Rule #7 of great service: this one may seem odd, but just plain actually provide service.

I got to experience some visual eye-candy this morning. Well, it was more than just eye-candy. It gave me that warm fuzzy feeling in my tummy; like mom’s chicken soup. Commuting into Boston, the pool of white and red plates darting in front of me, lining up like soldiers, still feels foreign after all these years. But, this morning, in the sea of white and red plates, a refreshing flash of empire gold & navy caught my eye. I awoke from my commuting coma. “Is this real?” It’s on a brand new car and the plate itself looks brand new, but I seem to remember these plates from the 1970s and early 8os, during my childhood in NY.

Nostalgia—a theme we’ve been seeing for many years—creates positive consumer associations. Those that lived through the era enjoy being connected back to their youth – during simpler times. Those that weren’t born yet find it cool. Mixing nostalgia with what’s next is a win-win for a brand refresh.

This city that once was so hazardous to foreigners that it was literally synonymous with kidnapping had become a largely coddling environment for visitors, both in and out of the typical ex-pat areas. Every big city is a branded entity in the global economy, and it would seem that being Shanghai’d now means being taken care of by generous hosts and kindly citizens.

Rule # 6 of great service: great rebrands come from changes on the inside.

I’ve been to enough of these events to know that MIT leans toward the quantitative and analytical side of discussions. And in this case, with speakers like David Berry of Flagship, Alex Pentland, PhD MIT, and Iqbal Quadir of Legatum Center MIT, all indications were pointing to a deep, fact-based, analytical discussion. What happened, however, was entirely different. Our own Devorah Klein and IDEO’s designer Beto Lopez, who were also on the panel, captured the full interest of the audience when they pointed out—in the context of sustainable design—that human interactions can be purposefully designed. When connected to consumer values, human-centered design can inspire and promote behavior change, which, in turn, can encourage early and mass adoption of products and services—consumer, medical, industrial and otherwise.

All the panelists began to build on the point, with David Berry leading the charge. “When it comes to developing Joule, our company that is focused on creating a process to convert solar energy into a liquid fuel,” says Berry, “leveraging design so that we create a user experience that’s readily adopted by consumers is core to our success.” So, while Joule has plenty on its docket—raw science and technology development to name a few big ones—design is deeply embedded in its language and goals.  

The momentum continued, and by mid-way through the panel discussion the conversation was fully focused on the value of design in the innovation process and in creating and building businesses. Along with understanding the economics, technology and market of their business, entrepreneurs are increasingly assigning high value to understanding the functional, social and emotional connections their products make with consumers. The bottom line: Design, in its broadest sense, is becoming a well-accepted strategic tool for business, even in the most technical-based environments and companies.

The students filed in, having been told by Professor Ager that the night’s session would be different. They settled in among a sea of Post-Its and Sharpies—the building blocks of great ideation.

The facilitators for the evening, Anna Muoio and Jon Campbell, kicked off the evening with a simple task—write down the steps that one would go through to pick up a rental car at the airport.  Bulleted lists were scrawled on paper at tables across the room.

The students, like most of our workshop attendees, were confident that they covered everything. Over the next few hours of the workshop, the students would come to view the same experience with very different eyes, and would realize that, in fact, there is much more to see.

After hearing about the basics of Design Thinking and Service Design—methodologies, principles, tools and ways of working effectively—the students learned how to use them. Encouraged by their facilitators and supporting cast from Continuum, including strategists, designers and engineers, the students explored the gamut of the rental car experience.

Armed with Post-Its, Sharpies and nimble minds, students used a tool called ‘Journey Mapping’ to examine the total experience and understand each step from the consumer’s point of view, along with accompanying needs, anxieties and emotional connections. This exercise enabled the students to view the entire picture of how the experience flows and the holistic implications of potential changes and improvements.

Students were then charged with defining the ideal rental car experience, and, in the spirit of using new tools along the way, teams were challenged to convey an individual brand attribute through the experience. One team, charged with creating the experience with the brand attribute “edgy,” decided that ideally the rental car experience should be like a fashion show. They designed individual touchpoints along the journey that would help to create an “edgy” rental care experience.

The workshop was lively, and the students were both engaged and interested. After the workshop, one student said he is always asked to learn linearly.  This workshop, however, took the “Atlas globe” off of his back and allowed him to think more freely. The students departed the workshop in love with their favorite new office supply and excited to apply what they had just learned to their work.

Walk through your friendly neighborhood Target and you’re sure to experience a veritable street fight in the aisle between brands on top of their game. Cool brands, hip brands, brands for moms, brands with a heart, big brands, brands that are good for the earth, brands you’ve grown up with – all battling it out for your attention and your dollars.

And one of the best brands you’ll encounter at Target is, in fact, Target.

It’s never labeled as such, obviously, because Target has realized that it can gain more strategic value by creating house brands targeted (forgive the pun) towards specific shopping categories, not the entire store. Rather than populate every aisle with same looking generic packages featuring the store brand, Target has cultivated a rich assortment of brands that go straight after what users need, want and desire. Step into the candy aisle and you’ll discover a colorful candy brand named Choxie (by Target). Walk down the auto aisle and you’ll see twenty feet of brushes, sponges, hose attachments and polishing cloths under the Vroom brand name (guess who?). Target has changed the game on their house brands, because they don’t feel like house brands anymore – they’ve become good products people just want. And the important point is that structuring house brands this way helps differentiate Target from its retail competitors. Unique products create unique aisle experiences, and unique aisles means Target doesn’t feel like Wal-Mart and the rest.

Which brings me to their latest creation, Up & Up.

Target developed Up & Up as the new brand name for household consumables like paper towels, diapers and disposable dishware.  Gone is the Target bullseye and clean, generic brand package. In its place is a new brand with a more modern look and feel. The reasons for change make sense to me…

What I don’t get is why Target abandoned the street fighter mentality that has worked so successfully for them in other parts of the store – taking on the big guys aisle by aisle. For some reason they didn’t create new, distinct brands around baby, food storage, cleaning, beauty, and the rest. They just made one big brand to try and cover an entire corner of the store. But the rub is that these are unique categories, with unique dynamics and unique shopper needs.

Too unique for just one brand to satisfy?

Did Target miss a big one here?

I’m sure that folks like P&G, J&J and Method are sure hoping so.

What’s in a name? I’m pretty sure old Billy Shakespeare didn’t have spray lubricant and Napa Valley on his mind when he wrote Romeo and Juliet but that question has come up for me recently based on a couple of ads I’ve seen.

The first is from an online campaign  I saw by a coalition of vineyards seeking to protect “place,” the regions in which their grapes grow.

The second is a print ad for a new product from PB B’laster, a small but successful player in the lubricant category, that launched something called PB50. Can you guess the competitor they’re taking on?

Name is naturally an important part of any brand and these ads are trying to achieve opposing goals around brand name in their respective categories – the former seeking to prevent encroachment from knock-offs, the latter attempting to play off WD-40’s brand equity and poach users.

I’m not sure trying to steal brand name (or place) is a viable strategy in the long run. A product, or service, is only as good as the value it delivers. Name is a heuristic to which users attach experiences. If that experience is poor then it doesn’t matter if you come up with a clever smokescreen of a name, your product will fail in the long run.

If PB50 is worth its salt, it should be able to stand on its own. Perhaps the thinking is that playing off the name will encourage trial and the resulting product performance will drive repeat purchase and loyalty. I’m not buying it.

The issue of the vineyards is a bit more dicey. If cheap bottles are being sold as Champagne, the poor quality erodes the value of the French region and its output while playing in a different price range. I lean toward the belief that playing a game with knockoffs like this is a race to the bottom.

As I see it, a brand whose name is being encroached on can:

1. Choose to ignore the knockoff and potentially see share erode

2. Race to the bottom in order to maintain share and run the risk of damaging the brand

3. Push back as the wine campaign is doing while drawing attention to the competition

4. Spend resources on improving the brand and its offerings, counting on the user to see value, not just price

It will be interesting to see what WD-40 does. I’d go with option 4, not an easy road but one that allows you to act, not react, maintain control over that which is in your purview, and protect profit margins along the way.

What do you think? Would you choose a different option? Are there any good examples of brands that launched into the stratosphere off the back of another brand name or are they all just low-price players?

On a recent shopping trip to Mitsuwa, a chain Japanese grocery market in California, Christy found an interesting group of products that occupied a good portion of the local Japanese retail shelf. Promising to deliver an ‘authentic’ drip cup of coffee right to your desktop was a small, thin package no larger than one and a half inches wide and six inches tall. We thought it just might be brilliant idea!

We bought a box of five packets for eight dollars to try it out (click above for the step-by-step process). The most transformative part of the whole experience occurred when we bent the filter horizontally and ‘bam!’ the ground coffee, previously hidden, was revealed. The manufacturer tastefully glued the filter seam so it stays closed during transportation and ‘pops’ open when you bend it. The rest of the process was actually very intuitive as we added hot water and watched coffee come straight through the filter. It was a very good cup of coffee that may have been a bit expensive, but the experience rocked!