the dollar bill style textures, stars, and old style characters. The entire suite of treatments is reminiscent of the revered documents of our government like the Bill of Rights or the Declaration of Independence.
The typography on the site, namely all the gutters and borders between the text boxes, the line height, and the fonts, is thoroughly impressive. It’s very easy on the eyes and easy to read. There is nothing on this site that’s ‘in your face’ and loud. It’s all there for the taking, but the site is making you come to it, and not trying to push you. It’s encouraging exploration, which is another big risk in the age of big call-to-action buttons, bright colors, and pressure to ‘convert’ visitors to contributors.
The coup de grace… is the background image. You may not have noticed because it only comes through every now and then, and probably not at all on a broadband connection, but check this out.
Okay, wow? A seriously amazing artist was hired to create this image and the only time it’s ever seen is in between loading pages. This is the kind of detail that really separates the men from the boys in my opinion. More American symbolism juxtaposed with the Obama logo including ‘E Pluribus Unum’, an American Bald Eagle, stars, stripes, and an olive branch. Notice also how the gradation here is going up to white, suggesting sky, dawn, and sunlight… and by association: hope and renewal. This of course all echos the ‘new day in America’ promised by an Obama presidency. Technically speaking it’s also an impressive technique to use for a web site to build the site borders directly into the background image as it provides for a lot more flexibility in design.
In conclusion this site says to me:
1. Inspiration
2. Different
3. Trustworthy
4. Patriotic
I think we have a winner here. It hits on Obama’s messages without saying a word. This is definitely a great example of what web design is supposed to be, and I give lots of praise to the designers behind it. I have to give credit to Obama himself as well as he must have had at least some input into the process. In comparison, rumor has it that John Kerry and John Edwards quibbled about font use in their campaign and the New York Times writes about how their design was largely a mess. Obama is way ahead on that count and although he hasn’t won it all yet, I believe design has played a large role in his rise, and will continue to do so.
