Gearmark :: Brand - Design - Strategy

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.

What is an ad?

So I have been revisiting the thought of finishing my book finally (one of my new year resolutions). I mapped out the next few chapters yesterday and one of the thoughts is on advertising and what the purpose of it really is. I think advertising is an extension of the customer experience, which is fairly obvious, but for advertising to be effective there has to be a call to action. Purely branded ads have a call to action as well -- they want the user to go to the site and learn more or to investigate their products and company more.

Sometimes I think ad agencies have placed themselves in the position to create art in an advertisement. Ads aren't art -- they serve a function of communicating the business's values and experience. I think the other problem is that most companies don't know what their values are or what their experiences should be. Maybe both are to blame for insufficient advertising?

AT&T purchasing BellSouth - what goes around comes around

All AT&T needs to do now is buy Verizon and then they are back to where they started. It's funny how brands get remade and reversioned and given new life. I'm waiting to see all the bells come back together and revive the bell logo rather than have these swirly balls and swooshes.

So what does the AT&T purchase mean? Well there is now less choice for consumers, more consistency, and probably the same service. What happened to Sprint and MCI? Sprint is now in the cellphone business and MCI -- well they have fallen apart and been scooped up by Verizon. It will be interesting to see if the cable companies come forward with an offering and make everything just easier. Some have the offering but it's the telephone portion that is a challenge (he who owns the cable seems to be owning the local service these days). In a way, phone is related to TV and computers. AT&T used to have a cable division (not sure what happened to it these days). I'm particularly interested in the brand growth and changes and how things will work financially. The phone companies are grasping at straws to make revenue, especially since they are becoming more and more of a commodity/utility. As people move to wireless and away from cabled materials, the phone companies will need to consider charging flat monthly fees for access -- or have a general access fee.

I'd say the next few years will be an interesting time.

Kenneth Cole and their brand

Happy Holidays!

So my gift to myself this year was a Kenneth Cole handbag. Now I purchase a lot of Kenneth Cole goods and almost wish that they had some type of loyalty program (most days I am head-to-toe KC), but hey, those are the breaks. The clothing of the brand really appeals to me because of the style of the clothes and the fabric. Heck, I just appreciate good design.

So I read the label with their brand statement and realized why their products are appealing:

Our Kenneth Cole New York collection of iconic modern classics is a refined reflection of the Kenneth Cole New York heritage. Created with the utmost quality and design, these essential pieces exemplify urban, sophisticated style for the fashion conscious and socially aware.

Now at first, you'd think this is just marketing-speak. But in many ways, Kenneth Cole is such a powerful brand because it really lives to these words.

They constantly support different social causes thru promotions and product lines (most notably, homeless shoe drives and the Bon Jovi jacket sale). To add to the brand they have well-designed clothes that are super elegant and you can tell that they are from KC. The fabrics are different and they are great for ready to wear. The stores are in more urban settings and have a gritty yet elegant feel to them. Lots of draping and lots of items tight in the right places.

They walk their talk and support their own brand vision -- one of the few companies that does. It's great to see that and I'm happy I support them.

Publicis buys Digitas

I think it's great that Digitas is getting acquired by Publicis. The good though intention here is that companies will work with a Publicis company (that is enhancing it's brand) and then those thoughts will make it to the digital world. That's a great thing and I wish more companies would do that. Here's the reality though -- companies still have different agencies working on different parts of their communications and create a brand frankenstein and a customer experience that is worse than a patchwork quit because there is no overarching experience communication values being communicated.

I'm usually a harsh critic of agencies, but lately I really have to blame the companies for their own brand disasters. Many brand managers really don't understand what a brand is or means or how to define ROI on it. When they manage an agency, they give poor direction or approval and the agency ends up producing garbage (garbage in, garbage out). Sure, some agencies don't understand brand or customer experience either, but the old strategy of different firms having different areas of specialization needs to change. Companies needs to work with brand agencies -- let them do the thinking that isn't always happening about what a company's identity really is. Many politicians and executives hire an image consultant to make them appear more pallet-able. Same is true for companies -- and an agency is nothing more than an image consultant. Ad, PR, interactive -- all about image.

How everyone wants to be a megastore - EBay

EBay is the site to go to for an online auction or to buy something new. I've actually purchased a lot of new things there for great prices. But again, I think this is where we get to how you sell it should reflect your brand.

There is a feature on EBay called BuyItNow and it lets you just by-pass the auction process and purchase something new (or just not play auction). I've used it and it's most effective for buyers (and I'm guessing sellers). Now to move that feature to a marketplace -- why is EBay doing that?

Well it's to expand it's brand to show that it is more of a marketplace  than auctioneer. Amazon has done it with their stores. Other sites have done it thru affilialtes. Why is EBay having a hard time with it? Well -- EBay is known as an auction house. It would be like Christie's having a retail store -- and they don't for obvious reasons.  Sure, EBay wants to grow and it needs to grow, but is  being a megastore what it really needs to be?

And further, why does every retailer want to be a megastore?

For EBay to grow, it needs to streamline it's user experience. Maybe polish the front-end. Invest in making the whole system more trustworthy and I don't mean thru a policy -- but thru the interaction. Yes, the brand is the experience.

If the site had a more friendly than developer feel to it, then the new customers coming there may feel some trust and realize that people selling on the site are legit. Maybe encourage store owners or auctioneers to post a profile of themselves up front (and not a star rating -- a profile of who they are). Maybe a first name or a made-up service person's name. Purchases are made on trust not on cool offerings (especially in the online world of identity theft).

I wish I could get 20 minutes with an EBay brand and marketing exec to talk to them about making a better site that is more user friendly and maybe has a gimmick of sorts. Targeting the early adopters is not the same as targeting the masses. The masses need something familiar and comfortable, like a slippers -- they don't take risks and want what they know even if it is the same stuff they experience daily; early adopters need something that's just new and different and crave new experience. I'd love to see EBay's data -- would be fun to talk to them about segmentation.

Good news on the brand front

Well the deal with Delta and USAir didn't go thru and Delta is trying to keep it's firm afloat. I'm happy for Delta fighting to keep it together and retain it's brand value. I personally think Delta has a lot to offer it's customers and it has a great loyalty - something that would be lost in any merger. I hope Delta can manage to keep it together.

Morgan Stanley is FINALLY spinning off Discover. Thank god. Morgan Stanley is known to be a maker of money -- not a debt agency. Yes, I know they probably have credit card offerings but that isn't the same as have a credit card company, and one that has it's own label and digit string (I think Discover starts with a 7, making it have it's own line). Good that they are keeping focused as to what they do best.

EBay is shutting down it's site in China to be run by Tom Online there. Although that is a blow for US companies trying to emerge in China, I hate to say it, it's a good thing. EBay is a US brand and although popuplar here, that doesn't mean it will be popular somewhere else. Jumping cultures and having a brand that appeals in all cultures is a difficult thing (notice how multi-national companies move to having text-logos with straightforward fonts that are easy to read -- it's less of a logo/mark and more of a way of writing their company name so it translates well). There are nuances of all cultures that makes adoption difficult. This is true for both Chinese companies entering the US as well as US companies entering China. It can be easier to have an ally in the other country do it for you.

Airlines and consolidation

United and Continental. USAirways and Delta. American Airlines and, well, someone they have been talking with will probably pop up in a couple of days. The airlines are consolidating for financial reasons and looking at which brands would be a great fit; however, are these firms really a great fit for each other?

United and Continental are good airlines, but I don't see either claiming a strong brand or strong flight experience making them different from the rest. Sure, they have strong sales and a strong following, but they are not considered industry leaders in air travel innovation. United did start having the extra sized seats available for purchase and interesting ads and commercials (although a little too feminine). Continental does serve in flight margaritas but not a lot of presence. A strong commonality is that there is nothing particularly noticeable about the experience on either airline, except it being commercial and corporate like. Over the long term, maybe they can build an image and a brand that is more expansive.

USAirways and Delta -- I think that merger would be a merger for financial gain rather than branded experience. USAirways always had a higher-end appeal for a brand than Delta. I remember taking the shuttle between Boston and New York frequently and the Delta shuttle was ok, but the USAir shuttle just had a better experience -- a better place to wait for the flight, more polite people working there, and none of this pick up your snack on the way (I had that on one flight and wasn't quite sure of what to make of it. If you are picking up your own breakfast, what is the flight attendant doing on board?). It would make sense why America West would want the image of USAir -- higher end, more polished and professional. Would Delta really want that? They are trying to be more casual and compete with JetBlue. Why would USAir want Delta? Stop some of the competition against each other and gain new customers. Maybe have a classy, casual brand. Maybe construct an airline that is a tad more conservative and pulls in customers to compete with JetBlue.

Weak brands make for good mergers. Brands that need further definition make for good mergers. If you have a good brand, then you have a strong customer base. In the airline industry that is more true today than ever. 

What makes a b-school special?

This was a rather alarming article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116588174080446948.html?mod=pj_main_hs_coll

So looking at this, if the students don't know what makes the Haas school special it makes you wonder a) what made them go to business school in the first place and b) why they chose the Haas school.

This also raises something about consumers in general -- why do they buy? Do they buy things because they think they need them? Do they buy things because of the brand label?

When it comes to colleges and universities, it's all about the prestige factor. Students typically select where to go based on the star-name label. It could be Harvard or Yale -- at the end of the day it is an Ivy League school. Heck, I was the same -- I chose MIT because that was the place to be for an engineering student according to traditions. Did the school match my personality? Not really. The same is true when high-achievers go to work for a consulting firm or a Fortune 500 company is searching for a consulting firm to work with. McKinsey, Bain or another top tier firm -- as long as it is a brand name.

Colleges try so hard to attract the right student, but I think even the Ivy Leagues feel they need to be a perfectionist in each area and attract all the best students around. At the end of the day, a school needs to attract what adds to it's environment. For example, Simmons College attracts women who go out into the world and make things happen -- they are bright, sure, but they look for go-getters. I wanted to go to Haas a while ago because it specialized in innovation and allowing people to express their ideas. Standford is ok, but I didn't want to go there because it is too traditional. Then again, I knew exactly what I wanted and why. And I read the materials.

Sometimes consumers want the best brand and they don't care why. They would buy a Gucci shirt when an Armani is more suitable just because the Gucci is $100 cheaper. The same is true for an education -- the culture or the environment isn't of value; it is the star professors or the best facilities. Or just the essence of being an Ivy or near-Ivy.

It comes down to how you select your consumer. B-schools may have similar courses of study and have smart students, but there is more to a student than achievement and grades. There is the person. Schools should start looking at that a little more and the achievement or goals a little less. Is the student an entrepeneur and inquisitive? Then a very tradition b-school environment just shouldn't accept him. The brand runs both ways and a tag line doesn't fix the problem. It's about fit and the b-schools can't be top in all areas - pick one and the students will follow.