If you ever think that you don't get valuable information from all the conferences you attend, think again. At WBF10, the audience spent an hour with neuro-marketing guru Martin Lindstrom, and the value of what he was selling (that 83% of your marketing is, by default, going to be an appeal to the subconscious) is manifest in today's news. News Flash from AP: "Gap is back to blue. The casualwear chain will keep its decades-old white-on-navy blue logo after all. The move comes just one week after the company swapped it online for a new logo without saying a word. The new logo irritated fans, spurring them to complain about it online." We all know Gap's logo--nothing special. And yet...gap aficionados felt so strong an attachment to it that the company's decision to swap it for a new, yet equally "meh" logo caused an online ruckus. Why, and do Gap customers have any idea why? Do any of us have any idea why we react to stimuli?
The thrust of Lindstrom's WBF10 presentation was that we are in an era where the sensory clutter is so intense that companies have to do more than simply slap their logo on a product to cut through the clutter. Effective brands--those that get inside the heads of consumers--are smashable. Say what? Smashable. Take Coke, for example. Lindstrom explains:
Back in 1915 Earl R. Dean, who was working at the Root Glass Company, was given a brief to design a bottle, which firstly could be recognized in the dark. And then, even if broken, a person could tell at first glance what it was. *** He succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. This led to the Coca-Cola Company’s contourization strategy, which used the shape to emphasize the very brand. The bottle he designed was the classic Coke bottle, which has become one of the most famous glass icons ever. The bottle is still in service, still recognizable, and been passing the smash test for every generation over the last 80 years.
Lindstrom urges that all brands should be able to pass this test. That is,"if you removed the logo from your brand, would it still be recognizable? Would the copy stand up to it? Would the colours, graphics and images standing alone pass the text?"
So ask yourself whether your brand is smashable as is that of McDonald's. Lindstrom showed the WBF10 audience images that used the design and color scheme of the chain's logo (red/yellow stripes) but didn't say "McDonald's." And yet, the audience instantly identified the image with the brand. The idea behind smashability, then, is to remove that "logo-fixated mindset [which] brings you closer to a philosophy valuing all elements that create the brand that it is. Two black ears from a well-known mouse are instantly recognizable as Disney. A Singapore girl suggests Singapore Airlines. These are only components of the brand, and yet they’re unmistakable."
We can haggle over whether what happened to Gap today indicates it has a smashable brand. I would say "no," except the company has clearly some kind of emotional/sensory connection to its logo, judging by the outpouring of i-rage over its attempt to replace it. Maybe it's in the blue box that the company retained in the new, scrapped logo? Perhaps, then, Gap is partially smashable--like it can be chipped a little. If so, the company is at least on the road to getting beyond the clutter. Is your brand?
Recent Comments