Lululemon has ridden the wave of yoga's popularity with great success, selling high end yoga clothes and promoting healthy living. So deciding to associate with a philosophy that's the antithesis of what yoga is all about seems a little odd, to say the least.
As reported on NPR, the company's new shopping bags feature the question: "Who is John Galt?". And who is John Galt? He's the protagonist of Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged where she laid out her Objectivist philosophy, including the idea that selfishness is a virtue,a very un-yoga-like position.
Why this seeming act of self-destruction? Lululemon's own post on the subject explains that Chip Wilson, the company's founder, read Atlas Shrugged when he was 18 and was really inspired by it. So this could be a simple story about another ego-charged CEO running amok. But it's a bit more complicated than that.
The company was, in fact, founded with the mission to "elevate the world from mediocrity to greatness," an idea straight out of the Rand book. And its culture reflects many of her ideals. If you look at Lululemon's brand manifesto, you can see that it's a sampling of ideas and philosophies, some yoga-compatible ("The pursuit of happiness is the source of all unhappiness") and some more Rand-like ("Successful people replace the words 'wish,' 'should' and 'try' with 'I WILL.'").
As long as you don't delve too deeply, the company's mix and match of ideas kind of holds together and the company has clearly thrived despite its ideological impurity. The problem with the John Galt bags is that they shine a bright light at just one of the sources of inspiration and a very polarizing one at that. Now everyone who buys from the store will be carrying out a political statement as well as some expensive clothes.
Let's see what the impact will actually be. Maybe nothing. Whole Foods didn't suffer any lasting damage when its CEO did something similar. But the bags have caused quite a stir in some quarters of the yoga community with many promising never to buy anything from the store ever again.
Southwest has tapped into consumer resentment over the fees that other airlines have started to charge for services that used to be free with a commitment not to charge for those same services (e.g. "Bags Fly Free," "No Change Fee") and promotion of that commitment with ads like the one above.
In financial services, the other sector that has developed a large appetite for fees, Ally Bank has adopted a similar approach, marketing itself as the anti-bank and promoting its "no fine print" policy and no ATM fees.
For both Southwest and Ally Bank, their competitors dependency on fees (which generate more than one quarter of income in the case of fee-innovator Spirit Airlines) has opened up a great branding opportunity--it's relevant, differentiating and competitors are unlikely/unable to respond.
Whether this positive branding position makes sense from a business perspective is a different and more difficult question to answer. Both companies are walking away from a lot of money. As thisKnowledge@Wharton article points out, U.S. airlines collected $2.1 billion of fees in just one quarter in 2010 and Bank of America made 10% of its total income from "service charge" fees in 2009. Both Southwest and Ally have to hope that the goodwill generated by their no-fee commitment translates into a higher share of market and more overall revenues.
But getting the best of both worlds is Ryanair. This Irish carrier has managed to carve out a distinctive position at the low-cost end of the market. Its CEO, Michael O’Leary, is constantly pushing the boundaries in terms of costs that can be take out of the system and gets plenty of publicity for his more extreme ideas (e.g. Standing Room only). The airline is also notorious for its huge array of charges, so much so that there's a need for posts like: Top Ten Ryanair Charges and How to Avoid Them. So, whereas Southwest builds its brand by resisting the temptation to charge fees, Ryanair can build its brand by coming up with new fees and new customer inconveniences. Brilliant!
I've been a big fan of the work that the Sun Chips brand team to build its green credentials and take advantage of its eco-friendly name. Back in 2009, I commended the team for a series of initiatives it had taken to build the brand's green credentials. These went way beyond a single promotional tie-in or superficial gesture and included taking its Casa Grande manufacturing plant off the grid running it on solar power and recycled water.
But, last year, the brand team's commitment to the environment got them into trouble. They launched a new fully compostable bag which was an awesome idea but had one fatal flaw--the bags were really, really loud: "Noisier than a jetfighter cockpit," as one commentator put it. After a flood of criticism, the brand team took the bag off the market to give them time for a rethink
They promised they'd be back and I'm happy to report that now they are with a bag that reclaims the environmental high ground. The new product is still fully compostable but adds a new adhesive that functions as a noise barrier and dampens the sound to hopefully acceptable levels. They are planning to introduce the new packaging gradually to make sure it's OK from the consumer perspective.
I'm just as guilty as anyone else in having some tweeting or blogging fun at the expense of marketers who've tried but failed with some ad, promotion, design or other initiative. But, in this case, I hope the new bag succeeds in the market and quietens the critics.
Marginal Revolution (MR) pointed me to Ok Trends which develops insights based on the data from OkCupid, self-described "best dating site on earth."
In its latest post, Ok Trends explores the mathematics of beauty and comes to surprising conclusions. By comparing the number of messages that women receive and comparing it to their rated attractiveness, its study finds that the more men disagree about a woman's looks, the more they end up liking her. Guys will tend to ignore women who are "cute." Comparing two women of the same level of rated attractiveness, the woman with the most negative ratings will get the most messages. As the reports says: "If someone doesn't think you're hot, the next best thing for them to think is that you're ugly."
And isn't that so with brands? Better to be passionately liked and hated than neither liked or disliked. As an MR commenter says, isn't this why Fox and MSNBC are killing CNN in the ratings? Your loyalty to a brand can actually increase if you know that others don't like it.
Ok Trends offers some advice based on the survey results. Rather than use a photo that is: "Clearly designed to minimize some supposedly unattractive trait—the close-cropped picture of a person who's probably overweight is the classic example," do the opposite. Based on the mathematical evidence, minimizing flaws is exactly the wrong thing to do. "If you have a big nose, play it up. If you have a weird snaggletooth, play it up: statistically, the guys who don't like it can only help you, and the ones who do like it will be all the more excited.
This morning I reported on the apparent demise of Sun Chips ground-breaking 100% compostable packaging because of the incredible noisiness of the bags. It was widely reported that these bags were going to be taken off the market.
I received the following note from Sun Chips in reply:
"Not to worry our 100% compostable bag is not going away. We're committed to renewable packaging solutions and will continue to use 100% compostable packaging on specially-marked Original flavor SunChips® snacks. In the meantime we're busy working on the next-generation bag that addresses consumer feedback, so stay tuned."
What's are the seeds of marketing success? How do you launch a product made with a fruit that few people have even heard of? What lessons can we learn from the success of POM Wonderful?
Lynda Resnick (aka the POMQueen) was a keynote speaker at the UCLA Anderson Alumni Weekend this past week. She has an amazing track record. In addition to POM Wonderful, she's also had hits with Fiji Water, Teleflora and The Franklin Mint. But of all these hits, POM Wonderful may have been the highest level of difficulty. Before it was launched in 2003, only 12% of the population even knew what a pomegranate was. It's expensive ($3.00+ for a 16oz bottle) and it's a strong, acquired taste.
As I listened to the presentation, I was struck by the mixture of insight, pragmatism, ambition, inspiration, determination, bloody-mindedness, patience and luck that factored into the success. Here are six things she talked about:
1) Own the land: The Resnicks (that's Lynda and her husband, Stuart) discovered pomegranates accidentally. They bought farmland that happened to include some pomegranate trees. For the first few years, they just sold the pomegranates as fruit. But then they noticed that they produced at a healthy yield/acre. The opportunity sensors were activated.
2) Trace the lineage: The next trigger was an Italian friend of theirs. She waxed lyrical about pomegranates and talked about their mythology. In ancient times, pomegranates were symbols of everything from fertility and royalty to hope and abundance. Was there some truth to the legend of the pomegranate? Could any health benefits be scientifically validated?
3) Dip into the royal purse: The company then spent $25 million in scientific research to find out whether there were health benefits that could be turned into product claims. These studies have shown positive results in a whole slew of conditions including heart disease, prostate cancer, diabetes and erectile dysfunction. There certainly is substance to the health angle.
4) Off with their heads: The marketing team started experimenting with various pomegranate concoctions that would have broad appeal and could be competitively priced. Nonsense, said Ms. Resnick. This has to be the real thing, not some watered down juice. One of her key principles is intrinsic value. 100% juice has it. A touch of pomegranate in a grape juice wash doesn't.
5) Two orbs in the veggies: Other than the pomegranates themselves, the two most distinctive things about POM are is its double orb shape and the fact that it's sold in the produce aisle. While the distinctive bottle shape is a great example of using packaging structure for distinctive effect, the more interesting story is about the placement. Having decided to go the 100% route, the product then had to be sold refrigerated. Rather than fight for placement with hundreds of other juice products, they chose to put it in the produce aisle where they already had other products and existing relationships with the buyers.
5) Sentence first -- verdict afterwards: Although POM has spent large sums on scientific research, it didn't spend anything on consumer research to test demand. Instead it chose to go straight to an in-market test. The plan was to field the test in California and the expectation was that the product would be popular with older people looking for healthy products. But a grocery strike forced a change of plan and they ended up launching in New York. Turned out it wasn't older, health-seeking consumers who drove demand. It was 28-year olds who bought it because it was chic.
6) Believe impossible things: Could one of the large CPG companies have succeeded with a product like this? I think it's doubtful. In my experience, the financial and risk management culture of most of these companies would either have killed the product before launch or starved it soon after. I'm pretty sure that, when I was a brand manager, I would not have been able to get the money for the scientific study, I would not have been able to launch without strong research results, I would not have been able to develop a product without mass appeal, I would not have been able to launch with such expensive packaging and I would not have been able to switch test markets from one coast to the other. In short, unlike Ms. Resnick, I would not have been able to recognize the true value in what I had.
Note: A more complete account of POM Wonderful's successful launch can be found in Lynda Resnick's book: Rubies in the Orchard. I haven't read the book myself but the Amazon reviews suggest that it gives insight not just on the marketing activities that made POM Wonderful a success but also on the personality and drivers of the POMQueen herself.
And after that gentle title, Simon Silvester launches into:
"Tom is a brand manager. His approach is thoroughly professional. He’s searching the world for best practice, and is bringing it to his brand. He’s also benchmarking his brand against competitors, making it look as good as they do. And he’s optimizing his communication plans, ensuring they’re best-in-class. What’s the problem? ‘Seeking best practice’, ‘benchmarking’ and ‘best-in-class’ sound important. But they all mean Tom is copying his competitors. And because his competitors are professionals too, they are copying Tom back. In today’s world, everyone is searching for the same best practice. Everyone benchmarks against each other. And everyone optimizes their communications plans. Everyone is copying each other. And so their brands are becoming clones."
He points out that in a world of perfect information where everyone has access to the same quality research and online information, there's a tendency for Tom and everyone else in an industry to come up with the same insights at the same time, launching the same products with the same key messages.
Which is a problem because it's differentiation that's drives brand strength and it's differentiation that's threatened by analysis that puts everyone on the same road instead of the road less traveled.
Getting the balance right between points of parity (things that you must do to be perceived by consumers as credible in your category) and points of difference that can help you stand out from the rest has always been a tough marketing challenge. I think that Simon's report is a useful reminder that we should get so besotted by the power of sophisticated tools that focus on points of parity (like benchmarking) that we forget about the trickier challenge of finding ways to be different.
Much to the irritation of Chicagoans, The Sears Tower, the nation's tallest building and best-known city landmark, officially becomes the Willis Tower today.
Joseph Plumeri, chairman of Willis Group Holdings and the guy who negotiated the name change even though he occupies less than 5% of the office space in the building, is unapologetic and says that Chicago should be celebrating his company's visibility and local commitment.
A Willis spokesperson acknowledged that: “Old habits die hard" but feels that "ultimately people will come to embrace the Willis name.” We'll see. I'm not sure that the best way to strike up a relationship with a community is by trying to change the name of one of its best known, best loved symbols.
Kai Ryssdal, of NPR's Marketplace, interviewed Doug Palladini, Vans Vice President of Marketing about the secret of his brand's success. It's a classic story of a niche brand sticking to what it knows best, in this case for 40 years.
After receiving a huge early boost when Sean Penn wore his own pair of Vans playing the character Spicoli in the movie "Fast Times at Ridgemont High," Vans has mainly kept its focus on its thick, rubber-soled, canvas-topped, cool shoes. Whenever it wandered too far from its home base it got burned. This was the key exchange:
RYSSDAL: How do you keep going with this brand, that has evolved really not very much in the last 40 years, right? I mean it was cool shoes then, and it's cool shoes and some other stuff now.
PALLADINI: What we always try to do is dive back into what makes us original and authentic. And it's almost going back that allows us to move forward. You know, we've had times in our past, and we've been through bankruptcy where we've tried to reach beyond who we are as a brand. We've made wrestling shoes, clown shoes, skydiving shoes. We did a whole running thing... It is that Southern California culture of music, art, action sports, street culture all wrapped together around this basic-looking shoe. That is really what it is.
Earth Day is just around the corner, a can't-miss opportunity for more and more companies to talk about their green credentials. But if everyone is doing it, as Landor's Allen Adamson points out in the WSJ and USA Today, how can anyone stand out from the crowd?
If there's one brand that does deserve to be in the limelight, it must be SunChips which has gone way beyond a single day tie-in. It has made a commitment to the environment the core idea for its brand. Here are some of the things that it has done:
1) Its name: Perhaps someone from the brand can confirm this for me but I believe that the brand name SunChips pre-dates any specific commitment to the environment. So call this a lucky break but the name provides a connection between the brand and its eco-friendly activities that others don't have. It makes its green activities make sense.
2) Its products: Are all (relatively) healthy. So there's no inconsistency between what you're eating and what they are saying about the environment. Healthy inside and out.
2) Its manufacturing process: Back in 2007, I posted that Frito-Lay was planning to create an eco-friendly chip by taking its Casa Grande plant in Arizona off the power grid, running it on renewable fuels and recycled water. And, yes, this is the plant where SunChips are made. SunChips are made by solar energy. It can't get much better than that.
3) Compostable packaging: But now, with the name, product and manufacturing process all in place, the brand team is off to the races. What to green light next? So, for this Earth Day, SunChips has announced that it will rollout compostable packaging. This ad below shows a time lapse of how the 100% biodegradable bag decomposes in 14 weeks. It's a first for the industry:
4) Marketing: They've not forgotten about marketing either. This new ad links to the greeneffect.com which talk about a competition launched in partnership with National Geographic to support the best green ideas.
It's the whole package from manufacturing all the way through to sales and marketing that gives SunChips eco-credentials almost impossible for competitors to match. As a branding guy, I just have to root for SunChips to be successful (even though I don't actually like the chips all that much myself). I sure hope that lots of people buy the new packages. Otherwise, it's going to be one hell of a mess in the stores.
Here's an idea that may need to be shot down in flames: Disposable brands.
The Pitch: Some businesses are becoming more and more fashion-driven. Think of cell phones, for example. It's a constant barrage of new products each fighting for a share of attention and each rapidly becoming old news. In such an environment, disposable brands (brands with intentionally limited lives) may be the answer. The LG chocolate phone may be a current example.
The advantage: Disposable brands can be optimized and positioned against very specific marketing opportunities without worrying about the future consequences. For example, it's normally the death of a brand to be associated with a particular technology or a fleeting market trend because sooner or later that technology or trend will be gone. With disposable brands, it doesn't matter. They will be too.
The downside: There's the question of waste. All those marketing dollars spent against a brand that won't be around next year? It's a valid concern but the money won't necessarily be wasted. If disposable brands are connected to/endorsed by the parent brand, the relevance and differentiation that they spark will feed back and energize the parent brand.
Disposable vs. Platform: Why not create platform brands that can exist through many generations of innovation? Plenty of examples of these from car brands (Toyota Camry) to laptops (Dell Latitude). This may be the right answer but platform brands have their own problems. For example, once established, the temptation to keep them going and going to leverage previous investment is tough to resist making it very difficult to kill them even when they've lost their relevance (Sony Walkman?).
An analogy: Most new movies are one-offs. The movie industry does create platforms (aka sequels) but it's rare for a series to go beyond a third iteration. There was a Rocky 6 (Rocky Balboa) and, of course, there is the Bond franchise (now up to #22 with Quantum of Solace).
Summing up: Disposable brands: 1) Disposable brands may be a viable option in categories are fashion, trend and/or technologically driven. 2) They need to to endorsed by/connected to the parent brands so that the parent brands benefit from the relevance and differentiation they generate and marketing waste is reduced. 3) Platform brands will often be the better approach. 4) It's time for the 007 series to end.
As I was driving into work the other day, and idly switching stations because NPR was on a pledge break, I happened to hear a political commentator say something like: People will vote in this election 10% on the candidates policies and 90% on emotion and gut.
It was one of those screeching, who shouts the loudest type shows so I continued switching to some other station but I did wonder if this statement is true. And, if true, does this type of decision making apply to everything or just to politics?
So, this morning, I started searching around for a reference. All search roads led to a book by Drew Westen called: The Political Brain: the Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. The book is written from the Democrats perspective asking how come they keep losing to the Republicans and why are so many people voting against what they perceive to be their self interest.
Westen's thesis is that the Democrats like Dukakis, Kerry and Gore lost because they tried to appeal to the dispassionate, rational, fact-sensitive voter whereas Republicans have done a better job of tapping into emotions. "Voters don't want to be inundated with facts, they want to be awash in feelings. Voting is emotional, not cognitive," Westen said in an interview while promoting his book.
So, what about soap? Or used cars? Or computers? How important are functional benefits and competitive advantages for those products? Or are they just useful to help consumers rationalize decisions they've already emotionally made? Is logic category-specific or is emotion always more important?
Photo: Union Bank of California rebuilds its headquarters after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake
The incredible events of the last few weeks have, to say the least, shaken up the financial services sector. As a brand strategist, I've been watching with shock and awe as company after company has been swallowed up by this man and mortgage-made disaster--some put completely out of business, others forced into marriages with financial institutions they would never otherwise have been attracted to, arranged by the FDIC, shotgun in hand.
At the time of writing, the storm (like the bailout plan) has not yet passed but it's not too early to think about the remantling of what has been so suddenly dismantled. Looking at things from my branding perspective, some observations and some questions:
1) Rebuilding trust: Bank failures were something you read about in history books. No longer. People's confidence and trust in financial institutions has taken a hit and it's going to take time and energy to win that trust back. What's needed? A clear and transparent way to show customers that lessons have been learned and changes have been made in how investment decisions are made.
We can expect a fair degree of cynicism from consumers so recently treated to taglines like: “The strength to be there" (in a before-the-meltdown AIG spot). And we should not expect either that consumers will be easily persuaded by talk of how many billions of dollars of assets banks have. They've seen that billions were not enough to save the likes of WAMU ($310 billion in assets).
Banks that stayed clear of the mortgage business in the last couple of years and those that have had a diversified or large enough business to ride the storm will have enormous advantages going forward. But, even for them, what's called for now is a conservative, perhaps humbler, approach. Very much back to basics.
2) Integrating assets: Bank of America, Chase and Citi have huge amount of work ahead of them integrating the assets of companies that they have acquired. Even Bank of America, an expert in integration after years of acquisitions, is likely to be stretched to its limit as it tries to absorb Merrill Lynch on top of not-yet-fully-digested Countrywide and LaSalle Bancorp. One important and fragile asset is people. Companies will have to move quickly to retain talent and engage employees from acquired companies with a shared vision of the future.
3) Integrating brands: Some businesses find themselves living together in very unexpected unions. WAMU was all about not being the same as other banks. Now it's part of JPMorgan Chase. Who would have thought that Bank of America and Merrill Lynch would wind up together? These sudden mergers throw up some interesting brand architecture questions. JP Morgan Chase has already announced that all branches of its combined network will carry the Chase brand. Is that right given WAMU's so distinctively different approach? How will they pull off that transition without losing customers? What should Bank of America do with Merrill? Leave it completely alone? Add some kind of endorsement like U.S. Trust? Or consider even closer integration? Will the overall trend in financial services towards master branding slow down or reverse if companies decide they need to build risk firewalls between one part of their business to stop problems in one area affecting everything else?
4) Improving customer experience: Both Wachovia and WAMU had focused on delivering superior customer experience as a way to differentiate themselves from the bigger banks. The Forrester's Customer Experience Index suggests that they had been successful since both banks were ranked towards the top of the list. Now that they've been acquired by Citi and Chase respectively, it will be interesting to see if any of the approaches they pioneered can be successfully transferred to the bigger banks.
5) Changing attitudes about money: How far will the current financial crisis affect people's attitudes about money? Will this crisis pull people back from living way beyond their means? Some are suggesting that it's time for people to start cutting back. Is that opinion likely to catch hold and, if so, will financial service companies then be held accountable for encouraging good financial behavior and discouraging poor behavior? Bank of America has been airing TV ads that focus on saving. Is this a good start?
Great commercials, innovative ways to reduce customer stress. Shouldn't the airlines get credit for things they're doing right at the moment? It's a sign of how deep a hole they've dug for themselves that even their best endeavors are criticized or arouse suspicion.
You'd think, for example, United Airlines would get praise for this commercial airing during the Olympics that continues the beautiful animation of previous spots and features, as ever, Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” music. Instead, people question whether United should be airing ads at all given the average customer's flying experience.
What about this story in The Detroit News about Delta Airlines using songs to get passengers to seats faster and generally reduce customer stress? Why was my first reaction an irrational feeling of not wanting to be manipulated?
The question is, having fallen so badly, what can airlines do to start turning things around?
From a communication standpoint, I think the advice of Michael Fassnacht is helpful--either don't advertise at all and reinvest in basic services or be completely upfront: "admit mistakes and be totally transparent and clear about what the airline is planning to do to address at least some of the problems."
From a customer experience perspective, take a read of Al St. Germain's thoughts in an article published recently on landor.com. He is Landor's Global Director of our airline practice and previously worked for an airline. As he says in the article, he only has to mention that fact at a dinner party to be inundated with suggestions and comments.
His point-of-view is that airlines undervalue intangibles such as customer service and focus too much on the physical things: "When it comes to making changes, it's much easier to change a seat than it is to change a person's actions and behaviours."
It's not going to be an easy road but once the airlines have finished charging us for water, soft drinks, extra bags and all of that, paying more attention to customer experience is something well worth considering.
Speedo's rout of its swimsuit competitors continues apace. 24 out of the first 25 gold Olympic gold medals have gone to swimmers wearing Speedo suits including the five (so far) won by Michael Phelps.
And lucky for them that Michael Phelps is so good that he can win races literally with his eyes closed. In the 200-meter butterfly final, his Speedo goggles filled with water but he still managed to win. Had he lost, the picture of him throwing his goggles away in disgust at the end of the race could have undone much of the benefit that Speedo has gained so far.
As it was, it was just a minor bump in the road and the Speedo marketing team can look forward to a tidal wave of opportunities to leverage all this success.
John McCain's plan to reposition Barack Obama as a celebrity rather than a true leader (via this campaign ad) has run into some unexpected opposition.
Paris Hilton, one of the celebrities shown in the ad, has fought back with an inspired video of her own. Not only does she bolster her own brand (and solve the energy crisis) but she also completely undercuts McCain's repositioning effort.
Great timing. Great execution. The "white-haired dude" got burned.
This quote comes from a recent post by David Taylor reporting on a speech given by Martin Glenn of Birds Eye Iglo, the frozen food business bought from Unilever by private equity group Permira.
The speech focused on getting back to basics and focusing on quality of execution, something he says is as important as brilliant strategy. He cites Tesco as an example: "Tesco did not re-invent the shopping experience," he says "They just did every bit of it better".
Of course, if you are better enough you are, in fact, different--the difference being one of degree rather than difference in kind (being uniquely different in what you offer). Where's that leave us? Execution is critical, great execution gives an edge and can establish a point of difference, finding something on top of that's unique (and relevant), all the better.
Ah! The ebb and flow of brand extension. Right now, retail is ebbing.
As Lisa Everitt says in a BNET article: "Has the retail industry fallen out of love with the spin-off? Looks that way. Pier One Kids, Talbots Kids and Mens, and Bombay Kids are now history. All were launched in the early 2000s with talk of 'expanding customer loyalty to the brand' and all were buried this year with words like 'dilution of our core business.'"
Now Gap has announced that it's closing some GapKids, babyGap and GapBody stores and consolidating them into larger Gap stores. But wait there's more. It's also combining its major brands (Old Navy, Banana Republic and Gap) online so shoppers can buy from all of them all at once. Hopfully this ebb will stop before we see the equivalent of those National/Alamo green/blue buses or the KFC/Taco Bell restaurants.
"J.M. Smucker Co., maker of Jif peanut butter and Pillsbury baking dough, agreed to buy Procter & Gamble Co.'s Folgers coffee business for about $3 billion in stock, to complement its breakfast and dessert businesses."
Let's see. What are the naming options? Smolgers? No that doesn't sound quite right. What else?
(Note: Updated based on (limited) research that indicated I had failed to connect in version #1)
Target has decided to try speed dating after the breakup of its relationship with Isaac Mizrahi. Rather than replace him with another big fashion name, it's going to play the field and feature lesser-known designers for short term stints.
The Mizrahi collection generated $300 million a year and was one of the ways that Target had successfully managed to distinguish itself from other retailers. But now he's left for a new opportunity at Liz Claiborne leaving a big hole in the portfolio.
The new approach builds on the success of the Go International program, launched in 2006, which puts guest designers fashions in stores for just a few weeks. This program will now be given greater prominence and supplemented by a Private Label Collection (Target branded) which will be in the stores in between the guest appearances.
This new format certainly means that Target will have plenty of variety, fresh talent etc. And according to this report the new collection is actually pretty good. But it seems to fall short from a brand perspective--less visible, less distinctive and likely to bring Target back a little closer to the pack.
RadioShack Plans Reinvention: BusinessWeek A good idea or not that Radio Shack is going to refer to itself as "The Shack" in a new marketing campaign?
SunChips Keeps Building Green Momentum: MarketingDaily SunChips is walking the walk when it comes to eco iniatives. Chips made by the sun in fully compostable bags.
Enough with the Value Message Already: Brandweek What are the alternatives to cutting prices to deal with the recession? Many marketers think "value" is the answer but that tactic is now over played.
Food's next billion-dollar brand? CNNMoney.com/Fortune Will Smart Balance be the one? Includes my "quip:" "They don't want to spread their promise too thin."
