brandopus

Last week a few of us went along to the D&AD President's Lecture to listen to Bob Gill, Sir Alan Parker and Lord David Puttnam review 50 years of the industry organisation, at the Mermaid Theatre on Puddle Dock (Puddle Dock being one of the cuddliest street names in London.) Once we had established in the cab that we weren't going to see the typographer Eric Gill, we were all set.

The lecture marked 50 years since the beginning of the D&AD and was constructed in a sort of 'Parky' style interview with a nice man (Tom Sutcliffe) asking the three men questions about their career. Sutcliffe began with an introduction which framed 1962 for the audience. Most notably it being the year in which The Sunday Times produced the first ever colour supplement, which all three men agreed had a profound effect on advertising and design. Sutcliffe also helpfully referred to it as being the year in which Don Draper worked on the American Airlines campaign. It turns out these men on stage were the ORIGINAL MAD MEN! Very exciting!

Bob Gill got the ball rolling by talking about moving from NYC to London on a whim for a couple of weeks, and then deciding that he wanted to stay for the rest of his life, which makes you feel very proud to live in London village. Even though it's only 50 years ago, which is really only a teeny amount of time, it was incredible to hear how much the industry has changed. He talked about starting Fletcher, Forbes & Gill (with legendary Alan Fletcher and Colin Forbes) and not having a phone in the studio for the first year. Amazing! This was around the time they started the D&AD, an organisation which was created as a tool for designers to showcase their work. Gill talked about how impressive he thought the organisation and standard of work still was today.

All three men chatted easily about their careers, which often overlapped, and have been incredibly varied and ever changing, which was really inspirational in itself - Alan Parker (very likeable and British - sounded a bit Michael Caine) started out as a copywriter and went on to become a distinguished film director, directing films such as Bugsy Malone, Fame and Evita. (He even told us a story about Madonna- good name drop) Finally David Puttnam, originally an account executive (I had Pete Campbell in mind) showed a Levi's ad by Ridley Scott that he had to sell to his hesitant clients, despite being nothing like anyone had seen before- multiple angle shots and lots of 1970s whizzy movement. It was amazing to see how far we have come in terms of advertising.

However, the most memorable part of the lecture had to be Bob Gill's thoughts on how to get a good idea. He was berating how easy it is for us designers these days to have everything at our fingertips in terms of research and information from the internet.  And despite being able to access information at the click of a button, it doesn't necessarily help form original and great ideas. He used designing a logo for a launderette as an example. His advice was to forget everything you know about launderettes - all your preconceptions, and find one. And sit. And talk to people who work there, people who use the service. Just take it all in  - and once you have taken it all in - the sounds, the smells, everything that makes the launderette what it is, you will come up with an original idea. Listen to that idea, and from there the creative part will be easy.

This makes so much sense! Let's get out from behind out macs more. I know I usually come up with my best ideas on my walk home to Waterloo train station. And I'm now excited about putting this in to practice more often than I already do. Another tip was to draw, draw, draw, which I guess we just don't see enough of these days.  He said going straight to mac is dangerous because you spend yonks tweaking what might actually not be a really strong idea. If you draw it on a Post It you won't feel too precious about throwing it away if in hindsight it's a bit shonky. What sensible advice! Layouts come second to the big idea and he talked about how easy it was for people to forget that.

I came away feeling really inspired and smiley. You left feeling like you'd happily swap maybe, Stephen Fry say, at your dream dinner party for one of these creative geniuses. (Unless Jon Hamm happened to be available that is)

In an article published on one of our favourite brand blogs today, Nir ponders the question of how brands account their price point to the consumer when private label is becoming increasingly savvy.  Read on below, or on Popsop.

On a supermarket trip in Germany recently, I became very aware of the difference between private label structuring at home and abroad. Offering a supermarket brand as an alternative choice to branded products across the majority of categories in store, the German shelves were filled vertically with a myriad of private label copycat packaging sat directly next to their branded twin. 

Walking along the aisles, it was fascinating to study the gap between brand and its replica private label twin across nearly all categories, as they sat alongside each other on shelf. I had one of those eureka moments, when I realized that private label was consistently feeding off the weaknesses of the branded market leader, and that brands which possessed distinctive, ownable traits were protected from the possibility of easy duplication, and were effectively safe on shelf.

Although on the surface the German approach sounds like a big threat to big name brands, the reality is riddled with problems. Private label has the lack of ability to create a proper value-based proposition, and the retailer's design team will be constantly playing catch up with the bigger design budgets that leading brand owners can afford. Equally challenging are the legal and financial implications of a 'passing off' trial should private label take a step too close to the fire, and two designs are deemed too similar.

All things considered, it's not surprising that UK retailers have historically always offered private label ranges on what our agency would call a 'horizontal' positioning structure, meaning a range of tiers across difference price and quality points from basic through better to best. Every retailer in the UK follows the same concept, Sainsbury's own range stands shoulder to shoulder with lower cost offering 'basics' range while premium products are labeled 'Taste the Difference', just as Tesco's standard offering is sandwiched between the 'Value' and 'Finest' ranges. 

The irony of such a range of choices is that consumers always say they want value, but what they really act upon is perceived value. Value is a synonym for cheap but in the real world it's not the product with the lowest price that most often attracts the consumer's eye, but the product that manages to find that point on the parabola, where price and perceived quality intercept. The one, who achieves value equation, wins the customer.

While brands have long sought to entice customers in through repositioning and rebranding to maintain a higher perception, they are becoming increasingly wiser at achieving this through new savvy techniques. With a much wider spectrum of brand awareness tools at their disposal, brands that are far more integrated into consumers lives, and are achieving a much deeper level of brand resonance, the holy grail of any brand in a competitive market.

Private label may have enjoyed a temporary hiatus in the race to compete with brands during the last troubled economic climate, when some consumers sacrificed quality in favour of cheaper products. But the smarter brands used this time to take stock, and plough their energies into design and other marketing strategies. With packaging design that shines on shelf and draws in the consumer, brands are enjoying the fruits of their labours, while private label has found itself lagging. This is dangerous news indeed for brands: with their main point of difference from own brand being design and communications rather than product, the threat of 'branded' competition from supermarkets, who have the ability to offer a similar product at a more competitive price, is a major concern. 

Traditionally we think that consumers choose based on the quality of the product, while really the driver of all choice is the non-cognitive relationship that the consumer has with the brand, which is entirely channeled through the brand identity.

Once the brand identity has accurately addressed how the brand wants to be perceived, it's a matter of finding a role of this brand within the consumer's life.
Retailers have dabbled with creating brands in past, but it needed to generate its own perceived value more effectively in order to compete. Where retailers have failed in the past is by driving interest in the brand by emphasising the cheapness element of the value equation. All this leads to a decline in overall perceived value and increased pressure for pricing to be increasingly competitive, highlighting the need for own brand to generate its own perceived values in order to be sustainable. 

Earlier this year Tesco took a bolder step in this direction with the launch of Yoo, the move to take a brand of their creation into the £1.2bn yoghurt category with a range of 21 products.  Although it's easy to criticise Yoo's packaging design, it acts as a brand, and furthermore, with an own brand price tag (and the promise to undercut popular brands by 20%) Yoo has tipped the value equation to their favour. I have not been privy to any results, but clearly something worked, as towards the close of this year the supermarket giant joined forces with Adams Foods to launch Mu, which the retailer itself describes as having a real presence on shelf.

Throughout all this, two truths remain constant: Everything is branded, whether you consciously brand it or not, and consumer choice is always perception-led. The idea that you can create a rational decision is an illusion; it's all about tipping the value equation to your advantage. What will be most interesting to see is how many more retailers take brands on at their own game over forthcoming months.

Is it irresponsible to play up pester power in the current economic climate? Nir was asked to give his thoughts on the subject to The Marketing Society, published in Marketing Magazine today. See his response here, and the full article after the jump.

"In the midst of the economic crisis, it is irresponsible for the politically correct army to suggest that there is anything wrong with retailers who stock children's toys, not to mention criticising those outlets that dare to market to their end user.

Don't they want to keep the economy alive by encouraging trade, which is so important to the retail industry, even during more optimistic financial times?

Littlewoods' 'Christmas gift ideas' is set to become the most-complained-about campaign of 2011. Beyond being a particularly bad ad, it is not really selling any of the products featured. It is an ad for credit, and children are not the target audience for finance.

A quick look at the complaints posted about the campaign told another, different story. Most viewers were concerned that Littlewoods has effectively 'killed' Santa by suggesting that mum buys the Christmas presents, unnecessarily shattering a magical illusion for many children.

Of course, the irony is that Santa was the inventor of pester power."

Who says that there isn't a uniform for designers?  Dan and John turned up today in matching clothes and found unexpected fame on I like looking like other people blog!