Seth Hosko | Brand=Experience

Brand Triggers - Tomato Sauce

Thu, 04 Mar 2010 02:38:28 -0500

Finding brand triggers in a jar of tomato sauce.

Brand Lives In The Details

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 09:30:17 -0500

And process design brings those details to life.

SAAB USA drops “Born From Jets” and changes to the...

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 09:38:00 -0500

SAAB USA drops “Born From Jets” and changes to the international tagline, “Move Your Mind”.

Saab is one of my favorite (undeveloped) brands, and I couldn’t be happier. Made From Jets sucked. It was loud and was successful in the beginning, but empty. It spoke nothing of Saab’s true heritage - innovation.

Move Your Mind keeps the tagline the same across other markets, and its true to the brand’s DNA. What do you think?

edit: Saab is also free of GM, now owned by swedish supercar manufacturer, Koenigsegg. Hopefully a sign of things to come.

Why Do Agency Blogs Go Uncommented?

Mon, 02 Nov 2009 15:51:56 -0500

While individuals are positioning themselves as thought leaders and community builders, shouldn’t the agencies be doing more?

Last night, I asked the twitter community about agency blogs and why they don’t comment. Here are some responses I got:

@Anita_Lobo Boring content. No effort to engage with commenters. ‘We’re so big/well-known no comment on blog doesn’t affect our biz’ mindset

@Marcus_Andrews Excellent point. People comment on your blog when you comment on theirs and have a connection with them that an agency cant have.

@TDubb Most are little more than advertisements. They should focus on incite to the Co. and the daily inter-workings. In my opinion.

Are agencies being social enough? Do they even care, or do they think their portfolio and the ‘half effort’ is good enough?

Ambition = Respect. This video is a quick rant about Bob Lutz...

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 23:04:00 -0400

Ambition = Respect.

This video is a quick rant about Bob Lutz challenging any car maker to race him in a CTS-V (500-some hp), and how this has created a huge opportunity for any less competitive car brand (I chose Saab and their Aero-X w/ 280hp, but one of the best AWD systems on the market).

Why? Because the CTS-V has already won. None of the cars that could beat the V are competing. Therefore, if Saab entered, no one would be suprised when they lost, but everyone would be suprised that they showed up when no one else did. The Saab would be the bigger story here. Ambition=respect.

GM recently sold Saab to the Swedish supercar company Konigsegg, which has big ambitions to properly give Saab the resources the ambitious car company needs to compete in its marketplace. GM and Bob Lutz never did that - in fact they sucked all the brand out of Saab and almost killed it.

Putting Saab on this highly visable stage now would be a huge opportunity to show that the carmaker is serious about performance, at a time when no one expects it. As long as the Saab didn’t fall apart or have a dismal finish, it would be brand visibility on a stage where it would shock everyone and be a very positive publicity stunt for Saab.

When every other premium car company is chickening out, it would be so refreshing to see a brand like Saab step up and take on a challenge like this. Even though they wouldn’t win, it would make a refreshing point.

QUESTION: If you were Saab, would it be a good move to put yourself on this stage?

Bluecoat Gin - All the pieces of a great brand.

Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:55:00 -0400

Bluecoat Gin - All the pieces of a great brand.

Apple Can Do Better Building Their Brand Equity

Mon, 26 Oct 2009 08:40:35 -0400

Apple Can Do Better Building Their Brand Equity

What is your brand saying?

Sat, 19 Sep 2009 15:56:00 -0400

I wonder if you’ll find Smart cars in their brand book..

Ikea destroys its identity

Tue, 08 Sep 2009 09:35:00 -0400

Ikea just recently announced that they have changed their typeface from a customized version of Futura to… Verdana?!?!? WHAT!?!? Ingvar Kamprad, how could you let this happen?

The first obvious question is..well..why would they do that? Ikea’s Ivana Hrdlickova says the main reason for the switch was to allow the company to use the same typeface in all countries (current Ikea typefaces do not contain Asian characters, for example). Being that Verdana was designed for the web, it also allows the company’s image to remain consistent online and in print. (via designhotels.com).

Ikea, honestly, I’m appalled and upset. You take a unique typeface that you owned, and was completely unique to you, and throw it away. Instead you replace it with a generic typeface that everyone uses. Hey Ivana, an excuse that its “easier to use” may have some validity to it, but its not worth it. You threw away part of their identity when you made the switch.

How? Because everything that is part of a brand, defines that brand. Ikea owned the modified Futura font. We didn’t associate it with anything else. When we saw that font, we knew it was Ikea, even if it didn’t blatantly say so. The emotions and thoughts that we had when viewing Ikea’s unique font identified itself as Ikea and no one else.

A great example of this in use is Snickers. Take away the name, and you still know what brand it is because of the typeface.

It’s a Snickers ad, but no had to tell you.

On the other side, Verdana is one of the most generic and used typefaces on the internet. It has no identity. Sure, it may be clean, but whatever thoughts and emotions derived from viewing it, you can’t own. I look at Verdana type and I see Target, Better Homes and Gardens, or some other magazine… and I don’t even know if they use Verdana. Point is, it has no identity. Verdana is so strong that there is no way that Ikea can “own” it and infuse its own brand into it. It will always be generic and without identity, and Ikea has decided to take away the unique identity of their typeface and replace it with something that is valueless.

What good is it to expand your brand into bigger markets if you destroy the brand along the way?

A shame, really.

Disagree with me? Share it.

A Name Doesn't Make A Brand

Tue, 11 Aug 2009 06:52:00 -0400

I launched my blog yesterday with an opening post on asking the question Is Starbucks Faking It? As some of you have noticed, I’ve changed the name to Brass Tacks, which I feel is more fitting. The reason I changed is because first, too many other entities were using the same name or derivative of it. Second, the name wasn’t a compliment to the inspiration it came from. So, out of making this change I learned three things:

1. Do your research, even if you think its unnecessary

I was so wrapped up in creating my content that the name of the blog seemed secondary (with so many mundane blog names out there, did it need much thought?). But, I was wrong. Since the name I chose was so tied to the niche it covered, there were already other entities (blogs, companies) that were using it.

2. Use inspiration carefully

The name also came from an inspired reference to a similar name under a similar project I’m familiar with. Creatives use inspiration daily, but make sure it compliments or is different than the source, not stepping on its toes.

3. Ultimately, its about the content.

A name certainly sets the tone, but it doesn’t make the brand - the content does. I’m not setting aside the importance of a strong name, its an essential piece. However, brands like GE or IBM don’t have the most interesting or immediately memorable brand names, but given the value that they produce, it doesn’t matter.

A strong brand is distinct, knows when it needs to change, doesn’t hide it, and acts quickly. If any damage by confusion was done, it was minimal because action was taken.

Now, anyone know where the name Brass Tacks comes from?

Is Starbucks Faking It?

Sun, 09 Aug 2009 17:51:00 -0400

It’s been a few weeks since Starbucks announced their Coffee & Tea concept. While a brilliant idea… It’s going to fail.

As in… #FAIL. Starbucks is taking the wrong approach by trying to manufacture authenticity in an area where they don’t have a clue what they are doing. I get what they are trying to do, and I applaud them for it. However, the “designing from the top down” method only makes me feel tricked into visiting a Starbucks in different clothing. It’s like the mom that tries to dress hip to sell that “she’s cool” to her daughter’s friends (or boyfriends, you never know). The change has to come from within. Starbucks needs to let the authenticity of the concept find itself rather than dictate what it should be. I’m not asking Starbucks to change, I’m asking them to allow that authenticity to come from authentic roots. Luckily, they can still do that while still owning the concept. It just takes a different approach.

It would help to understand what makes a great coffee shop. Simply, its the community that creates the experience. This is not an assembly line process like your local Starbucks box #2942. You don’t go there for coffee. You go to hang out, read, enjoy the space, meet strangers, meet friends, and engage in the environment. By engaging, you’re investing, and that strengthens the community which in turn strengthens the brand.

This authentic experience cannot be manufactured. Poetry readings, book clubs, live music, etc. - These elements are best left to be organically grown from the roots up. Support the means and get out of the way. Trust your community, your local stakeholders, your baristas, your patrons. Support an environment to let authenticity create itself.

Starbucks, are you listening? Here’s how to fix it:

1. Further separate the concept from the Starbucks brand.

This isn’t rebranding or unbranding. Starbucks is a mature brand and should be left alone. Separate the concept enough to give it authentic roots and start by putting a separate face or identity onto the project. Possibly consider a partnership with a culturally influential person not from Starbucks. Authentic people (think artists, musicians, movers & shakers) make authentic brands. Create a partnership that strengthens the brands of both parties and gives ownership and personal stake in the process (thinking of Kennedy and Gant here).

2. Drop the “inspired by Starbucks” tag.

Really, its a turnoff. “Inspired by” just tells me my new local, authentic, insanely hip coffee shop is inspired by a massive coffee behemoth. Oh, really? Thanks. “Inspired by” gives the credit and ownership back to Starbucks and defeats the purpose.

A better approach would be to just change it to “supported by Starbucks”. This makes me feel like Starbucks isn’t pulling any tricks, but decidedly investing in something more authentic. Comes off a lot smarter.

3. Consider a unique franchise model

I know Starbucks won’t like this idea, but hear me out. Give the community valuable stake that is necessary to breed authenticity. Trust it to the culturally influential people in the neighborhood that care, not just any Joe that has enough money to invest in a franchise. Let him buy a Wendy’s franchise. Continue by leaving the content of the experience up to the community: what beer is served, what music plays, what artist’s work is displayed on the walls, etc.

4. Support the concept in the most valuable ways possible

Authenticity shines when you let the cool people focus on the experience they want to deliver. Starbucks’ biggest contribution here is what they do best: Provide solid POS systems, delicious and consistent ingredients and product, behind the scenes business structure, etc. Give the concept a solid business architecture to grow the experience on.

Being authentic is engaging. It’s caring. It’s flexible and its unexpected. Most importantly, it’s NOT perfect. Flaws are natural, let them happen. They act to benefit the authenticity of your brand more than hurt it (another topic for another time).

In the end, its all about creating an authentic experience by ACTUALLY letting it be authentic. Provide the means and support for the concept, hand over the experience to your community, and then get out of the way.

Seth Hosko | Brand=Experience

Brand Triggers - Tomato Sauce

Brand Lives In The Details

SAAB USA drops “Born From Jets” and changes to the...

Why Do Agency Blogs Go Uncommented?

Ambition = Respect. This video is a quick rant about Bob Lutz...

Bluecoat Gin - All the pieces of a great brand.

Apple Can Do Better Building Their Brand Equity

What is your brand saying?

Ikea destroys its identity

A Name Doesn't Make A Brand

Is Starbucks Faking It?

1. Further separate the concept from the Starbucks brand.

2. Drop the “inspired by Starbucks” tag.

3. Consider a unique franchise model

4. Support the concept in the most valuable ways possible

What do you think? Is Starbucks faking it? Can you really design authenticity?