filter by date: October 2010

We’ve all seen what can happen when brands suddenly change their iconic identities. Gap recently succumbed to a not-so-surprising defeat after attempting an update to its 20-year-old logo. After unceremoniously returning to the original, President Marka Hansen is being called into question for allegedly giving the go-ahead for the launch of the new logo against the counsel of her marketing team. Internal strife and lack of respect for its consumers’ opinions have turned fans against Gap as it prepares for the holiday shopping season.

Despites Gap’s obvious missteps, we know the world will keep turning and brands will keep revamping themselves. So what can brands learn from the debacle? Don’t assume your fans are as ready for a change as you are. Consumers’ brand loyalty is often linked to nostalgia and sudden changes can lead to estrangement. In fact, people are so protective of their favorite brands that a recent survey found 52 percent of Americans expect prominent companies to ask for the public’s input before making major changes to their logos, packaging or products. So, forego the shock factor and ease your audience into major overhauls.

One brand taking heed as it prepares for some big changes is Mattel. It seems Ken – Barbie’s longtime love – is feeling dowdy lately and has decided to get a little work done ahead of his 50^th birthday. To celebrate the makeover, Mattel is launching an online reality series to find the one man in America who best demonstrates “Ken-ability.” The eight-episode “Genuine Ken: The Search for the Great American Boyfriend,” hosted by Whitney Port of MTV’s “The City,” will feature eight men competing in various elimination challenges to find America’s best Ken. Visitors to the site can nominate and vote for the eight contestants and even download a mobile app. The site also integrates with Ken’s Facebook and Twitter pages.

Mattel hopes the series and website will help position Ken to a newer, more mature audience, while turning his 50^th anniversary and makeover unveiling into a newsworthy event. Either way, fans have the opportunity to join the brand in celebrating its heritage and looking ahead to the future.

Everybody needs a little makeover now and then, but however good the intention, sometimes things just don’t work out for the better. This week, after more than 20 years of standing behind an iconic, all-caps standard, Gap Inc. launched a new Helvetica logo that has drawn the ire of many, especially those with easy access to social media. Blogs and twitter feeds lit up with caustic reactions and relatively little support.

The minimalist redesign, which prompted a letter from Gap President Marka Hansen defending the change, was explained away as a natural evolution for the brand. She even encouraged additional feedback and logo suggestions via Gap's Facebook page – which, incidentally, has not been updated with the new logo – leading many to wonder if this wasn’t part of a larger marketing ploy. Perhaps Gap is stirring up controversy to create buzz for a future crowd-sourcing contest? Hansen won’t confirm or deny.

Marketing machinations or not, Gap seemingly failed to get the big “ah-hah.” The logo isn’t just about Gap. It’s also about all of Gap’s loyal consumers who now can’t even recognize a once-familiar face. Logos are a visual representation of a consumers’ relationship to a brand and advocates eagerly wear logo-emblazoned clothing like they would a merit badge, hoping some of the brand’s ethos will rub off on them. A drastic change is certain to evoke an outcry. Consider Tropicana. Only weeks after the launch of redesigned packaging, the brand cried mea culpa and returned to the old carton. Consumers were so turned off by the unremarkable design – many couldn’t even locate it on the shelf – OJ sales dropped 20 percent. Et tu, Gap?

Gap migh have done well to follow Pepsi’s example. Before launching its new smiley-face logo, Pepsi reached out to online influencers who were given a chance to review the product updates before they went live. This led to positive online conversations that helped shape the public reaction. And if unwilling to share the new logo in advance, Gap could have enlisted its PR execs to set the stage for the change. Clorox, who announced its first new logo in half a century, tied the unveiling to its greater emphasis on sustainability, providing a context for consumers to rally around. Despite what they think of Clorox's logo, consumers can’t fault the brand for improving its business practices.

Whatever the reasons for the change, or eventual outcomes, it seems Gap underestimated the power of its own brand and has taken a very public beating. With store sales already going south, the new logo has not turned out to be the panacea the retail chain was hoping for, but greater attention to consumers’ needs and wants in the future might be just what it needs to right the ship.

When a student fired shots from an AK-47 rifle as he walked across the University of Texas at Austin campus on Tuesday, it highlighted the new reality that employers – both for-profit and nonprofit – can learn plenty from universities when it comes to crisis preparedness.

How many employers would be able to send text alerts to employees’ personal cell phones within seven minutes and start Facebook and Twitter information feeds minutes later? And how many would be communicating with a workforce that had already been taught how to act (“shelter in place”) during an emergency? Thanks to UT Austin, students quickly accessed information, could debunk rumors and connect with parents who had their own sources of updated information via the university’s website.

Universities have seen too much violence and death over the past several years. But, the “ivory tower world” has learned its communications lessons and ACTED. Technology is in place and crisis planning, training and drills are built-in. Unfortunately, we can’t say the same of employers in the “real world.”

On average, more than one employee per day is murdered in an American workplace and another 2 million Americans a year are victims of some kind of workplace violence. If that wasn’t motivation enough for employers to take preparedness seriously, you’d think the now constant threat of terrorist attacks would do it. However in 2005, with the 9/11 attacks burned into our memory, more than 70 percent of American workplaces still had no workplace violence plan in place, and more than a third of companies had no crisis plan at all.

That’s just shocking. Aside from the legal obligation any employer has to provide a safe work environment, on a moral level there is no excuse to continue to back-burner crisis planning when it comes time for budgeting any organization’s priorities. A good crisis plan will identify and prioritize risks, confirm a process and responsibilities for emergency decision-making, put rapid communication tools in place, train key personnel and create ties to vendors that can provide critically needed support when a crisis strikes.

Traditional crisis plans have often focused on external communications to news media. But an organization’s own employees have always been a key audience. That’s truer today more than ever. Your employees will be sending out photos and videos of the crisis unfolding in real-time and tweeting what they think is happening. Their perceptions will define the story and how your organization’s reputation is affected. Without crisis preparedness, you won’t keep up.

So take a moment now, and ask yourself a question. Does your organization have a plan in place that fits this need? If the answer is no, or if you’re not sure, forward this internally or raise the question yourself. Be proactive while you still have the chance.

Mike Lawrence is Executive Vice President and Chief Reputation Officer of Cone LLC, which works with companies and nonprofits on strategy and communication programs including crisis preparedness.