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."

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.

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.

 

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.)

 

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

 

 

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.

 

 

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:  


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.

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!

Love him or hate him (and there is usually no in between), Sacha Baron Cohen knows how to stand out in a crowd. His memorable, mostly shocking characters (i.e, Borat, Brüno, Ali G,) show up in unexpected places with unsuspecting (unsympathetic?) people and make us talk, laugh, and squirm. (Interestingly, we hardly know anything about his personal life.)

For the record, I haven’t seen any of his movies. I’m neither a fan nor a critic of his work. My only exposure to Cohen is through the media storm that seems to follows his characters. Or, more accurately, through the media storm he mindfully creates through PR stunts he executes shamelessly and brilliantly to market his movies. But, whether or not you subscribe to his brand of humor, brand marketers can learn a few things from Sacha Baron Cohen:

Have a point of view
Coehn’s humor is unapologetic, intends to offend, and makes even the most left-wing liberal uncomfortable. There is no question, though, how his characters view the world. They have a distinct lens that plays in and out of the movie. Every brand should, too.

Commit to it
Cohen doesn’t water down his movies to appease anyone. On the contrary, he demonstrates in spades what it means to commit to a point of view: doing press in character, baring his buns to the world and even straddling Eminem’s face while wearing chaps on live television. Commitment need not entail outrageous gags or nudity, however. What is required of commitment is risk and focus – with budgets, marketing plans, stakeholders, and target audiences. In other words, when marketers “kind of” go for it, we “kind of” feel it – which is to say we don’t feel anything. Say whatever you want, just say something unique! Make us love you or hate you. Anything less is the indifferent equivalent of saying someone is “nice” after a date. And, in case you have been out of the dating pool for a while, indifference is the kiss of death in relationships – and branding.

Pull the PR lever – hard
Brüno’s performance at the MTV Movie Awards last month was a preview of what fans could expect in his movie. The gag aligned with the irreverent spirit of his movie and the politically incorrect, youthful minds of his target audience. This PR 101 move was not only a slam-dunk in creating exponential buzz and exposure for Bruno’s movie, it was cheap. Mainstream media + bloggers + fans speculating about the stunt created a tsunami of coverage and curiosity. It also engaged outraged detractors who contributed more fuel to the roaring flame and kept the conversation going. All of this has translated into movie gold and a number one opening weekend for “Bruno.”

Shine on, Sacha. Keep us laughing and guessing.