When JCPenney announced that they were changing their logo, my first question was what it looked like. My second question was who designed it. I was disappointed to learn that the company had a contest for the logo redesign. Yep, they got it for free:
To choose a new logo design, jcpenney sought submissions that reflect a wide range of perspectives. Participants included the Company’s associates, several design agencies and two art schools – University of Cincinnati and Rhode Island School of Design – that collectively submitted over 200 designs for consideration. The winning design was provided by Luke Langhus, a third-year graphic design student at the University of Cincinnati, who chose to reintroduce jcpenney’s iconic red box – a symbol he has long associated with the national retailer. Langhus developed a versatile logo that preserves the Company’s namesake but can be modified to showcase the “jcp” independently, given his intent to ensure it would resonate with constantly-connected digital consumers who often use abbreviations.
Wow. Abbreviations!! I’ll totally shop there now! And when did the University of Cincinnatti with 304 programs of study become known as an art school, let alone one that is on par with the Rhode Island School of Design?
While I’m happy for Langhus, I disagree with a company using a contest to solicit free work. It makes great press, but it sets a bad precedent. A brand is three-dimensional, full of substance, personality and authenticity. Any changes should be made thoughtfully, carefully and for good reason. It shouldn’t become a corporate MBA’s idea of a “social” experience. At least they announced it rather than just spring it on us–we all learned from the Gap’s mistakes. (BTW, my favorite analysis of the Gap debacle is this FastCompany blog post by brand identity expert David Brier. The comments are spot on, as well.)
I’m a writer, not a graphic designer, although I have partnered with designers for 20+ years on brand initiatives. But if you’re interested in a straight design perspective, check out this insightful post, A Penney for Your Thoughts, by graphic designer Armin Vit. So while I do like the use of the red box and the fresher approach to “jcp,” I don’t care for the way “enney” floats by itself in a sea of white space. Maybe it’s the writer in me, but I don’t think people should have to think too hard about a word when they see it in text or graphics. It’s a distraction–and it detracts. Here’s the explanation provided by the press release:
The jcpenney logo puts greater visual emphasis on a new, lowercase “jcp” by positioning it slightly off-centered in a red box while still featuring the Company’s signature red color and Helvetica font. The logo was designed to evoke a sense of movement and discovery as the letters appear to break out of the box, symbolizing an emergence into an exciting, new future.
I know brand-speak hype when I hear it. I also know movement when I see it–and no offense, but I don’t see movement in this new logo. I see “enney.” And Helvetica. Wow! Original. (Here’s a good quick post on that topic that sums up the Helvetica dilemma: Writing for Designers: Helvetica, overused?)
And as far as “symbolizing an emergence into an exciting, new future,” I think–at JCPenney?? The last item I purchased there was a pair of slippers for my husband’s 98-year-old grandfather, a former farmer. I bought them online from JCPenney–oops, sorry, jcpenney (wow, see the big difference!?)–because I knew it was the only store nearby his rural town where his caregiver could physically go to return or exchange them. (He doesn’t have a computer and has no idea what Zappos is.)
See, this is where the whole “brand redesign contest” approach falls apart. Because any brand strategist worth their salt knows that words like “exciting new future” and “break out of the box” are not associated with the JCPenney or jcpenney brand. It’s a place to buy clothes and household goods at a value. It’s been around for a long time. My older relatives shop there. Enough said.
Unless jcpenney is radically changing their strategy, their stores or their products, a refresh of their logo–that’s what this really is–is not going to change much about the perceptions of people who do or don’t shop there. It’s not going to differentiate jcpenney from JCPenney or Target or Kohl’s or any of their competitors. And while I am a big fan of all lowercase letters and names, displaying JCPenney as jcpenney doesn’t up the cool factor. It doesn’t make it more “social.” It doesn’t compel me to shop there. And it doesn’t change the fact that it’s still the same old JCPenney: more expensive than Wal-Mart. Less cool than Target. Old and irrelevant.
So if you or anyone you know has ever uttered the words “Hey, I know! Let’s have a logo contest!”, ask these five essential brand strategy questions first:
1. Why are you changing your brand identity?
2. Why are you changing it now–and why should we care?
3. What do you hope to accomplish?
4. Who are you trying to reach (if you say everyone, you’re in trouble)?
5. How are you going to support your new brand “promise”–not just in your logo and your press release–but everywhere: inside and out, top to bottom?
Maybe I’m not in jcpenney’s target audience. And I definitely haven’t seen their rationale. But I don’t see anything to get excited about here. I guess it proves one thing: you get what you pay for.
What do you think? Comment or cast your vote.
TV commercials as mirror: is this really who we are and what we’re about?
Published November 3, 2010 Brand , Fun , Marketing , Social Commentary 3 CommentsTags: brand strategy, good TV commercials, HP eprinter, HP happy baby, marketing creative, marketing strategies, positive marketing, positive thinking, Windows Phone 7
How is technology changing society? Just look to marketing, especially TV commercials. Writers often write stories that reflect back what they see around them–prevalent attitudes, culture, changes, issues. Marketers do this too, but unlike writers who try to make a point, change our minds or get us talking and thinking differently, marketers (like me) are trying to sell you stuff. Some of the time, some of us get it right.
And then there are commercials like this one for the new Windows Phone 7.
The first time I saw it, it got my attention. The music was compelling and built up a great crescendo to match the action. The people were so distracted, I caught myself smirking. So true! So ironic! So sad! And so universal–we all know “someone” who is permanently attached to their phone in an unhealthy way. We’re a distracted nation.
Microsoft took that reality and exaggerated the truth even further, showing people crashing into each other, sitting on each other, picking up a phone out of a urinal (yuck). We’re all tripping, falling, ignoring each other, tuning out of our lives and the people around us. The point Microsoft makes is..wow, what a nation of clumsy distracted idiots we are! Look how stupid we look!
Uh huh. And you want me to buy WHAT?
The cheapest shot of all was the saccharine sweet little girl at the end, which is meant to strike fear and guilt in the hearts of parents and grandparents everywhere because we are clearly ruining the next generation. And the solution to all of this guilt, clumsiness, distraction and stupidity?
Why, it’s Windows Phone 7! The phone that will save us (and our children!) from our phones and ourselves. That’s a tall order for a mobile phone. It must have super powers. Except we’re not sure how the Windows Phone 7 will save us because no proof is provided–no benefits, no super powers, no unique design, no competitive advantages.
Does this mean there are none? After all, Windows Phone 7 is…a phone. We will still be just as likely to trip, fall, walk into someone, sit on someone or drive off the road while using this phone as much as any other. I’m not sure if anyone would dive into the urinal to get this phone–an iPhone, maybe.
In my humble opinion, this is a great example of how NOT to market to people. Sure, it’s funny to watch people do stupid things. But in the end, Microsoft is pointing out our flaws. Mocking us. And trying to sell us something on top of it.
Compare this to the HP ePrinter Happy Baby commercial.
Disclaimer: I have kids, but I’m a marketer, so by default, I’m immune to babies, puppies, kittens and Hallmark commercials. But I like this ad because:
1. It’s a simple, well-executed concept. The idea is clearly embedded in our minds through visuals and simple dialogue: send your “baby” to the printer anywhere, right from your phone. I say “baby” in quotes because some people’s “babies’ are their cars, their dogs or their puppet collection. Way to make it universal! This is a short, well-told story. As we say in fiction, “Show don’t tell.” This commercial nailed it.
2. It surprised and intrigued me. Very few things surprise me anymore, but the first time I saw this commercial, I stopped what I was doing. Why? The baby is cute but in a regular kid way, not the stereotypical Gerber baby way. The imagery consisted of simple visuals–baby and road scenes–juxtaposed in an unexpected way. Love that. It’s creative without trying too hard.
3. The tune set the right tone. Many of the YouTube commenters complained about the music. You’ll never please all the people all the time, but as far as I’m concerned, the music has just the right upbeat tempo for the action and adds just the right touch of whimsy.
4. It’s a positive reflection of…me! Unlike Windows Phone 7, this commercial says “technology” and “innovation”without making me feel like a doofus in the process. Gold star, HP!
I’m a big proponent of keeping things positive–especially in marketing. It requires strategic thinking, diplomacy, creativity and above all, common sense. If you want me to love your brand and buy your product, don’t show me what an idiot I am. Show me how your brand fits me and how will it make my life better. You really can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Honey.