A recent post by Olivier Blanchard in The Brand Builder articulated nicely why in branding research, it’s much more important to talk to your best customers than your average customers. It’s not customer satisfaction research you’re doing, but trying to find out the heart of what they value.“The way you develop a chocolate-flavored drink isn’t by talking to 10,000 people on the street. It’s by talking to 10,000 chocoholics. These might even be people who love chocolate but hate chocolate drinks. (How cool would it be to have 10,000 people with such specific tastes tell you why they love chocolate but hate chocolate drinks? Tell me you wouldn’t crack that code with that level of feedback.) The point is: Do your research at the extreme edge of the bell curve.The way you develop a new endurance drink is by talking to rabid cyclists and triathletes and marathoners. The way you develop a new game console is by talking to avid gamers (not casual gamers). The way you develop a new Pop Tart flavor is by talking to people for whom Pop Tarts is a major food group. This isn’t about talking to 0.3% of American shoppers who are representative of the 60% of shoppers who place Pop Tarts in their Top 10 likeliest breakfast foods. It’s about talking to the fraction of a percent of people who live and breathe the stuff that is at the core of your new product’s identity and raison d’etre and will buy your new flavor of Pop Tarts every other week.Not just talking to them, but understanding what makes them tick and embracing them completely.” While Olivier Blanchard is talking about creating new products, the same applies to revealing your brand’s promise. Your best customers are the ones that understand your promise the best, are most engaged, and can tell you why they value it. You want more customers like them.

-Lynn Parker

Here’s the next in the seven secrets of strong brands series we’ve been running.

VS

Secret #5:
Limit who you are.

Our brains are little. They can only hold so much information. So don’t try to tell your whole story every time you communicate with your customers. I like to think of a pizza; when it gets delivered to your table, do you eat it from the crust side in? No, you put the pointy part in your mouth. Why? Because that’s what fits. So don’t try to make your customers shove an entire pie into their brains: give them one bite, and hope it tastes good enough they want to keep eating. Focus, focus, focus.

-Lynn Parker

Hate Free Zone’s recent renaming process brought up some interesting thoughts about naming issues.  Hate Free Zone was created in the wake of September 11^th events to combat xenophobic reactions.  Almost seven years later, the group had a wealth of accomplishments to its credit, but had continually encountered discomfort and confusion regarding the inclusion of “hate” in its moniker.  The word, it seems, was charged so negatively that its use even in these noble pursuits made politicians and other stakeholders uncomfortable.  As of June, Hate Free Zone has changed its name to One America, With Justice for All.  The process of change was arduous, but members believe the new name fits and better-represents their hopes for the future of our society.   

Whether for a business, organization, or individual, the decision to change your name should never be made lightly.  On a basic brand level, your name is your top-level identifier and the first differentiator in a crowded space.  Wise and well-executed changes can pay huge dividends, but the corresponding risk is understandably daunting.  With all this in mind, what are some of the most common reasons organizations have undergone name changes? 

Something to take the edge off 

As seen in the case above, sometimes an organization may find elements of its name too polarizing.  Examples include the change from Young Men’s Christian Association to YMCA and from the National Birth Control League to Planned Parenthood. 

Dodging controversy 

What if your name and its associated brand equity prove more harm than help?  For some, a name change provides a convenient way to wipe the slate, signify change, or even hide from the past.  In an era of public outrage at big tobacco, Phillip Morris changed its instantly recognizable name to the enigmatic Altria.  Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its name to KFC, though no one agrees as to why (most think the fast food giant sought to distance itself from the health connotations of “fried,” though other colorful theories persist.) 

The student has become the master 

 In some instances, firms have enjoyed such success from one of their brand lines that the product or service’s name trumps that of the mother company.  Such was the case when Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo K.K. changed its name to Sony Corporation and when TMP Worldwide became Monster Worldwide (after its online jobs engine.) 

Get with the times 

Companies that last throughout generations thrive on the ability to adapt to ever-changing technologies and societal contexts.  The soul of your brand may remain intact long after your business model has gone obsolete.  The National Biscuit Company became Nabisco when we stopped calling cookies “biscuits” and American Telephone and Telegraph Corporation slimmed to AT&T as its named technologies became dinosaurs.  IBM still stands for International Business Machines, but the firm favors its abbreviated title in an age when the company has divested its hardware business to Lenovo to focus on consulting services.  

Putting on the Ritz 

Sometimes as a business matures its cute, original name fails to keep pace with its new, grown-up image.  Likely this was the thinking when Amazin’ Software became Electronic Arts or when DrivUrSelf went with Hertz Rent-a-Car.  How many of us would be using Google for internet search if it was still called BackRub?

I am the law

Of course, sometimes you change your name because you have no choice.  The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) finally succeeded in forcing the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) to alter its name to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) after years of back and forth (personally, I’m all about pandas, but leave Hulk Hogan out of this!)  When Andersen Consulting ended its longtime relationship with Arthur Andersen (legendary “Big 5” accounting firm,) court proceedings forced the company to shed tremendous brand equity.  Though the move to Accenture was initially panned as a business disaster, the change proved to be tremendously fortuitous when Arthur Andersen and its reputation were torn apart through the Enron scandal.

No matter what triggers your metamorphosis, you can expect the renaming process to be equal parts frustration and exhilaration.  Some will resist change, while many others will have conflicting ideas about the new direction.  In the end, this speaks to both the great risk and potentially greater reward of such a bold step.  After all, what better way to refocus and refresh your organization than to start at the core?   

-Bob Zammit [with huge thanks to Lynn Parker] 

Sources: 

http://www.famousnamechanges.net/html/corporate.htm 

http://www.brighternaming.com/Famous_Name_Changes.html 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_company_name_etymologies 

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008024796_hatefree30.html 

One America:

http://www.hatefreezone.org/

Strong brands take a lot of care to manage their identity—anyone who’s ever done graphic design work for a Microsoft or a Philips can tell you that. This color blue. The logo just this size in respect to the text. And good luck trying to use their logo without written permission.

But in a world where so much consumable content is user generated (see this month’s issue of This Old House Magazine which was 100% reader generated, for example) do you risk missing out on a sort of grass roots brand groundswell if you are too in-control over how your brand shows up?

In a recent visit to San Francisco, I saw Barack Obama’s image on everything from homemade t-shirts to rearview-mirror -air-fresheners. On one shirt for sale in the Mission, the image didn’t even look anything like him. I’ve seen murals and hand painted signs, and on KEXP’s local Seattle hip hop show on Saturday nights I’ve heard at least two or three tracks either about Obama or that sample his speeches.

What does this say about Obama? And what does this say about the strength of his brand loyalty? In this case less control might be better. Are we turning a corner in how brands manage their identity?

-Briana