Archive for January, 2011

Insanity – Airports, airlines and crisis planning

Friday, January 28th, 2011

Seeing all the media coverage over the holidays about airline travellers in Europe (particularly in the U.K., France and Germany), I was left wondering…hadn’t they learned their lesson about crisis planning in April?  Didn’t their lack of preparedness – and obvious lack of crisis management planning – when Iceland volcano erupted cause them to take stalk and do some serious crisis management planning?!?!?   If anything, the volcano incident should have revealed a weakness in – or perhaps absence of crisis management plans by the airlines and airports, and triggered quick action to focus on crisis management planning.

Granted, a volcano erupting is hard to plan for – and might generally not fall into one of the categories a company would plan for in developing a crisis management plan – but surely severe weather (especially with global warming at play) is a pretty basic scenario to plan for.  When will they learn?!?!   It’s insanity at play as they do the same thing over and over again (i.e. are unprepared), yet expect a different result.  

As someone whose travel plans were thwarted in April thanks to the mighty volcano, I was very happy not to have made travel plans to be in Europe for Christmas this year!  Once was enough for me, but I’m sure many passengers fell victim to both “crisis” scenarios.

Hopefully this second crisis will have been enough to get the airlines and airports planning a bit more, and a bit better – for all of our sake.  As they say, three strikes and you’re out!  Will there be a third crisis that breaks the camel’s back and totally shakes customer confidence and satisfaction?  As a regular air traveller, I sure hope not!

iPad naming good branding after all

Friday, January 21st, 2011

It was almost a year ago, when the iPad name was revealed, that I blogged about it in iPad naming fiasco or good branding?.  Looks like all that initial chatter, criticism and poking fun at the name was all for naught.  At the time, I’d speculated that the iPad would be a success – or not – based on its own merits as a product, not because of its name.  And, it looks like I was right on this one, especially judging by its popularity as a Christmas gift this past year!  The initial ridicule associated with the iPad name quickly disappeared, and the product took off based on its own merits.  In the end, the consistency with Apple’s “i” branding was the right approach – it was good branding and not a naming fiasco. 

Sure, having a great name – and the right name – can help to build a brand and drive sales, but having the right product is what’s most important.  After all, a brand is simply a promise, and it’s the product that does or doesn’t deliver on that promise.  The name may help, that’s for sure.  

I do think that naming plays an important role in branding.  But I don’t think that a good – or cool – name can make up for a bad product…at least in the long run.  The name might entice users to try it, but unless the product delivers, no matter what you call it, you won’t have created a successful product/brand.  And, for the same reason, I think the reverse is also true.  The ideal, however, is a great name and a great product. 

What do you think about the role of naming in branding?  Do you agree that the iPad name was in fact good branding?  And, what impact do you think the name has had on the success of the brand?

Hmmm…Starbucks’ logo goes wordless

Friday, January 14th, 2011

When Starbucks announced recently that it was removing the text – Starbucks Coffee – from its logo, I was a bit surprised.  Even understanding the intent to broaden the appeal of the brand beyond its coffee roots, I’m still left scratching my head.  It’s not the intent that I question, but the execution – i.e. the resulting wordless logo

As an infrequent Starbucks customer, maybe I’m just not familiar enough with the iconic sea nymph that has been surrounded by the bold Starbuck wordmark all these year.  I can’t say that I’d have been able to identify the brand if I’d seen the sea nymph logo on its own, without someone telling me whose brand it was.  Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of a logo?  If I can’t associate it with the brand, then how is Starbucks going to woo me with the new experiences (products) they are trying to create as they broaden their horizons?  

If their logo (and brand) has no equity (or familiarity) with me, then have they missed out on the opportunity they are trying to create in giving their logo a facelift?  If anything, there is strength and power in the Starbucks wordmark – its recognizable font and green colour.  I understand the desire to take a page out of Nike’s or Apple’s book by dropping the wordmark part of the logo, but those brands (in my opinion) had much more brand equity when they did this.  More importantly, they also had simple, powerful and readily identifiable icons that became their logos.  I personally don’t see this in Starbucks’ case.  Is it just me?  The branding experts seem to have indicated otherwise.  I guess time will tell.