I’d like to think I’m a pretty socially aware gal. I recycle. I volunteer. I buy organic, sustainable products and use a reusable bag whenever and as often as I can. But I’ve always had a weakness for clothing—lots of it.
Once a year, I perform a ritual “closet cleanse” and donate all the clothing I haven’t worn in the past year to the Salvation Army. It’s helped me realize (not proudly) how little I once considered the social and environmental impact the production, manufacturing and purchasing of clothes has on the world.
Since 2008, Americans have spent $250 billion on clothing and accessories every year. Worldwide, the fashion industry employs 25 million people. That’s an enormous amount of lives being impacted by American spending.
In my search for easier ways to shop consciously and understand the impact this pleasure of mine has on the world, I recently came across a new column in Good Magazine, Ethical Style: Fashion Advice for the Socially Conscious.Its author and creator Tabea Kay raises interesting questions to both companies and consumers. Why has the industry been slow to respond to its increasingly socially-conscious consumers? How can caring consumers who lack industry know-how spot the difference between greenwashing and actual commitment to better practices?
For companies in fashion, an industry that’s long had a bad rep, this is an opportunity to creatively use brand to change the way they’re perceived in the world. It’s time to listen to the people who buy their products and change their business practices to give consumers (like me!) more ways to feel good about associating with them.
So how do you shift the conversation from apathetic to empathetic, from pretentious to considerate?Some brands are beginning to make headway in sustainable business practices: H&M has integrated organic and recycled raw material in their supply chain and Stella McCartney has been called “a forerunner of vegan fashion.”
Still, in H&M’s case, their sustainability efforts are dulled by a focus on throwaway fashion that only lasts a season. The waste piles up in our closets and then, our landfills. In regards to Ms. McCartney, her line, as ethical as it sounds, is hardly accessible to the main street consumer. The solution doesn’t scale.
Part of the problem is linguistic. Most industry leaders don’t have the language to conceive of what “ethical fashion” could be. To help, a U.K. non-profit called the Ethical Fashion Forum has begun creating guidelines for sustainable fashion. They call it the “triple bottom line.” Ethical Style summarized it briefly as “a sustainable company must consider the people, the earth, and the bottom line.”
I applaud the EFF for providing information and sustainable guidance to fashion industry leaders, but there is still another gap that needs to be filled. Consumers also need better language and information to guide their shopping decisions; in this sense, fashion is several large steps behind the food industry.
As consumers become more aware of their role in the global economy, new factors affect all of our buying decisions: What we buy and where it comes from reflects who we are. Right now, this presents a challenge, but also a unique opportunity for fashion companies to educate and engage their customers. What if they looked to the food industry as a model for how to build consumer loyalty by giving them more information?
It wasn’t British Airways fault that the snow fell last Saturday. And they weren’t solely to blame for the anaphylactic chaos at Heathrow. But for those of us who were caught up in it all, it was a ringside opportunity to experience a brand totally out of kilter with its promise.
Let’s start with that BA promise: To Fly To Serve. What does that mean to its people?
Not much to one BA steward who chatted to us during the hours we sat on the tarmac as the plane kept missing its slots. He shrugged and said that yeah, Management had done something with the brand but it didn’t mean anything to him: ‘ We just get on with it don’t we?’
Not by the BA ground staff who patronized us all as we were herded back through Terminal 5 when the flight was finally cancelled, aghast that we might want some more information rather than a vague wave towards the hotel bus. Or the ones who greeted us the next morning at Terminal 5 and replied to our questions with “No one tells us anything”.
And certainly not by the pilot of our second plane – which left 5 hours late and sat another two hours on the tarmac before take off – whose parting words as we landed at our destination were: “ It’s been a difficult time for all of us – especially for the crew. I hope all of you will agree that British Airways has fulfilled its contractual obligations to you.”
If BA had been true to its brand, that 36 hours could have played out so differently. I would not have reached my destination any sooner or less frustrated but my loyalty to BA would have strengthened thanks to a better experience.
But it didn’t. To Fly to Serve is not a promise, it’s a strapline. Its people don’t live by it, its consumers make a joke out of it.
That’s bad for the brand. Which means that’s bad for business.
A few months ago, we attended a class called “Making Something People Love” taught by Alexis Ohanian, co-founder of Reddit and director of marketing at Hipmunk. In his intro, Alexis admitted that the class was like a Branding 101 class, but he didn’t want to use the word “brand.”
Brand is a dirty word to many entrepreneurs, but their skepticism comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of what brand is.
Brand is a lot more than just your name, logo or visual identity.
A strong brand should crisply encapsulate the role your organization plays in the world, and it should act as a filter to guide your business decisions. While a clever name and logo can set you apart from some competitors, a strong brand is what gets you your funding, builds your engaged community of users, and creates a focused vision for the future.
Brand is a platform for action, not a marketing afterthought.
Too often we hear of startups who are so busy getting their products out the door, they don’t have time to develop a purposeful brand. A recent Fast Company piece points out that in the past, “brands were simply too hard and too expensive to create.” Today, expectations for startups have changed and there’s growing acknowledgement that brand creation can no longer be considered an afterthought.
If we look at some of the most successful startups that have emerged in the past ten years, a strong, purposeful brand is the common link that drives their success. In a world saturated with ecommerce sites, Etsy has set itself apart from the competition by building a brand that stands for craft, creativity and community.
Similarly, Zappos has differentiated itself by cultivating a brand that delivers happiness to itsemployees and customers. Mint crafted a brand around the idea of simplicity—an idea that guided its name, UX, visual identity, and voice. In all of these cases, a clear and focused brand maximizes the potential of a great productidea by creating a coherent universe around it.
In today’s increasingly crowded startup space, a single product is no longer enough tomake you stand out. Your product, UI, look and voice need to be unified with a common purpose that resonates with your users. Brand is that strategic glue. It should guide your every venture and help it stand out to funders and to the world.
Join Wolff Olins for the Brand Strategy Lab, a four-part workshop series at General Assembly in NYC this March. This series is an in-depth introduction to the fundamentals and tools of brand strategy, developed specifically for a startup audience. We’ll teach you the tenets of brand strategy and facilitate workshops to guide you as you create your own brand. The series will culminate in presentations and critiques so you can test drive your new brand and refine the direction it will take in the world.
About the internship: We’re looking for an energetic account management intern to work with our team in New York City. You’ll work on a range of client projects; gaining a real perspective on the many ways we help clients achieve their business and brand goals.
You’ll get to: Creatively problem solve a diverse range of challenges
Collaborate closely with an eclectic group of experts in design, strategy and production Manage the many, many details that need to come together to create big impact
We’re looking for someone who is: Energetic + enthusiastic
Organized + detail oriented
Good at herding a group together
An active listener Curious about the world + passionate about brands A strong writer Collaborative + fun
Other Details: Timing: Full-time spring and summer openings, 2.5 months
Start Date: TBD
Location: New York City Compensation: This is a paid internship. Who can apply? College students and recent grads –the internship role will be tailored based on experience.
Deadlines: Spring – due by February 24th / For Summer – due by March 23rd.
About the internship: We’re looking for a kick-ass strategy intern to work with our team in New York City. You’ll work on a range of internal and client projects, experiencing firsthand how brands are created and evolved.
You’ll get to: Contribute to the development of brand strategies Research and analyze markets, technologies and trends Develop new business pitches and proposals
We’re looking for someone who is: A clear + analytical thinker Curious about the world + PASSIONATE about brands Energetic + enthusiastic A great storyteller + determined to get to the heart of an issue Articulate + organized A strong writer + researcher Collaborative + FUN
Other Details: Timing: Full-Time, starting in June Location: New York City Compensation: This is a paid internship. Who can apply? College students – the internship role will be tailored based on experience.
Deadline: Your application must be received by February 24th
At Design Indaba, Michael Wolff spoke about how to exercise your idea-creating capacity by first getting rid of your ideas. He also told great stories from his time with Wolff Olins and after, about the importance of language in design and some of the “little creatures” that have made their way into much of his work. Here are some of our favorite lines, though we encourage you to watch and choose your own.
On editorial design:
“When I hear the word ‘copy’ I always shudder, because it has implicit in it that language is just something you have to make a shape of. But language is a critical part of what we do.”
On simplicity in language:
In one scenario, there were “thousands of forms that were like the top one: ‘GIVE DETAILS OF ALL OTHER PERSONS RESIDING IN THE RENTED ACCOMMODATION WHICH YOU ACTUALLY OCCUPY OTHER THAN YOURSELF AND YOUR HUSBAND’ we asked 10 people ‘What does it mean?’ and they said ‘they’re trying to get us out of our accommodation.’ So, we changed it to ‘Who else lives with you?’
On the Shell logo:
“The colors had drifted off into bloodclot red and lemon orange and so we just warmed the colors up. Sometimes that’s all you have to do. Leave something alone. Then I started the conversation with the chairman of Shell saying ‘why do you say Shell on shell?’ and he said ‘You’re right, do you know how long it’s going to take me to get the word Shell off the shell?’ I said ‘no’ and he said ‘five years.’”
On other things:
“The wheel has existed for 8,000 years. How come we only put it on a suitcase 30 years ago?”
“What you must do with a great idea is immediately throw it away because otherwise you won’t exercise your idea-creating capacity. Just keep throwing them away because you’re going to get more and more of them.”
“I mistrust my experience in terms of using my imagination; it’s going to miscolor it, try to dominate it.”
Between all the strategic pre-game leaks, Twitter’s Ad Scrimmage, and the NBC/YouTube partnership that created the Ad Blitz channel, the actual 30-second Super Bowl on-air spot is now the center of a more prolonged, immersive advertising experience. Often these experiences are so focused on the spectacle or story of a campaign that the real merit of the brand gets lost in them.
Marketers have done a great job of capitalizing on the one opportunity each year where people are actually anxious for commercials. And in turn, an estimated 54% of those watching last year’s game were actually more excited for the ad breaks than the game itself, according to a 2011 study by Harris Interactive.
But where advertisers think they’re speaking to people asking to be “advertised to,” most viewers are really just anticipating a series of performances.The commercials that people generally “love” (the ones that will appear on most bloggers’ “Top 10” list and the USA Today Super Bowl Ad Meter) aren’t the most effective, they’re just the most entertaining. While raw amusement is awesome for viewers (who doesn’t want to watch a series of 30-second comedies?), most of today’s Super Bowl commercials probably aren’t getting the job done for brands.
For a spot to be at its most effective and worth its $3.5 million price tag, it has to do more than entertain. It has to tell a worthwhile story about the brand in a way that gets attention for an appropriate reason. It also has to teach us something about the honest values and unique feel of the company it promotes.And it has to do all this strongly enough to inspire us to engage with that brand in the future, not just re-visit its commercial on YouTube.That’s an important distinction that often gets overlooked on this night.Pure entertainment gets the most hype (and yes, leads to temporary brand awareness) but it takes more than that to win true fans.
After the game (or now, since you’ve probably seen most of the commercials already), we’d love to hear your thoughts on which brands had the most effective commercials (not just the ones that made you laugh the hardest).In turn, we’ll share our own thoughts in an upcoming post. Comment below, on Facebook or tweet @wolffolins.
To watch the commercials with a more critical eye this year, here are a few fundamental characteristics to consider:
Is it entertaining? Is this commercial captivating enough to get a million views on YouTube?Does it put you in a good mood?It could be funny, surprising, dramatic or just plain cute, but a Super Bowl commercial today needs to meet a baseline level of entertainment just to meet viewers’ lofty expectations.
At its best: Audi’s “Escape from Old Luxury” (2011)- This commercial was funny, a tiny bit suspenseful, and in the end, staked out a real position for the brand.It proved that a commercial can use comedy without being completely empty.
Is it emotionally on brand?Did watching the commercial give you the same feeling you get when you’re in that brand’s store, using/consuming its products, and reading about its actions in the news?The commercial should create expectations that are in line with the rest of the brand experience and make a case for the importance of the brand’s own values in people’s lives.
At its best: Google’s “Parisian Love” (2010)- In addition to showing how easy and helpful its search features are, this spot simply oozed of the optimism and delight that characterizes Google at its best.
Is it Inspiring?Did the commercial realistically change your behavior?Did you quickly look up the new Mercedes models after (or even during?) the game?Did you buy a Pepsi Max the next day because you remembered it has zero calories?Did you rethink the value of an electric car?A spot doesn’t need to lead directly to a sale but it should inspire a viewer to do more than just watch it again and again.
At its best: Chrysler’s “Imported From Detroit” (2011) - Though I didn’t buy a car last year, this commercial definitely changed my perception of the brand, as well as the American auto industry as a whole.The day after the game, I remember spending a few hours reading all about the revitalization of Detroit, almost entirely due to the fact that I saw this commercial.
Last weekend, I did the unthinkable: I got off the world’s largest social network.
My sister changed my Facebook password, so for at least 30 days, I’ll be off the grid. This means no status updates, no news feeds or even Instagram integration.
It’s a social experiment I’m conducting to understand the value that Facebook brings to the way people connect with each other.
As Facebook gets ready to go public, Mark Zuckberg wrote a letter to prospective shareholders, sharing his mission and ambitions for the company. One of his goals is “to strengthen how people relate to each other.” To what extent can Facebook actually do that?
Malcolm Gladwell argues that “the platforms of social media are built around weak ties.” While I disagree with Gladwell’s critique of social media’s ability to create social impact, there’s some truth to what he says. The people I really consider my friends communicate with me through email, IM, text message, or in person. Of course, if you’ve lived in many places, Facebook is an effective way to keep in touch with friends who live in other parts of the world. Or, if you are seeking to promote your personal brand, it’s useful for staying on top of mind for your former bosses, clients, coworkers and employees. If you’re not on Twitter or Tumblr, it’s also useful for keeping track of news and inspiration through the pages you like.
But the user value tapers off there. If we are really honest with ourselves, we spend a lot of time on Facebook seeing people on our feed we really don’t care about: the middle school classmate we haven’t talked to in 10 years, ex-boyfriends and girlfriends, your old boss you never got around to de-friending. Even by curating your friends’ list, it’s impossible to game the Facebook newsfeed to see the friends you really want to see.
I thought getting off Facebook would be the equivalent of quitting smoking, but surprisingly, I don’t yet feel like I’m suffering from FOMO (“fear of missing out”).
My questioning of Facebook’s social value is actually part of a larger trend in the world. What I’ve observed is that the backlash against the “weak ties” we maintain on Facebook and other social media platforms has led to a demand for channels that create more meaningful, personal connections. We’ve recently seen this manifest itself through online communities like Path, a more personal network that limits your friends to 150, and Stamped, a sort of “stranger-less Yelp” that lets you keep track of the restaurants, books, movies, and other things your close friends have stamped with approval.
As people increasingly turn to other online networks and activities to keep “close ties” with the people they really care about, I know I’m not alone in questioning where Facebook currently belongs in my life. I’m not suggesting that people will soon stop using Facebook—last year Americans spent more time on the social network than any other website out there. But with its purpose and role in people’s lives always changing, it’s important that Facebook now focus on growing with its users and not against them. If it doesn’t, it could lose them, potentially for more than 30 days.
I’ll write a follow-up post once I’m back on Facebook, so stay tuned for post-fast thoughts.
Melissa Andrada is a brand and content strategist at Wolff Olins New York. She’s passionate about the intersection between technology, social good and brand. @themelissard
Recently, we created a little chart to help a client understand the role of design and information hierarchy in product packaging.
To keep it simple, we used a milk carton.
We used only three pieces of basic information: the manufacturer (Smith), the product identifier (Milk) and the milk fat content modifier (1%, 2% or Vitamin D Milk). It’s what Americans see everyday in the dairy aisle.
We then explored how design decisions affect the product – the basics like information hierarchy or the use of type (e.g. a script type to emphasize “freshness”), the use of language (e.g. cheerful “Mooo Milk)”, color (to reinforce differences in fat content), illustrations (to tell a provenance story) and even form factors (e.g. glass bottles for “premium”). You can see the complete exploration on the chart, especially when you zoom in.
On the bottom of the chart, there are two examples of how it all came together: ”Good, better, best” shows how design influences quality perception, emotional product narrative and differentiates products. ”Shelf Blocking” then proves the power of design to aid shopability and create shelf presence.
In the end, we were amazed what the humble milk carton taught us about the AWESOME POWER™ of design. Design affects product, and what affects the product affects sales.
Join Wolff Olins for the Brand Strategy Lab, a four-part workshop series at 
