Know-How Exchange : Branding

My question is, if the "huge customer base" loves the message and visual identity of the jeweler, where does he see that the business name/logo is too generic?

While a transition such as expansion is a great time to introduce updated, fresh marketing, WMMA is right about taking time to examine the goals and objectives of changing everything; and determine whether such changes will help or hurt the business' image and brand reputation.

The store owner may find that the brand that surveys found that people love, will garner more fans as-is with expansion. If people are as emotional about it as say, Chicagoans when Macy's put its brand name on the beloved Marshall Field's stores after it purchased the retailer, I'd say be very careful, especially with the name.

Even if you do decide to keep the same basic art, it could be modernized without alienating the look and its fans. A fresh marketing message would be more than appropriate with the opening of an additional store(s), as well.

Dear shrinivas.ayyar,

This isn't a dilemma, it's a choice: to change now or remain true to one's history. Here's my humble two cents' worth.

Touch nothing. Not the brand. Not the logo. Nothing. Touch nothing until ALL avenues—all needs, wants, perceptions, desires, markets, revenue projections, liabilities, costs and expenses have been reviewed, weighed, assessed, and thoroughly investigated.

Here's why:

It costs less to attract and retain existing customers than it does to attract new customers.

Your client's current customers know, like, and trust the vendor.
This is an asset with FAR GREATER VALUE than any new logo or desire to change the brand.

Read that again.

Brand destabilization in the guise of a sudden amendment to a logo is BAD KARMA! Why? Because we are visual creatures: a logo or symbol that's connected to a specific acquired meaning, once committed or burned to memory, attracts all kinds of positive associations and connections.

When that logo or marking is changed radically, those positive associations either fade or worse ... they are erased. Forever.

When this happens the process of visual investment that leads to recognition and positive alignment of thinking must begin ALL OVER AGAIN ... from scratch!

This takes time, costs money, and leads to one having to, in effect reeducate the customer or to re-remind them of the benefits they once knew, liked, and trusted.

Every time an existing company introduces radical change into a major and well-known brand the meddling actually does more harm than good.

The fact that customers LIKE the brand means that the vendor is not only accepted, but LOVED! This is an incredibly valuable asset that NO change in logo or branding can, could, or should ever equal. This means a sudden change in the logo, brand, or value proposition will AUTOMATICALLY inject DOUBT into the buying thinking of existing customers.

In marketing, doubt is bad. Avoid it as you would a venomous toad.

Doubt undermines buyer confidence. Undermined buyer confidence reduces the urge to buy. Reductions in the urge to buy reduces the number of customers, who, in turn, generate vital social proof ("Look at Mrs Singh's diamond necklace! She got it at Gupta's!").

The knock-on effect of all these negatives is fewer sales, declining revenues, and lower profit margins. Meanwhile, liabilities and costs cruise along or increase. The longer term result then decides the fate of the business.

Any change in the logo IF NECESSARY must be slow, subtle, and gentle. The logos of businesses that evolve gradually lead to that business enduring for the long haul. Logos of businesses that change radically endure less so.

Finally, I'll leave you with this: your vendor needs his clients but his clients, although they love him, they do not need him.

By this I mean that what the vendor wants is largely irrelevant. He's not the one buying his goods and services, his customers are.

If your client wants to RETAIN those customers AND expand his business, he'll change very little (if anything) and he'll keep his personal wants out of his business building decisions.

Your client may THINK he's in the jewelry business but he's not. He's in the "keeping his customers happy so that they'll come back and tell their friends" business.

I hope this helps.

Gary Bloomer
The Direct Response Marketing Guy™
Wilmington, DE, USA

According to whom are the name and logo "generic and boring?" Research doesn't support that claim, so it must be an "expert opinion." Be careful putting expert opinion ahead of customer feedback.

In my experience, large companies rarely change names, and when they do, it is often because of a major event--merger or major acquisition, or a marketplace debacle that ruins their current brand equity. There is another reason that's more common for small firms, and that's a problem with the ability to trademark and protect the brand name. Sometimes, you can use a name in one location with no problem, but when you try to expand to other markets, you find the name is legally unavailable. But changing the name because some expert doesn't like it is probably not the best thing you can do for the firm. Only do so if it is an absolute necessity.

Firms often update logos, however, for the reasons others in this post have discussed--modernity is the main reason, freshness another--and in an incremental way, as others in this post have also suggested. The new look shouldn't abandon the equity in the logo entirely, but incorporate some--usually most--of the current elements in the new look.

Finally, the name and logo are part of the marketing mix; they need to work in concert with the rest of the levers you can pull and the dials you can turn to create an integrated marketing plan. Start with the plan, then see how the name and look support it.

A life-long Chicagoan and Marshall Field's fan...I don't shop at Macy's. Hate the name change and the fact that they lowered the product quality -- industry info confirms the quality difference. Please don't change the name.

Coke is a great brand to look at for restrained logo updates - you might also want to look at Ivory Soap, Morton Salt, and even Betty Crocker. All these brands have updated their logos subtly over the years with great success.

Don't let the owner or an overly enthusiastic art director get carried away with radically changing the logo.

Good Luck!

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I don't see any dilema here?? He is making money, he has loyal clients, his business is growing. Itis a dream scenario for any business.

Brands are builyt over time.

Is FORD too generic? maybe they should change their name :-)))) HHHMm! what could they change it oo? How about SMITH?

Tel your clinet to enjoy his success and stick with his traditional logo and branmd name - 20 years from now, it will sound new and trendy again :-))

Good luck.

Matthew

I think there is a question not only of what steps to take, but also in what order they are taken.

If the brand name is as well known and respected as you are saying, then it seems a logical step to expand geographically under this name (although you have left out the detail of how far flung this expansion will be, and whether the existing brand name will have any power in the new locations). I suggest you evaluate this question primarily.

If, upon deliberation you determine that there is no real benefit to keep the branding in the new geographies, then the question becomes two fold; to change the branding of the existing store and the new locations, or only launch the new branding in the new locations.

I think most everyone who has commented has suggested that you stage your changes, and one simple way of doing this is to "test" the new branding at the new locations (if in fact there is a case for changing at all), without running the risk of alienating the current customer base at the original location.

For boutique type businesses, who are not selling a commodity product, expansion always brings the risk of losing the "unique" factor that some people look for in making the purchase decision. Fashion & accessories are especially prone to this as people may draw comfort in knowing that they are buying something not readily available elsewhere...and expanding a brand diminishes this benefit...

Perhaps there is a case to be made for keeping them distinctly branded, with a sort of "umbrella" concept that ties them together.

Happy to discuss further.

Ryan

[Skype address deleted by staff]