Year: 2011

The invisible language

By Mark Di Somma

My friend Simon is a designer. One of his favourite lines is “Great kerning will save the world”. Chances are if you’re an art director or a designer or, if like me, you work with art directors and designers every day, you’ll find this amusing because it references a whole bunch of things about the discipline, the passion and the perspectives of those committed to impeccably forged design. If you’re not a designer, you probably didn’t even grin. That’s OK. It’s not your dialect. Language is about so much more than communication and meaning. It is filled with ideas and references that to some extent reflect the worldviews of those who enjoy them. People preserve those tenets in all sorts of ways. Some they jargonise; others they culturalise or instinctualise. The acronyms are the easy part, because they are immediately confusing and confronting but at least they’re visible. I think the hardest thing to understand about any new sector you’re trying to market to is the embedded meanings, the invisible language, what goes without saying.

Tying brands up in knots

By Mark Di Somma

Three things all of us probably need to spend more time thinking about: A burgeoning moral factor that is becoming more militant – brands are expected to behave ethically, responsibly and sustainably, and part of that moral exploration seems to be veering towards finding ways to supply goods at competitive prices in ways that do no harm … to anyone. For an economic system that has always depended on having winners and losers, that’s a huge swing. The commoditisation of loyalty (not just product) – the growth of world class and best of breed systems haven’t just encouraged sameness, they’ve also slashed the risk of shifting from one brand to another. If product, service and risk are basically the same, consumers have little or nothing to lose by changing allegiance. Consumers are not just disloyal in some sectors. They are becoming increasingly disloyal in every sector. Resentment of profit – as consumers have suffered through the GFC, their expectations for companies to deliver them more and more “value” have increased. Give “me” more, even if …

Flogging a dead Playhorse

By Mark Di Somma

Brands retain value from their legacy providing they are still seen as relevant and interesting, providing they are still competitive and providing they retain goodwill. Or if people have had enough time to forget why they failed in the first place. In other words they can recover if they have enough momentum, or they can be reborn on the back of nostalgia, but once they’ve flatlined, and particularly if they have been in that state for some time, they can be very difficult to resuscitate. Take the case of the Playboy brand. It’s powerful, sure. And it does have significant heritage. It’s logo is recognisable anywhere and there is huge history there. But can it just continue to trade on the value it had? Doubtful. It is, as Adam Gordon rightfully points out, “a classic failure of industry foresight” and even though Gordon observes that “Brand is value stored up in the past to be reaped in the future”, I don’t share his apparent optimism about the brand. Playboy cannot realistically expect to carry on …

The difference between next and again

By Mark Di Somma

Why have all the sequels that have been planned to the Rocky Horror Shows either not been made or have flopped? The obvious answer is they couldn’t live up to the original. I suspect the real reason though may be a little more subtle – they couldn’t reach the spirit of the original. Because, in the meantime, circumstances changed. Other films and musicals were made. People got to a point where they had done that – still are doing it all over the world every weekend – they just didn’t want to do a variation of it. It’s a dilemma that every successful product faces. Something wins – now what? How much of what you had do you keep? How much do you revamp? What stops 2 being too? In the case of Rocky Horror, the storylines were just as wacky, many of the characters made a return, author Richard O’Brien was still involved … and yet … Rocky Horror worked brilliantly. The numbers say it’s still working. There are facts, but there is no …

Refreshing your brand promise

By Mark Di Somma

Great products sell themselves. No they don’t. But equally, people don’t just buy brands because they’re brands either. Familiarity matters, but for the most part today’s customers are far too sophisticated to buy just anything with a nice or familiar name attached to it. Or rather to keep buying it without question. A brand by itself doesn’t guarantee you anything. Sometimes companies with brands that were once iconic forget that. They somehow believe that because the branding process can add margin, all brands must equal margin and presence must equal profit. Wrong. So wrong. Brands will only bring margin when everything else is right. Right itself seems pretty straightforward. Make a really interesting promise. Deliver on it in really interesting ways. Do that, and the circle is seamless. Get it wrong and the circle is vicious. When you don’t pay attention to the detail of your brand, there are consequences. The brand itself starts to breaks down. It degrades. To a name. And instead of a brand portfolio, all you’re really left with is a …

Job satisfaction

By Mark Di Somma

The next time you’re bored at dinner, here’s a discussion guaranteed to re-animate conversation. Simply ask “What do you think is the world’s most unnecessary/useless/over-rated job?” (choose any option – they all work). The night I asked, suggestions came thick and fast. And most of the reasons people gave for disparagingly rating jobs the way they did fell into clear categories: 1.       Do nothing 2.       Add nothing 3.       Cost a lot and do nothing 4.       Talk a lot and add nothing 5.       Why do they bother? 6.       Think they matter but don’t 7.       Complicate everything 8.       Superficial 9.       Lack ability 10.   Lack personality 11.   Clueless 12.   Ruthless 13.   Make no difference whatsoever 14.   Pen pushers 15.   Grizzlers 16.   Vultures 17.   Leeches 18.   Bullshitters 19.   Fence squatters Interestingly, a number of vocations received ratings in multiple categories. How do you think other people see the work you do? Are they right?

Leaning away from the list

By Mark Di Somma

Further to the last post on Michelin. Over at The Domino Project, Seth Godin and his team are clearly having the same misgivings about the publishing industry – that when you work to a prize (in this case a place on The New York Times list) that prize can have a huge influence on swathes of what you do, and the influence isn’t necessarily positive. Here’s two excerpts from their piece on why they will not be courting popularity with The New York Times Bestseller List: If you publish books (or write them) aimed at a mass audience, the Times list is never very far from your focus. It’s not just an indicator (the proverbial canary, indicating what’s going on in the mine) but it’s also an amplifier, a spark that can lead to ever more sales, conversations and credibility … … But there’s a cost. The cost is that you have to write differently, promote differently and do business differently. Simple questions about rollout, promotion, pricing, packaging, titles and distribution sooner or later come …

Staring at stars

By Mark Di Somma

The temptation to excel at what you do and, just as importantly, to be recognised for that is huge. It’s not always a good thing. Last night, finally got a chance to watch Michelin Stars – The Madness of Perfection, William Sitwell’s look at how a guide that started out as a simple way for motorists to find something to eat has evolved into a gastronomic obsession that makes and breaks restaurants and chefs. (The Michelin star story itself is actually an amazing story about the evolution of a brand, but I digress …) I saw immediate parallels with the advertising and design industries, where the drive for gongs can be equally strong and can also lead to an obsession with detail that any beyond the industry, and many within it, simply do not see, and certainly do not care about. As one creative director used to say, never forget that most consumers are watching your “art” with their tea in their lap. In other words, they have no interest in the kerning of headlines …

My thoughts on developments at MySpace

By Mark Di Somma

Another reminder this week that the social media space – just like every other market – is not one consistent goldfield. While the likes of LinkedIn and Facebook continue to build powerful brands and potentially public business models, MySpace has lost a lot of ground, and much of what I see here takes me back 10 years to the boom and bust of the dot.com times. Some parallels I noticed: Participation is not enough. If you don’t have a distinctive, clear and evolving money-model for your brand, it’s not enough to be in the same arena as those making money. You will be overshadowed and outperformed. Cash cows are grown, not born. The purchase price is no guarantee of anything. In the case of the $580 million that News Corp paid, it’s not even a barrier to entry for others. It just means you paid a high entry fee based on a perception of what lay ahead. There’s a recurrent warning in there too for valuing “new models”. In terms of fundamentals, there are no …