Client snapshot: the rapid evolution of Versature business phone services

Sometimes, order I’m just too good at my job…

A couple months ago, I got a call from one of Ottawa’s smartest tech  leaders, Paul Emond, CEO of Versature. And like a fool, I ended up pitching him on the idea of a quickie “elevator pitch tuning session” for his executive team. I’m not a fool because my company couldn’t help him. I’m a fool, because the session went so well, and I got so excited about Versature’s brand, that I broke every rule of consulting and solved all his problems at once…

Versature’s new identity – with a little help from the DenVan and Brandvelope Consulting.

Okay, I’m joking… mostly

It was actually an amazing little project, and I was really happy we nailed it – and gained a happy customer – so quickly.

NOV 16: UPDATE. And this isn’t just any customer. Congratulations Versature on being named Small Business of the Year by the Ottawa Chamber of Commerce last night!

Paul goes into much greater depth about what we did together in this glowing post on the Versature blog, so if you’re interested, do give that a read. But here’s the high view.

First a brief description of the process:

A month or so ago some of the staff and I had a mini-retreat to discuss Versature’s elevator pitch, or more generally, Versature’s story. We were led in our workshop by Dennis Van Staalduinen, whom I would highly recommend for work of this type.

We ended up getting a lot out of the experience, but for me the most exciting piece was that we were finally able to tie a lot of marketing pieces together that had been a little bit disjointed. Dennis did that with 4 little powerful words that will become part of our marketing materials going forward. “Business Phone Service. Evolved”.

Versature Telco Dinosaur ads - evolved by DenVan and Brandvelope
See what a difference a bit of evolution can make?

Later Paul talks about why he likes those little words so much, and why, for him, they form such a clean and efficient brand positioning line for Versature:

The words “Business Phone Service” succinctly tell the casual prospect what exactly Versature does… The last word, “Evolved” speaks volumes.

First of all, it’s a tie in to the dolphin and the main reason why we chose this particular animal – because the dolphin is the most highly evolved communicator in the animal kingdom next to humans. It’s also “evolved” because this definitely isn’t your parents phone system solution…. Versature offers a radically improved experience over what people have been used to. Finally, we like the fact that these words tie in nicely with our dinosaur campaign, which pokes fun at the traditional telco’s for being stuck in the dark ages.

Paul raves about the identity and marketing work that Hintonburg-based Ottawa design shop Northern Army put together for them – and he’s right. There’s some brilliant stuff there from Ryan Anderson and company. I love the Northern Army ads comparing telcos to dinosaurs – which I also humbly took a stab at re-positioning (example at right).

So there you have it, my business triumph and failure in one package

Again, mostly joking about the failure part. Much better to have a clear win on a project than drag it out for months and months. Even if that would also stretch out the billable time for my business. Ah well, I’ve always said I’m much better at my clients’ businesses than my own.

If you’re interested in replacing your old dinosaur phone system, check out the smart mammals at Versature (new logo coming soon to the home page).

 If you’re looking for an easier way to tell your story? Call me maybe.

But we can’t promise to take eons to help you out.

Cause branding: support these SMAC Monkeys!

My friend Jennifer Stauss Windrum is a woman on a mission. For several years, her mom has been dying of lung cancer – which, sadly, looks as though it may be entering its final stages. But rather than sit back and watch it happen, Jennifer decided to fight back with not one, but two powerful cause branding ideas: swear words, and monkeys. And now, she needs your help.

We love the Sock Monkeys Against Cancer. Please help.

My friend Jennifer Stauss Windrum is a woman on a mission. For several years, remedy her mom has been dying of lung cancer – which, sadly, looks as though it may be entering its final stages. But rather than sit back and watch it happen, Jennifer decided to fight back with not one, but two powerful cause branding ideas: swear words, and monkeys. And now, she needs your help.

NOMO, Phoenix - Jennifer Stauss Windrum anti-cancer campaign: SMAC (Sock Monkeys Against Cancer)
Two of the spokes-monkeys for the Jennifer Stauss Windrum anti-cancer campaign: SMAC (Sock Monkeys Against Cancer)

WTF Lung Cancer (WTF, as in: “Where’s The Funding?!?”)

WTF? Yup. That’ s the swear words part; WTF is Windrum’s fierce and fearless ongoing campaign to lobby for more funding for lung cancer victims.  Here’s how it was described in a Huffington Post article on Jennifer last year:

Inspired by her mom’s bout with lung cancer, and aided by the worldwide reach of social media, Windrum launched the WTF? (Where’s the Funding for Cancer) Campaign. It’s a well-received initiative that has allowed traveling and talking with politicians, strategizing with other activists, and meeting with cancer survivors. Her efforts were honored this year when WTF was chosen as a finalist for the prestigious Mashable Awards.

Long time readers (both of you – hi mom!) know I’m not a fan of TLAs here at Beg to Differ (Three Letter Abbreviations). But when they are cheeky and in your face like this one?  BIO! (By which I mean Bring It On!) You’ll also know I had my own campaign called NOMO Government Acronyms (No More). Which brings me to the first sock monkey Jennifer made for her mom: little NOMO the monkey.

SMAC (Sock Monkeys Against Cancer) crowd-funding campaign

Here’s Jennifer’s mom with NOMO and Phoenix, two of the original SMACs.

This is Jennifer’s new, and even more brilliant, defiant, heart-felt, cancer busting campaign. It involves monkeys. Real, in-the-stuffing sock monkeys that Jennifer is creating to bring attention to the issues, while also providing comfort to the victims of cancer and their families.

And the name of the leading monkey? NOMO. Now normally, I’d get all prima-dona-huffy that my best ideas are getting stolen. But Jennifer, feel free to steal this one, okay?

As a close family member of someone who is fighting with a very serious cancer right now (go Marg!) I think this SMAC concept is so brilliant, because these monkeys operate on so many levels for me:

  1.  A brand with a sense of humour: These monkeys are a fun and positive approach to an awful condition that is usually neither.
  2. A defiant statement:  But these  monkeys are fighters. They’re like a little cancer-fighting ninja companion to keep up the spirits of the person they’re fighting for.
  3. Support for cancer research: just like the WTF campaign, this is all about beating cancer – both at the individual level, and hopefully, to beat cancer for all of us.
  4. Smart gift product: When someone we love is suffering, we always want to DO something, and often BUY something for them. But it’s so hard to know what to give. These monkeys aren’t just a gift, they’re a statement.
  5. Crowd funding campaign: and speaking of gifts, and things you can do. Jennifer is currently using online crowd funding to put her SMAC monkeys into larger scale production.

BUT, it won’t happen without you…

As with all great, social-entrepreneurial ideas, Jennifer has already invested decades of time, and oodles of enthusiasm. But now, she needs money. Which is why I pledged to help her crowd-funding campaign. And so can you. Best case: she reaches her goal and you get some cool perks (see links below). Worst case: if she doesn’t reach her goal, it costs you nothing.

So go on, please help a monkey out.

Some more links:

Brand strategy advice: Stonz Footwear

Meeting the challenge of expanding Stonz into new markets

If you follow me as @DenVan on Twitter, information pills you might have seen that I contributed to a Dan Misener piece in today’s Globe and Mail. It was a brand strategy critique of the Canadian kids footwear and winter-wear brand Stonz. But as with many such things, order the advice I provided was about twice as long as the space they had for me. So for Stonz, and all brand managers (and geeks), I’ve included my full thoughts below.

First of all, here’s the Globe and Mail Article (click to visit)

Kids' outdoor gear maker needs to find memorable 'hook' for its brand

 (Article here) (PDF file here)

The Stonz brand strategy challenge

Official logo for Stonz Wear - found on every boot
Here’s their logo. The visual connection to footwear is pretty strong. As is the line above the “O”.

As the article says, Stonz is a Vancouver-based company that manufactures a growing portfolio of clothing and footwear for children. But their signature product, and the one most deeply associated with the Stonz brand, is the type of booty you see above for infants and toddlers. It’s big selling point: two rip cords help to keep it on your toddler’s feet – which is a real plus for us parents.

Their big problem: knock-offs. And this is particularly a problem as the company tried to expand into new markets overseas. Or as the article describes it:

(Founder and CEO Lisa Will) has seen several competing products that bear a strong resemblance to the all-weather outdoor baby boots sold by her company. She has even seen ads for “fake stonz”  pop up online.

Ms. Will believes her booties were the “originals,” but while the company has secured worldwide trademarks for the Stonz brand, it does not hold any patents on its bootie design or other products, she says.

What the brand strategy experts (and I) say

Dan Misener pulled together three experts to address this problem.

Karinna and Joyce focused on building a brand story around the moms that founded the company, and to highlight the “original” and Canadian nature of the brand. And I fully agree. But I think Stonz has a bigger problem. I think the name is a serious liability. Here was my full comment:

My brand strategy advice for Stonz (full text)

When I asked my wife – the chief buyer of clothing for our three kids – to name some children’s boot brands off the top of her head, she rattled off Cougars, Sorels, Uggs, Bogs, and “Kamiviks” (sic.).

Ever heard of Stonz? “Nope,” she said.

“How about these?” I asked her, showing her the company Web site. “Oh, those!” She said. “We had a pair of those booties for a while.”

She remembered the “booties” but not the Stonz brand.

That’s a problem

Product innovation and pure marketing chutzpah have gotten this company very far indeed, and congratulations to them for that. But apparel products, promotions, supply chains, and social media campaigns are far too easy (and legal) to copy. What can’t be copied is a strong, memorable brand “hook” that makes one product the brand all similar products are compared to.

Think of the Canadian-invented footwear product “Foam Creations,” which only became a global phenomenon and a billion dollar public company when an American team bought it, and re-launched it under the much stronger brand name, Crocs.

How do I know it’s a more effective name? Because all last week I was telling my kids “Put your Crocs on. We’re going to the beach!” But I can’t even imagine saying to my toddler on a cold winter day: “Let’s put your Stonz (Stones? Stons?) on and go outside.” I would just say “booties”.

I don’t think it’s too late for these smart, driven entrepreneurs to thoughtfully and strategically re-launch their core brand. But I do think it needs to happen. And soon.

But what do you think?

Am I being to hard on that name? Is it really necessary to change it? Weigh in in the comments below!

Announcing the winner of the IABC Summit Day Pass!

One day pass to the 2012 IABC Canada Business Communicator’s Summit

So, pill first off, capsule deep apologies to all those who faithfully commented on or re-tweeted my “What is a Canadian” post and have been waiting to find out the winner of the one-day pass to the 2012 IABC Canada Business Communicator’s Summit.

Note to self: in the future, approved don’t volunteer to have a drawing on your blog until you figure out how it’s going to work! I’ve burned WAY too much time and Google-leather trying to figure out something that turned out to be very simple in the end.

So two credits before we get to the draw results:

1) This product: Backtweets allowed me to quickly and easily trace all the Tweets for my previous post through all variants and URL shorteners.

Here’s the result.
BackTweets

2) EHow.com + Microsoft Excel: the next problem was doing a random draw. I’ve used tools like TwitterDraw and RowFeeder before, but couldn’t figure out how to do both the hashtag AND the blog comments part of the equation.

But then I found this concise little post on how to just draw a random value in Excel. Took some manual typing, but it worked just fine.

Announcing the winner:

So here’s the winner of the one-day day pass. Michaela Schreiter of Ottawa, Ontario!

And thanks to all of these Twitter-folk ,as well as the IABC Board members and speakers for your comments and re-tweets! Really looking forward to Friday.

@Mandoo322 @whatsyourtech
@CoffeewithJulie @MinaFrancis1
@4L3x 4nd3r5on @Lauhop
@4WomensPassion @schreids
@vprocunier @traceyknudson
@basiav @Al3x_Ander5on
@herwheels1 @kess2000
@spydergrrl @OttawaFamily
@GlendaM @meaghan_quinn
@Informatician @steph345
@SaraJT

Meme watch: 10 Reasons Mitt Romney likes 1916 so much

Mitt Romney’s weapons of mass anachronism

In one brilliant moment in last night’s US Presidential debate, see Barack Obama was able to take a Mitt Romney soundbyte – that the US Navy is smaller today than it was in 1916 – and turn it into a meme-beating-meme of his own. Which led to a lot of spin-off memes. But in thinking about it, visit this I realized: Mitt Romney has a lot of reasons to look back fondly at 1916.

From denvan.ca.

Background for non-political junkies

Here’s Barack Obama’s one-liner lampooning Mitt’s fixation with 1916 – as Tweeted by the @Obama2012 team:


Click the image above to visit my DenVan.ca post.

Which of course, went viral on social media almost instantly. So last night, hoping to add to the viral feeding frenzy, I posted an infographic (at right) about Mitt Romney and his binders full of modern ideas.

But 1916 was a really interesting choice for Romney to make in many, many other ways. I’ll give you 10 – with my tongue firmly in cheek of course.

10 Reasons for Mitt Romney to like 1916 so much.

  • American “manifest destiny” dreams were at their peak. American troops occupied Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, the Philippines, and a bunch of others. Sure it was expensive. But it was cool.
  • The US Navy had WAY more boats in 1916 than today. Okay, they looked like this (below), but there were LOTS of them!
  • The US invaded the Dominican Republic. They installed a puppet dictatorship, then spent years fighting grumpy insurgents. Mitt should try that somewhere. It could work!
  • Republicans were pushing the US to go to war with Mexico! That would have been awesome!
  • Massive military buildups between the world’s superpowers over the previous decade meant that in Europe they were having a Great War!
  • It only cost $17 million to build 375 new “aeroplanes” in 1916. In the F35 fighter program that would buy you a floor mat and two barf bags.
  • The rich were doing just fine.The Rockefellers and Carnegies were at their height and the richest 1% held more wealth than ever before in history!

    Check out the similarity between 1917 – what gazillionaires refer to as the “good old days” – and the modern era. Oh, but cheat the 2012 line up to 24%.
  • Blacks were allowed to vote, but sneaky tricks were used to keep them away from the polls! Forget photo ID laws. Those 1916 voter suppression ideas were even more radical!
  • American women couldn’t vote yet. That would totally help Mitt’s chances!
  • A popular Democrat named Woodrow Wilson won a second term running against a completely forgettable Republican opponent. That guy was named… um…

Oh wait. Ignore that last one Mitt! 1916 is totally the year you should focus on!