Louis Vuitton and 40 Years of Moon Travel

Talk about a brand that truly knows itself and its customers. Bravo Louis Vuitton.

Yes, LV is a luxury brand. Yes, their logo and products are the envy of any high-end shopper. But more important, it is a name and brand that knows who they are. It is a symbol that stands for travel and the journey. How big and how small one goes with the concept of the journey is up to the individual. From a small clutch and a trip for a latte, to the kind of baggage one only sees in vintage shots of ocean liners, to a trip to the moon. It is this last journey that they were smart enough to realize just how big it could be. Not because they could latch onto the 40th anniversary buzz, but because they could help to make the buzz. They went from being a product company that creates luggage, to a company that moves people.

When I first saw their print advertisement months ago, I thought, "Wow, now there's a company that understands what they are about, and isn't afraid to use real people that truly exemplify their brand, instead of just another pretty body or face." I never realized how big they were going to go with it though. From a store wrap that attracts gawkers and, more important, shoppers, to today's reproduction of The New York Times July 21st, 1969 headline, complete with, yes you guessed it, their ad on the back, they not only captured the excitement, they built upon it by honoring the astronauts. Best of all, when I saw President Obama with the astronauts - Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins - I couldn't help but think about the ad by Louis Vuitton.

To the other brands out there - first find out what is at the heart of your product and your company. Cull it down to one word. Then find a way to take that word off the drawing board and bring it to life. For Louis Vuitton, it was journey. For the rest of us, it was the Apollo 11 moon shot from 40 years ago.

New York Congress - Can Anyone Tell Me What's Going On

I mean really. The NYS Republicans talked several NYS Democrats into joining their side. Then the Democrats locked everyone out of the capital. So, becuase one side had a key and the other didn't nobody could do anything for several weeks. Then several Democrats decide they'll become Democrats again. Meanwhile all of this is because of "deals" struck.

WAIT A MINUTE!!!!!

Doesn't this all kind of sound like 1890's fat politicians bribing, paying kickbacks, and giving out favors? As the Times reported "Under the deal, Senator Malcolm A. Smith of Queens will be president for an undetermined period of time, and Senator John L. Sampson of Brooklyn will be the leader of the Democratic caucus. Details of the arrangement were explained by Mr. Smith at a news conference."

If we're going to go back to this kind of politics, can't we at least bring back the hookers, alcohol, and graft that made politics fun in the first place.

Branding? It's just all coated with slime. And not the good kind either.

Sometimes Shutting Up Is the Best Policy

So what's going on with Dick Cheney? He had his 8 years in the spotlight, outpacing Andy Warhol's 15 minutes of fame, by immeasurable time. But he just wouln't let it lie. Now, there's nothing wrong with standing by your convictions - no matter how misplaced they are. But there is something wrong in believing your own press. Bottom line, there's often a better way to go about getting your agenda through, than just forcing it into the public eye.

Not only is he becoming known as the only politician who is doing more public speaking after he left office than when he was in the office, but his ratings keep dropping every time he speaks. Based on a CNN poll, fifty-five percent of people questioned still have an unfavorable opinion of the former vice president.

And what about George Bush - who hasn't said a thing in public since leaving the oval office?
In the same timeframe, “Former President George W. Bush's favorable rating rose six points in that same time period, and Bush has not given a single public speech since he left office.” Or so says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

So what's the brand lesson in this? Sometimes it just best to say nothing. Sometimes it is best to build a consensus before going public. Sometimes it is far better to stay away from your the press than pushing an agenda through it. And at absolutely no time, should you stop looking at the polls. Agree or disagree with them, but you only get yourself in trouble by ignoring them.

It's Not The Time For Mauve

Mauve. Can you think of a worse color? It's not a matter of liking the particular hue or tone. It's more a matter of what mauve stands for. Which in my humbel opinion is blah. Not even a capitalized BLAH, but simply blah. It's not a nothing color - which can be profound. Instead, it's a color of mediocrity. It reminds me of a Ford Granada, circa 1977, or a K Car. It reminds me of a patio set in a mid-west suburb. It reminds me of a company or a person who has just given up and decided it's better to do time on Maple Drive than it is to take a stab at doing something.

Mauve. It's not the time for mauve. Not that there is ever a time for mauve. But now, more than ever is the time to make a stand, to step up with midnight black, or fire-engine red, or natural heather even. Now is the time to do something bold. Because if you don't you'll just fade into the pack and remain as much of a standout as the K Car.

If this isn't the time, then there will never be one.

Party First, Country Second

I'm confused. Very confused. How can a Rush Limbaugh say he hopes the President fails, in the same breath he speaks about being a patriot? How can he even begin to think it's okay to put the success of his political party above the success of the President of the United States, and of the United States itself?

Without delving into politics too much, it is unconscionable that any pundit, newscaster, or even shock radio/tv host [whether it's Rachel Maddow or Rush Limbaugh] who calls themselves a patriot or true American, can wish that the President fails. "I deal in principles, not polls," wash Rush's response. So I ask, what principles are they, that he holds so dear? Is his principle and brand about "Damn America as a democratic state, and win at all costs?" If so, then his message is right on target.

Giving Your Addicted Child An Allowance

"Mom, dad, can I have another sixteen billion dollars?"

"Hmmmmm, well honey, what did you do with the thirteen billion we just gave you?"

"Uh, spent it?"

"Spent it? On what?"

"Things...."

Well, you get the idea. GM is addicted to doing business the same old way it has always done business. It hasn't developed new products that consumers are actually looking for. It hasn't opened its eyes to the resource problem we and the rest of the world are having with oil. It hasn't, in the face of failure, shown an ability to get off its addiction to antiquated thinking and given anyone the least bit of assurance that it can, in fact, change.

Aside from the fact that General Motors can't seem to manage its business. It's definately not carrying through on its brand promise for being an innovative, forward thinking company. Instead, it's showing itself as a tired, old company, set in its ways, and groaning about how bad things are. Hmmmmm, would you buy a tired old man on a porch?

Perhaps I'm being overly harsh on this. After all, they did just shed Hummer. Okay, not quite forward thinking, but it's a step. And they did create the Saturn concept. Which while admittedly was innovative in the 80s, their decision to hide it in the closet in the 90s, leads me to think more of a [once again] tired old man too embarassed when his kid dyed her hair green and started listening to Kurt Cobain.

So even if they do survive, what will their brand be remembered for? Have they already tarnished it so badly with their management [or lack thereof]? Or do they have to hire someone under 50 who can truly reinvent the company.

Hmmmmm, wait a minute, isn't that what we're doing with Barack Obama and the United States?

Well, perhaps both brands can be saved after all. It will be an interesting year...

Starbucks - 25 Years In The Making & Gone In An Instant...

So last week, the purveyor of high end coffee drinks, the self-promoted creator of luxury coffee, the name that taught Americans what was acceptable and not acceptable in making a good cup of joe - announced it was launching an instant coffee.

Instant?

As in Maxwell house? As in Folgers? As in Taster's Choice? As in a product known for bad taste, cheap, and lousy?

Why, after spending all those years impressing on people the need to roast the beans just right, to use only spring water, heated to just the right temperature, and served by a practiced professional, would they now say, they can give you the same great taste in an instant, powered coffee? Why would they undermine their brand by aligning it with a bottom of the barrel category?

UBS analyst David Palmer, said of the instant coffee - "It's no big deal," he says. "What's different about soluble coffee is that it's equated with poor quality."

Hmmmmmmm, would a company really undermine its brand and long-term prospects to leverage that brand for some very short-term profits? Apparently so.

What's next? Will Tiffany's start producing cubit zirconium rings? Will Chanel start making $29.95 plastic handbags?

Hmmmmmm, there may be a reason brand leaders are very careful about ensuring their products match their brands.

Let's all watch and see what happens when Starbucks - "Seattle's Best" puts its toe in the worst coffee category. Will it become Seattle's Worst?

This could be more fun than watching Coca Cola try and launch New Coke. We all know how well that turned out....