<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RadioShack tries some funky brand-altering substances</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.begtodiffer.com/2009/08/radioshack-tries-some-funky-brand-altering-substances/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.begtodiffer.com/2009/08/radioshack-tries-some-funky-brand-altering-substances/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=radioshack-tries-some-funky-brand-altering-substances</link>
	<description>Branding for humans</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 16:13:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Randy</title>
		<link>http://www.begtodiffer.com/2009/08/radioshack-tries-some-funky-brand-altering-substances/comment-page-1/#comment-13633</link>
		<dc:creator>Randy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 06 Aug 2009 18:23:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.begtodiffer.com/?p=513#comment-13633</guid>
		<description>To add to point number 4, nobody I know actually calls it &quot;The Source&quot;.  They all still call it Radio Shack despite the name change, except for the guy who works at the store, and that&#039;s mainly because he has to.  Perhaps some day, young children will look at me with confusion when I say Radio Shack, but for now, I think more confusion would be caused if I chose to call it The Source (the source for what?)

At least &quot;The Source&quot; has an air of dominance to it.  There are many sources for the products we sell, but we are THE SOURCE, above all other lower-case-s sources. (I ask again, the source for what?  Maybe that&#039;s the problem with the brand.  It&#039;s too ambiguous.)

&quot;The Shack&quot; on the other hand has an air of dilapidation and neglect.  It might be a good name for a competitor to The Outback Steak House or Montana&#039;s Bar and Grill.  In terms of electronics, though, it sounds more like a destination for old ones than a source for new ones.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To add to point number 4, nobody I know actually calls it &#8220;The Source&#8221;.  They all still call it Radio Shack despite the name change, except for the guy who works at the store, and that&#8217;s mainly because he has to.  Perhaps some day, young children will look at me with confusion when I say Radio Shack, but for now, I think more confusion would be caused if I chose to call it The Source (the source for what?)</p>
<p>At least &#8220;The Source&#8221; has an air of dominance to it.  There are many sources for the products we sell, but we are THE SOURCE, above all other lower-case-s sources. (I ask again, the source for what?  Maybe that&#8217;s the problem with the brand.  It&#8217;s too ambiguous.)</p>
<p>&#8220;The Shack&#8221; on the other hand has an air of dilapidation and neglect.  It might be a good name for a competitor to The Outback Steak House or Montana&#8217;s Bar and Grill.  In terms of electronics, though, it sounds more like a destination for old ones than a source for new ones.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Travis Sheridan</title>
		<link>http://www.begtodiffer.com/2009/08/radioshack-tries-some-funky-brand-altering-substances/comment-page-1/#comment-13028</link>
		<dc:creator>Travis Sheridan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Aug 2009 18:32:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.begtodiffer.com/?p=513#comment-13028</guid>
		<description>I still remember my radio kit from Christmas 1979. I was way too young (only 5 at the time), but I grew to appreciate it. 

Radio Shack is weak in its current state. I know they sell more than just radios, but then again, I never when to Circuit City (RIP) to buy circuits or resistors.They also have nostalgia on their side and timelessness. In the day and age of &quot;blue chips&quot; falling by the wayside, RS should avoid 100% reinvention and return to the basics. 

What are the true brand pillars?
How are they behaviorized? 
How are they communicated?
What does brand accountability look like? 
How do they connect outside of the organization?
How do they drive decision making?

The trend to polish a turd is getting old. Change your diet. The problem is with the input...not the output.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I still remember my radio kit from Christmas 1979. I was way too young (only 5 at the time), but I grew to appreciate it. </p>
<p>Radio Shack is weak in its current state. I know they sell more than just radios, but then again, I never when to Circuit City (RIP) to buy circuits or resistors.They also have nostalgia on their side and timelessness. In the day and age of &#8220;blue chips&#8221; falling by the wayside, RS should avoid 100% reinvention and return to the basics. </p>
<p>What are the true brand pillars?<br />
How are they behaviorized?<br />
How are they communicated?<br />
What does brand accountability look like?<br />
How do they connect outside of the organization?<br />
How do they drive decision making?</p>
<p>The trend to polish a turd is getting old. Change your diet. The problem is with the input&#8230;not the output.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
