Gearmark :: Brand - Design - Strategy

Trying this again

I know it has been a while and I'm probably one of the most inconsistent bloggers out there. However, this article about Vegas got me thinking enough to write about it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29210454/?GT1=43001

Anyone who knows me will tell you that I love Vegas - I love everything about it, even the stuff that's ugly in it (and there's a lot of ugliness to Vegas, let me tell ya). This article got me a little upset though - mainly because I started thinking about brand, image, perception and social responsiveness. I think the hardest thing about branding and image and personality is that depending on the socially correct views of the time, a brand is well received or rejected, regardless of what the reality about that "thing" may be.

In the case of Vegas, sure wild things happen. There are a bunch of nightclubs, you can gamble 24x7, smoke anywhere and everywhere (just cigarettes, kids, but even then, most people find that shocking), buy anything under the sun, get massages or anything possible at spas and even access more adult entertainment forms. But Vegas also has a lot of more tame activities - there are a number of Michelin star restaurants in Vegas (I honestly have yet to have a bad meal there), the shopping is awesome, and people are friendly. There are great pools and you can get an awesome tan. And don't forget the shows....pretty much everyone and anyone can find something to do. So why do people go on hating  Vegas?

I have 4 theories about the Vegas hating in light of this recession (if people remember right, we had another recession a few years back) and in some ways they may be related.

Theory 1 - people are in denial that the craziness in Vegas actually exists in their own cities and is necessary for life balance.

Every city has it's own sin spots. San Francisco isn't a nominee for sainthood...neither is New York. Actually, Amsterdam is racier than all the cities. If people went to Vegas, they would see that it's actually kinda tame in some ways and it's all about what you make of it. It's a place for people to let loose and enjoy themselves, an oasis for adult fun. And what's wrong with that?

If Vegas goes away, there won't be many locations available for fun like that (at least, not in this country. Next city would be Dubai), or if there is, it most likely will be in your own backyard...And who wants that?

Conventions choose Vegas because it is fun, and honestly, more business is done in a social setting than an office. The big deals happen over dinner and drinks and shows - not necessarily in a boardroom. Ok, maybe the signature is in the boardroom, but the deal is done over martinis. Having a good social scene helps with entertaining clients and partners - so in a way, Vegas is good for business.

This brings me to Theory 2 - that in general, most people believe business is done in an office.

I've yet to see a business deal done in the confines of an office, or synergies between departments done in a conference room. People get more done over drinks and dinner, even lunch, than they do sitting in cube-land. Business is really a social activity, and conferences provide a way for people to meet and greet, have fun, get to know each other, and make a deal. To make a deal with someone, you have to be able to trust him or her. To trust him or her, you have to be social with that person. A great place to be social and build up trust is Vegas. If you see a colleague dance around like an idiot and get messy drunk and not say a word about it the next day - you are seen as a great person and worth getting into business with. The craziness of Vegas helps with trust building - in a weird way - and makes it easier to get along with people in business.

Even in New York, people will go out and be crazy to do the same thing. At least in Vegas, you can crawl back to your hotel room in walking distance or via cab. You can't always say that about New York.

Theory 3 - and this is the one I'm afraid of - is that we are actually heading into socially conservative waters.

This one makes me nervous. When people are conservative with their money - they start to get judgmental about how it is spent by other people and overly notice what other people do. Just because someone goes to Vegas doesn't mean he is a millionaire - Vegas has some great deals and great shows. It's a fun place to go in the same way that LA or Miami is (and has the same sins. In fact, I think Vegas is safer from a crime perspective if you stick to The Strip), but people have a perception that those cities aren't so bad. When people are afraid they don't like to take risk of any sort...even fun. Vegas is about risk - gambling, spending, etc. Right now we are in fearful times (not like the past 10 years had no fearful times in the economy, but anyway), so a risky Vegas won't seem like a good idea in the public view and would be racy, scandalous, too risque.

A company is better off bringing their employees to LA or another city and spending big at restaurants and hotels there because it seems less risky and flashy (but at the end of the day, will cost the same amount of money).

Theory 4 - people are confusing fantasy with reality.

I think this is probably the most accurate of the list and reflects the branding of Vegas. Vegas is a fantasy land - most of what people thinks goes on there, does go on - but not as much that people think it does. We all need fantasies for escape, especially in rough economic times. I think Vegas has developed such a fantastic reputation that people have forgotten the reality of Vegas and what it's really all about. Too much CSI and too much fantasizing themselves on what Vegas is. They forgot the business that goes on there and that it is just a fun playground - a diversion so to speak - from daily life. The Vegas brand appeals to fantasy. Now that people see it as forbidden, maybe they will see it as more attractive (and get disappointed when they realize it's wild, but not that wild compared to a crazy club in a major US city).

We all need a place like Vegas - a place to have a break and disappear for a few days and just have straight-up fun. It has a great brand/image that I think we need socially to be a healthy society. I hope that in the current economy it doesn't get overly devalued and turns back into the Vegas of the 70s, which it tired so hard to go away from as a brand/image.

Back again!

Yes, it has been a while since I've written anything meaningful on this thing. It makes you wonder why I keep it, huh? But I went to this conference/seminar yesterday about social networking and decided it was time for me to get back to working on this and writing up my viewpoints and such here.

It was a great seminar offered by the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs and Executives. The speakers were great - informative and inspirational. And now I feel like less of a dope about social networking and can actually give some decent advice to my clients about it.

The speakers talked a lot about social networks, open source code, the concept of sharing and openness in business. It seems that through the Internet the world is getting smaller and smaller - both a good and bad thing. What alarmed me the most was how the professional realm responded to social Web sites and the blur between social and professional behavior. I am one who doesn't keep a lot of boundaries (although my friends reading this will probably say right now I'm a liar and I have more secrets than most dysfunctional families, but moving on...), but I was shocked at how many potential employers judge prospects by what is on their facebook or myspace pages. I mean, that's personal space! I can see if you are an employee of a company and there is a policy that HR will do a search on your name and work email address to be sure it's all clean and of a professional image, that makes sense. And at that point, your existence is an extension of the company brand (unless you don't agree to that type of culture and it's time to get a new job anyway). But if you aren't part of that culture, I find that practice intrusive into your personal life.

Until you are part of an organization (i.e. organism) and share in the personality, then you are free to do what you want online and in life. What scares me about social networking is that we are creating a world where we are less people and more in buckets. Sure, we do that already, but if we have to censor ourselves all the time and always wonder what work people will think of us or what our friends will think of us, how will we ever live? It's almost like we are in a world the size of a village where we worry about what our neighbors will think. Isn't that why some people move to cities? So they can have freedom? Or they move to a log cabin in the middle of the forest? Just to be themselves? I hate that at times I have to censor myself but I do it at work sometimes to keep an image. Ok, so come to think about it - I'm not really that open as I like to think, but then again, is anyone in general unless you are very close friends?

I guess it is all a balance. I worked in a company where we did a search on some executives to see what would come up as links and we found a sales guy posting his favorite porn sites on a personal page. Now, sure, it was pretty funny to see the links, but at the same time, we told him to remove it because it hurt the brand. He agreed. I think that's ok, but not hiring someone because they made a bad decision in their personal life and posted it on myspace and you as an employer taking the time to google the person and invading his or her personal space like a private investigator and actually review not professional info but personal info? Who really has the brand problem? I guess a company like that doesn't value privacy as a core value.

Next time - trust, boundaries, and brands and how social networking works in that arena.

What ever happened to The Limited

When I was about 15/16 years old, there was only one clothing store that most of us went to -- The Limited. Not Express (we didn't like that) -- it was about The Limited. Their clothes were somewhat sophisticated, had a great quality, and the women working there had a sense of style. Looking back, I'm not 100% positive about that now (because what do you really know at 15), but that was the feeling I had going to the store. The clothes didn't show a lot of skin and were trendy and progressive. And they had great sales -- that was the best part about them. I used to wear clothes from The Limited to work when I was in college. They had the right feel for a professional environment and decent quality (many pieces I had for a very long time).

Then the styles shifted. I think they changed the buyers because what they focused on before changed. It was like being at The Gap today -- everything just went into a tailspin and I stopped shopping there. I assumed others did too -- I never saw anyone in the store. Then I noticed the quality of the sales staff slip. Then I saw a store called Limited Express appear and knew it was over.

The teens now have Forever 21, which I wouldn't rate as high quality clothing or having any semblance of class to it. It's just disappointing that there are so few quality clothing stores left in general.

The brand for The Limited just fell apart when the clothing didn't cut it anymore and the styles went off what the brand focused on - quality (or seem quality for my age) clothing for decent prices. It's unfortunate that now The Limited brand is going away and starting to shut down.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118251959296944825.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

Microsoft at it again

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118230636850141449.html?mod=home_whats_news_us&apl=y

It's like Microsoft never learns, but luckily the other superpower Google is there to give them a run for their money. I'm not surprised to hear the news about Vista -- it's pretty typical for Microsoft to do this. Banning competitors from existing is almost part of the Microsoft brand, which is sad in a way.

Burger King is getting it right

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19234831/

I'm impressed -- Burger King is finally getting it right. They are communicating 2 messages to their customers (ok, 1 would be ideal, but paring down like 20 messages to 2 is amazing). They are targeting a segment of their audience - the superfan (again, more than impressive) and they are focusing their sales to take-out/drive-thru rather than have an empty sit-in store.

Finally, Burger King got a clue and realized that to get more customers they have to figure out what they do best. BK isn't a  luxury, sit-down restaurant - it's a take-out burger joint. It's about fast food and keeping people on the go. It's not about being a pillar of health, well at least beyond the flame broiled burger being healthier than fried but I think the special sauce concept balances that all out.

I think in the fast food wars, BK will make it. If they focus on doing what they do best - making food that can go go go and targeting a special segment of the audience - they will do amazingly well.

Kerkorian and MGM - just from a brand perspective

Kerkorian's current bid to take over the super-luxury brands of MGM - the Bellagio and City Center - makes me wonder what he really has in mind. Kerkorian is currently the majority stake investor of MGM Mirage, which owns many of the properties in Las Vegas. However, there are only a few ultra-lux properties in Vegas itself that aren't theme park merry-go-rounds. You have Mandalay Bay, the Wynn, the Bellagio, and Venetian. Many people argue which is better, the Bellagio or the Venetian (some would say the Wynn, but most say Bellagio). I personally like both, but that's just me. But I find Kerkorian's bid to take just the Bellagio and City Center interesting.

From a pure brand perspective, there is more money to be made from ultra-luxury than the standard run of the mill Vegas luxury. It sounds to me as if he wants to take the brands and add even more panache to them to attract even higher levels of money interest. Dubai has introduced the world to ultra-luxury with hotels that have a general room rack rate of $5K per night (at that price, can I even say room rack?). However, Las Vegas introduced the concept of ultra-luxury and financial extremes long ago and it should be in it's crowning glory as having some of the finest casinos in the world. Sure, that is a subjective statement, and maybe glamor is a better word to use. Las Vegas and the golden age of Hollywood defined what glamor is in North America. Paris has glamor (as does London and other European cities), but Las Vegas has something extra. Or it could. There was a phase of Vegas development where the adult theme parks reigned. Now Vegas seems to be going back to its roots of high profile, general glamor.

But how do you stay glam in a world of $5K hotels in Dubai?

It sounds to me like Kerkorian may be looking to bring it back and make Vegas the glam capital again.

Wal-Mart strikes again

It has been a while since i've written an entry, so of course I took the easy route and decided to comment on Wal-Mart. Their latest is that they are having problems with their apparel department after they hired Mark Eisen to help fix their problems. In classic Wal-Mart fashion, they had cheap goods (that happened to be well designed). However, does the brand Wal-Mark value design in general or is it about cheap?

One analyst even said: "Wal-Mart is so good at providing things based on price that I'm not certain they've yet grasped how to promote items that aren't solely based on price."

That says a lot.

The Wal-Mart brand is about cheap. People think about Wal-Mart and think "I'm going to go there to get something cheap." They don't think well-designed (Target) or good value (Kohl's). When it comes to apparel, most people think that Wal-Mart is going to offer cheap clothing and the quality is second-level.

I wonder if Wal-Mart has done a brand perception study just to see how people respond to the brand in general. I have a feeling that they would find that in some ways, their business practices have pushed them against a wall from inexpensive quality to now just plain cheap and now they need to change their perception to compete. People value quality (which is defined differently by different people in different markets) and cheap isn't always the winner. Well, except at Wal-Mart. They really need to stop expanding beyond the cheap market and let Kohl's and Target explore quality.

Miss America is Missing the Mark

So the Miss America pageant this year lost more viewers (http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=249841&GT1=7703). What does this mean?

When Miss America was established, women had a very different role in society. They didn't have a lot of career options and in fact, single women over 25 were thrown into resorts to find a husband (resorts that had that purpose in mind). Today women get married at a far later age and have their own lives. And the concept of beauty has evolved to be more inclusive and include intelligence and personality. So what does this mean for a pageant/scholarship program focused on traditional definitions of beauty?

Maybe if the Miss America pageant took away the swimsuit competition and included some type of athletic competition or measure (having a good body doesn't mean that you are physically fit or athletic), cultural segment, and proof of intelligence, this competition would be more attractive. Beauty pageants in general promote attractiveness on the outside, but what about a competition that promotes beauty from both inside and outside? That would be a unique competition and would probably have a bigger draw. Sure, there could still be spectacular clothes and costumes, but having well-rounded women on stage would be much better to promote to the public and create better role models for our girls.

Maybe Miss America will consider updating it's practices, but most likely, it will keep to the limited beauty pageant audience that maintain more traditional values and roles for women.

What's wrong with The Gap?

The Gap represented American casual wear for a long time until the day they introduce technicolor jeans. What is up with that? The Gap was known for it's standard, decent quality jeans, shirts, and general casual look. It was sophisticated enough to get us to work, and cheap enough to get us to the bar after work. I travelled with us to Saturday and promoted the concept of one wardrobe for all occassions. It was a stable brand.

But those technicolor jeans! Then the other awful fashion decisions that targeted the Abercrombie and Fitch market. What were they thinking? That market is extremely fickle and just after the latest thing.

Basically, The Gap abandonned it's core market -- people who want something to wear for work and casual. Bannana Republic was in the higher end work clothes market and then they came down to fill the gap The Gap didn't fill. I personally still buy jeans at The Gap. Why? Because jeans in my opinion shouldn't cost $150 a pair. Jeans are denim -- an inexpensive fabric where you are looking for a good enough fit. The problem with The Gap now is that their sister store sells jeans for the same price as they do. On top of it, the same clothes with slightly better quality can be purchased at Bannana Republic. Again, what exactly was The Gap managers thinking? Bannana Republic was the upscale version of The Gap -- it was a goal to graduate to. 20 year olds at work can't afford Bannana Repulic and they certainly shouldn't be wearing clothes from Forever 21 to work.

The fatal error was the sales strategy -- if you wait long enough, these "classics" go on sale at the same prices in both stores. So essentially, you can purchase a $10 shirt at Bannana Repulic that is better quality than a similar shirt at The Gap for $10. Why introduce that level of complexity?

The Gap corporation tried to change a solidly branded store into the next American Eagle, rather than target professionals who don't make a lot of money but want to look good, which proved to be the biggest mistake going. Now they are going retro and it is getting them nowhere really fast. Why not just be The Gap -- timeless, work to casual store that they were. A place where you could buy a $10 shirt on sale as a young professional and wear it to work and then out on the weekends. As long as we have not-for-profits that don't pay a lot of money to it's employees and individuals who make under $50K per year, there is a need for that type of company. Now there's a business idea.

Google, grades and it's new corporate culture

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/03/technology/03google.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I found this article a little disturbing about Google's shift in culture, but in some ways it makes complete sense. The company that has managed to tame the Internet with some amazing algorithms is trying to beat the hiring game with a few algorithms as well. Currently, they value academic achievement and the ability to complete a few puzzles and mind games/tricks -- but it seems they are maturing a bit in how they select bright people.

Unfortunately, bright, talented people do not always test well and don't work well with numbers. Many of the elite of the business world didn't finish college or went to average schools and got average grades. Google is valuing personality, a good thing, but in it's analytical fashion is putting a number and a value to what makes one personality better suited to work there than another.

The sad thing is they have made hiring and personhood into a game. Already when someone goes to interview for a job he or she isn't who he/she is. People lie and don't say what they really like or why they really want a job. Now someone can lie on a test and give a "better" response rather than a real response.

But honestly, for a company that has managed to define what makes a page more suitable for your needs or your search based on mathematics and the occurence of certain words, it is culturally consistent to do that with it's hiring practices. Do I personally agree with it? No, but then again, Gearmark is based on something completely different than Google.