moonShine

Gap’s Changing Logo: Brilliant or Blunder?

Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:37:00 GMT

Gap’s changing logo caused quite a stir last week as they quietly soft-launched a new logo on their web site and a few days later – amidst brand-bashing and Monday-morning-quarterbacking – announced they were returning to their old logo. The commentary I read and heard ranged from irrelevant (“I don’t like the new logo”, “It’s bad design”) to opportunistic (“What were you thinking, Gap? Let my agency show you the way.”) to arrogant (“It was a mistake”, "You should never soft-launch a new logo.")

Whether Gap’s decision to change its logo was wrong or right may be fun to debate but is a question with no real answer. Instead, as a brand strategist and executive coach (and a former Gap Inc. employee), these are the questions I care about:

What was the new logo solving for?

My guess is that one of Gap’s objectives was to signal newness through the new logo, a common and worthy objective for any re-brand. If that, in fact, was true for Gap then that leads to my next question.

What’s new other than the logo? What story did Gap want to tell?

When creating a new name for a product or company, it is often said that a name is an opportunity to tell a story.

So is a new logo.

And that’s what is really missing here: a compelling story that Gap’s target customer cares about. A new logo absent that story risks seeming random and ambiguous. And, without Gap supplying said story, others filled in the blank – to Gap’s detriment.

Why now?

Gap’s business has been challenging for a while so what makes now the right time for such a visible and significant change? I can assure you that creating and implementing a new logo is expensive, complicated, workload-intensive and a lengthy process - not a decision made lightly or easily. That said, it can be exciting and a spot-on-right decision that corresponds with a bigger change that is happening within a company. See above.

Who are we talking to?

Who is the target audience that your brand/product/stores exist to serve?

What do we want the logo to communicate?

What is the desired perception you intend to create in the mind of your target? What is the role of the logo?

What is the logo communicating to your target audience?

What is the actual perception created? Does the logo communicate what you need it to communicate to the people that matter most? How do you know?

Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Gap's original decision, the brand stumbled in the execution of that decision. Gap seemed (whether true or not) unprepared to share a relevant, meaningful story behind their decision and, therefore, missed a plum platform to garner more attention, enhance brand perceptions and drive people into their stores – the latter being the real name of the game. This story gap (no pun intended) fueled negative perceptions and commentary that sent the company spinning. In branding (and life), perception is everything and Gap’s brand became easy fodder for every Tom, Dick and Harry to spew on.

But all is not lost for Gap because within difficulty lies opportunity.

Enter Don Draper in the October 10 episode of Mad Men, "Blowing Smoke". After being fired by Lucky Strike, one of the ad agency’s largest accounts, Don “changed the conversation” with a full-page New York Times ad that read “Why I Quit Tobacco.” His tactic, an implicit ad for the agency itself, was designed to change client and industry perceptions about the agency from one that was sinking to one that was calling its own shots.

If Draper changed the conversation, Gap has just started a conversation. More people are talking more about Gap now than they have in years and that is an opportunity for any brand to leverage. So, the real question now is this:

What will Gap do with this attention?

Shine on, Gap, and welcome to the conversation. Keep it going.

Lululemon "Schools" in Branding

Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:48:00 GMT

I smiled when I flipped to the back cover of my Yoga Journal Magazine and landed on Lululemon’s “Old Skool” ad. In fact, weeks later, I’m still tickled by the company’s bold campaign. Here’s why.

It’s daring

In the midst of a yoga industry that is predominantly female and a Western culture obsessed with youth, Lululemon rejects the old school rule that only sex sells with young risqué models, airbrushed beauty and unattainable perfection. Instead, the brand confidently features a non-model 72-year-old bare-chested man sans six-pack abs practicing a classic yoga pose with imperfect perfection. (He also happens to have an inspiring connection to the brand.)

Few brands targeting 20-30-40-something women would (or could) dare to do the same, demonstrating the true strength of Lululemon's brand. The payoff is powerful because their daring brand is also a differentiated brand and that’s no easy task for any brand.

It’s meaningful

Lululemon’s ad optimistically portrays a relevant, unavoidable human truth: We’re all getting older. Everyday. Every single one of us. And, if you’re lucky, you will be “old” someday.

No worries per Lululemon’s brand. It’s all good. In fact, if you wake up and embrace life, getting older can be downright cool. “Practice yoga so you can remain active in physical sports as you age,“ reads the fine print in the ad. It also happens to be part of Lululemon’s inspiring manifesto. Personally, I’m also a big fan of the mantra-like brand line locked to their logo: Yoga. Love. Run. Peace.

Right on, man. I’m in.

It’s emotional

I sense the brand connecting with me through a philosophy (a big idea that is harder to replicate) rather than selling to me through product. They leave the latter to their stores, packaging and web site to showcase high quality, stylish, fit-flattering product.

The connection happens because it’s based on insight and understanding. They understand that I want to grow older consciously with grace, ease and humor – and without feeling self-conscious for growing older. I also want to be surrounded by love (puppies!) and as active and healthy as possible. You could say that the ad is a “master’s class” in how to create an emotional connection with a brand’s target customer.

Collectively, Lululemon delivers a strategic trifecta and a memorable, stand-for-something campaign. And, importantly, the ad did more than just tickle my heart. It also made a beeline into my wallet; I ran straight to my favorite Lululemon store and bought several new yoga tops. (I needed them!)

Shine on, Lululemon. Thanks for the "skooling."

One Way To Be More Like Google

Wed, 19 May 2010 03:32:00 GMT

Watch CBS News Videos Online

“Hey, why not have fun with our company branding and logo?” a senior executive wondered aloud in a meeting one day.

Had this otherwise forbidden question been asked in a conventional branding meeting, it probably would have garnered eye rolls and a wave of silent judgment against the credibility of the wondering executive. Tee up the next snowball for the office gossip machine!

As you probably guessed, the sabotaged credibility didn’t happen to the executive in this example because the question was posed by Google’s founders. Today, the brand’s famous changing logo is a distinct and much talked-about/blogged about element of the Google brand identity. Google’s logo, however, is merely the outcome of one simple thing the company seems to do naturally and unapologetically. And, any brand, business or individual can be more like Google – today – by doing that one thing:

Dare to be curious.

It may sound simple, but giving ourselves and others permission to be curious is not always easy. It may even go against our early conditioning.

Growing up, I was always that kid in the classroom with my hand in the air. Insatiably curious and genuinely interested in understanding and learning, I asked questions. Most kids do, but I somehow became the go-to girl for asking what everybody else wanted to know. This quality and designated role weren’t necessarily appreciated, however, as evidenced by my third grade teacher who routinely issued exasperated reprimands to my queries (“Don’t contradict me, Katy!”)

In retrospect, my teacher probably interpreted my questions as personal challenges to her authority or knowledge. Her irritated responses were confusing, though, to my 9-year-old brain. More importantly, my teacher’s (mis)behavior had an important impact on me:

It shamed me for being curious.

Without necessarily intending to, my teacher established the cultural tone of her classroom, stifling the air of curiosity just as it began to breathe. While other kids laughed and made fun of me, they also avoided asking questions. They didn’t want to be the recipient of our teacher’s wagging finger wrath and the subsequent group ridicule of the class. And that is the real shame in the story.

“Live the questions”, Rilke encourages, yet doing so means an inherent “not knowing” that can feel risky. Should we know the answers already? Are we the only one who doesn't know or cares about knowing? And expressing our curiosity can feel even riskier because it exposes us to being judged in a meeting ("We tried that last year"), at a party ("You haven't heard of...?!"), in a relationship ("You're over-thinking things."). So we often go along and don’t express what we're curious about, playing it safe and stifling more curiosity. We also miss the fruit that is born from a curious mind.

I recently attended an industry conference, iCitizen, where Wired Magazine’s Kevin Kelly sagely suggested that “we’ve got to get better at believing the impossible” because it is our belief in the impossible that makes it possible. And, I believe, it is our curiosity that seeds this belief in the impossible. In other words, courageously asking “what if…?” can be the first step to creating the impossible. Just ask Steve Jobs. Or Einstein. Or Bono. Or Oprah.You get the gist.

I believe curiosity is imperative to being an innovative organization, relevant brand and growing human being. I never did buy the notion that “curiosity killed the cat.” On the contrary, without curiosity, we die a little bit inside – as companies, teams and human beings. So what if we hold curiosity differently and build relationships and team cultures around “living the questions”? What if curiosity is an elixir for possibility and innovation?

Ask yourself a few a quick questions:

1. How present (or absent) is curiosity in your life? Team? Organization?

2. How much (or little) do you express your curiosity in a group setting?

3. How do you serve (or shame) your own curiosity? Your team's? Your organization's?

4. What is the belief that allows (or restrains) curiosity in your life? Your team? Organization?

5. What's the cost (or benefit) of that belief?

Your responses are not for you to brag or fret about. They are simply to raise your awareness about how things are right now. Because when we know where we are, we can see more clearly where we need to go.

So get curious. Allow yourself to be curious. Live in it, swim in it. Make room for it. Enjoy it, encourage it. Reward it. Google does.

Shine on, curious cats. I dare you.

Nike Begins Rebuilding Tiger's Brand: Love or Loathe?

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 00:41:00 GMT

I’ll admit it. This ad got to me…a little bit.

Not hook-line-and-sinker such that I’m now a Tiger fan. But, Nike expertly redirected my attention to where it matters most in branding – my emotions. I connected with my heart and what I perceived to be Tiger’s heart. Simultaneously, my negative emotions were temporarily diffused and I began to reconsider Tiger as a man and brand.

Tiger, I am more prone to be inquisitive, to promote discussion. I want to find out what your thinking was. I want to find out what your feelings are. And did you learn anything.

His father’s voice over made me wonder what I was thinking and feeling as I watched this ad and what I have learned. You might be surprised. I was.

Thinking. I wanted to believe that there is some good in Tiger at his core. That he got seduced by excess and access and has suffered equally excessive judgment from the world. That maybe, just maybe, he is waking up to the impact of his self-absorbed ways. That he is soul searching about who he is and how he wants to be known.

Feeling. I was open and felt some warmth toward his humanity. His expression reminded me of my brother as a young kid when he emerged from my mom washing his mouth out with soap. Embarrassed. Vulnerable. Determined. Beaten, but not broken. I was rooting for him…a little.

What I have learned. Words can seduce and inspire but actions are the true measure of integrity. I can change my mind. I can forgive… in time. A celebrity’s image is often deceiving and completely unrelated to reality. Only time will tell.

Please understand, I didn’t completely leave my brain at the door when I watched the ad. I’m still a woman and I still believe that if you want to sleep with countless women, you’re entitled to as long as you don’t drag someone else into your drama by marrying them, promising a lifetime of fidelity and having children with them. And, I can still laugh at intelligent parodies.

That said, Nike deserves some kudos for walking a very fine line here. They displayed bold loyalty to Tiger without condoning, yet implicitly acknowledging, his behavior. And whether you loathe or love the ad, it was back-to-basics creative risk-taking at a pivotal moment. In my opinion, they not only took a positive first step in rebuilding Tiger’s brand, Nike also fine-tuned its own brand.

So do I love or loathe Tiger's brand?

Neither.

I’m curious about how Tiger will learn (or not) from his downfall. More than anything, I am hopeful. I hope Tiger becomes a man to be admired for more than golf. I hope he becomes a great man – and that has nothing to do with golf.

To the real great men and great brands out there, shine on.

What will happen to Sandra Bullock's brand?

Wed, 31 Mar 2010 23:01:00 GMT

I wrote a blog about Sandra Bullock the day after she won her Academy Award. I never posted it. In it, I waxed and waned about why I admired her and the romantic contrast of “Sandra Bullock the Brand” (SBTB), before and after marrying Jesse James. Although heartfelt when I wrote it, it seemed a bit bandwagon-y when I re-read it a few hours later so I opted to wait on posting it. I wasn’t sure what I was waiting for.

Less than two weeks later, the personal world of Sandra Bullock took a dramatic turn with the unsavory tales of her tattooed husband. Since there’s more than enough being written about all of this, I won't add more conjecture to the overflowing, heartbreaking pot. Instead, I'll follow Betty White’s lead and wish Sandy well as she resolves her relationship privately.

What I will speculate about, however, is this: What will happen to SBTB?

In a word, she will thrive.

SBTB will thrive because her brand foundation is deeply rooted in authenticity and integrity. She walks the walk and that matters – a lot – in branding (and in life). It’s why we are drawn to her. It’s why this story is front-page news. A bad thing is happening to a good person. We care about the story because we care about her. (Well, we care about SBTB because we don’t actually know her. We only have our perception and that's SBTB.) Her husband’s alleged bad behavior only enhances the contrast of his dark to her light and, in turn, makes her brighter. (The same can not necessarily be said, by the way, about Hillary’s brand when Bill Clinton misbehaves in his marriage.)

So what’s the lesson for brands? It's simple but not easy. True authenticity and integrity go a longggggggggg way. And, if bad things happen to you, true loyalists will have your back.

Shine on, Sandy. Be the bright star that you are (and I’m not talking about Hollywood.)

---------------------------

Olay Regenerist: I (Almost) Love You

Fri, 19 Mar 2010 21:34:00 GMT

In addition to my primary business of Brand Coaching, I have a secret hobby. I’m a skincare connoisseur.

Those who know me well can confirm that I lovvvvvvvvvvvvvvvve products and am always on the alert for what will make my skin look its best. I have tried everything from uber-expensive (e.g., La Mer) to ultra-affordable (e.g., Cetaphil). And, there can be a difference that is not represented by price. My skin is particularly important to me because, to date, I am on the au naturale route to beauty (i.e., no Botox or other cosmetic enhancements) and my entire makeup regime consists of lipstick and blush. (Caveat: I reserve the right to change my route at a future date.)

My contextual preamble is leading up to this: I’m a big fan of Olay Regenerist because the P&G brand managers got a lot of the “P’s” right when they created this line:

Product: It’s a superior drug/grocery/mass store product and on par with spa and department store lines. It really is. Love it.

Price: Priced to trade-up existing Olay customers and attract new customers (i.e., people like me who have previously scoffed at making my skincare investment at Walgreens) I have to stretch to spend the $25ish at Walgreens. I know, though, that it is far less than I would pay at Bloomie’s or Bliss for a comparable product and it makes me feel smart.

Placement: Nailed this, too. Leveraging the equity of P&G's portfolio of brands, Regenerist benefits from prime shelf placement in the drug, grocery and mass channels. It must be popular, too, because the line is frequently locked behind a plastic cover where I shop.

Promotion: The advertising is cut-through, compelling and motivates me to place (or keep) Regenerist in my consideration set.

Four stars? Not yet.

There is a BIG obvious opportunity for P&G brand managers within Promotion. Here it is:

Do you know difference between Olay Regenerist, Olay Definity, Olay Professional, and Olay Total Effects?

Me neither. And, if a skin care connoisseur like me can’t easily navigate the shelf – who can?

Regenerist and the other Olay brands seem unclear about their brand architecture and have nearly skipped the “moment of truth – instore – where we decide to buy or not buy. P&G knows this principle. Heck, they invented it. So why have they ignored it? This instore opportunity (including packaging) is untapped potential for all of the Olay brands and creates a frustrating shopping experience for consumers trying to make sense of their growing number of products and brands. P&G, I know you know better than this.

Shine on, Regenerist. I really do want to love you. And, if you transform the shopping experience the way you transform my skin, I’ll love you forever (and tell everyone). Promise.

Why Jamie Oliver Is Sexy

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:02:00 GMT

I watched Jamie’s TedTalk for a second time last night – on Valentine’s Eve, no less – and pondered what makes him so darn captivating. After eliminating the obvious (e.g., British accent, content of his Talk), it came down to one thing.

Passion.

Jamie personifies passion. He allows himself to care with abandon and abandon any care of self-consciousness for doing so. He is a rare and lucky man because his passion (food) became his profession. Even luckier, his passion is becoming his Purpose:

“I wish for everyone to help create a strong, sustainable movement to educate every child about food, inspire families to cook again and empower people everywhere to fight obesity.

– Jamie Oliver, TED Prize Wish, TED2010

Jamie’s the real deal with unapologetic zeal and unassuming charm, conveying he’s “all in” with his cause and inspires us to be, too. Indeed, sources tell me that he inspired several movers and shakers at TED to support his efforts moments after finishing his Talk!

Simply put, Jamie's essence is passion-in-action and there is nothing sexier to me.

Shine on, Jamie, and thanks for the Talk.

Google: Rule Breaker, Rule Maker

Wed, 07 Oct 2009 03:15:00 GMT

I believe in nurturing my inner rule-breaking self every so often. Sometimes, when I’m feeling really crazy, I do rule-breaking things like driving with the AC on and windows down to remind myself that I am an adult and in charge of my life. Besides being silly and fun, though, breaking rules can give birth to innovation. The rule breaker often, in fact, becomes the rule maker.

A sacred rule of branding used to be this:

Never, ever desecrate your logo. Ever, ever, ever.

The rationale was based, in part, on the value of establishing a recognizable, differentiated visual expression for a brand. Inconsistency is generally considered an inefficient, confusing way to do that. Indeed, detailed guidelines are written to minimize such branding blasphemy and deter designers from exercising their personal vision for a brand.

And then came Google, who smooshed this old-school branding rule and created its own rule:

Strategically, consistently alter the logo in a contained way

Containment = no confusion
To my knowledge, the Google logo transforms only on Google’s own web site, minimizing any confusion because we know we’re on Google! (If you have seen it elsewhere, please enlighten me.)

(Google's birthday logos the past two years.)

Consistently inconsistent = new expectations
Google changes its logo so consistently that this “inconsistency” has become part of the brand identity. In other words, being off-brand is really being on-brand for Google. I now expect and look forward to new logo iterations on holidays. Even better, a new Google logo prompts me to pause and educates me about something relevant and interesting.

(Water Day in 2005)

(Summer Olympics in Greece, 2004)

Strategic = thoughtful engagement
It’s strategic because it’s a thoughtful, differentiated way to engage users intellectually and emotionally. From obvious holidays (e.g, Thanksgiving) to not-so-obvious holidays (e.g., Louise Braille’s birthday) to practical jokes (e.,g., April Fool’s Day), Google’s changing logo reflects what’s happening in the world and creates an emotional connection with users. It also generates water cooler/FaceBook/Twitter talk, too (“Did you see Google’s logo this morning?”) All of this injects “juice” and intrigue into an otherwise functionally driven brand and conveys a Google personality that is real, funny, and intelligent. It makes us love the brand Google and not just the search engine.

(Thanksgiving 2000)

(Louise Braille's birthday, 2006)

(April Fool's Day, 2000)

Google honored Ghandi’s birthday recently with a Ghandi-inspired logo. It seemed apropos since the brand and business are manifesting the leader’s most famous quote: “Be the change you want to see in the world.” Exactly.

Shine on, Google. I love your rule-breaking ways.

A Real Gap: Losing Don Fisher

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 22:38:00 GMT

We lost a great man a few days ago. His name was not well known outside of San Francisco or retail circles, but his life benefited millions of people around the world. Those who knew him well considered him a great man and visionary legend. I did, too.

Don Fisher, the co-founder of Gap, died in his home on Sunday surrounded by his family. He was 81.

Days later, I feel a dull, lingering ache of sadness. I didn’t have the pleasure of knowing Mr. Fisher personally although I spoke with him on several occasions during elevator rides at 2 Folsom (Gap Inc.’s headquarters). He didn’t know my name or remember which brand I worked for, but he always acknowledged me and engaged in business small talk during our 60 seconds together. After a particularly grueling day at work, I would marvel silently at his longstanding commitment to work. It wasn't work to him, I later realized. “Do what you love,” he said. And he did.

There is much to admire about Mr. Fisher. He was an activist in all facets of his life as an entrepreneur, husband, father, community leader and philanthropist. His life mattered and had meaning because he made it so. In addition to being a visionary for a global company, he also seemed to have a vision for the kind of man he wanted to be. He believed in commitment, integrity, loyalty, quality and giving back. He also subscribed to doing the right thing, working hard and taking big risks. More than just believing in these values, however, he embodied them and that is what I admire most about him. He could talk the talk and walk the walk, my criterion for being a great man.

Shine on, Mr. Fisher. There will be a true gap without you.

An unlikely trio: Joe, Kanye, and Serena

Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:32:00 GMT

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

Kanye West Interrupts Taylor Swift at the VMAs

www.colbertnation.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Protests

What do Joe Wilson, Kanye West, and Serena Williams have in common? A formerly unknown congressman, a well-known rapper and an accomplished athlete are an unlikely trio living in unrelated worlds, yet their recent behavior will connect them in our minds for a lifetime.

Boil down all the post-incident commentary, reprimands and rationalizing, I think it’s as simple as this: they each lost their cool. And, importantly, more than just experiencing big emotions, they became their emotions.

Reacting to who and what was before them, they lost control because they wanted so badly to be in control. The paradox is profound. This out-of-control grasping triggered their now-famous “autopilot” behavior. In each case, they forged ahead with an air of entitlement and bold assertion of “truth.” None of their assertions were truth, however. They were merely opinion.

It’s not my intention to jump on the bandwagon of negativity or heroism for any of the three. That only reinforces more bad behavior. Instead, I’m suggesting that we learn to self-manage our emotions and rise to a higher, more centered way of being. Will we fall down at times? You bet. But, let’s begin with higher aspirations and expect more of ourselves so that, in time, we may become more.

How do we begin, you ask? Energy follows attention. Let’s give our attention to the people who deserved it: President Obama, Taylor Swift and Kim Clijsters.

Shine on with your higher self!

My Crush on Rachel Maddow

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 22:58:00 GMT

I have a crush on Rachel Maddow.

No, not that kind of crush. (Not that there’s anything wrong with that!) It’s more of a “I-wish-I-were-more like-her” kind of crush. You know, those rare people in life who give you a brain buzz, raise the bar to make you want to stretch, and have an unassuming strong sense of self. They also tend to have an easy rapport with everyone they meet. It’s that’s kind of crush.

I especially love Rachel, though, because:

She educates me
I learn every time I listen to her. Her intelligence and knowledge are readily apparent whether she is reporting or interviewing. And when there are errors on her show, she corrects them. A few weeks ago, following her interview with Pat Buchanan, she devoted an entire segment to (politely) correcting numerous factual misstatements he passionately asserted. It’s no surprise that she is a Rhodes Scholar and has a doctoral degree in her repertoire. See what I mean - she's awesome!

She can disagree without being disagreeable
Rachel interviewed Tom Ridge last week and they disagreed on nearly every topic they discussed. Yet, she showed him the dignity and respect he deserves despite challenging his views, historical decisions and passages in his new book. He acknowledged the same at the end of their 3-segment interview. She’s like that with everyone. She treats them with respect and they mirror her manner.

She defies convention
Rachel is an openly gay, exceptionally tall woman who likes her hair short, wears minimal makeup and, sometimes, even glasses – an unlikely combination for any television star. And she doesn’t hide who she is. In fact, she’s quite candid: “I’m a big lesbian who looks like a man,” she said recently on The View. Her candor and easy humor make her sexual orientation the non-issue that it should be. Finally.

Simply put, Rachel is refreshing and I want to be more like her. After all, she’s my crush.

Shine on, Rachel.

20 Questions: Are you shining?

Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:09:00 GMT

To shine, instinctively, means to be bright and in contrast to darkness. It is in times of darkness when we most need and value light. It’s easy to notice when a light is shining, metal is shiny or a shoe has been shined.

How do you know, though, if you are shining?

As always, begin with you. Find a quiet spot and reflect on the following 20 questions. You can ponder them in order, not in order, one-at-a-time or in whatever way that serves you. You can think of specific instances for each or simply how you tend to be in your life. And, no need to share your answers with anybody. You won’t receive a prize or a reprimand. This is an honest check-in with you, for you. If you notice yourself wanting to answer correctly, brag to your friends of your shining qualities, or lament what a terrible person you are, go ahead and gently release those ideas. There are no right answers. There is only what is.

Shall we?

1. Did you know that being honest and being direct are not the same thing?

2. Do you live more in curiosity or judgment?

3. Are your words/thoughts/actions contributing or contaminating? (adapted from a Dr. Phil saying)

4. Do you frequently say things like “I’m the kind of person who _____”, “that’s just the way I am” or other similar phrases?

5. Are your thoughts/feelings/actions from a place of inspiration or desperation?

6. Are you listening or waiting to talk?

7. Are you living consciously or self-consciously?

8. Do you have a bigger intention for your life/job/relationships than yourself?

9. Do you speak up, speak out or not speak at all? Why?

10. Do you share your ideas and opinions with the desire to be right or the intention of being in a meaningful dialog?

11. Are you reacting or responding?

12. Do your conversations end with “Whatever!” or begin with “How do you see things?”

13. Are you willing to change your mind?

14. Do you muscle through or relax into?

15. Are you motivated by obligation or opportunity?

16. Is what you are saying helpful or harmful?

17. Do you sometimes replace (i.e., avoid) feeling with thinking or being with doing?

18. Are you hiding out, hanging out or hanging in there? For the sake of what?

19. Is it usually someone else’s fault?

20. And the biggie - do you feel embarrassed by these questions or enlightened?

What I keep learning in life is this: Freedom is what happens when we stop hiding from what is. From this place of acceptance, we can move forward, grow and take action that is needed. Even more, we can allow ourselves to be in our most natural and intended state – to shine.

Shine on, everybody!

Mad Men's Branding Magic

Wed, 12 Aug 2009 14:37:00 GMT

You could say that I am an “early adopter” of good TV. I watched the first series episodes of Seinfeld (originally the Seinfeld Chronicles), Sex and the City, Entourage, 24, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Saving Grace, Damages to name just a few. I don’t watch a lot of TV. I just watch good TV. I even earned a childhood nickname (that will remain unknown!) that reinforced my attunement to television.

So, of course, like any TV connoisseur, I am eagerly awaiting the Season 3 premiere of Mad Men – one of the best, least-watched shows on television. I love Mad Men for many of the same reasons others do – its originality, rich storytelling, terrific acting, stellar costumes and juicy naughtiness.

I also love it from a branding perspective because it leads with respect – respect for itself and its viewers. Of course, I know that respect is not generally thought of as a branding principle but I believe it should be and here’s why: It keeps a brand on course.

Respect for itself - Mad Men

Mad Men respects itself through the integrity and clear vision of its creator, Matt Weiner. He knows what Mad Men is and is not. (He thought about it for six years before it came to fruition!)The show is layered with intricate story lines told with sophisticated, unexpected nuance. Weiner doesn’t rush his stories or resort to obvious, tidy conclusions. Nothing feels forced or unrealistic. On the contrary, many story lines remain unresolved or riddled with ambiguity. Life can be like that, too.

Respect for others – its viewers

Weiner and his team write for the intelligent target audience they believe us to be. They don’t water down Mad Men to avoid offending for the sake of mass appeal. Nor do they rely on celebrity cameo appearances or cliché cliffhangers during sweeps week to capture more of our attention. That would be off-brand and, of course, they know that.

In addition to mature writing for mature viewers, Mad Men creates an authentic world for us. In fact, according to Vanity Fair magazine, the Mad Men team probably suffer from a bit of O.C.D. in their rigorous commitment to accurately portraying the 1960s, the era the show is set in. http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2009/09/mad-men200909) They trust that we’ll sense the difference. Maybe, maybe not. Either way, I like knowing that they care that I care.

As it goes in life, so it often goes in branding. When you know who you are and what you truly value, decisions become easier and priorities clear. You know your way. And when you treat others with the same respect, it's possible that they may just fall madly in love with you.

Shine on, Mad Men. May you respect us for many seasons to come.

How big brands fall: Inspiration from Jim Collins

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:00:00 GMT

I’m digging into Jim Collins’ latest effort “How the Mighty Fall” in which he details the five stages of decline of great companies. (see video). His analysis made me wonder if a brand goes through comparable stages of decline?

While I don’t have four years of Jim Collins research on which to base my opinion, I nonetheless have observed (and experienced) five common missteps that can contribute to strong brands becoming weak and irrelevant (or never becoming strong in the first place).

Who am I?
It happens all the time. Brands can’t agree internally on who they are. Or, equally common, they want to be all things to all people. In its simplest form, a brand is a cue. That means a brand must stand for something, not everything. Who are you? You tell me or your consumers will soon tell you. Even worse, they won’t notice or care.

Who cares?
Brands frequently confuse a target audience with the people who buy their product or service. These are not the same. As the name suggests, a target audience is who a brand is focused on reaching. This enables clear decision-making and a tight edit point. Brands may still appeal to consumers beyond their target – a halo audience – but what the target audience thinks/feels/believes/does should be informing key brand decisions.

“Save as”
Like people, sometimes brands get into a rut. Unlike people, though, brands are not always willing or able to acknowledge the rut. This can translate to repeating stale strategies and promotions, hiring a homogenous or similarly skilled team, or dressing up old ideas with a new look/feel. If any of this sounds familiar, the first step is awareness.

Good strategy deck
I always say that ideas are easy, execution is hard. Brands may have a plethora of good ideas that never take flight for a number of reasons:
•   No internal buy-in from key stakeholders – especially those responsible for executing
•   Minimal customer service training, creating a disconnect with consumers and the brand
•   Minimal budget towards consumer PR or social media, impacting reach and buzz
•   Inconsistent execution across channels or regions – the idea may not serve their business
•   Internal politics (it can be like high school in that way)

It’s a given that good strategy is imperative for brands to become and stay strong. You need a lot more than strategy, though, to make a brand sing.

“It’s not my job”
In many companies, “brand management” falls under the CMO or CBO. In smaller companies, it may lie within Sales. (I have even known of companies that weren’t sure who was managing the brand.) Regardless of the formal home for brand management, in some way, everyone manages the brand. In other words, brand management is an organizational competency and a collective responsibility of many. In rare companies, branding is bred into the culture from the outset. This leads back to the first point. In order for employees to manage the brand, they must understand it. They must also believe it, care about it and see how it relates to their job.

To all the strong brands out there – stay strong and shine on!

A TEDTalk about pioneering inner space: our minds

Tue, 21 Jul 2009 03:46:00 GMT

I have always loved and now adamantly believe the famous quote by Anaîs Nin “We don’t see things as they are, we see things as we are.” In other words, we see the world through a lens of conditioned beliefs, thoughts, feelings and experiences and we believe that is who we are and how the world is. Coaching is one way that helps expand that narrow lens so that we see and experience more possibilities. When possibilities expand, our world expands.

According to Christopher deCharms, we will soon be able to take this notion even further by exploring and controlling the “inner space” within our own mind. In other words, we may soon have the power to literally alter the channels of our brains and, in turn, alter who we are. What will we choose? Free will, pain, vision, brilliance, depression, truth, joy, fear, anger, addiction. Or, possibility. Love. Peace.

I believe that when we are shining inside, we shine outside and the world feels and responds to our radiance. Imagine the world we could create if we were all shining.

So, what are we waiting for? Shine on, everybody.