The Ultimate Anti-brand

I want to highlight in a quick post a campaign that has recently caught my eye. Interestingly, it got my attention not with a ground-breaking creative idea, high-production values, or a game-changing shift in strategy, but with the absence of all of those things. This campaign stood out due to its no-frills, to-the-point simplicity, so much so that it may even make you smile. And the funny thing is, this approach nailed what is fundamentally at the heart of the brand. That brand, is No Name.

Re-launched last year as Loblaw's recessionary hero, No Name's return was perfectly-timed: frugal shoppers were already beginning to train themselves to be on the lookout for value, which included trading down to private label products. In the throes of the recession, the stigma of pushing around a cart full of store brands had disappeared - frugal shopping was simply smart shopping. The ad that re-launched No Name featured Loblaw's Galen Weston Jr. touting the amount of money savvy shoppers would save by opting for No Name products over their national brand counterparts.

What's interesting is that private labels have begun to latch on to a category-wide, value-driven source of equity. This means that they now have a kind of "badge-value", a means of expressing that you are a smart and frugal shopper. But there's a problem: over the last few years, store brands have been attempting to look just like their national brand competitors. Check out the examples below - can you spot the store brands?

The reasons for this chameleon-like tactic are plenty. Looking just like a national brand further adds to the idea that the quality is the same. Using a cheaper product that looks and feels just like its more expensive, supposedly higher-quality brethren might help to relieve some guilt. Looking similar also increases the possibility that shoppers, trained to recognize products by colour and packaging, might grab the private label version of a national brand by mistake. Either way, it seemed to be a smart move. There was only one problem - with the recession, shoppers are now seeking out private labels, and the look-alikes just don't stand out.

Even No Name brand products were beginning to look more and more like a national brand, adding packaging elements like photos and adding extra copy. As a result, they were harder to find and lost a bit of the iconic simplicity that made them stand out. With the relaunch, Loblaw's has gone back to basics, stripping out the extra bells and whistles and returning the brand to all of its no frills glory.

"[Loblaw] was looking to get back to [a message conveying] no gimmicks, no fakery - just high-quality products at the lowest price possible." - David Rosenberg, Creative Director at Loblaw's AOR Bensimon Byrne.

No Name's packaging: back to basics.

A series of new TV spots celebrates the brand's simplicity:

As a result of No Name's return to back-to-basics branding, both the products and the ads have become much more iconic, more distinctive, and in an age in which thrift is in, the ultimate anti-brand.

Read more about No Name's approach in this article from The National Post.

From The Lover to The Sage

Just finished reading The Hero and the Outlaw: Building Extraordinary Brands Through the Power of Archetypes by Margaret Mark and Carol S. Pearson. I'm not the biggest fan of the book - the writing is a bit flowery and the authors seem like they're in their own little world, digging a bit too deep into their ideas and operating a bit outside of reality. Much of their writing, especially when attempting to sell their ideas, must be taken with a grain of salt. When approached as a guide to a theoretical way of thinking, however, the ideas presented in their book become become extremely useful in the world of advertising.

The key idea behind archetypes is that there are universal themes, characters, and stories that have appeared repeatedly over the centuries, in every part of the world, resonating due to their special connection to the human consciousness. Heavy stuff, I know. But I took a lot of Greek and Near Eastern mythology in university and have seen enough of the similarities between the myths and legends of these two civilizations to recognize that there may be something to this idea.

Character archetypes include everything from The Hero (think Luke Skywalker, Superman, and so on) to The Outlaw (think Robin Hood, Billy the Kid). My favourite example of a story archetype from the book is the story of The Foundling: one character, who feels very powerless and vulnerable, encounters a being even more vulnerable than himself, and becomes that being's protector. Eventually, the being must be let go in order to take care of itself, but by then the main character has gained the confidence to take care of himself, too. Think E.T., Free Willy, and Old Yeller.

The reason these characters, stories, and themes keep reoccurring in stories (through myths passed down orally in ancient times, and movies in modern times) is that they seem to tap into our innermost feelings and emotions. Each character is an expression of the innate human yearning to be that person or act in a certain way. For example, The Caregiver represents our inner need to care for and provide for our children and those who are vulnerable, The Magician represents the desire to change the things around us, and The Explorer represents the need to get away and find ourselves. Archetypal stories are typically those that teach us life lessons. In the Paradise Visited arc, the character gets a glimpse of paradise, or the way life should be, and applies those lessons when he returns to his normal life (think PleasantVille and The Family Man).

The idea behind brand archetypes is to take the knowledge discussed above and apply it to everyday marketing in order to build brands and ads that resonate with consumers on a deeper level. When used inappropriately (usually when one gets into archetype theory too deeply or uses only this theory) brand archetypes can cause a lot of needless anguish for both the client and agency. They can be misunderstood and misused, and can leave everyone confused. When used in the right way, however, this can be an extremely powerful and inspirational way of thinking.

The right way to think of brand archetypes is as a brand compass, a guide to a brand's personality, how it should act and speak, and the essence of what it provides to the consumer. It is a particulary inspirational way to express what a brand is about and what its purpose is, in ethereal terms. A brand's archetype should not dictate the execution in the ad, but should dictate how the brand acts in the ad. When they work, they work beautifully - not only do archetypes simplify how consumers view a brand and unify everything a brand says and does, they do so in a way that fosters a special connection with consumers due to their link to these timeless ideas and emotions.

Now, all this talk of archetypes got me thinking about a few ad campaigns I had noticed over the last few months and why I liked/didn't like them. The first is the "Love what you do" brand campaign from Blackberry. The campaign is essentially an ode to the feeling of love, both in terms of life and work. Here's the spot:

As you can see, it leans heavily into the emotive space. The ad is fun to watch and listen to, and makes me think positively towards the Blackberry brand. Hmmm... I get it: Blackberry is a passionate brand for passionate people, people who love to live their life, love to work, love the people around them, and love, well, love. Sure, I buy it. If the ads had stopped there, I would have been sold. But they didn't. The print ads (couldn't find one on the web, so I'll scan one when I find it) go much, much deeper. They are manifestos and poems on the topic of love, the emotion. They veer out of the realm of passion and into the territory of hippie-like positivity and unconditional love for all things. Essentially, they enter the realm of The Lover.

And that's where this campaign loses it for me. The Lover archetype is about the yearning to belong, to attain intimacy with others and experience sensual pleasure. It's about being in a relationship with people, experiencing their company, being in the places one loves, and becoming more attractive. Although the Blackberry definitely helps us connect with people and maintain relationships, it does so in a way that takes us away from everything that The Lover is about. Blackberries don't help us experience intimacy - in fact, they get in the way. Think of the mother who checks her Blackberry at the dinner table, the husband who responds to email in bed, the flashing light that fights with our kids for our attention. Blackberries distract us from the people that we love, and thus never allow us to truly love those around us and our surroundings.

Part of the reason for this is that the Blackberry brand will forever be tied to something very different than love - the corporate elite. CEOs, entrepreneurs, even the President. Blackberry is, at its heart, The Ruler. The Ruler desires to maintain control, to help a kingdom (or business) achieve prosperity by exerting leadership. Blackberries allow one to be in complete control of one's environment and organization - email, calendars, web, etc. It's the ultimate tool, the essential gadget, the utility belt. You can't operate without one. And as The Ruler, it carries with it elite badge value. When you've got one, it means you're important. You wear it on your belt for all to see. This is in part what makes it so alluring to have one. You feel powerful. You feel like a Ruler. I realized that this is the reason the "Love" campaign feels a little bit off - Blackberry is acting outside of its brand archetype.

I want to end by touching on the idea of category archetypes, which is the archetype that is inherently tied to a product category. Categories are sometimes strongly tied to one archetype due to the way in which we are first exposed to them, their ultimate or original purpose for being, and so on. One example is beer, which is tied to The Jester - the category is about having a good time with one's friends and not judging each other. Although brands within a category will end up tapping into a variety of archetypes in order to be different from one another, they should always have a tie to the category archetype, lest they lose their sense of purpose.

Take the example of post-secondary institutions (universities and colleges) - they are ultimately about the search for wisdom, and so the category archetype is that of The Sage. We spend the money on tuition and attend school in order to gain knowledge that we'll use to improve ourselves and apply it in the real world. But this doesn't mean all of the brands in the category have to align themselves with The Sage archetype. George Brown College is very much a Magician - the brand is about transformation, changing oneself from who you are today into who you want to be tomorrow: cook, medical assistant, businessman, etc. Here's an element from the campaign:

The ads play out like a magic wardrobe - whoever you want to be, George Brown can make it happen. And although the campaign strongly ties the brand to The Magician and the idea of transformation, it is still ultimately about education and wisdom. "George Brown gets you the job" clearly indicates that thought the brand may seem a bit whimsical, college is about attaining the knowlege that will get you into the career you want. It is ultimately The Sage.

One college campaign that strays too far from The Sage, in my opinion, and thus loses the true meaning of what college is supposed to be, is the latest campaign from Centennial College. The ads attempt to move away from the Ivy-league, picture-perfect presentation of students striving for excellence and instead focus on what many of its students really look like, probably in order to drive a stronger connection with them. Essentially, the college is trying to tap into the archetype of The Regular Guy - it's a place where everyone is welcome, flaws and all. Here are two of the ads from this campaign:

The ads seem to be trying to mitigate against the alienation that some kids may feel towards post-secondary education. By removing any elitist undertones, Centennial College is saying "Hey, this is a college for regular Joe's like you and me. Come as you are." I'm sold on the idea that The Regular Guy is a great way to position the college to its biggest audience, sure, but I feel like these ads steer too far away from what college is about. I see the name Einstein and the words "changing the world", but I don't see The Sage in these ads. The students that are portrayed are a bit too lazy, I bit too weird, and not someone who looks like they'll be changing the world anytime soon. They've forgotten that one of the key elements of The Sage is the idea of aspirations - students aspire to gain knowledge, they aspire to seek the truth, they aspire to become something better. That's why most post-secondary ads don't focus on who you are now - they focus on who you'll be once you're done.

The idea of archetypes and using them in the context of brands and advertising is something that definitely intrigues me, and I know that I'll never look at brands (or ads, or people, or movies....) the same way again...

Blockbuster: The Transformation of a Brand

I've been reading a lot of headlines over the past year on what used to be the king of the home video rental business - Blockbuster Video. Some of these have documented the decline of their brick-and-mortar, big box-style retail locations: in September, Blockbuster announced that it would be closing 20% of its stores in the U.S. by the end of 2010.

"Retail chains are like trees. They get dead limbs, and you have to prune them. And sometimes you have to aggressively take off the lower limbs for the tree to grow high. When we cut off a limb, there's a perception we're going out of business, when, in fact, we're keeping up with the changing needs of the customers." - Blockbuster CEO James Keyes (2009)

Part of the cause of this decline has been the emergence of brands that offered easier, more-consumer friendly ways for people to rent content. Redbox did away with the big retail store and let consumers rent and return DVDs via a kiosk, and with Netflix, consumers didn't even have to leave their homes - receiving DVDs by mail or streaming them over the Internet. Netflix also introduced a newer business model - the monthly subscription fee - that allowed people to rent to their heart's desire. This model also rid the video rental world of the dreaded late fees. These brands have been killing Blockbuster.

Some of the headlines, however, aren't so bleak: they document Blockbuster's attempt to transform the itself from a video rental chain brand into an entertainment brand - providing movies and videogames whenever and however it suits you. By the time they're finished, Blockbuster is hoping to usurp all possible channels.

"[We want to become a] one-stop shop with solutions for the consumers." - Blockbuster CEO James Keyes (2007)

 Here are some of the ways in which Blockbuster is changing:

(1) Smaller Is Better
Although many of its big-box retail stores are profitable, some are simply too big for their own good. Enter "Blockbuster Express", entertainment kiosks that mimic those from Redbox. They offer the convenience of being ubiquitous (they can be placed in any store or mall that will have them, like a supermarket) to those not willing to wait for DVDs by mail. Blockbuster is also in the process of testing models that offer digital downloads of content onto an SD Memory Card.

(2) Movies by Mail
"Total Access" is a Netflix-inspired service that delivers rentals by mail. The no late-fees, monthly subscription model is similar to Netflix. One advantage, however, is the ability to return the rental in person if one so chooses. The subscription plan also provides the option of picking up and dropping off movies in-store if you don't want to wait for them by mail.



(3) A Combination of In-store and Mail
"Direct Access" is a recently launched service that allows Blockbuster's retail stores to access the online rental catalogue and mail movies and games to its customers when the title is unavailable at that location. The customer does not have to be a member of the online subscription service, and can choose between mailing the rental back or returning it to the store.

(4) Digital on Demand
"Blockbuster OnDemand" allows consumers to rent or buy content via online downloads. They can watch the content on their computer, TV, Blu-ray Player, PVR, cell phone or mobile device (the service is currently only available on select devices). Unlike Netflix, this service is a la carte (pay per download), however rented content can be viewed on any compatible device within the 24-hour rental period.

(5) Free Streaming Online
They recently announced a Hulu-like offering in which consumers can stream TV content. Revenue would come not from fees but from advertising that would play before or within the content.

(6) "Entertainment" Stores
Not leaving their stores behind, Blockbuster is also transforming its video-rental stores into an entertainment retailer. They are adding electronics like Samsung Blu-ray players and Netbooks (both ready to play Blockbuster OnDemand content) and other items associated with the movie-watching experience, like the Snuggie.

As you can see, Blockbuster's strategy is simple: do-it-all, and give its customers the flexibility to get their entertainment content however they like it, even at the same time. Everybody has the latest movies and games - only Blockbuster delivers them to you the way you want it. By providing content via all possible channels and through all possible business models (a la carte, subscription, free with advertisements), and allowing those channels to interact with each other and leverage their advantages, Blockbuster customers will never feel hamstrung by each channel/model's drawbacks. The company's long term goal is to encapsulate the mantra "anywhere, any time, any movie."

"These are single-channel operators. With Netflix, if your mom put Julie & Julia in her queue and [then] decides to buy it from Amazon, she now has a movie she doesn't want to see. If she's a Blockbuster customer, all she has to do is go to the store and exchange it for something she wants. And Netflix doesn't offer immediate gratification-I have to wait for the movie. The store has immediate gratification." - Blockbuster CEO James Keyes (2009)

Some of the above channels may remain experimental while others will be part of Blockbuster's model for the long haul. Either way, it will be interesting to see how its attempt to climb back to the top plays out over the next year.

For a great article on the transformation of Blockbuster, click here.

Put on the what??

I don't usually spend much time looking through those "Smart Source" coupon booklets, but this week's version had an eyebrow-raising example of brand extension that's worth writing about. Two examples, actually. Although I'm not a big fan of the idea of extending brands beyond their core competency, when (1) a brand is elastic enough that it isn't strongly associated with a specific product/category, (2) it possesses strong brand equity, and (3) that equity would provide a competitive advantage in a related category, it can work. When this isn't the case, it usually doesn't.

Enter Polysporin. Since I was a kid, a cut on the knee always resulted in three things: wash, Polysporin, and a Band-Aid. Polysporin found the need (or as some might see it, created a new need) to medicate cuts before covering them, positioning the product as one that can not only prevent infections but help wounds heal faster. Whether or not it actually did this is besides the point, consumers (including myself) are convinced that it works. Over time, additional line-extensions were introduced, as well as claims (like the "Heal-Fast" formula, see below) that strengthened the brand's core competency. Polysporin is a medicated cream that helps wounds heal faster... end of story.

Not quite. Just a few pages later I noticed two Smart Source ads for new, non-wound-related Polysporin brand extensions. The first is a medicated eye drop product that claims to help get rid of the eye condition pink-eye, also called Polysporin (though the box indicates that the drops are also meant to be used in your ears...). The Polysporin eye/ear drops also feature the "Heal-Fast" claim found on the base product. Interesting.

The second new product is a medicated, moisturizing lip balm, again called Polysporin (with a small descriptor). The "Heal-Fast" claim didn't make it onto this one. Here's the ad:

It's clear what they were thinking. "Polysporin is great at healing wounds and preventing infections, why can't it do the same for lips, eyes, and ears??" Well, I'm sure it can, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you should do it. First off, the Polysporin brand is strongly associated with being a medication for cuts and wounds, a category that it pretty much dominates. It's also strongly tied to Band-Aids. How open would consumers be to thinking about the brand any other way?

Secondly, I'm not convinced that the Polysporin brand is providing much of an advantage to these new products - it might even be detrimental to them. When it comes to your eyes, you want a brand that specializes in eye-care. We have doctors that train and specialize in eyes, you'd expect the same amount of competency from an eye-care brand. When it comes to my eyes, there's no way I'm using the same brand/formula that I use on a wound. It's gotta be Visine. The same is true for the lips. When it comes to your lips, you either want a lip specialist (ie. Chap Stick) or a beauty specialist (ie. Burt's Bees).

Not only that, the brand also seems to be trying to convince consumers to adopt a new catch-phrase, "Put on the Poly". I doubt that "Poly" is the type of affectionate nickname that consumers usually give to brands that they love (think Coca-cola and Coke, Budweiser and Bud). The full-name - "Polysporin" - sounds like a medication that works. "Poly" just sounds funny.

The final problem with brand extensions is that they can degrade the meaning and equity of the original brand. The brand can become a jack-of-all-trades and a master of none, losing the equity and associations it had been building up over all these years. The worst thing that could happen for Polysporin would be if someone to asked you to "Put on the Poly", and you responded, "What kind?"

Pee Power: The key to saving the planet is within you - literally

Think twice the next time you flush the toilet - you may just be wasting a whole lot of usable energy. Last July, scientists from Ohio University announced that they were working on a new source of renewable energy, one that could possibly be used to fuel cars and heat homes: urine. When an electrical current was added to a pool of urine containing a specially-designed Nickel electrode, they found that the "pee pee" released hydrogen gas, a renewable energy source. One of the barriers to the development of the hydrogen fuel cell has always been the difficulty in producing, storing, and transporting it. Who knew all we had to do was look in our own bladders?

"One cow can provide enough energy to supply hot water for 19 houses. Soldiers in the field could carry their own fuel." -Gerardine Botte, a professor at Ohio University

The pee power doesn't necessarily have to come from our trips to the bathroom. Utilizing urine as an energy source might actually help to solve another problem that farmers deal with every day - what to do with all that animal waste. The urine from a farm's cows, which is currently pooled as per government regulations,  may soon be able to power the entire operation.

On the human side, this idea may also help us make use of what normally would be dumped back into the lake as municipal waste. The team of scientists, pictured above, are currently working on a way to commercialize the technology for use within the next year or so. Saving the planet was never so easy! Read more about pee power here.

UPDATE: This week's Economist had a great article on using human waste as a renewable energy source, titled The Seat of Power. It details the latest developments in sewage treatment technology that will allow scientists to extract the methane that is released by feces as it is broken down. The methane can then be used as an energy source. Read more about it here.

Change the world - how's that for a New Year's resolution?

Happy New Year! With the beginning of a new decade comes the tendency to look ahead to the future, take stock of where we are now and where we want to be, and then do something to make that happen. No more is this desire to make change evident than in today's youth. The Millennials (youth who were born or grew up during the last decade) have shown time and time again that their generation feels the need to stand up and make a meaningful difference in the world. Simply said, today's youth are compelled to rally around causes that are important to them.

Here are two quick examples of young people rising up to change two critical landscapes: government and the environment. Growing up, American youth endured government policies (war, a quest for oil, etc.) than ran counter to what they believe would make the world a better place. With Obama, they sensed an agent of change, a figurehead they could rally around to make things happen, and rallied to support him. Even those who were too young to vote acted as sparkplugs to convince those who were old enough to help bring change to the country.

Here's a video from the Obama camp that illustrates how important youth were to the election:

I was going to use Earth Hour as the second example, but I came upon a more recent illustration of the passion that youth have for changing the world. At December's global climate change conference in Copenhagen, a swarm of American youth crashed a series of live webcasts in protest against the government's lack of action. They aren't willing to sit around and wait for others to dither when it comes to the planet - they want change to happen now. Check out the video below:

Though youth tend to rally in large groups to make change happen, some are so inspired by a cause that they take an independent stand for what they believe in. Bilaal Rajan is a 13 year-old kid from Toronto who is a youth activist, philanthropist, author, and UNICEF's youngest ambassador. Beginning with a public campaign in which he went barefoot to raise awareness for underprivileged children in developing countries, he has now become an agent of change in general. Check out his website: http://www.makingchangenow.com. It makes you wonder, with all of his charity work, when does this kid have time to go to school?

Here's a CNN video on Bilaal's story:

Which brings us to what this note was supposed to be about: an upcoming event that will bring youth together in order to change the world. The event is called One Young World, and will act as a "summit" for the leaders of tomorrow - youth no older than 25 - to meet and discuss the best ways to make the world a better place. Here's a link to an article about it from The Economist.

The event, which is co-founded by two advertising execs, will be attended by 1,500 youth from around the world, selected proportionally according to each country's population (ie. China and India will have the most representatives). In order to be considered, youth wishing to become agents of change must rally support from their friends via a Facebook app and submit a video on YouTube making a case for themselves. Here's the recruitment video:

And don't worry, this event isn't make-believe. Meeting with the goal of "solving the world's problems", sessions chaired by influential leaders, like the UN's Kofi Annan and activist Desmond Tutu, will be streamed online and actual resolutions will be drafted in workshops. The summit will take place from the 8th to the 10th of February, in London, and its organizers are aiming for it to become an annual event. Stay tuned!