Brand Girl™

For unjustified reasons in my brand eyes, the management at the Gap, the lagging clothing retailer, recently conjured up a new logo and unceremoniously launched it to the world. “Unceremoniously” refers to the fact that there was no launch, no announcement, no PR campaign—just the silent shifting of the old logo guard to the new on the company website. Despite the lack of fanfare, the new logo was not only noticed, but was royally rejected by its virtual visitors. In an attempt to quickly diffuse some of the negativity and confusion circulating in the social media sphere, the Gap retreated and pulled a 180. It invited its “fans” to now give input on a new design, i.e., to ultimately drive its brand. According to AP, “Crowd sourcing the new logo, or allowing fans to help design a new one, was the company’s original solution to the issue of quelling consumer confusion. Marketers are increasingly letting fans help or fully make decisions, including PepsiCo Inc.’s Doritos brand having fans create and vote on Super Bowl commercials. But a logo change left up to the crowd is much more rare.”

This unusual move, even if short-lived, begs the question: What on earth is going on at Planet Gap? And where are its fearless brand leaders?

This is a tell-tell-tale about what is wrong with companies and advertising/marketing today. The internet and its social media applications are tools, not the Holy Grail of marketing. Allowing spectators to help design a new logo works for a controlled and one-time promotion like a charitable event or sweepstakes. But a marketing department that lets fans make decisions in matters that stick reeks of a company that doesn’t have a clue—WTF!—what it’s doing or where it ought to be going. How are you supposed to build or maintain a brand when you’re illustrating that you don’t know how to lead? Relinquishing power and creative control to win some more Facebook “Likes” does not make a good strategy. In fact, it’s no strategy at all.

Marka Hansen, president of Gap North America, rationalizes the company’s decision making in her defensive Huffington Post entry. Using phrases like “contemporary and current” to stick up for the new design, she argues that the Gap needed a revised logo that was more reflective of current trends in the company’s recent buying decisions. Which sort of sounds like code for “We think a new logo will boost our sluggish sales.” Even if that were the case—and that’s debatable—unfortunately, the new logo looked more appropriate for the launch of a new tech company.

It certainly didn’t suit the next rendition of the Gap, which has been fashionably tied to a unique logo that’s worked for well over 20 years. The PMS blue square containing its moniker in classic serif letters and dropout type is a trademark recognized worldwide across the spectrum of consumer brands. Revising this logo is a square opportunity to embrace and build upon judiciously and thoughtfully, not to easily or quickly dismiss or to solve impulsively via a virtual public open mike.

The Gap blunder feels reminiscent of the Coca-Cola Company’s launch of “New Coke” in 1985. Like the Gap, in an overzealous attempt to create a quick buzz around a brand that was perceived internally as dormant, Coca-Cola put a spin on the “original” soft-drink recipe, one that was geared to making it taste more like Pepsi, of all things. As with the new Gap logo, the new recipe and product was a bust, and New Coke was pulled, too. The company hadn’t counted on the depth of the connection its audience had to the “original” Coke formula.

For those of you who think that New Coke was a fluke aberration specific to that brand’s formula and/or that Coke drinkers are just overly sensitive—or for those Pepsi loyalists out there—remember Pepsi Clear (AKA Crystal Pepsi)? That 1992 Pepsi product flop, which lasted a year, taught the PepsiCo folks the obvious: that removing two of the biggest ingredient draws from its flagship product—the color and the caffeine—was a bad idea. Duh.

The first lesson here: When a change is needed, the world of social media doesn’t allow for operating in a vacuum. Given the possible ramifications, as brand catalysts and marketing mavens, schooled both before and well beyond Social Media 101, we would never think to force feed anything on an audience without priming these consumers first. By test-marketing new prototypes to a fault, we did our homework and were respectful of dismantling or disrupting any emotional or visual brand bonds and loyalties. Marka Hansen suggests in her blog post that the Gap needed to “evolve.” Fine. But if so, and one tactic was a logo change, what Marka and her team failed to remember was that it’s also a marketer’s job to bring its audience along for the journey. Crowd-sourcing is a tool that should help with transitions and testing. It should not, however, trump or replace traditional pillars of brand building (or—ahem—branding professionals).

The truly staggering question though is why the Gap felt the need to concentrate its energy on a branding makeover it didn’t need. We’re in a down economy: People are shopping “down” these days, in all retail products. They’re looking more to the moderately priced “Gaps” of the fashion world to fill some voids in their closets in an economically sensible way. In this frugal environment, the Gap, an icon of brand leadership and fashionable thrift, should be able to strut, shine, and outfit us all—not to be scrutinized, second-guessed, or to say they’re sorry for being who and what they are. They needed to tap into what they do well, not hide it behind a new, ineffective logo.

All the “old” companies that have built a legacy, tried and true, have built their brands on having cojones—and a big set at that. The new young talent taking office seem to have zero confidence in their tactics, no understanding of the market they’re catering to, and no capacity to use simple common sense, a triumvirate of flaws that simply creates disaster—and bad logos.

Which brings me to Lesson #2. As my father, a Coca-Cola aficionado, would often remind me when I was frivolously campaigning for something new: Sweetheart, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

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.

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?

Last month I attended the Future Trends Conference (an annual conference sponsored by the International Institute of Research) catching up on what’s tomorrow. I heard fascinating insights from many speakers, including Janet Gallent, VP, Consumer Insights & Innovation Creation over at NBC Universal, who razed the myth that “nobody with a DVR watches commercials.” Guess what? According to NBC research, 43% of commercials are actually played back by DVR viewers. So DVRs are not the death of TV advertising–they actually capture a very engaged audience, which helps spike total brand recall.

And ahem, here’s what one blogger had to say about yours truly. Yes, speaker in the house!

Have you been following the H&M groupies?

Better question, how could you have missed the crowds as they were lined outside the H&M store in Herald Square last week (and other various parts of the world) for the release of the Comme des Garçons collection? Perhaps you thought it was just another Apple launch. It had that kind of fervor, after all. The groupsters were gathering up armloads of affordable couture and even though the strictly enforced “only two same-style items per person” rule was supposed to deter the velvet-rope crowd from emptying inventory too quickly – shelves were just that. Emptied. Yet magically, pieces from the fashion and cash-starved elite immediately cropped up Ebay, i.e., an allegedly $24.99 polka-dot shirt selling for $100-plus buckaroos!

The designers at Target don’t make this kind of hullaballoo among consumers… what gives?

In September, Target gathered 22 of its designers to headline the launch of their “Bullseye Bodegas,” quasi-stores that were carefully peppered around Manhattan to unload deep discounts on its already discounted threads for a limited time (of course). But don’t feel bad if you missed it. Seeing Kiehls in a Target store caused more of a stir in the media (and an accompanying jolt in the aisles). But beyond the Kiehls phenomenon, some of the Target merchandise in the bodegas apparently erred closer to bodega than bullseye. Not one of “Tar-zhey’s” best moments.

From inception, Target has not been far from the fashionista’s radar. Target, eerily, has known that “cheap chic” was a worthy category to own and a trend that would last. Target has also known that it’s best to use shorthand to speak to the upscale discount-shopping audience. Give them names they already know – Michael Graves, Cynthia Rowley, and until recently, insider design favorite Isaac Mizrahi. To their great credit, they have trained us well – mass market never looked so good. But as in any other category, a brand’s competition will thicken, its genius gleaned and audience anxiously revved up for more. So what about exploring names that are not so household?

The collaborative effort between Comme des Garçons and H&M is incredibly intriguing – the proliferation of consumable couture. Think about it: H&M hits us with Madonna, Stella McCartney and Roberto Cavalli… big names, big appeal, big reach. Not such a surprise overall. Then there’s Comme des Garçons’ Rei Kawakubo, whose work has long been unattainable for the masses… until now. The lines of prestige are truly blurring. H&M seems to be playing it closer to the Apple playbook than Target’s, by focusing on creating desire. After all desire is a luxury and luxury is addicting.

So, even though we’re tightening our belts, we want our belts to be Gucci-esque. Consumers want the feeling of splurge, splurge, splurge, though it’s time to save, save, save. And when you’ve got Comme des Garçons at H&M, you get both. A little bit of branding genius that’s satisfying for all.

A $1000 Fendi bib on Suri Cruise might have worked… but putting it on a child whose parents might hope to make $1.50 per day? Apparently the August edition of Vogue India featured such a pic among 16-pages of fashion editorial, which according to its editor, Priya Tanna, “sought to illustrate the power of fashion” as a strategy to reach a niche, the growingly affluent demographic in (the “new”) India. The iconic magazine received lashings for using less than rupee-full Indians as props to model $10,000 Hermes handbags and $200 Burberry umbrellas. “You have to remember with fashion, you can’t take it that seriously,” said Ms. Tanna. “We weren’t trying to make a political statement or save the world,” she said.

Therein lies the problem, Ms. Tanna…

What were they thinking? Vogue India must have their heads up their collective bums to think that shooting images of designer goods in the context of abject poverty was appropriate. Look, BG believes that fashion can be playful, in fact, it oftentimes should be playful, but is it ever chic to rub in someone’s nose their status as a have-not? BG, with her altruism filter firmly fixed, could see a way that this juxtaposition could have been used to enhance these brands, say if the editorial spread was being used to bring attention to the good works that these fashion brands were bringing to these people, now there’s a project that even Bono would approve of.

And hey, BG can’t help but think that it’s not just Vogue India suffering brand damage here—there is potential negative runoff for the designers that were featured in the shoot as well. Hermes, Alexander McQueen and the rest might want to highlight in the marketing their altruistic efforts around the world to help buffer this sitch. Even thought it was Vogue India who performed the faux pas, it was their price tags that were juxtaposed… It just isn’t done in this day and age where cause-related marketing is an integral part of nearly every company’s marketing plan and consumers have been trained to patronize companies that are socially and environmentally sensitive. We have long left the selfishness of the ’80s with the Bonfire of the Vanities mentality behind…

Coincidentally, last week it was reported that Vogue (USA) ad pages have been slipping – The September volume not so thick. The Vogue India fiasco can’t be helping the good ole’ USA brand, can it? Methinks this kind of press floating around on the web is a major no-no––afterall, consumers are interconnected and global. Reality check: What happens in India no longer stays in India, even when it comes to the sometimes nebulous world of branding or fashion.

But what do you think?
Was the fuss about Vogue’s India shoot…
1––Way overblown
2––Right on target
3––Didn’t scratch the surface

Jam-packed with hair-raising fumbles, tear-jerking saves and the glamest of brands –– they’re calling “Sex and the City” the “Super Bowl” for women. And boy, did it score BIG. The long awaited sequel movie to the original HBO series opened this weekend grossing an unexpected $55.7 million (according to Variety — the best opening ever for an R-rated comedy). This win will no doubt add extra padding and lining to many folks Gucci-like wallets and purses, especially if you’re a little company called Bag, Borrow or Steal.

What started as a mere mention in the script turned into a story line to be the envy of every marketer — and Cinderella. Academy Award-winner Jennifer Hudson who played Carrie Bradshaw’s assistant in the SATC film happens to have an infatuation with handbags –– of the luxury kind. How does a young assistant feed such a craving in the middle of NYC? She rents, of course. Introducing: “Netflix” for the handbag. Bag Borrow or Steal is a service that allows women to lease (temporarily afford) luxury brand handbags and jewelry too (i.e., Gucci, Chanel, Prada, Coach, Vera Wang, Louis Vuitton)! And like most lease programs — there’s an option to buy. The brand cameos of Jennifer Hudson cradling a Louis Vuitton while explaining the services of Bag, Borrow or Steal to Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker) will be embedded on fashionistas radars forever. Check out the BBS website for the cross promotional efforts. Its product placement that will garner long-lasting impressions for BBS that they could have never, ever afforded or leased on their own. It is exposure that is bound to be priceless –– just like the girls wardrobe in the SATC flick itself.

And speaking of the flick itself, if you expected anything but more of “Sex and the City” — you would’ve been disappointed. (C’mon — it’s the equivalent of a tween getting her Hannah Montana fix.) But for many of us that raided the theaters this weekend (throwing Indiana Jones off his own raid [helleooow. Girl Power!], it was great reminiscing and resonating with the SATC crew’s every decadent and heart wrenching twist –– plentiful of angst, flashbacks and tomorrow’s fashion. But most importantly… and in the end, ALL the girls get what they want — closure.

Oh, and a great way to afford luxury during a recession… now that’s BIG!

BG Soundtrack — 5 stars!