One word to ruin them all

Noticed the following job posting online and thought one word was out of place. The company’s name has been changed to “BrandCo” to protect the innocent.

Imagine working for a company that allows you the opportunity to reach your potential. Somewhere you can have an impact, as part of an international team. Think about being part of a company whose relationships, both with their clients and their people, are of critical importance. A place that can provide excellent training in a stimulating environment with real responsibility from day one.

Then consider BrandCo, one of the world’s leading authorities on advertising, marketing communications and brand equity research.

Then consider? I wasn’t all that excited by “Imagine working for a company that allows you to reach your potential” anyway, but “Then consider…” implies that BrandCo is not that company. I’m guessing it was originally formulated as “If you want to work for a company…then consider BrandCo…” but somewhere along the line it got edited and no one realized that it now looks like “[First] imagine a company…then [instead] consider BrandCo.”

If you’re going to add a bunch of romantic “why you’ll love it here” copy before a job post, then you should at least make sure it’s well written. First write it, then proofread it.

When the ad impairs the offering

In this situation, when does The Economist start to ask themselves whether their advertising on their own site is becoming counterproductive? I count four near-identical ads above the fold, but because they’re all the same red as the logo, I at first thought the logo was a fifth ad. Aside from being visually disturbing (the online equivalent of a “BUT WAIT, THERE’S MORE” infomercial), it also distracts from the content, which was what I came to the site for in the first place.

Maybe the underlying message is that subscribing is the only way to read an article without seeing four ads on the same page.

Daddy, do fake brands come from fake branding agencies?

Discovered this firm the other day and couldn’t believe my eyes when I saw their website. Landor, meet your made-in-China doppelganger.

JundoBrand homepage

Landor homepage

Is there some formal connection between these companies that justifies such blatant copycatting? Maybe, in which case this post is meaningless, and I probably owe JundoBrand an apology. But so far I haven’t found any connection (and if there is one, shouldn’t they mention it somewhere?).

I don’t think I need to explain the problem(s) I see with a branding firm simply copying a competitors’ look and feel so completely. Not to mention the support this gives to the stereotype that China is better at manufacturing copies of things than creating anything original…I mean if a branding firm can’t even try to make itself an original, we’re in pretty dire straits. I’m surprised they’re not called “Lundor,” or better yet, “Slandor.”

I’ve already contacted Landor to see if I’ve missed something here. If so, I owe you an apology, Jundo. If not, anyone know the Chinese for “cease and desist”?

“By an inch”

Back in April, Rob Campbell (now head of planning at Wieden+Kennedy’s Shanghai office) posted an “assignment” on his blog. He and some other account planning types, including Russell Davies and Gareth Kay, have for awhile now been running what they call the “Account  [Planning] School on the Web,” or A[P]SOTW. They more or less take turns posting assignments on their respective blogs and accepting submissions from anyone who’s interested. Then they look at all the submissions, pick a “winner,” and provide useful feedback based on their significant experience in adland.

Having met Rob a few months back in Hong Kong, I check his blog sometimes and I decided I’d give this assignment a shot. The challenge was

continue reading…

How digitally competent are prestige brands in China?

This is a pretty cool report issued by L2, in partnership with Labbrand (where I work), looking at the “Digital IQ” of prestige brands operating in China and ranking 100 of them. This version of the report identifies some strong positive correlations between Digital IQ measurements and the brand valuations published by BusinessWeek and Interbrand every year. Of course, correlations don’t imply causation, so the relationship between the numbers may bring more questions than answers.

Thanks to everyone at Labbrand and L2 that did the research and put this all together. Stay tuned for an article-form version of this report, which I’m currently helping to write. Should be available in a few weeks.

Faucets need independently varying controls

Until I read Don Norman’s “The Psychology of Everyday Things,” I thought I was the only one frustrated by the everyday challenges of dealing with poorly designed objects, controls, and signage. When I read his book, which he says was inspired by “struggles with British water taps, light switches, and doors,” I started thinking maybe my frustration wasn’t a curse, but an opportunity. In the words of Rage Against the Machine’s Zack de la Rocha, maybe “anger is a gift” (and yes, I’m aware that my annoyance at a doorknob is not the same as Mr. de la Rocha’s anger).

Frustration can inspire innovation. Annoyed with the Blockbuster experience? Invent Netflix. Frustrated by the way you can never tell which switch controls which light? Invent a more intuitive light switch (like the one Don Norman introduces in the book mentioned above). Tired of having a Window pop up while you’re typing mid-sentence, so that half the sentence ends up in each Window? Develop software that recognizes when you’re mid-sentence and prevents this from happening (why hasn’t someone done that yet?).

Frustration can also help identify design flaws. For example, this is a terrible faucet:

continue reading…