Archive for the 'Brand Relevance' Category
What do you think about the new AOL brand?
AOL turns into Aol.
The company that used to be called AOL, and was recently spun off from Time Warner, is shrinking in size in order to survive…and now its name and logo are shrinking as well. Perhaps as a reflection of its intention to cut about 2,500 jobs, AOL has changed the UC treatment of the acronym to one that includes an upper case “A” and lower case “ol”. And, in an attempt to communicate that the company is in the internet space, it is adding a “.” after its moniker. “AOL” is now “Aol.”
Brand identities need to be refreshed every so often. This can be motivated by the fact that, over time, design aesthetics change and it may be necessary to refresh a design that starts to feel dated. However, changing a brand identity can also be symbolic of a change in the company’s focus or structure, or a change in the marketplace situation. In the case of AOL (oops, Aol.), the change seems to be motivated by the changes in the company’s structure and a desire to re-introduce itself to its audiences.
Is “uniquely dynamic” the same as trite and playful?
According to Tim Armstrong, the company’s CEO, “Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people - employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade.”
The new look was created by Wolff Olins, the same firm that also designed the much maligned 2012 London Olympics logo, and most recently the fairly unpopular NYC logo. So far, the new Aol. identity is not being embraced with much affection. Take a look at a recent article in Fast Company or read the story on CNet .
I think the new Aol. is awkward.
In my opinion, the new identity may very well be “dynamic”, but it seems to be trying too hard to look young and energetic. The playfulness seems out of line with the announcements about layoffs, and the seriousness of Aol.’s financial situation. Changing the font to lower case is a simplistic attempt to look friendlier and more accessible…while at the same time, the lower case “l” looks like an upper case “I” (which is visually confusing). In fact, I think the whole thing looks a bot awkward…and I find that the addition of the “dot” is trite - while at the same time it poses all sorts of problems when writing out the name of the company in text form - AOL simply looks and works much better than Aol. (Wait…at the end of a sentence should I add another period after the dot?). And this commentary has not even begun to take into account the backgrounds from which the letters Aol. are reversed out. What is that pink cloud? Perhaps a bit of cotton candy? And, what is the green scribble? I find that the is dot hard to read in that version. Do you? BTW: In Italy the hand image stands for “cuckold”…I think that’s pretty funny.
I don’t like it. Do you?
OK…it’s obvious, I don’t care for the new Aol. identity. I’d love to hear what any of you think of the new logo? Is this what you would do to help AOL change the way that people think about the brand?
I’d love to hear your opinion.
Ciao!
Alfredo Muccino
Chief Creative Officer
Liquid Agency
The Design Thinking Lecture Series
Talking and Thinking about Design Thinking.
On Wednesday night I attended an event at the Thomson Reuters center in NY featuring Roger Martin, the dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto; Tim Brown, the CEO of IDEO; and Will Setliff, VP of Strategy, Insights and Innovation at Target. The three panelists were joined by Bruce Nussbaum, from BusinessWeek – who helped moderate the conversation, often making it more interesting through humor and memorable anecdotes.
The conversation centered around the topic of “Design Thinking” - which is also the subject of a new book by Roger Martin, titled “The Design of Business”, and also another book by Tim Brown titled “Change by Design”. I have not yet read the books, but look forward to doing so, and I will share my thoughts about them. For those not familiar with the term, design thinking are the words used to describe a process that balances the exploration of new ideas with current knowledge to drive innovation and generate value for companies.
Here are a few insights from the panel discussion.
Today’s business practices are too “scientific”.
Some of the discussion hovered around the notion that today’s business models are “too scientific”, according to Mr. Martin, who suggested that the need to “prove in advance” the success of an idea makes it practically impossible to innovate. Companies that are driven by analytical thinking strive to create predictable results based on past experience and rigorous quantitative analysis. These companies typically fail to support the kind of innovation that – by definition – introduces whole new ways of solving existing challenges. Design thinking is advocated as the practice enabling business to strike a balance between analytical thinking and innovation – which, the panelists argued, is essential to create a sustainable competitive advantage
Design thinking has many challenges to overcome.
According to the panelists, design thinking is already embraced by innovative companies (like Apple, Google, Target, Toyota, etc.) however these companies are the outliers in corporate America. Part of this is due to the fact that design thinking is not what is taught at most universities, and the tens of thousands of MBAs that enter the business sector annually are trained to use analytical thinking and scrutinize data to arrive at decisions….ultimately killing ideas that could make a big difference if they were explored further before being dismissed because they are “unproven”. Mr. Martin reminded the audience that if Steve Jobs had run Apple as an analytical company, such innovations as the iPod and iPhone would have never seen the light of day.
The current business climate is another challenge – as many companies will choose to “re-trench” instead of “re-think” - and according to the panelists this creates opportunities for those companies willing to apply design thinking to explore new, innovative processes, products, markets, distribution channels, etc.,
We need to question the question.
One of the most interesting topics of the evening was posed by Tim Brown, who suggested that not enough emphasis is placed on the question that initiates the design process. Being a designer, Tim has been trained to start with a “brief” - a document that outlines the objectives, audiences, requirements, etc. Designers are often handed the brief as a way to begin the design exploration. Tim not only suggested that designers should write the brief instead of the client, but should question the intent and need that necessitated the brief to begin with….he referred to it as the need to “question the question”. These comments made me think about the fact that we are in fact trained to strive for the answer…and perhaps generating more questions will lead to more interesting ideas.
Where does design thinking start?
Mr. Nussbaum asked “where and how do we start incorporating design thinking into a business?”. Will Setliff of Target said that it is important to find what he called the “locus” or central place where to start incorporating design thinking into a company. He said that it is important to change processes and not just products and services. Target of course, is a company that has become synonymous with design and innovation – and this is true not just in terms of the products they sell or how they operate their stores, but how they run their business. One example that Will shared with the audience is that at Target they take new hires and immediately put them through a process designed to reinvigorate their sense of creativity and set aside some of the stuff they learned in business school. This indoctrination into design thinking can be very impactful and invigorating for many of the business people – who, according to the panelists – often will resist going back to the old analytical approaches. Personally, I think that change must be championed at the top – and I am willing to bet that most organizations that embrace design thinking are led by CEOs who are visionary, independent thinkers who cherish innovation and who constantly challenge the status quo.
What does this mean for agencies like ours?
Creative agencies are typically started by designers – people who are trained to solve problems using a process that includes defining the problem, exploring a variety of different solutions, prototyping, testing, and adjusting to ensure that the final result solves the problem in an innovative manner. However, most agencies have not been very innovative in designing their own businesses. Most agencies have become victims of the pressures placed upon them by corporate America and as a result they don’t “question the question” - to borrow Tim Brown’s terminology – and they churn out advertising that is uninspired (both in terms of the creative or the media that is being used), branding programs that are developed in silos (packaging teams don’t talk to digital teams) and use processes that seem a bit antiquated (brand platforms that assume the company owns the brand in a world when consumers shape brands more than ever). It is time for agencies to re-think their business models. I feel that Liquid is in this category…however, we are painfully aware of it, and are hard at work, changing what we do and how we do it. That is one of the reasons for the merger with Neutron, and one of the benefits of having Marty Neumeier on our executive team. He’s constantly challenging us to think ahead of the curve and focus on innovative solutions.
Thanks for the inspiration to make some changes.
I left the conference rejuvenated and inspired. I would like to thank Roger Martin, Tim Brown, Will Setliff and Bruce Nussbaum for delivering an engaging and stimulating discussion. I also would like to thank Sandra Blevins of the Brand Collaborative for inviting me to attend. I returned to my hotel room with my head buzzing with ideas, anxious to work on the transformation that will help us deliver better work for our clients and create a better firm for all that work at Liquid. As I’ve said before….expect big changes.
Liquid Agency CCO writes about the London brand.
Alfredo Muccino writes about what the London brand means.
Below is an article written by Alfredo Muccino for CorpComms Magazine - the only monthly magazine targeted at the in-house communicator. The magazine offers advice and informative articles on a range of topical subjects, such as social and digital media, internal communications, sponsorship and CSR. Based in London and published by Hardy Media, the publication is edited by Helen Dunne, who contacted Liquid to get our thoughts on the London brand, since Boris Johnson, London’s mayor recently announced that he wanted to re-brand the city.
Having just returned from the British capital, Alfredo Muccino, Liquid’s Chief Creative Officer wrote a short article which appeared in the latest issue of the magazine.
Here’s the article. If you have any comments, we’d love to hear them.
London: The intersection of old and new.
“Some destination brands are easier to define than others. Las Vegas is defined by What happens in Vegas Stays in Vegas, and the brand promise is very clear. Vegas is a place where you’re invited to be wild. Everyone who goes there knows what to expect, and they immediately belong to the tribe. And, of course, Las Vegas delivers. In Vegas you are transported into a surreal landscape of make-believe palaces and landmarks, adult entertainment, gambling, bars and dancing girls. The value proposition is clear and anchored in truth.
So how can we define the brand for a city like London? What sets London apart from other cities? Why should I choose to visit London instead of Paris? What does London deliver? Is it the Royal family and Buckingham Palace? Is it the sense of tradition and propriety? Is it the punk movement that today feels rather traditional? Is it the pub culture, the warm beer and fish and chips? I think that these are outdated stereotypes, and in my opinion London delivers a very different experience today. The brand should capitalize on that.
Today, London is a vibrant multi-cultured centre where the modern provides a great contrast to tradition. You see this in the people, the architecture, the music, the food and the fashion. I find London to be sophisticated and energetic, filled with people who are creative, interesting, highly educated and extremely cosmopolitan. The city is not just a destination for business people but for visitors who seek a dynamic, entertaining and inspiring experience. In my opinion the London brand should leverage the idea of modernity challenging the past. It is in this contrast that lie the refreshing ideas that make London exciting and memorable. London is the cross roads of old and new…past and future…tradition and rebellion. This is something worth experiencing and something that London delivers with plenty of charm.
1 comment
