June 7, 2011 In advertising, branding, design, graphic design By Patricia Saxton

A More "Refined" Jack Daniel's… But Why?

Brand makeovers are all the rage. And as a designer, I often see the value. But honestly, in this case I’m missing the point.

You wonder sometimes what drives a change like this,” when it ain’t broke”… unless it is. Or somebody with clout says it needs to happen, and it becomes more about what’s on the cover than what’s inside. Hmmm.

Not that the new label isn’t a good one. Thankfully it doesn’t kill the brand by overly modernizing, and I admit the cleaner look is attractive.  I just don’t know why they bothered. The old label was just … so … Jack Daniels. Classic JD, forever, the way it was…. until now. Cleaned up and  more refined. (Only Jack Daniel’s isn’t supposed to be refined, as I recall?)

new

old

I have to admit though, that reading some of the articles about it were pretty interesting. For example, I never knew that Jack is brewed in a dry county. That’s a little crazy.

As for the label, they got rid of a lot of the text, including fun details like the population count of 361 (so what if it wasn’t accurate? ~ it was an interesting historical tidbit). Gone is the folksy description of how they achieve the rich flavor. They’ve also removed the claim that Jack Daniel’s is America’s oldest distillery, and they took off the name of Lem Motlow.

Now as I’ve learned, Motlow inherited the distillery when his Uncle Jack died in 1911. Motlow promptly put his name on the bottle and kept the company alive throughout the dark days of prohibition and through the controversy arising after he drunkenly shot a man dead while riding aboard a train in 1924.

This is great stuff. But maybe legends are passe’ now.

Even Jack Daniel’s portrait boasts a new name: apparently his real name was Jasper Newton. Okay, that’s cool to know, but since he’s been called Jack since 1866, I wonder what he’d have to say about that.

Oh well, the deed is done, but the vote is out. The label is still very black, and I assume the whiskey is still quality Tennessee sour mash, and at the end of the day, no one will really care that the label got a facelift. Of course, they wouldn’t have cared if it hadn’t, either.

…………………….

Afterthought: If no one cares either way, and the company isn’t suffering, maybe they did it … under the guise of updating and being more “honest” (ie, population, possibility that JD might not be the oldest distillery, etc.)…  but really and simply, just for the heck of it? 

0
0
May 31, 2011 In advertising, branding, business, communication, presentation By Patricia Saxton

What's the Big Deal About Branding? (part one)

I’m not a big soda drinker. (“pop” for you midwesterners)

But the other day while filling up at the gas station, enjoying the first sunny day in forever, I realized it was downright hot outside. As I reveled in the solar warmth, the green green trees and blue blue skies, my eyes wandered over to a lonely looking soda machine. And quite suddenly, I was struck with desire. I wanted a soda. I just really wanted one.

So I got change from the attendant, put my shiny coins in the slot, and wa-la! ~ down tumbled a beautiful, cold bottle of Coke.

Yes, definitely a Coke. Because to me, if you’re gonna have a soda (or a “pop”), it should be “the real thing”. I might even want to teach the world to sing… in perfect harmony….

You probably get my point… Coke has real brand recognition. It’s strong. So much so that I remember their ads from 20 years ago, maybe more. They’ve made (and continue to make) an impression.

So, you say, yea, well, they’re big guns. They’re a big deal with a big name and big budgets and a big audience. What does Coca-Cola’s great advertising have to do with a small business or an entrepreneur?

A lot.

Take away the “big name” and all the trappings that go with it and you’ve essentially got what branding is all about: Consistency and integrity.

Coke’s example is this: a steady graphic look since its inception, modernizing with the times, but never losing its core visual ~ AND a steady message that’s upbeat, positive and rings of authenticity. By keeping both their look and their message consistent, they maintain the vital quality of integrity.

Branding isn’t just a logo. It’s not just a website. It’s not a twitter account. It IS everything you or your business presents to the public.

Every word and every image in every medium and circumstance speaks on your behalf. These are your “brand”. They represent you in person, and when you can’t be there (which is most of the time), they represent a virtual reflection.

So if you have 3 different websites with 3 different looks, if you have people with different voices handling your social media, if your visuals look clean and sharp in one place and sloppy in another, you will confuse your audience. And confusing your audience is not something to take lightly in a world where so much is vying for people’s attention.

So, yes, your brand, your “identity”, is a big deal. Keep it consistent and let it walk, and talk, with integrity. More on integrity and authenticity in “part two”… For the time being, let’s just say, make it the real thing.


4
0
April 26, 2011 In advertising, branding, business, communication, graphic design, words and language By Patricia Saxton

Ouch.

And they paid (one wonders how much) for this?

I was in Denver last week. Went to a Rockies game. It was fun. (It was also cold. I like the Rockies, but I don’t like cold.)  Anyway, we’re sitting in our seats, donning our new (and very spiffy) Rockies caps, wrapped in blankets, waiting to be wowed by Ubaldo, the newly returning post-injury star pitcher, when my vision is distracted by a bright, bigger-than-life banner across the stands. The banner is advertising something about Qwest and Century Link. That’s fine, whatever ~ I don’t really care, and I focus back on the game.

But wait.

My eyes flit back to the bigger-than-life sign. Somehow it’s demanding my attention… and I find that I do care. In fact, I care so much I’m appalled. Because there it is, a gaping grammatical error in full baseball-stadium-sized color for all the world to see.

And I think, “they paid for this”. They actually paid, big bucks, for this. Do they think it’s right? Do they not speak the language? (Oh, and by the way, these are communication companies…) Are they kidding me? Is our increasingly short attention-spanned society and the need for sound bites and quick one-two punch lines really more valuable than saying it right? Are we overriding “well spoken” for the “grab ’em fast” mentality?

Now I’ll admit that in the scheme of life, this is not a deal breaker. It’s not a catastrophe. It’s not “important”. But it definitely offends my inner nerd, my sense of language and yes, my professionalism! It’s not okay.

Note to Qwest and Century Link: Call me. (saxton studio) I can do it better, correctly, AND probably for a quite a few less dollars than your ad agency charged. :  )

4
0
October 17, 2010 In advertising, branding, business, communication, graphic design, presentation By Patricia Saxton

When It's Wrong to Redesign a Brand

Much time, and probably a lot more money, was spent making recent logo changes on some big company re-branding efforts.

EXHIBIT A:  Tetley Tea.  Tom’s of Maine.  The GAP. (old on left, new on right)

The question I ask: “Why”? Have sales been down? Was company morale low? Were they experiencing a scandalous attack? Were decision-making-someones simply bored?

Now, don’t get me wrong ~ I’m all about  presentation and the power of “look and feel”, and if any one of these companies had asked me to give them a redesign, I would have gladly obliged. But – not to sound immodest, as I believe most designers given the opportunity would say the same thing– I would have handled it quite differently, and I’d like to think, more effectively.

One lesson I would apply: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. This is the part of “Branding 101” known as consumer recognition.

Brand Connections …

Big Brands elicit a kind of personal connection – for better or worse, we make mental, even emotional, associations with how they look. And that association comes from recognition, which stems from the basic concept of consistency.

For high-profile brands, the success derived from established logo/packaging recognition can seriously outweigh whether or not a look is amazing.

As shown in “Exhibit A”, Tetley’s old package was far from hip or upscale ~ but, as a tea drinker who personally loves the smooth, full-bodied flavor of Tetley’s British Blend, I can vouch that the old package says “rich flavor” much more than the new package, which (I truly hate to say) looks more like packaging for a feminine product.

Tom’s, another brand I enjoy, previously used friendly, round shaped bottles and a graphic treatment that worked well with its natural product, whereas the new look reminds me of a bad Web 2.0 design in an oddly shaped container.

As for GAP, the logo may not have been exciting, but it was solid with really nothing wrong.

Doing it right….

For companies/products with already high recognition, rather than reinvent the wheel, redesigns would best be served by tweaking and updating.

EXHIBIT B:  Morton Salt.  Ronzoni.

Morton and Ronzoni made changes with the times, without shocking overhauls. They’ve retained their original intent and managed to successfully alter their look by doing it gradually, with key elements maintained and integrity in tact.

The message being, don’t send your customers on a wild goose chase trying to find your *new and improved* packaging, OR throw them into a tizzy because their familiar, trusted product got a makeover and a new doo, like a friend who’s trying to be, or is turning into, someone else.

Beyond the fact that many people don’t like change, there’s something to be said for the comfort of familiarity in a world that moves too fast and holds many a slick deal.

On the other hand, improvements can be refreshing. Kind of like when you’re loathe to part with an old, favorite shetland sweater ~ but that nice new cashmere in a similar style and color might be hard to resist.

Refreshing is good. But different and unfamiliar is not a smart promotional move. Why discombobulate, and possibly alienate, your audience? For what purpose?

To redesign or not to redesign?

Okay, so maybe the Tetley, Tom’s and GAP folks had good reason for the change. Let’s go ahead and assume the most practical reason: lagging sales or market competition.

But let’s also put it out there that the cause of lagging sales or struggle with market competition just might have more to do with things much less glamorous than a logo or fancy packaging ~ things like business plans and marketing structure, advertising strategies or customer awareness issues.

So that usually, and particularly in the case of well-known companies/products, changing the logo is not the remedy.

(Worth noting at this point … if you’re a start-up company, or your business has been around but floundering in a sea of mediocrity, by all means, run to a great designer. Boosting the look of your branding may be just what’s needed to boost momentum and shift the energy.)

Well, what’s done is done (except in the case of the GAP, who apparently quickly reverted to their original logo after public outcry! ) … but the questions remain:

1. Is it worth the shake-up to completely re-brand a good thing? (I think not.)

2. Will re-branding a good thing turn the consumer away? (Again, I think not… although you may whine, as I have. But if you love Tetley tea, you won’t stop buying it because you don’t like the new package.)

3. In the end, was it worth the time and money to do all that dramatic re-doing?  (Right … I think not.)

4. Could that time and money have been more wisely used? (Most definitely, yes.)

Conclusion: Sometimes it’s wrong to redeisgn a brand. I rest my case.

1
0