Last week, viagra order I blogged on Beg to Differ about the birth of my son. Thank you all for your best wishes and brilliant thoughts on this incredibly moving experience for my wife and other two kids. But on the silly side of my brain, doctor the whole 3 days in the hospital, troche I had lines from the classic “Machine that goes Ping” sketch from Monty Python’s the Meaning of Life going through my head. And I was struck by how heavily branded the hospital environment is. So here are a few branding “pings” from the life and death world of the hospital.
The machine that goes Ping - The Miracle of Birth scene from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
Something completely different
I think Branders need to be students of branding trends, and have a big streak of geekiness. And it’s always best to look at branding practices from an outsider’s perspective. So as a non-medical guy, all these brands were new to me. A few random comments are below.
There’s a surprisingly hard-sell retro throwback feel to a lot of these product names. And in the case of the “V-LOK CUFF” a design style that looks like it came out of the back of a comic book.
Interesting story: at one point, a nurse was putting an intravenous drip into my wife’s arm and asked me to grab what she called an “eye-hand” from the cupboard. I couldn’t find it until she held up a package and I realized she was talking about the “IV3000 1-HAND” above. In our case, the misunderstanding wasn’t serious, but I wonder if that little brand misunderstanding has ever led to more serious consequences. Branding matters!
In a “serious” environment like a hospital, I’d expect muted, understated brand practices – heavy descriptive names and generic product numbers. But I was surprised how many of the product brands seemed to be using edgy or aggressive naming conventions. Notice a small sample of all the “X’s I found in brand names.
I especially like the “Stryker” beds I saw everywhere. Doesn’t that sound like the name of a hero from a cheesey pulp fiction thriller?
In the delivery room, the doctors and medical staff were giddy with excitement to try the “Rollbord” (above) which some were trying for the first time. I noticed that they didn’t call it a “SAMARIT” or even a “Samarit Rollbord” – even though the names are presented graphically at the same size. “Rollbord” is the dominant brand because it’s more useful.
This confused me. In the age of H1N1, I was diligently keeping my hands washed, and when I couldn’t, I would Purell them (note the verb). But the distributor of the hand-pumps above obviously tried to standardize the look and feel of the labels, even though they are different brands (and add French for a Canadian audience). The result? I kept reaching for the Purell when I needed soap and vice versa. In this case, the manufacturer’s branding would have been more useful.
What do you think?
Beg to Differ wants to hear from you:
Any thoughts on these brands? What other branding trends do you see?
Any perspectives on other medical industry brands?
Do you like the branding field trip idea? Thoughts on other field trips we can take?
Part 3 of our series on our favourite posts of 2009″
October and November held a few more pleasant surprises for us here at Beg to Differ – from our Chicken Sandwich series to our first Slideshare cross-over hit, cure to a Seussian Twitter phenomena, viagra we continue to be surprised by the enthuisiastic response of our readers – but almosrt never in ways we expect.
The branding business: we haven’t have a lot of posts about this topic area… yet. But we felt we needed to respond to a viral video which lampooned clients for not “getting” the value of the work creative agencies do. After all, it takes two to tango – or quibble over a giant invoice.
Brand naming: When KFC launched a new chicken sandwich with a name developed by Brandvelope, we took the opportunity to toot our own horn a bit and talk about the process of naming a brand. And the results: our biggest single day tally of visitors as branders came by for a taste of what we do.
“Whole brand” thinking: This short post on the failure of a giant corporation to understand effective customer engagement in the social media era marked the first time a SlideShare deck of ours reached 2000 hits – and climbing (in response to a tip from Alison Gresik).
Social media: Funny to talk about this one as a greatest hit – because we wrote it in the middle of the current “faves” series – and it’s really still going with more than 100 RTs to date. Basically, we wondered a) what @SamEyeEm would be like on Twitter, and b) what Dr. Seuss might think about the new “ReTweet” feature on Twitter.
With an involuntary guest appearance from Chris Brogan (thanks Chris!)
In Monday’s post, order I critiqued the term “Personal Branding” which generated a fairly lively discussion – including input from the patron saint of “Personal Brand Experts” Dan Schawbel. But it got me thinking about some basic terminology I use all the time – in particular the difference between “Identity” (Andrew Mueller called me out on this one) “Branding” (David Sandusky thinks we should abandon the term), about it and “Brand” (Rob Frankel doesn’t think this word ever belongs with “personal”).
Then I got to thinking about how these things could be expressed using the Twitter universe as a metaphor.
Here's my first attempt. Does it make sense to you?
Originally, I was going to use my own Twitter account as an example, but who am I kidding? There just aren’t enough people out there talking about me to make my own little corner of the Twittiverse a very good example.
I know that it’s not the perfect metaphor, particularly since in corporate branding terminology, “identity” means name+logo+design standards – all of which overlap with the “branding” category above. But it’s working for me for now.
How about you? Is there a way I can make this stronger?
Kellogg’s pushes boundaries of food product branding
File this under weird but compelling: The Telegraph in the UK is reporting that Kellogg’s will be testing new laser-etched Corn Flakes in selected markets. It’s very hard to tell how serious this is, malady and without a clear press release or better imagery, viagra 100mg Beg to Differ wonders if it’s even real. But it got us thinking…
Image sent out from a UK Kellogg's Twitter account to show new laser-etched corn flakes. Sorry, but this looks more like PhotoShop than Star Wars to me.
Branding problem / branding solution
From Wikipedia article on Corn FlakesThis science-fiction-sounding technique might seem frivolous and wasteful on first pass (it did to us).
But when you think about it, the idea is actually very strong from a brand strategy perspective. Kellogg’s wants to help consumers distinguish between the “real / original” Kellogg’s Corn Flakes and all the other products called “corn flakes” that are so common around the world.
The branding problem here, of course, is a classic trademark case study. The name Kelloggs chose ,”Corn Flakes”, is about as plain and useful a name as you can imagine from a consumer perspective. But from a corporate perspective, Kellogg’s is now stuck with a name which is not considered trademark-able in most countries because it is a purely descriptive phrase. It would be like trying to trademark “apple pie”, “automobile”, or “battery”.
And if you look at the turn of the century ad to the right, you’ll see that this has been recognized as a problem since those first Toasted Corn Flakes were produced by accident by John Harvey Kellogg in a misguided attempt to quell sexual desires with dull food.
Notice the line:
“The original has this signature: W.K. Kellogg”
Later products like “Rice Krispies” were given much more distinctive names to fight this effect.
Burning it in
So really, if it works and isn’t a publicity stunt, this idea of imprinting the word “Kellogg’s” (which is trademarked) on the flakes is a smart way to show that the product in the bowl is different from all the others out there.
In essence, it’s no different from what Levi & Strauss did back in 1886 when they sewed the first branded leather patch on 501 jeans to scare away imitators.
We’ll see if this idea lasts as long.
The enemy: one of hundreds of other "Corn Flakes" out there.
It’s been a tough week here at Beg to Differ. It started with good food, find which is good, but then we broke up with Intel, mourned the loss of the Saturn brand, and today, we have to talk about another tragedy: civil war. Yes, I’m talking full on, brother-against-brother warfare. And the war-dogs are already unleashed. Today our old friend Starbucks is starting taste tests of a brand new product against… wait for it… their own product.
The “Big Bucks” thinks this is a good idea. We beg to differ…
Let the divisive, internal warfare begin! Starbucks chooses an apt metaphor for its self-defeating taste test campaign. But they forget the old saying: "Nobody wins a civil war."
The new Product: Starbucks VIA Ready Brew
Apparently, this coffee master has already chosen sides for the battle to come...
On Wednesday morning, I was at a business meeting in a Starbucks, when the store’s chipper “coffee master” came over to offer us a sample of some frothy sweet coffee stuff. “Great.” I thought, another example of “Lethal Generosity. I must blog about this.”
But then I noticed she was wearing an orange apron, not the traditional green, and a strange new logo was there in the middle with the name of a Canadian passenger rail service on it.
That’s when she started her spiel: “Starbucks VIA is our new instant coffee. But it’s really good. come back on Friday for our taste test and you’ll see that it tastes just as good as our regular coffee…” She went on to explain that this was real Starbucks coffee processed using a super-secret process. Then she gave a very enthusiastic review of her own experience using wine-tasting language about “floral notes” “slight acidity” dark and full-bodied presentation”. But the whole time I was thinking:
Starbucks is selling INSTANT coffee?!?!
Now I admit, part of me was also thinking: “Hmm. Instant coffee, eh? Maybe this instant coffee does taste just as good. Maybe I should give this new instant coffee a try.” So congratulations Starbucks, you got me thinking about your new product, and I’ll even go try some. So as a product launch campaign, you win.
And Starbucks desperately needs a win these days. Their brand value has been deflating under competition from McDonald’s, Duncan Donuts, Tim Hortons, and a host of very smart local shops – like Ottawa’s Bridgehead (where I’m writing this post) leading to “daring” moves like the “15th Avenue” coffee-shop concept. But Instant Coffee takes the cake.
Reasons this is a bad idea for Starbucks
1) Instant coffee is the antithesis of real coffee
As I’m thinking about this new product, the term “Instant Coffee” is going through my head and I’m picturing the stale, foul-smelling crystals that are usually your last resort when you need caffeine but ran out of the real stuff. It’s like drinking home-brew wine at a party because the good stuff is gone. Or using canned Spam because you ran out of real meat. It doesn’t matter how good it is: it’s still home brew / Spam / a non-real product / a pale shadow of the real thing.
Starbucks built its brand by creating a new product category: premium coffee with an air of sophistication, taste, and care. That is, we pay extra for real coffee, really lovingly prepared by real people in a real place that is really dedicated to that product. You’ll often hear people at an office say: “No, not coffee-maker coffee. Let’s go out for a real coffee.”
2) Instant coffee devalues the Starbucks experience
The Starbucks store is not a coffee-buying place, it’s a place where real humans commune around the centerpiece of coffee. By saying “now you can make instant coffee at home and it actually is a Starbucks coffee,” you are implicitly saying that the Starbucks in-store experience is less important, easier to replicate, and worth less.
But don’t they already sell Starbucks-branded coffee-makers in store and can’t you get big bags of Starbucks-branded beans at your local Costco? Yes, and those also devalue the Starbucks brand in the same way. One or two is a stretch, too many and you break.
Again, I don’t care how good any given product may be. Starbucks brand managers should never, ever allow anyone in their organization to say anything they offer is equal to a real Starbucks experience – which is the in-store experience.
3) The name “VIA” is not terrible. But not strong enough to stand on its own.
Good points: the name is short, punchy, easy to spell and pronounce, and it looks great in big capital letters on a poster or product logo.
But two big problems: A) in English, “via” is not a noun, so it isn’t natural to say “drink a VIA”, and 2) because it appears after “Starbucks”, it will always be fighting for attention with the more familiar name – a battle VIA will inevitably lose.
4) “Ready Brew” is a dud as a category descriptor.
If you’re launching a product in a category like instant coffee that has a low perceived-value, but you’re trying to say “this is better / different / real”, do what Dove has always done. Don’t call yourself soap; call yourself a “Beauty Bar”.
It would have been smart for Starbucks to create a strong new category that has a name that implies higher value and sophistication. As in, “this isn’t Instant at all, this is (insert term here)”. Starbucks has already done this with their cup sizes. We may roll our eyes ordering a Tall, Grande, or Vente, but it works. It makes them seem like more than just a cup of Joe
“Ready Brew” fails on all counts. It sounds even cheaper than “Instant Coffee”, and doesn’t have enough character to replace that term.
5) A taste test is a no win battle for Starbucks
The call to arms. The internal battle begins today.
And finally, back to the wars. The problem with a civil war is this: it doesn’t matter who is right, and it doesn’t matter who wins, when two armies from the same place fight each other on their own territory, things get broken. Badly.
I can see two possible outcomes for the Starbucks brand of the taste tests:
A) The new product loses: in this case, Starbucks ends up looking silly, and the new product either tanks or manages to hobble along. Worst case, it tanks like New Coke and becomes a buzz-word for corporate hubris. This may give the Starbucks brand a small lift as people rally around “classic”, but the damage will be greater than the gain.
B) The new product wins: In this case, Starbucks has a popular new product that ends up undercutting the value of the brand with every package sold.
As I said: no win.
Thoughts for brand managers:
Are you creating your own internal civil wars by pitting your brands against your own offerings?
Is that new product launch strategy going to benefit the product at the expense of the corporate brand?
Is there an opportunity for a house brand or an endorsed brand strategy to put some distance between you and your new product?
Is someone speaking up for your customers and for the brand in your organization? If not, maybe time to get some help.
More reading:
The Motley Fool describes the civil war effect brilliantly in This May Be Starbucks’ Dumbest Move Ever. They make the suggestion that Starbucks should run taste tests against competitors’ coffee. So if Starbucks Ready Brew wins, they can say “see, even our instant coffee is better than their real stuff.”
Street interviews in New York caused local blog Gothamist to declare, “Starbucks Instant Coffee Instantly Hated By New York.”
BNET joins the pile-on, with some Brand Management 101 (“How to Blow a Turnaround”), asking: “[H]ow does Via stop the market share erosion to McDonald’s and Dunkin’ Donuts? How does it bring customers back to Starbucks? Why didn’t the marketing geniuses at Starbucks compare Via to competitors’ fresh brewed coffee? At least that might have made some sense.”
In a “serious” environment like a hospital, I’d expect muted, understated brand practices – heavy descriptive names and generic product numbers. But I was surprised how many of the product brands seemed to be using edgy or aggressive naming conventions. Notice a small sample of all the “X’s I found in brand names.
![goat2[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.begtodiffer.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/goat21.jpg?resize=300%2C150&ssl=1 "goat2[1]")
.
