Comedy Central’s brand strategy is no joke

[This post was originally published on FutureBrand's FBlog.]

Once upon a time, before the likes of Justin Bieber, Lady Gaga, and Katy Perry roamed (infested?) our airwaves, a startup television channel named MTV used to play music videos. And not just from 3 AM to 8 AM, as seems to be the case today. A look at MTV’s current programming schedule shows just how much has changed since “Video Killed the Radio Star.” While the focus on teenage viewers is abundantly clear—with shows like “When I was 17,” “16 and Pregnant,” and “That 70s Show”—there are few clues for unfamiliar viewers as to exactly what that big “M” stands for. In fact, MTV officially dropped the line “Music Television” from their logo last year.

I offer this MTV parable only as counter-example to

continue reading…

Five silly reasons to hate Starbucks’ new logo

1. It’s different.
You’d think this kind of knee-jerk reaction would be limited to amateurs, but even Laura Ries writes, “when it comes to branding, the best kind of change is usually no change at all.” Really? Companies change, market conditions change, competition changes, consumers and their preferences change. The world changes. But logos shouldn’t?

2. They got rid of “Starbucks.”
CoreBrand contends that “dropping the Starbucks name from their logo will only serve to confuse consumers who are not as familiar with the company” (posted on Branding Strategy Insider). Seriously? Starbucks has 16,000 stores. Nike, Apple, McDonald’s and others have dropped their names, and seem to be ok.

Besides, this will aid the company’s global expansion efforts by focusing on a universal design rather than a language-specific name. “Starbucks,” or a localized name like “星巴克,” can still be printed nearby, like on the opposite side of the cup.

continue reading…

Reactions to the new logo on Starbucks.com

I spent some time yesterday reading through comments on Starbucks’ blog post announcing the new logo. It seems like the feedback there is mostly negative, but many are clearly knee-jerk reactions from people whose thought process seems to be “it’s different, so I hate it!” Nonetheless, I thought it’d be interesting to see what words were showing up most in those 100+ posts, partly as an alternative way of quickly gauging group’s sentiment. Here’s the result (courtesy of Wordle):

Of course, “Starbucks” and “logo” were the clear winners, so I removed those, along with common English words and names of posters. Note that “like” shows up a lot, but it’s often in phrases such as “looks like…” or “don’t like.” Some of the more interesting words that show up are “sorry,” “Nike,” “Swoosh,” “iconic,” and “mistake.”

For a more interesting debate about the new mark, check out LogoDesignLove.

Li-Ning is one of 2010’s top brand stories in China

The fourth-quarter issue of Labbrand’s LABReport contains an article on the top five brand stories in China for 2010.  I’ll post them here individually over the next month or so, but if you’d like to read them all right away, including our point of view on the underlying trends involved, please follow the link above (and subscribe to receive LABReport for free, while you’re at it!). This article was written and researched with help from Kevin Gentle and the rest of the Labbrand team; thanks for your help, everyone!

I’d love to hear feedback on what stories we missed, where you agree or disagree, etc. Here’s the section on Li-Ning:

continue reading…

Mind the Gap(’s new logo)

The picture above is not the new Gap logo. It’s a version that I created myself, in PowerPoint, in about 15 minutes. I just used the logo-design steps I outlined in one of my old, sarcastic posts titled “How to build your brand for free.” While it’s tough to objectively judge a logo, I do wonder whether the ability to quickly replicate it in a Microsoft Office program should be cause for concern.

It seems the new logo, announced earlier this week, has mostly experienced a negative reception from the general public. Time’s NewsFeed may be one exception (if they’re not kidding):

But “generic” and “looks alike” are not usually words you want to hear in reaction to a logo. And since the same words could be used to describe the vanishing uniqueness of Gap’s clothing, the brand may be squandering one of its few remaining strengths: a link to its own past. I’m not saying the logo has to stay the same, or that it should look like something from 1969, but if this dramatic change conveys “a streamlined, technologically dominant future,” can we expect a matching change in Gap’s overarching strategy (including products, of course)? If not, I have trouble seeing this as anything more than desperate attention seeking.

For contrast, check out something Levi’s has been up to lately. It’s not a logo redesign, but I love how this campaign at once romanticizes the company’s history and makes relevant connections to the present.

[Thanks to Shireen for pointing out the new Gap logo.]