Eliza S.

My whole life I’ve been a spaz—so naturally, I’ve wound up in a few too many emergency rooms. After a recent stint waiting three hours for what was ultimately a positive prognosis (thankfully), I began thinking about the hospital experience from a branding perspective. Have you ever heard people casually talk about hospitals in their everyday conversations? If so, has it been positive? In my experience, the answer is no.

So are we then to assume that hospitals don’t care about branding? No; in fact, hospitals are now paying more attention to the way they brand themselves than ever before. Lately, this has most noticeably played out in the naming process, which is perhaps the most visible and immediate way for them to change brand perception.

Take Broward General Medical Center, the country’s oldest hospital, for example. Now encompassing more than 30 facilities, Broward General is hoping to change its image as a public hospital by honoring brand over history and changing its name to ‘Broward Health Medical Center.’ By losing “General” in the name, they intend to downplay the perception that Broward General is a public hospital. They also plan to do away with the “medical center” descriptor in three of their other public hospitals. Basically, they’re striving to expand their reach by broadening the name, while leveraging the Broward equity across multiple facilities.

Unfortunately for Broward General (or Broward Health), it appears that not everyone in the Broward camp is on the same page. David Pietro, a hospital commissioner, recently announced, “I have a real problem with this. So do many of the doctors.” His concern stems from the familiarity the “General” name has with its community.  Moreover, Dr. Carrie E. Greenspan, an obstetrics and gynecology doctor said, “Members of the community, particularly if they are new to the area, will not understand what ‘Broward Health – Coral Springs’ means. It could be a clinic, a medical office building, a laboratory, a diagnostic facility.”

While branding decisions can’t accommodate everyone, this staff reaction doesn’t bode well for the long-term success of the name. Contention so early suggests it will only be an uphill battle from here – and for a rebrand to be successful, every associate needs to be a brand ambassador.

But Broward staff members should consider themselves lucky, as some other hospitals are making even bolder naming changes. These include ‘Central DuPage Hospital’ and ‘Delnor Health System,’ which are uniting to become ‘Cadence Health’;  ‘Catholic Healthcare West’ changing its name to ‘Dignity Health,’ and ‘Provena Health’ and ‘Resurrection Health Care’ combining to become ‘Present Health.’ But one look at top hospitals like The Mayo Clinic and Memorial-Sloane Kettering make it clear that a name alone cannot reposition a hospital’s brand.

Nike wouldn’t be ‘Nike’ without equating athletics to life and life to athletics. Apple wouldn’t be Apple without making innovation accessible for all people. In other words, name brands can’t exist without a strong positioning and a consistent culture across all touchpoints. So, the bigger question when it comes to hospital branding is, “How can a hospital who’s associated with disease, fear, and frustration align itself with joy, warmth, and comfort?” I’m not sure going from “General” to “Health” is going to do that heavy lifting…but at least it’s a start.

By John F.

Like many Americans, I’ve been paying closer attention to politics recently. Unlike many other observers, I’m following each politician’s policy platform and the font they choose to express those beliefs. The Obama campaign changed the political design landscape in 2008 by leveraging the sophistication, clarity and accessibility of brands like Target and Apple. The consistency and the professionalism of that campaign was an order of magnitude beyond campaigns that came before. Obama’s logo expertly used design elements that brands since the late ‘90s had used to signal new thinking. Limited use of color, simple lowercase typography – sometimes with unexpected capitalizations – and simple geometric icons were reminiscent of transparent, accessible brands that looked easy as opposed to overtly marketed.

How have the campaigns of 2012 reacted to this changed design landscape? I’ve noticed the Obama team has jettisoned Perpetua and added square serifs to the sans-serif Gotham typeface. I’ve noticed a lot of campaigns copying the superficial appearance of Obama’s logo but with generally less finesse. And I was surprised that none of Mitt Romney’s more conservative competitors have embraced a return to more traditional campaign logos with strong emphasis on strong typography and flag imagery. Meanwhile, the trends march on as exemplified in Apple’s much blogged about recent return to a rainbow logo. I look forward to seeing if any of the candidates “chomp” that design trend for their campaigns (logical choice is cool kid Obama, but only time will tell).

01. The Obama 2008 campaign logo with original customized Perpetua font and after refinements to the type. The web-site and all other materials used the san-serif font Gotham.

02. Apple went from Rainbow to monochrome in 1998.

03. Brands signaled new thinking by using accessible typography, often with eccentric capitalization for a ‘twist.’ It’s also notable how many use a lowercase “i”. It was also common to use a simple monogram icon, often with a fun twist. Method gets extra credit for making an ‘m’ look like a lowercase i.

04. In 2012 Obama is using a modified Gotham with square serifs specially commissioned by the typographers Hoefler and Frere-Jones. Could this be signaling more stature and experience after four years in office?

05. Many campaign logos have followed in the Obama campaign’s footsteps. Cuomo and Romney read “uomo” and “omney” Yikes! Huntsman’s logo is minimal but in a more old-school corporate style.

06. Did Mitt’s competition miss an opportunity to signal more authenticity or conservative bona fides by sticking with more traditional imagery and type treatments?

07.On the Republican side only Ron Paul’s logo has a high level of design sophistication. Is this because of his greater appeal to young voters?

08. Does Apples use of a rainbow logo signal another twist in logo trends that brands and campaigns will have to respond to in 2016?

By Brian M.

Since this is an election year and media coverage is everywhere, I’ve been paying particular attention lately to the way that the candidates brand themselves. But more and more, I find myself thinking about the branding savvy of one of those unexpected “candidates”, Mr. Stephen Colbert.

There’s something to be learned from everyone. Yes, even a faux-pompous, faux-journalistic pundit like Colbert can impart gems of branding wisdom.

Maybe you love him. Or hate him. Or think he’s making a mockery of our political process. Or maybe you’re just being grumpy.

Unlike brands that get their priorities mixed up and simply talk about how valuable they are, Colbert has figured out how to make his way into people’s lives in more thoughtful, meaningful ways. And, that, is really our job as a brand agency: to allow people to discover a brand’s value because it of its inherent value, rather than persuading people to connect with brands.

Here some examples of Colbert’s “brand engagement tactics” that are bringing him closer to real people:

Be Real: Going before the actual Federal Election Committee as a citizen to petition the creation of his Super PAC – for real.

Get Involved: Aiming to influence the Ames Straw Poll in Iowa by running ads in support of “Rick Parry with an A for America”

Take a risk: Nearly succeeding in purchasing the naming rights for the South Carolina Republican primary:

“The Colbert Super PAC South Carolina Republican Primary.”

Be provocative: Getting people to vote for a candidate that had dropped out of the campaign.

Funny? Crazy? Questionable? These are the wrong questions. Instead, ask yourself if he further deepened the bond he has with his “consumers”, attracted new consumers, demonstrated his brand values in action, and allowed his consumers to participate in the process.

Here are a few lessons we can learn from Colbert (and impart to our clients):

- Go beyond the shelf (and expected media tactics) and risk entry into the real world inhabited by actual people.

- If you say something is in line with your brand’s value, then do it. If not, it’s just air.

- Involve, engage and invite people to add to your story.

Good brands live and die by their actions. And nobody in the media world does this better than Stephen Colbert. Read the rest of this entry »

By Lucila T.

Every time a brand comes out with a new product, I’m interested in how far they’ve pushed the envelope. Is it just a new variation on the product, or a completely new take? The brands that interest me the most are the ones influenced by pop culture and willing to take risks. These brands tend to play up a more edgy side and are not afraid to stir up controversy.

For example, take the Tokidoki Barbie that came out last October. Described as a “funky fashionista,” she has a bright pink hairdo and tattoos all over her neck and back, and is sporting leopard-print leggings and a mini skirt. Pretty scandalous, I’d say. Not surprisingly, there was an uproar from parents who claimed it was a bad example for their children; Mattel responded by saying that the doll isn’t necessarily marketed to all audiences. In a poll taken by the Huffington Post asking if they would buy the doll for their child, almost 50% said, “Absolutely, It’s just a toy,” while 30% said the stark opposite, “Never. I don’t like the tattoos.” Personally, I was impressed that Mattel pushed the envelope with the doll. Today’s girls want to see empowered women who aren’t afraid to express themselves, which is exactly what Tokidoki embodies. And I’m pretty confident that young girls know the difference between fantasy and reality – or have parents who can teach them about that difference.

Another brand pushing the envelope – and which has done so for the past three decades – is Ben & Jerry’s. I’m sure you’ve heard about their latest “limited batch” ice cream flavor, “Schweddy Balls.” Funny, but sort of gross, don’t you agree? The company has always been known for clever names like Phish Food and Cherry Garcia, but the latest introduction – named for an SNL skit from 1998 starring Alec Baldwin – has gotten a lot of (deserved) attention. Some are boycotting the ice cream, saying that the brand has turned something as innocent as ice cream into something vulgar and inappropriate. A spokeswoman for Ben & Jerry’s said they weren’t trying to offend anyone, just trying to have a sense of humor. Interestingly enough, this limited edition flavor might become end up becoming a permanent member of the B&J family because of all the attention it’s received.

The last brand to get my kudos for taking risks is SnackWell’s – yup, Snackwell’s. The brand launched a new ad campaign and packaging early last year, and they’ve taken a very different approach to their indulgent but calorie-limited treats. The ads, which feature women in leather stiletto-heeled boots and on motorcycles, shouts attitude.   The packaging has also been updated with a green that pops off the shelf and tiger print strips in an array of colors. The new products and reintroduction was inspired by sales that have been lagging since their initial success in 1995. Since the new portion control treats are no longer 100-calories (but rather 130 and 150), the new tagline, “Be bad. Snack well.” makes perfect sense.

These brands, and several others out there, prove that when introducing a new product or changing up an existing one, brands need to know their audience and how relevant the product will be for them. Not everyone wants the edginess, but if done correctly, it can pay off big time in the long run.