Profit ruins everything... Unless you have authentic brand!

So here we are again. Another tech company that experienced one-time great success taken over by the immediacy of monetization. Of course with the crippled traditional media market, business people are salivating over anything that reaches the masses and has the capability of filling the advertising void, so I understand why MySpace (and many others) are eager to make their business plans work.

For the sake of full disclosure, I am not a MySpace fan, but value the importance of having several varieties of social networks to hit across all demographic segments. Anyone who thinks one social network can be it all to every audience is a bit naive. Facebook should not be Twitter, and MySpace should not be Facebook. How each network allows you to be social, will attract certain types of people. And that's OK. We all know competition is good.

But back to my point... I am very curious to see how the very networks, which are all about providing an authentic vehicle for people to be themselves, may quickly take a very unauthentic path. What does all this mean? MySpace needs to figure out what it is (beyond just being another social network) before it can reach sustainable success. It won't matter who they put in place or how smart they are. If MySpace doesn't know who it is as a brand, and what its authentic brand purpose is, it will inevitably fail. I can only hope they know this, but are not sharing, and are using their insider understanding to recruit executive talent that align with their purpose. If not, they are especially doomed if the only agreed upon understanding of purpose is to drive profit, and fast.

Good luck MySpace. I need you to make a successful go at this change - there are advertisers looking to target your audience. You just need to clarify who your audience is and what your relationship needs to be with them.

The Peanut Butter Manifesto

When I read the peanut butter manifesto memo from Yahoo!’s Brad Garlinghouse, I thought it was pretty bold and interesting. Interesting because this memo is a true reflection of how new age companies have made transparency a way of doing business and encourage employees to really live their brand. Bold because forcing focus is the best way to improve business expertise and secure a market leadership position.

Garlinghouse has a true desire to create an authentic environment where passion leads to innovation and success. Many other businesses could learn from his thinking and willingness to put his ass on the line.

Passion and focus are essential for success. Too many businesses, large and small, want to conquer all and over extend product lines and services. While I clearly understand that line extensions increase market share, over extension inevitably leads to failure. Failure happens when companies push unfocused growth over quality and sustainability. Sometimes it’s good not to be the corporate conglomerate monster that gobbles up everything in its path.

Look at the past to predict the future. When a company steps outside of its core competency and only sees the numbers, it will likely take on ventures it has little understanding of or expertise in. Decisive decision making is driven by a clear understanding of what your authentic brand is and everyone gets it. Not leading with authentic passion gives competition a chance to run you over.

I hope that Garlinghouse is able to lead Yahoo! and doesn’t loose his shirt in the process. If he is successful in transitioning the organization, he could position Yahoo! as the new leader.

Altering and functionalizing brand logos: To do or not to do?

Over the years I have worked with many brand building marketers and strategists, some I would categorize as experts and some I would not. There seemed to be a consensus that you do not alter or functionalize the logo. This was something I paid close attention to because I often questioned their thinking. I started listening to rebuttals from creative types, monitoring the many master symbols in American culture and reading anything I could get my hands on. All to come to the same conclusion over and over again…

Altering the logo should only be done when the cost benefit ratio is largely beneficial to the growth of the brand itself, enhances the brand experience for long term benefits and aligns with the brand persona. In other words, examine the situation for the true opportunities that will present themselves through willingness to alter the logo. Really look at the cost benefit ratio. Don’t just do it on a whim because the creative director gets an idea or someone on the executive team got a wild hair up their you know what.

An example is Starbucks. The Starbucks brand is really about the experience, which is very much created through its coffee shops’ atmosphere and customer interaction with the brand, not necessarily the actual coffee. Starbucks has prided itself on providing a consistent style among all its shops throughout the country – providing contemporary plush furniture, soft lighting, conversational seating arrangements, and so on.

As their growth strategies stumbled because of community backlash based on complaints of neighborhood homogenization, Starbucks reevaluated its approach to its store motif standards. They started assigning regional designers to examine the neighborhoods where stores were breaking new ground to pull decorative influences from. They have even gone as far to examine how the logo and signage may be edited. All influenced by the local area, Starbucks is bringing neighborhoods’ style into the motif, experience and brand of the store, allowing for the new stores to fit into the community landscape and meet less backlash.

This is what I mean b y strategic evaluation of the cost benefit ratio. Had Starbucks not entertained the communities’ requests, their growth may have slipped, not to mention they could have been perceived as stubborn corporate types and their image may have been tarnished

Another example, and the one I feel really broke the mold, is Google. Ever check out their logo on a holiday? Google literally dresses up its logo in design costume. Now I am sure this may have started as a cool idea, but they actually tapped into a way for their audience to experience the brand in a new way and different way, completely different form any other search engine. I recall hearing people around the office saying, “Hey did you see Google today?” or “Check out the Google logo – cool. I love when they do that”

Again, the benefit far outweighs the cost.

This being said, I also strongly believe that once a brand makes the decision to consider alterations to its brand/logo, limitations and parameters should be set to maintain the integrity of the brand. This means that the changes should never trivialize the brand; it should only enhance what it already is. If the changes neither impact the brand in a negative or positive way, then don’t waste your time. I see many marketers and creatives doing things because they just want to, not because it actually works. Bottom line is do what’s right for the brand, not your ego.

For example, Google is about giving power to the people, staying in tune, making it personal, getting what you want -- these are my words, not theirs of course. So when they edit their logo on holidays, their users’ experience with the altered logo is true to its brand persona. It makes sense.

So in closing, to do or not to do should actually be to do if it is beneficial to the brand. Not to do if the costs are too high, offer no benefit and don’t fit the brand.

Read more about Starbucks’ approach (subscription required): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB116312829873619491.html?mod=mm_hs_marketing_strategy