Has anyone been keeping up with Royal Caribbean cruiselines? It seems as if they just can't stay away from destroying a tropical paradise with their multi-storied cruise ships - even if it's already been destroyed. I guess ripping up delicate barrier reefs with their anchors, emptying human waste into the oceans, and making a mess of down-trodden local economies just isn't enough to keep those "all you can eat" lunch bar-goers feeling good about themselves. Oh no, they've got to continue cruising into Haiti to make sure their travelers can literally look down on an even more devastated eco-system than they usually do.
Welcome to Royal Caribbean's post-earthquake tour - http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/ship_of_ghouls_tKJpR6oDf07YZvP7LR2FNP.
As of January 19th, they were still cruising into Haiti, while hundred's of thousands starved, amputated appendages, and died. Hmmmmmm, I don't know about the branding of cruislines in the past, but really. REALLY!!!!
According to NPR, "the CEO of Royal Caribbean International says the company's cruise ships are still arriving in Haiti." HELLOOOO!!!!!!! Despite the fact that the ships have delivered relief efforts to the island, some passengers on the ships are reportedly "sickened" over the decision to dock there. One passenger took to an Internet message board to protest the idea of vacationing where "tens of thousands of dead people are being piled up on the streets, with the survivors stunned and looking for food and water."
I don't even think I have to go into how wrong this is on the business, brand, or even human levels. Seriously, you don't need to hire a PR person, or even a branding expert, to discuss this. It's just simple common sense - and I don't mean the kind that's not that common....
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Building Your Brand Fabric
Flannel or silk? Cotton or wool? Cut on the bias? Embroidered or embellished with appliqué? What does your garment look like? We have all gone through the exercise of branding 101 by asking, “if your brand were a person, who would that person be?” In today’s market, however, it’s more important to ask yourself, “What would they wear?”
Today, effectively communicating your brand is less about identifying the person your brand represents, and more about identifying how to communicate your brand’s message so that it is well received. While the core of your brand should be true to itself your message should be refined to fit the medium being used. The reason is simple, people change based on what they are doing. They dress casually on the weekend. They ratchet it up a notch or two for work. On a date, they bring out the little black dress or the right jacket. Black tie? A whole different story, altogether. It’s no different in the media. People are more serious when they read the paper. Less so when thumbing through a magazine, and when on Facebook or Twitter, it’s all about two-way interaction.
Think about your own mind-set. It is why most of the world has multiple accounts on dating sites – one for the “playful” side, one for their “serious” side, and one for the “tiger or tigress in everyone”.
Because of this, repeating the same tagline just doesn’t work in today’s media. However, learning how to revise a brand’s message to make the most of today’s media, is akin to looking
at a bolt of fabric for its thread, rather than its design. The threads woven into a bolt of fabric are like the media woven into a communication campaign. When Twitter is combined with television, and a Facebook page is interwoven with a newspaper ad, the entire marketing mix produces a richer fabric that sells better.
Because of this, repeating the same tagline just doesn’t work in today’s media. However, learning how to revise a brand’s message to make the most of today’s media, is akin to looking
at a bolt of fabric for its thread, rather than its design. The threads woven into a bolt of fabric are like the media woven into a communication campaign. When Twitter is combined with television, and a Facebook page is interwoven with a newspaper ad, the entire marketing mix produces a richer fabric that sells better. Subtlety is the key to make the garment interesting and appealing to the customer. While they all need to echo the same brand, a Twitter Tweet has to be short, sweet, and pithy. A Facebook page needs to be consistently updated and fun. A print ad needs to be bold, brash and stand out from the news. If one thread is inconsistent, the fabric of your brand starts to unravel, and your customers will quickly see the faults.
When executed correctly your communications will create a gorgeous garment that will look great and sell, whether it is being “worn” online or offline. Just remember, the beauty of your brand lies in the cloth itself and in the way it is woven together, rather than in the person wearing it. So if you are wondering how best to communicate your brand through all the new media opportunities, do what the great fashion designers have done and start with great fabric. Then let it go and empower your customers to show it off everywhere they go. They will pick up the threads of your message and build an even more powerful brand fabric for you.
To learn the five steps to weaving your own brand fabric, email
info@thinkcannon.com.Jeff Cannon
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
30,000 Years of Social Networking
Over the past few weeks I have been reading about different archeological finds, new ways of looking at existing artifacts. Things started popping out at me, that congealed this past weekend - amazing what a day off will do. So bear with me on this, but...
Tens of thousands of years ago Homo sapiens [the first real step toward modern man] created the first knock-offs. These took the forms of fake shells that were found around highland campfire sites. Yes, land-locked ancient humans started creating fake shells out of soap stone, mimicking the shells of far-off tribes. You have to ask yourself why?
It wasn’t New York City's Canal Street where ancient tourists and label-seekers in loin-cloths were looking to buy the latest logo accessory. Or was it? What would make someone, who had to fight every day for survival, take time out to carve a shell bead to hang around their neck? Did they just want to look like a far-off tribe that lived by the sea? The answer is apparently, yes. Call it one of the first forms of social networking. Call it one of the first uses of technology [bone carving tools in that day] to connect with other, like minded people. Technology may have changed, but human nature has not. We have merely changed the technologies we use to keep up with the basic human need to create a community.
Face it, we like other people.
Think about it, back then, early Homo sapiens and Cro-Magnon lived in tribes of perhaps 25 “people.” Each had their own language, as it were, their own signs, and their own look – think fur garments for land-locked tribes, versus reeds for sea-side tribes. When tribes met, they had a pretty quick choice to make. They could make friends or they could fight. So the ability to quickly show another tribe that they were similar and should be friends became a pretty important task. So, when not killing a deer or running from a tiger, making beads to show others they should talk and trade probably ranked up pretty high for anyone looking past tomorrow. They were making beads, not just to show off, but to connect with other tribes, to show others that they were of like minds. Think of how powerful a knock-off bead must have been 30,000 years ago.
Think things have changed? They haven’t. As tribes expanded, the people of the day started banding together under staffs, under banners, under flags. Roll forward several thousand years, to the ancient Greeks. These people grouped together under the banners of city-states like Sparta and Athens. They made treaties, they warred, they died. Then larger societies like Rome came into being. We humans were far from content to be of one people. We created social networks within each of these countries – the rich and powerful separated themselves from the commoners, and well above the slaves by their look and their mannerism.
A better example of this can be found in Rome's upper classes. In the day, they used a purple dye - Tyrian purple – to set themselves apart from other Romans. It was made from glands found in a specific sea snail. Anthroplogist, David Jacoby, remarked that "twelve thousand snails of Murex brandaris yield no more than 1.4 g of pure dye, enough to color only the trim of a single garment." i.e., it was expensive and only a few could afford it.
Apparently it produced a hideous stench, that ancient authors noted, but the cost of producing it was so high, the well to do didn’t care about the smell. What it did was create instant recognition among those of the upper classes, based on how much of a garment was purple. Just trim, or the whole robe? It was one of the first instances of class identification that went beyond country borders. Leaders in other places tried to replicate it with local dyes, with not so great results. But again, it was humans using the latest technology, gland extraction and dye development, to identify and isolate a community within a larger world.
For the next several hundred years, the sense of community has moved away from country borders, and more toward class. Up until about fifty years ago, one’s mannerisms and the way one dressed, spoke, and acted better showed the community one belonged to, than sewing a flag onto a garment. Think - the House of Windsor talking with Nazi Germany - community over borders. But, something happened. The ability to manufacture products at a higher quality and lower cost began to undermine the value of a luxury brand's label. Don't get me wrong, branded labels didn't go away. Instead, the concept of “mixing labels” appeared. People started venturing away from large stores in search of "they're own look". Once again, it was new technology - the ability to travel - that became the new social identifier. "Oh, look what I picked up in Paris..."
Then, along came the Internet, and once again, the technology of social networking changed.
Today, people are using Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, even creating their own, more personal social networks to retain a sense of social order. Don’t get me wrong, the old labels still matter. But new tribes are being formed. Power comes in different shapes today. Look how Twitter has been used among Iranian anti-government intellectuals. See how China is trying to shut down Google as a means to keep its own classes in line. Oh wait, they’re a classless society - oops...
From the day of sitting for hours to carve a single bead, to creating a page on Facebook, to developing a clique within a social network, it has all been a part of the human experience. So why fight it? Those who win, are the ones who learn to use the new technology, who learn to make friends, and who learn to work with a network of like minded people. It is the way humans have always managed to outgrow the competition – whether it lions, tigers, bulls or bears….
They've just turned to SEO, SEM and Keyword marketing...
Tens of thousands of years ago Homo sapiens [the first real step toward modern man] created the first knock-offs. These took the forms of fake shells that were found around highland campfire sites. Yes, land-locked ancient humans started creating fake shells out of soap stone, mimicking the shells of far-off tribes. You have to ask yourself why?
It wasn’t New York City's Canal Street where ancient tourists and label-seekers in loin-cloths were looking to buy the latest logo accessory. Or was it? What would make someone, who had to fight every day for survival, take time out to carve a shell bead to hang around their neck? Did they just want to look like a far-off tribe that lived by the sea? The answer is apparently, yes. Call it one of the first forms of social networking. Call it one of the first uses of technology [bone carving tools in that day] to connect with other, like minded people. Technology may have changed, but human nature has not. We have merely changed the technologies we use to keep up with the basic human need to create a community.
Face it, we like other people.
Think about it, back then, early Homo sapiens and Cro-Magnon lived in tribes of perhaps 25 “people.” Each had their own language, as it were, their own signs, and their own look – think fur garments for land-locked tribes, versus reeds for sea-side tribes. When tribes met, they had a pretty quick choice to make. They could make friends or they could fight. So the ability to quickly show another tribe that they were similar and should be friends became a pretty important task. So, when not killing a deer or running from a tiger, making beads to show others they should talk and trade probably ranked up pretty high for anyone looking past tomorrow. They were making beads, not just to show off, but to connect with other tribes, to show others that they were of like minds. Think of how powerful a knock-off bead must have been 30,000 years ago.
Think things have changed? They haven’t. As tribes expanded, the people of the day started banding together under staffs, under banners, under flags. Roll forward several thousand years, to the ancient Greeks. These people grouped together under the banners of city-states like Sparta and Athens. They made treaties, they warred, they died. Then larger societies like Rome came into being. We humans were far from content to be of one people. We created social networks within each of these countries – the rich and powerful separated themselves from the commoners, and well above the slaves by their look and their mannerism.
A better example of this can be found in Rome's upper classes. In the day, they used a purple dye - Tyrian purple – to set themselves apart from other Romans. It was made from glands found in a specific sea snail. Anthroplogist, David Jacoby, remarked that "twelve thousand snails of Murex brandaris yield no more than 1.4 g of pure dye, enough to color only the trim of a single garment." i.e., it was expensive and only a few could afford it.
Apparently it produced a hideous stench, that ancient authors noted, but the cost of producing it was so high, the well to do didn’t care about the smell. What it did was create instant recognition among those of the upper classes, based on how much of a garment was purple. Just trim, or the whole robe? It was one of the first instances of class identification that went beyond country borders. Leaders in other places tried to replicate it with local dyes, with not so great results. But again, it was humans using the latest technology, gland extraction and dye development, to identify and isolate a community within a larger world.
For the next several hundred years, the sense of community has moved away from country borders, and more toward class. Up until about fifty years ago, one’s mannerisms and the way one dressed, spoke, and acted better showed the community one belonged to, than sewing a flag onto a garment. Think - the House of Windsor talking with Nazi Germany - community over borders. But, something happened. The ability to manufacture products at a higher quality and lower cost began to undermine the value of a luxury brand's label. Don't get me wrong, branded labels didn't go away. Instead, the concept of “mixing labels” appeared. People started venturing away from large stores in search of "they're own look". Once again, it was new technology - the ability to travel - that became the new social identifier. "Oh, look what I picked up in Paris..."
Then, along came the Internet, and once again, the technology of social networking changed.
Today, people are using Facebook, Twitter, Linked In, even creating their own, more personal social networks to retain a sense of social order. Don’t get me wrong, the old labels still matter. But new tribes are being formed. Power comes in different shapes today. Look how Twitter has been used among Iranian anti-government intellectuals. See how China is trying to shut down Google as a means to keep its own classes in line. Oh wait, they’re a classless society - oops...
From the day of sitting for hours to carve a single bead, to creating a page on Facebook, to developing a clique within a social network, it has all been a part of the human experience. So why fight it? Those who win, are the ones who learn to use the new technology, who learn to make friends, and who learn to work with a network of like minded people. It is the way humans have always managed to outgrow the competition – whether it lions, tigers, bulls or bears….
They've just turned to SEO, SEM and Keyword marketing...
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Harry Reid & His Smart Obama Statement
How many times have we seen this? Someone makes a statement that's so offensive it creates a tremendous splash in the press. They then apologize for it. Everyone forgives everyone. The world moves on. But the original person has made a mint from the media shock. Well, Harry Reid did it in his book, and has done it well. He'll do the talk show circuit, make headlines across the country and around the world, and in the end, he will save millions of advertising budget for five key words entwined in his comment of "Barack Obama could become the country’s first black president because he was “light-skinned” and had “no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one.” If you haven't seen it, take a look at the New York Times.
Now, I'm not even going to go into my thoughts on this - whether it is accurate or not, whether it is true or not, or how incredibly distateful it was. After all, he has been friends of President Obama for quite some time. But has Harry hurt his brand in this? Not really. Those in the know, know about his relatioship with the President. His core followers will continue to follow him. Those that already dispise him will contine to do so. And, those in the middle will draw sides, then forget about this as the media cycle moves on. Harry has apologized for his comment in the past (it was accepted by the Rev. Al Sharpton). He is also apologizing for it now, but I would hasten to guess his current apology is more about the media than taking real blame. Besides, he knows exactly what he's doing with this. He is creating a media frenzy FOR HIMSELF.
Once again, the world of music [think Kanye West and Taylor Swift] and the world of politics have come to align themselves by using the same tactics of "Smash & Grab" to get whatever they're pitching sold. I'm hardly surprised that Harry Reid did this. I'm just surprised that the media is falling for it ONCE AGAIN!!!!!
Now, I'm not even going to go into my thoughts on this - whether it is accurate or not, whether it is true or not, or how incredibly distateful it was. After all, he has been friends of President Obama for quite some time. But has Harry hurt his brand in this? Not really. Those in the know, know about his relatioship with the President. His core followers will continue to follow him. Those that already dispise him will contine to do so. And, those in the middle will draw sides, then forget about this as the media cycle moves on. Harry has apologized for his comment in the past (it was accepted by the Rev. Al Sharpton). He is also apologizing for it now, but I would hasten to guess his current apology is more about the media than taking real blame. Besides, he knows exactly what he's doing with this. He is creating a media frenzy FOR HIMSELF.
Once again, the world of music [think Kanye West and Taylor Swift] and the world of politics have come to align themselves by using the same tactics of "Smash & Grab" to get whatever they're pitching sold. I'm hardly surprised that Harry Reid did this. I'm just surprised that the media is falling for it ONCE AGAIN!!!!!
Friday, January 8, 2010
The Branding of China's Prisons
I just read an article about China's drug rehabilitation program [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/world/asia/08china.html?ref=world]. Their policy is very simple - you get caught with drugs, they send you to a minimum of two years in "rehabilitiation." Forget that what they call rehabilitiation looks, to the rest of the free world, very similar to a gulag [sorry former USSR]. Their policy may seem drastic at first glance, but there's a bright side to this. With the impending crash some are forecasting for China's economy [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/business/global/08chanos.html?ref=business], there could be a very viable win/win syndergy between China and the rest of the world.
If the US of A were smart, and it's a big "IF" we could work a good angle on this. Simply put, we could send them our Bernie Madoffs, and pay them what we would pay our own prison system to "rehabiliate" them at a discount. Because really - do we want our tax dollars being spent on taking care of former millionaires for the next twenty years? They could reap the brenefits of our nominal fee, as well as a great opportunity to brand themselves as green, good, and looking to the world's future. With a nice branding campaign - somthing along the lines of "China - keeping the world clean," or "China - rehabilitating the world...," they could take their good samaritan efforts, and make it real.
It's just a thought, but with the impending burst of China's economic bubble - who knows how far this could go to integrating them into the free world economy....
If the US of A were smart, and it's a big "IF" we could work a good angle on this. Simply put, we could send them our Bernie Madoffs, and pay them what we would pay our own prison system to "rehabiliate" them at a discount. Because really - do we want our tax dollars being spent on taking care of former millionaires for the next twenty years? They could reap the brenefits of our nominal fee, as well as a great opportunity to brand themselves as green, good, and looking to the world's future. With a nice branding campaign - somthing along the lines of "China - keeping the world clean," or "China - rehabilitating the world...," they could take their good samaritan efforts, and make it real.
It's just a thought, but with the impending burst of China's economic bubble - who knows how far this could go to integrating them into the free world economy....
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Tiger, a Little Tail, and the Marketing Beast | TalentZoo.com#comment_anchor
Great point of view on the entire celebrity debaucle.
Tiger, a Little Tail, and the Marketing Beast TalentZoo.com#comment_anchor
Tiger, a Little Tail, and the Marketing Beast TalentZoo.com#comment_anchor
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Branding 2010 - Make It Real
Well, Happy New Year everyone. For those of us who had our eyes even partially open, I think everyone can agree that in terms of branding, 2009 is a year best left alone. So much happened, and at the same time, so little.
It started off with one of the best brands of all coming alive - Barack Obama. Riding on a wave of much needed optimism, Barack led the county back into feeling good about the future. He was of course met with another brand. Perhaps not as strong, but definately one that has made itself just as memorable - Sarah Palin. Are we seeing the forces of good and evil play themselves out? Is this just some of the best staging anyone outside of Hollywood ever created? Whichever, way this goes, the Obama and Palin brands are sure to be in the forefront of our psyches for a long, long time.
After that, the brand of the United States of America was a strong contender for most notable. With it's financial markets crashing, it's real estate bottoming out, and it's moral fiber running thin, the US of A hit a low-point in terms of it's brand. Wait a minute - that might have happened in 2008. No, no, the first strike happened in 2008, but with the continued issues hitting like Katrina, Americans in all sectors realized that this was no '80s style recession, this was something far worse and far deeper. Everytime the world lost a brand like Pontiac, Kodachrome, Saturn, Max Factor, even Gourmet magazine - America took a hit. I wouln't even go into the Tiger Woods debaucle that ushered in the last month of the year, but it all showed the world just how vunerable a country and it's brand can be; if it's not protected and cared for. [Seriously, did your wife really chase you down the street swinging a gold club? Dude...]
On the bright side, 2009 brought us Twitter, a stronger Google, and a show that yes, even if our markets are bottoming out, we'll spend our children's legacy to bring them back. [really. Really? Yes, really] So I guess it does show us that if we're willing to spend enough, anything can happen. Are you listening Detroit? Oh, yes, you already did that....
So how about this? Let's just brand the old year as "2009 - Not what we anticipated..." As for the new year? As for 2010? How about this? Let's just try to protect the brands we love by making them real. If Ford wants to go green - great, we'll read it in your ads, but we'll wait for it to show up in your cars before the jump on the band wagon. If Burger King wants to go thin? Great - we'll believe you as soon as we see a burger with fewer than 1,000 calories. If Visa wants to be our partner, show us some interest rates that at least have a toe touching reality.
Let's brand 2010 with the tagline of "2010 - Make it real"
It started off with one of the best brands of all coming alive - Barack Obama. Riding on a wave of much needed optimism, Barack led the county back into feeling good about the future. He was of course met with another brand. Perhaps not as strong, but definately one that has made itself just as memorable - Sarah Palin. Are we seeing the forces of good and evil play themselves out? Is this just some of the best staging anyone outside of Hollywood ever created? Whichever, way this goes, the Obama and Palin brands are sure to be in the forefront of our psyches for a long, long time.
After that, the brand of the United States of America was a strong contender for most notable. With it's financial markets crashing, it's real estate bottoming out, and it's moral fiber running thin, the US of A hit a low-point in terms of it's brand. Wait a minute - that might have happened in 2008. No, no, the first strike happened in 2008, but with the continued issues hitting like Katrina, Americans in all sectors realized that this was no '80s style recession, this was something far worse and far deeper. Everytime the world lost a brand like Pontiac, Kodachrome, Saturn, Max Factor, even Gourmet magazine - America took a hit. I wouln't even go into the Tiger Woods debaucle that ushered in the last month of the year, but it all showed the world just how vunerable a country and it's brand can be; if it's not protected and cared for. [Seriously, did your wife really chase you down the street swinging a gold club? Dude...]
On the bright side, 2009 brought us Twitter, a stronger Google, and a show that yes, even if our markets are bottoming out, we'll spend our children's legacy to bring them back. [really. Really? Yes, really] So I guess it does show us that if we're willing to spend enough, anything can happen. Are you listening Detroit? Oh, yes, you already did that....
So how about this? Let's just brand the old year as "2009 - Not what we anticipated..." As for the new year? As for 2010? How about this? Let's just try to protect the brands we love by making them real. If Ford wants to go green - great, we'll read it in your ads, but we'll wait for it to show up in your cars before the jump on the band wagon. If Burger King wants to go thin? Great - we'll believe you as soon as we see a burger with fewer than 1,000 calories. If Visa wants to be our partner, show us some interest rates that at least have a toe touching reality.
Let's brand 2010 with the tagline of "2010 - Make it real"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
