Brand Girl™

The universe has an incredible sense of humor. And at one time or another, we have all experienced being the butt end of that kind of cosmic joke. Like when you rocked your hips in a victory dance after realizing you weren’t ticketed for your well-expired city parking meter, only to be rocked to the core moments later, when you discovered the car door was swiped. Or when you willed the rarely seen, single, and appropriately aged potential suitor, who took your digits at a recent LACMA event, to call you? And he does call. But during the conversation, he graciously asks if he should “Facebook” your twenty-something companion from that evening. What about the time your firm spent billions of dollars over a decade to create a brand image that carefully positioned itself within the energy sector as forward-thinking, environmentally-concerned, and driven—only to wake up to find itself directly linked to an oil spill. And not just any drip. No, your firm is now allegedly responsible for the “largest marine oil spill in the history of the petroleum industry,” the one that took four months to contain, and not before pumping billions of gallons of the crude stuff into U.S. waters, further devastating an already challenged eco-system. An eco-system that you sought to protect. Barrels of laughter.

To say BP (British Petroleum) has an image problem is an understatement. The news is reporting that to help offset plummeting sales at the pumps and lessen mounting disapproval with the general population, several owners of BP-branded gas stations are calling for a “name change” or in lieu of that, a return to the comparatively untarnished Amoco name.

Here’s the back story, which is full of delicious ironies: BP bought Amoco in 1998 and began the conversion of Amoco stations to “BP”-branded ones in 2001. At the same time, the company launched a new branding campaign, a charge led by the tagline “Beyond Petroleum.” (I know. You can’t make this stuff up, can you?) The tagline stayed in use until the present day—it’s a good line, and the company likely got a lot of mileage out of it—but the PR department must be cringing about it now.

The paradoxes don’t end with the tagline, either. As part of the effort to promote its new eco-friendly mantra, pre-spill BP vested a considerable amount of resources toward eco-focused projects—not only its stylish, green and yellow sunflower logo, but also research and future technologies. One consumer-oriented tangible was the 2007 creation of BP’s Helios House, a LEED-certified gas station right here in Los Angeles, coincidentally located a few minutes away from where I sit. According to one member involved on the project, brand daddy Brian Collins, “green destinations” like Helios House were designed to “provoke discussion,” and ultimately, to be reproduced throughout the country. “On the one hand people want to reduce the amount of energy we spend, but are ambivalent when it comes to the freedom they enjoy with automobiles. So we decided to go to the heart of the paradox,” he says. The project has yet to gain momentum, possibly because the inherent ironies in “the heart of the paradox” were either too much for or perhaps lost on American gas consumers: The “green” Helios House structure makes use of recycled materials, wood, solar panels, plants, and any number of other conservation-oriented techniques (i.e., it’s a physical branding campaign that screams, “We’re helping the environment!”), but at the end of the day, it’s a gas station, still pumping and selling good old non-eco-friendly gasoline.

So: When do you stop refilling the brand tank? I tell clients that creating and managing a brand is like choosing to birth and raise a child. You nurture the child as best you can, and when it does something wrong (even if it’s hugely detrimental to society), you don’t banish them immediately into exile. After all, abandonment is considered a crime in most states. Hopefully, you’re a parent who’s inclined to counsel that child to do what’s right: a) Fess up to a situation (be honest), b) say your sorry (take the blame), and c) make restitution (clean up the spill). If you’re running a semi-healthy household, in exchange for doing what’s right, at some point, that child will most likely be forgiven (and get to stay in business).

All this to say, another BP name shift or BP making a U-turn on any of its brand map roads would be money wasted on addressing a short-term issue. The main task at hand is fixing the actual problem. As BP continues its campaign to clean up the residual damage of the spill itself—making it right—its brand will slowly right itself, too. In short, the company execs need to stop worrying about how BP looks or sounds, or whether people like them or believe their branding anymore, and spend more time walking the walk, even when the road ahead is hard and long. The New York Times ran a wonderful piece in last week’s Sunday Business section that addresses recent PR missteps, and one quote in particular sums up the BP conundrum best: “It’s the height of arrogance to assume that in the middle of a crisis the public yearns for chestnuts of wisdom from people they want to kill. The goal is not to get people not to hate them. It’s to get people to hate them less.”

In the meantime, however, just like the BP stock, sales will continue to ride a slippery slope. BP will remain a poster child for hypocrisy for quite some time, and folks in the know will snicker at the current ramp-up of ad dollars being spent to pump up the Arco brand, a BP-owned company. Some BP branded station owners with expiring contracts will jump ship, bypassing a renewal in some form of protest and choosing competitors instead. And many American gas consumers will do the same at the gas pump. Myself included. These days, I can’t help but pass Helios House by, and I feel drawn to patronize a neighboring Exxon Mobile to fill up the Bimmer. The same Exxon Mobile that was responsible for the “first” largest oil spill of all time––yet ironically, still lives.

I just relocated. Again. To Los Angeles. Again. As a seasoned nomad recently migrated from New York, city of taxis and car services, I suspected, correctly, that the most tumultuous transition would be the acquisition of a vehicle. (Full disclosure: I hate car dealers even more than contractors.) Predictably, the selection process was easy: I asked a handful of friends for their nods on a 4-door sedan, and the majority ruled in favor of a BMW. I mentally settled on a BMW because they’re a smart luxury brand with a strong, word-of-mouth reputation, their lease and maintenance-included deals were attractive to me as a buyer and a woman, and frankly, this Brand Girl was seduced by the idea of sashaying around L.A. in an “Ultimate Driving Machine.” Yet despite all the virtual notes, quotes, and third-party votes, I still had to walk into a dealership to experience the brand itself—and to potentially seal a deal. Magically, a “Bimmer” with my desired specs sat a few yards away on the Beverly Hills dealership’s lot.  Thus equipped, I test drove the sedan. Unfortunately, though, my “wear-it-on-my-sleeve” approval was misread by my salesman, a rookie who boasted he “used to be rich in Miami real estate.”  Mr. Miami No Dice seemed to be confusing me with someone who just crawled out from under a pile of poorly produced Pashmina. (Note to Mr. Moon Over Miami: In the future, when an educated, willing buyer who fits the BMW “model” citizen profile walks in your door unsolicited and just hands herself to you on a silver platter, don’t try to play her. Just play nice.)

The bad news: After Newbie gave me the whole “… please wait while I consult with my managers and we’ll see what we can do…” routine, I felt no compunction about letting loose on him with some unexpressed “just moved” jitters. Slick then went so far as to indicate that the “dealership” didn’t want to bid against itself, so they would beat whatever quote I could give them in writing. My interpretation: “So rather than offer me a reasonable deal now, to close the sale for a car sitting on their lot, they are trying to see what they can get away with. And they are asking me to do more leg work?” (Thought bubble: “I do have an inherit ability to magnify the worst of flaws in men, but Slick, are you really sending this girl—and the easiest sell you’ve had all month—out the door?”) The good news: I never did make it out the door.  Amateur hour ended fifteen minutes in. I ultimately ended up in the hands of the dealership’s experienced General Manager, and leased my 328i Sapphire Black Sedan with Oyster seats that very day—and at a very competitive price.

The experience illustrates two things:

1) That even after my daily onslaught of targeted, online auto ad messages, after multiple phone conversations with auto vendors lobbying for my business, and after my informal polling of friends, in the end, it was engagement with the brand—the people and the product—that won the sale. This even despite the misstep of a sales agent stuck riding Don Johnson’s pink Miami Vice coattails.

2) That the “loyalty” line between brands in a similar category, disquieting though it may be, really is Kate Moss thin. Despite being—and remaining—a longtime Mercedes Benz enthusiast, inside of half an hour, I switched gears to a Bimmer. <sigh> I’m just sayin’ is all…

The second installation of HBO’s hit cable-series turned movie mega-franchise, Sex and the City (STC), is being released May 27th, armed with a closetful of brand sponsorships that are as colorful as the 10 odd million spent on wardrobe. Fans of STC have grown accustomed to seeing Carrie Bradshaw, along with cohorts––Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte––gallivant all around Manhattan in the finest of head-to-toe couture as they complete the most tedious or extravagant of tasks. Throughout all 94 of the STC’s episodes and its first movie, we watched our heroine, Carrie, not only rationalize a constant need for the likes of Blahniks, but work out many a twisted relationship quandary on her stoic Apple Mac. Carrie Bradshaw made Manolo Blahniks, Macs and pink Cosmopolitans, all synonymous with household musts. So to see Skyy Vodka, Mercedes Benz, Moet Champagne, and Swarovski in the lineup of marketing partners fits, just like her Blahniks. But HP?

Working off a strategy initiated in 2008 with Vivienne Tam to position its digital clutch as the ultimate tech accessory for “fashionistas around the globe,” Hewlett-Packard smartly stepped in to partner with the STC2 movie so its laptops and computers would be prominently displayed. Although a brilliant play by HP to move to own a technology category for a blockbuster hit, an exposure that Apple had been previously gifted with for no fee––isn’t it unrealistic to have us believe that Carrie Bradshaw actually ditches a Mac to work with a PC? After all these years, isn’t that the equivalent of her ditching the Blahniks for something from, say… Nine West?

Here within lies the old-age argument of product placement: to be organic or blatant? True to the material or a bigger bottom line?  According to the New York Post every aspect of Carrie’s life is reduced to a vignette that can be monetized: Going to the Gym (sip on Lipton Sparkling diet green tea, an official sponsor of the new movie!), Having Cocktails with Girlfriends (try a specialized cocktail from Skyy, the movie’s “official vodka”!), Getting Married (Swarovski paid to be featured prominently in the film) and, of course, Working On Laptop, Staring Wistfully Out the Window (Hewlett Packard partnered with the movie so its laptops would be featured, and SJP will appear in the computer company’s ads, of course). As the New York Times put it in a recent blogpost, “What Next, the Official Salad Dressing?”

Although very much a character, losing the cameos of the Mac will not lessen any box-office appeal for STC2’s cult like following… we are very forgiving and will eat up almost anything Michael Patrick King can conjure up. The truth is that ‘brands’ need blockbuster vehicles like STC to propel their own positioning, no matter how cluttered the ad space may be. It’s no accident that Halston Heritage tags Sarah Jessica Parker at great cost to be their creative director prior to the movies release, resulting in HH clothing being featured in both the film and movie poster, just as it’s no accident that Sarah Jessica Parker herself, launches a 3rd perfume in honor of the film–SJP NYC, and so on. STC collective marketing efforts, just like its wardrobe and storylines, have gone over the top. Welcome to the next realm of advertising, or to put it as Popeater ponders through the very words of Carrie Bradshaw herself, “I couldn’t help but wonder, where’s the line between a film and an extended commercial?”

Bristol Palin, part of the now infamous Sarah Palin household, was recently featured in a new anti-pregnancy, public-service announcement (PSA) launched by The Candie’s Foundation. Neil Cole, CEO of the Candie’s fashion brand, launched The Candie’s Foundation in 2001 after discovering that raising awareness about the consequences of teen pregnancy was an issues niche that is severely underserved by corporate America. Since then, a string of celebrities—from Beyoncé, Ciara, and Jenny McCarthy to Vanessa Minnillo, Ashley Tisdale, and Hilary Duff—have strutted their stuff for the fashionable Candie’s Foundation to make an impression on our youth.

As with the aforementioned talent pool, there’s no doubt that Bristol Palin had the best of intentions when she lent her newly earned fame, garnered from her unfortunate situation with Levi Johnston and her subsequent quick launch into early parenting, to The Candie’s Foundation—by serving as both its “Teen Ambassador” and as the headliner in the newest addition to its “Pause… Before You Play” campaign. The latter PSA series uses fairly nuanced messaging: On the surface, it abandons the more bullying, authoritative, and judgmental tones of most abstinence-only promos in favor of a more subtle, friendly, and compassionate “think before you act” approach. But given Candie’s other related messages, which include “I Never Thought I Would Be a Statistic” and “Be Sexy: It Doesn’t Mean You Have to Have Sex,” it’s hard to say whether “Pause…Before you Play” is just a glossier take on that old fear-based “Don’t Do It” line. Regardless of where one falls on the abstinence issue and teens, however, one must question if the message sent by the PSA was ultimately the most compelling one the foundation could drum up. Even if one agrees that abstinence is the best and most realistic way to tackle the teen pregnancy problem, does the ad even truly effectively embody “Pause… Before You Play?” In the PSA, a very serious Bristol, holding her babe in arms, opines aloud:

“What if I didn’t come from a famous family?
What if I didn’t have all their support?
What if I didn’t have all these opportunities?
Believe me, it wouldn’t be pretty…”

The polished, 30-second spot could be misconstrued to imply that “it’s okay that I [Bristol] had sex and got pregnant because I have means and support, but chances are, you don’t, so don’t.” Chalk one up for the Class Wars. Somehow, BG doubts that the folks at Candie’s were trying to say, “Rich kids, have at each other like rabbits, but you poor youngins, back away from the bed, the backseat of the car, the contraception aisle at CVS before it’s too late.” On quick glance, the Palin PSA might even seem more like a trailer for an upcoming reality show than a sincere message that drives home one of the darker consequences of teen sex: ending up a mom at 18. However, given that Bristol Palin is the most famous teenage mom on today’s media circuit, whether the spot is hitting the target audience hard enough or sending some mixed signals could ultimately be irrelevant. After all, the PSA is doing exactly what The Candie’s Foundation and Bristol had hoped. It’s getting folks, however briefly, to take stock and––pause.

I’m guessing that by now, you’re familiar with John Mayer’s infamous interview in Playboy Magazine. Yes, the one in which he refers to Jessica Simpson as “crack cocaine”, coins the phrase “sexual napalm” and confesses to a lusty addiction to pornography. Mayer, in the same unfiltered style, is now hard at work on his “apology” tour, rationalizing some of those “overshares,” as well as asking us not to think of him as another  ”a**hole…”

Personally, I think this direct approach to the public mea culpa works. I also think Tiger Wood’s handlers might want to pull a page or two from the John Mayer playbook. Mayer may be back-pedaling for far less complicated sins, but still, unlike Woods in his recent public statement, he comes across authentically in his regrets for the Playboy hiccups, perhaps illustrating that an honest brand is better than an overly managed one. Or is it a manipulated one?

Haiti. <Sigh.> Horror of horrors indeed. And yet it’s humbling moments like this that seem to unify us as a nation and bring out the best in us (well, most of us). Despite the recessionary environment, pledges of food, supplies, and money keep pouring in—from celebrities, companies, and citizens alike—across the country and globe to provide Haiti with the help its residents most desperately need. George Clooney, naturally, is co-producing the Hope for Haiti telethon, (co-hosted with Wyclef Jean) to broadcast this Friday night across numerous stations. I also read that Brad Pitt (and Angelina Jolie) and Sandra Bullock each donated $1 million, and I’m certain more is to come from the entertainment world.

Much of the financial sector—Citibank, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase, to name a few companies—have each earmarked an average of $1 million to the cause as well. Now I must pause. <Second sigh.> And I must say, Whoa. $1 million apiece from Wall Street folks? That’s it?

Granted, $1 million is nothing to sneeze at, especially if you’re Haitian. Still, that downtown generosity takes on a different hue when you consider recent activities of the finance industry and its negative effect on this country. Just a year after the crash and bailout, the payouts in banker bonuses are positively in the billions. You read that right—billions. Never has a million seem so… repulsive.

Economist Paul Krugman got it right in this New York Times Op-Ed column. The bankers have had no clue, and as far as I can tell, they remain clueless. Whether they accept responsibility for the financial tailspin or not, they have a bad PR and morale problem that makes the tribulations of Tiger Woods seem like, well, a round of golf. Call me a Pollyanna of sorts, but isn’t there a prime and humanitarian opportunity in all of this for the Wall Street crowd to work on rebuilding its image? Where is the damage control? Clearly, helping Haiti is a start. It’s no accident that the tremors about the big bonus payouts shook up the news cycles the same week Haiti did.

Here’s a thought: Maybe the $100-million dollar pledge by Obama (USA) to Haiti could be subsidized by the boys on Wall Street? Or maybe some of the boys can pay attention to the damage (intentional or not) done at home. Maybe Morgan Stanley could sponsor a spin-off of Extreme Makeover and call it Extreme Bailout.

But then again. I’m a Pollyanna of sorts—and they are bankers without a clue.

Well, there you have it… the drama NBC primetime has been missing. Another rendition of The Biggest Loser—without the skyrocketing Nielsen ratings or the fab new body, that is.

We now know that the experiment by NBC President and CEO Jeff Zucker to move Jay Leno from a successful, lucrative late-night time slot to a one-hour primetime one normally dedicated to drama was a mistake. The related financial gamble—that the cheaper cost of producing talk programming would outweigh any potential drop in ad revenues—was a bust, too. And what about the drop in audience numbers? Simply put, it appears that Zucker was wrong on many levels, and those questionable calls have cost the already bleeding network quite a lot of money.

(On a somewhat related note, I caught some of the Wall Street Barons testifying yesterday, and with regard to risk management, J.P. Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon commented that they never stress-tested the idea that housing costs would ever stop rising or fall 40%. Never tested that business model’s viability from a consumer perspective? Really? Hmm. But I digress.)

NBC chairman Jeff Gaspin admitted on Sunday that the [Leno/O'Brien] “solution”–the proposed quick fix to give Leno his old 11:35pm slot back and bump Conan and The Tonight Show to 12:05am–was, in fact, a compromise that wasn’t to either Leno’s or O’Brien’s satisfaction. Indeed, NBC execs privately wondered whether they had damaged all three brands—Leno, O’Brien, and The Tonight Show—in the process. No doubt a few of the mentioned icons (NBC included) will take some sort of brand slap, but as in our Wall Street scenario, we won’t know the extent of the damage until the whole story plays out. But I’m betting that whether O’Brien––or should I call him “Coco”?––retains the 11:35pm slot or not, he’s a winner, Mr. Gaspin (or can I call you Jeff?).

In a few short days, the Internet has gone frantic with support for O’Brien. When I last checked, L.A.-based designer Mike Mitchell’s “I’m with Coco” effort (reminiscent of the Shepard Fairey Obama “art” movement) had close to 80,000 fans. What’s to be gleaned? The generation that embraces Facebook, Twitter and YouTube embraces O’Brien. Yes, there’s an inherent need to preserve an institutional brand like The Tonight Show, but it’s also about letting the show and its brand evolve into the future by connecting with audiences. And social media, acting as a stress test of sorts, strongly indicates that O’Brien is connecting with audiences via new media, much like Obama did. So, Mr. Gaspin. Jeff. Please tell us that you and NBC see this trend and will consider it as part of the programming mix? Perhaps before some other misfire happens (moving 30 Rock and The Office to Friday at 2pm maybe?) and all hell really breaks loose.

Are you familiar with GOOP?

It’s a newsletter put out by Academy Award-winning actress, Gwyenth Paltrow, in which she aims to share bits and pieces from her extraordinary life. “I have this incredible, lucky, unique life where I’ve gotten to travel all over the place and so I started to acquire all of this information. I thought this would be a fun, creative way to share it,” she says. That’s lovely indeed, just like Goop’s current positioning line—”nourish your inner spirit”–and I hope it will grow to do just that. As the concept evolves, I’d love to see the content lean away from safely baked ideas in favor of exposing more of the underbelly of an extraordinary life. Whether or not Paltrow is quietly poising herself to be the next Martha Stewart or to eventually fill the void to be left by Oprah’s departure, she’s got all the right ingredients and the spiritual kitchen is a smart place to cook these days. And if you’re looking for a few immediate recipes yourself––to feed less of your “inner” and more of your “spirit” later tonight––check out Goop’s latest newsletter for New Year’s cocktail recommendations. You may not be at the Ritz in Paree, but at least you can drink like you are.

Happy New Year, kids.

Who says that fashion, eco-friendliness, positive social change, and financial growth don’t mix?

I was in the M&M’s Flagship shop in Times Square hunting for a trinket that would satisfy the insatiable appetite of a chocolate fanatic and was pleasantly surprised to find one that would feed more than a craving––Mitz handbags. Started back in 2003, Mitz is a cooperative in Mexico City that creates job opportunities for its community by transforming recycled plastics of snack wrappers (think M&M’s, Oreo cookies…) into purses and other fashionable accessories. Because of a partnership with Mars Inc., the parent company of M&M’s, some of the “fashionable” Mitz products can now be found in the M&M’s retail stores––fashionable because they’re making a positive difference for our environment, the impoverished community in Palo Solo, Mexico City and for the image of Mars Inc. Learn more about the Mars and Mitz partnership here and about Judith Romano, the firecracker behind the Mitz initiative who truly takes a stand for social change.

This style rookie has recently caught the attention of Rodarte and Target, and will apparently pen a column for Bazaar as in Harper’s––as in for adults.

Is this a good thing?