For Reading: Texts Without Context
The act of reading a book is becoming increasingly more social with the introduction of e-book readers like Amazon's Kindle and the increase in online "chatter" about books. Is this taking away from the true purpose of a book as a solitary experience, as an opportunity for the reader to be transported to another world?
The reading states "with the development of software for Amazon.com’s Kindle and other e-book readers that enable users to jump back and forth from other applications, he fears “one of the great joys of book reading — the total immersion in another world, or in the world of the author’s ideas — will be compromised.” This is becoming more apparent every day. We see business men and women on the lightrail each morning reading on their Kindles and their iMacs, usually only for the duration of a few lightrail stops, and occasionally switching between different applications.
The article Read Then Chat by Don O'Briant discusses how online book clubs are a positive thing. When once people were afraid of the internet and it's possibilities of taking from the experience of reading a book. Now people are enjoying the chance to gather online and discuss the books they enjoy.
Can fan edits of movies, television and music be considered unique, or are they just cheap imitations of something greater?
The reading gives the example of videogames and how there is a poorly made game for every movie that is released. They are obviously just an attempt to make money by riding the wave of a decent movie. Can this be true of all videogames though? Some are obviously better than others, and some shine even greater than the movie itself. This article on Gamepro.com gives reasons why it considers Wolverine the game to be better than the movie.
The reading mentions the 3D Guernica video on youtube which I was intrigued to watch. Though this can be said to be an imitation of the original art work, it actually takes on a form of it's own and I believe can be classed as a new piece of art.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Friday, April 30, 2010
Case Study 4
Customers Archetype and Customer Personas
1. What are archetypes and why are they important to branding AND design?
Archetypes are characteristics that provide a deep structure for human motivation and meaning. They can imprinted in everything from art to literature to advertising and so on. Archetypes are used within companies to create a brand identity that is aligned with the strengths and values of the specific characteristic. There are said to be twelves archetypes, each one standing for a different human attribute: the innocent, the everyday man, the hero, the caregiver, the explorer, the outlaw, the lover, the creator, the ruler, the magician, the sage and the jester. By establishing one of these archetypes with a brand, consumers will be able to identify with values that they can connect with. It will then be important to focus all aspects of design with the archetype in mind, to create a sense of cohesion within the company.
2. What is the relationship between branding, personas, and archetypes?
In short, it is the archetype which creates the persona of a brand. A brand is made up of how the public view it, and the personality that it is perceived to have. An archetype can help focus a brand's identity and provide a persona that the public can identify with the company. As an example take Red Cross. As a charitable organization they have linked themselves with the caregiver archetype. Their personality can be said to be gentle, caring and considerate. Consumers then relate this personality to the brand.
3. How can archetype help deal with the “intangible” elements of a brand such as contextual values, emotions, aspirations, and projections?
Archetypes can help create an emotional connection with a brand. This emotional bond is then carried on to the products that a company sells. The consumer feels they have a connection with the brand and therefore a sense of loyalty is formed. This then leads to communities of brand loyalists such as avid Apple fans and loyal Nintendo gamers.
4. What is the relationship between brand core essence and brand archetype?
It is the brand archetype that defines the brand core essence. The essence of a brand is what the brand stands for and is the basis for all brand designs and how the brand wants to be perceives by the public. Attaching an archetype to a brand helps define what the essence of the brand is. For example Sharpie has adopted the creator archetype. This archetype gives them the persona of being fun, imaginative and creative. This in turn becomes the essence of the brand, and everything that the brand is about must revolve around that and reflect it in everything they do.
5. As you begin to develop Branding Project #5, how can archetypes and personas aid you in the development of your brand? What are some examples of how brand archetypes have been used to brand similar brands? Provide detailed examples for support.
Deciding on an archetype for our brand can help give us a personality that we can try and stick to throughout the design process. It is more useful to establish an archetype at the beginning of the process instead of coming up with designs and then trying to figure out what personality they fit best. If every member of the team has an understanding of the archetype that we want associated with our brand then it will be easier to create cohesive designs. To give an example of how another beer company uses an archetype to help establish their brand, I'd use Corona. Corona is a beer company that has adopted the explorer archetype. Through it's commercials and advertising it creates a feeling of travel, of distant places. It links the beer to the beaches of mexico, an idyllic scene where the consumer can envision themselves. By using the explorer archetype, Corona can suggest that they are bringing you a little adventure with each purchase.
6. What archetypes and personas do you feel are appropriate for the motion and interactive aspects of the brands you are developing for Project #5?
I feel that our brand is leaning towards the archetypes of the jester, the explorer, and the everyday man. Our company is focusing on the outdoors, the mountains of Colorado, so the explorer helps get that feeling across. I believe that our brand is actually focusing on a mix between the explorer and the every day man. We are aiming to sell our beer to the every day Coloradoan who adventures into the mountains and possibly sees themselves as an explorer. By combining these two together it is possible to create a lot of humor and that is where the jester archetype comes in. By putting the everyday man in an explorer's situation and showing how disaster can happen leaves a possibility for humor. We want our brand to be perceived as not being serious about surviving out in the wilderness but to be seen as making fun of the situations and laughing at the everyday man. It is this humor aspect that can set us apart from the other Colorado microbreweries that we would be competing against.
1. What are archetypes and why are they important to branding AND design?
Archetypes are characteristics that provide a deep structure for human motivation and meaning. They can imprinted in everything from art to literature to advertising and so on. Archetypes are used within companies to create a brand identity that is aligned with the strengths and values of the specific characteristic. There are said to be twelves archetypes, each one standing for a different human attribute: the innocent, the everyday man, the hero, the caregiver, the explorer, the outlaw, the lover, the creator, the ruler, the magician, the sage and the jester. By establishing one of these archetypes with a brand, consumers will be able to identify with values that they can connect with. It will then be important to focus all aspects of design with the archetype in mind, to create a sense of cohesion within the company.
2. What is the relationship between branding, personas, and archetypes?
In short, it is the archetype which creates the persona of a brand. A brand is made up of how the public view it, and the personality that it is perceived to have. An archetype can help focus a brand's identity and provide a persona that the public can identify with the company. As an example take Red Cross. As a charitable organization they have linked themselves with the caregiver archetype. Their personality can be said to be gentle, caring and considerate. Consumers then relate this personality to the brand.
3. How can archetype help deal with the “intangible” elements of a brand such as contextual values, emotions, aspirations, and projections?
Archetypes can help create an emotional connection with a brand. This emotional bond is then carried on to the products that a company sells. The consumer feels they have a connection with the brand and therefore a sense of loyalty is formed. This then leads to communities of brand loyalists such as avid Apple fans and loyal Nintendo gamers.
4. What is the relationship between brand core essence and brand archetype?
It is the brand archetype that defines the brand core essence. The essence of a brand is what the brand stands for and is the basis for all brand designs and how the brand wants to be perceives by the public. Attaching an archetype to a brand helps define what the essence of the brand is. For example Sharpie has adopted the creator archetype. This archetype gives them the persona of being fun, imaginative and creative. This in turn becomes the essence of the brand, and everything that the brand is about must revolve around that and reflect it in everything they do.
5. As you begin to develop Branding Project #5, how can archetypes and personas aid you in the development of your brand? What are some examples of how brand archetypes have been used to brand similar brands? Provide detailed examples for support.
Deciding on an archetype for our brand can help give us a personality that we can try and stick to throughout the design process. It is more useful to establish an archetype at the beginning of the process instead of coming up with designs and then trying to figure out what personality they fit best. If every member of the team has an understanding of the archetype that we want associated with our brand then it will be easier to create cohesive designs. To give an example of how another beer company uses an archetype to help establish their brand, I'd use Corona. Corona is a beer company that has adopted the explorer archetype. Through it's commercials and advertising it creates a feeling of travel, of distant places. It links the beer to the beaches of mexico, an idyllic scene where the consumer can envision themselves. By using the explorer archetype, Corona can suggest that they are bringing you a little adventure with each purchase.
6. What archetypes and personas do you feel are appropriate for the motion and interactive aspects of the brands you are developing for Project #5?
I feel that our brand is leaning towards the archetypes of the jester, the explorer, and the everyday man. Our company is focusing on the outdoors, the mountains of Colorado, so the explorer helps get that feeling across. I believe that our brand is actually focusing on a mix between the explorer and the every day man. We are aiming to sell our beer to the every day Coloradoan who adventures into the mountains and possibly sees themselves as an explorer. By combining these two together it is possible to create a lot of humor and that is where the jester archetype comes in. By putting the everyday man in an explorer's situation and showing how disaster can happen leaves a possibility for humor. We want our brand to be perceived as not being serious about surviving out in the wilderness but to be seen as making fun of the situations and laughing at the everyday man. It is this humor aspect that can set us apart from the other Colorado microbreweries that we would be competing against.
Case Study 2
Google Android
1. What does this product do for the companies’ brand?
This product allows Google to step out of it's familiar territory - the computer - and in to a whole new one - the smartphone. Google has firmly placed itself at the top, shining above any other internet brand. It provides a trusted search engine, an e-mail service, maps, and countless other services. Now it is branching out into another territory, one capitalized by the likes of Apple and Blackberry. The loyalty people already have with Google should transfer over to this new product, creating a sense of trust without having to fully experience it. However, if the product were to fail or leave a negative impression, then that would affect Google's brand image and they may lose a lot of the loyalty they have spent years building up.
2. What are the sources of Google’s’ brand equity?
The main source is Google's search engine. It is how everyone got to know Google and where their image was built up from. By creating a trusted search engine that is fair and equal it has found itself a fan base of loyal consumers.
3. What are the strengths associated with Googles’ brand?
The ability to give the consumer what they want. Most often for free. When I think Google I think reliability and speed. I am confident that I will be provided with everything I need to find what I'm looking for.
4. Describe some of the design challenges Googles’ Android faces in terms of its publicity, phone design, and marketing?
One challenge Google faces is actually getting some attention out in the smartphone world. Trying to stand out amongst all of the iPhones and Blackberrys is tough, especially when many of the users of the phones that Android runs on aren't even aware that it is a Google product that they are using.
With regards to phone design, it is important to stand out amongst the competition here too. You don't want to have a phone that looks too similar to something that already exists, but you still want the user to feel comfortable with the design and feel like they know where everything is already.
As far as marketing, it will be difficult to market themselves as a brand when people are not necessarily looking at the OS but the phone itself. It will be hard to give the same impression that it is able to give with it's search engine.
5. How does the role of branding differ for consumer services vs. consumer products?
The difference here is that when branding a service such as a search engine, a name can be tied directly to it. You think "I'm going to search for this, I'm going to use Google." However when branding a product that is enclosed within another product, such as Google Android within the HTC Dream, it is hard to keep your name tied to it. You are more likely to say "I'm going to buy the HTC Dream" than "I'm going to buy the HTC Dream which contains Google Android."
6. Evaluate Android in terms of its competitors. How well is it positioned? What are its points-of-parity and points-of difference?
Android is positioned pretty well amongst the smartphones, with it's main competitor being Apple and the iPhone. It managed to climb quite high because it offers many of the things that consumers have come to expect from a phone, such as a touch screen and multitude of applications. What sets it apart is the fact that it is open source. This allows for many possibilities of customization, something that Apple cannot say it offers.
7. What recommendations would you make in order to maximize Android in relation to all of the other software and services Google provides?
I think the first step is to release their own phone that uses Android so that they have a product that people can relate to, instead of being the secondary name to another company's phone. From here they should ensure that all of their other services work on Android, from the search engine to maps to google docs to gmail. It will then be possible to have Android be the number one Google product and have everything else be a subsidiary of it.
8. Who is Google’s consumer base? Does extending its brand bode well for the brand?
I'd say Google's consumer base is anyone between the ages of 8 and 80… old enough to know how to use a computer, and also young enough to know how to use a computer. I do not feel that they have been targeting a specific demographic. However recently with the release of Android it seems like maybe they are trying to target a more hip demographic. By extending the brand they are narrowing their consumer base, whether it is accidental or not. This may lead to a loss of many of their consumers, but for now they are still a company for everyone.
1. What does this product do for the companies’ brand?
This product allows Google to step out of it's familiar territory - the computer - and in to a whole new one - the smartphone. Google has firmly placed itself at the top, shining above any other internet brand. It provides a trusted search engine, an e-mail service, maps, and countless other services. Now it is branching out into another territory, one capitalized by the likes of Apple and Blackberry. The loyalty people already have with Google should transfer over to this new product, creating a sense of trust without having to fully experience it. However, if the product were to fail or leave a negative impression, then that would affect Google's brand image and they may lose a lot of the loyalty they have spent years building up.
2. What are the sources of Google’s’ brand equity?
The main source is Google's search engine. It is how everyone got to know Google and where their image was built up from. By creating a trusted search engine that is fair and equal it has found itself a fan base of loyal consumers.
3. What are the strengths associated with Googles’ brand?
The ability to give the consumer what they want. Most often for free. When I think Google I think reliability and speed. I am confident that I will be provided with everything I need to find what I'm looking for.
4. Describe some of the design challenges Googles’ Android faces in terms of its publicity, phone design, and marketing?
One challenge Google faces is actually getting some attention out in the smartphone world. Trying to stand out amongst all of the iPhones and Blackberrys is tough, especially when many of the users of the phones that Android runs on aren't even aware that it is a Google product that they are using.
With regards to phone design, it is important to stand out amongst the competition here too. You don't want to have a phone that looks too similar to something that already exists, but you still want the user to feel comfortable with the design and feel like they know where everything is already.
As far as marketing, it will be difficult to market themselves as a brand when people are not necessarily looking at the OS but the phone itself. It will be hard to give the same impression that it is able to give with it's search engine.
5. How does the role of branding differ for consumer services vs. consumer products?
The difference here is that when branding a service such as a search engine, a name can be tied directly to it. You think "I'm going to search for this, I'm going to use Google." However when branding a product that is enclosed within another product, such as Google Android within the HTC Dream, it is hard to keep your name tied to it. You are more likely to say "I'm going to buy the HTC Dream" than "I'm going to buy the HTC Dream which contains Google Android."
6. Evaluate Android in terms of its competitors. How well is it positioned? What are its points-of-parity and points-of difference?
Android is positioned pretty well amongst the smartphones, with it's main competitor being Apple and the iPhone. It managed to climb quite high because it offers many of the things that consumers have come to expect from a phone, such as a touch screen and multitude of applications. What sets it apart is the fact that it is open source. This allows for many possibilities of customization, something that Apple cannot say it offers.
7. What recommendations would you make in order to maximize Android in relation to all of the other software and services Google provides?
I think the first step is to release their own phone that uses Android so that they have a product that people can relate to, instead of being the secondary name to another company's phone. From here they should ensure that all of their other services work on Android, from the search engine to maps to google docs to gmail. It will then be possible to have Android be the number one Google product and have everything else be a subsidiary of it.
8. Who is Google’s consumer base? Does extending its brand bode well for the brand?
I'd say Google's consumer base is anyone between the ages of 8 and 80… old enough to know how to use a computer, and also young enough to know how to use a computer. I do not feel that they have been targeting a specific demographic. However recently with the release of Android it seems like maybe they are trying to target a more hip demographic. By extending the brand they are narrowing their consumer base, whether it is accidental or not. This may lead to a loss of many of their consumers, but for now they are still a company for everyone.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Critical Questions 02-23
For Video: The Changing Face. For Reading: Before & After.
To me, one of the interesting parts of the video was when he talked about how "people are becoming more aware of being marketed to and filter out a lot of current marketing." This then forces advertisers to think differently about how they are going to get the attention of consumers.
When he first mentioned this I thought straight away of my parents. Whenever they are watching TV, as soon as a commercial break starts they put the TV on mute. Just like Ewen says, they are aware that they are being marketed to and they don't want anything to do with it.
My question is: How do advertisers reach people like my parents who are purposely avoiding them?
I believe that it is through family and friends influence. When my parents do take the TV off mute to listen to a commercial it is often one that they have heard other people talking about. I may have mentioned to them about Google's Parisian Love commercial and how I thought it was clever and neat, so the next time it comes on they are inclined to take the TV off mute and watch it, simply because I recommended it.
So perhaps the right direction for advertisers would be to try and make commercials that can become something that people want to talk about and tell others about.
When reading Before and After in the Designing Brand Identity book, I found myself pausing over the section about packaging redesign, specifically the box on HP Inks.
The box reads "HP's new packaging increases appeal to a younger audience while staying true to HP's world-class leadership position."
This is all well and good that they want to try and target a younger audience, but when they already have such a recognizable package ca it be harmful to their brand image to change?
I myself am an HP user and whenever I go to buy ink for my printer I am looking for the recognizable blue HP box. Of course, when I can't find the blue box, I look a little further to see that the ink is still there just in a different box, and I can deal with that, I'll just know to look for a different box next time. The problem is though that not everyone may be as open to change as I am. Perhaps hay do not trust the ink coming from a different box, perhaps their perception of the entire company changes because of the frustration they felt when they couldn't find the box they were looking for.
Packaging redesign can work wonders for lesser known companies who are trying to stand out amongst the crowd. But for larger already established companies the change can end up being a negative rather than a positive.
To me, one of the interesting parts of the video was when he talked about how "people are becoming more aware of being marketed to and filter out a lot of current marketing." This then forces advertisers to think differently about how they are going to get the attention of consumers.
When he first mentioned this I thought straight away of my parents. Whenever they are watching TV, as soon as a commercial break starts they put the TV on mute. Just like Ewen says, they are aware that they are being marketed to and they don't want anything to do with it.
My question is: How do advertisers reach people like my parents who are purposely avoiding them?
I believe that it is through family and friends influence. When my parents do take the TV off mute to listen to a commercial it is often one that they have heard other people talking about. I may have mentioned to them about Google's Parisian Love commercial and how I thought it was clever and neat, so the next time it comes on they are inclined to take the TV off mute and watch it, simply because I recommended it.
So perhaps the right direction for advertisers would be to try and make commercials that can become something that people want to talk about and tell others about.
When reading Before and After in the Designing Brand Identity book, I found myself pausing over the section about packaging redesign, specifically the box on HP Inks.
The box reads "HP's new packaging increases appeal to a younger audience while staying true to HP's world-class leadership position."
This is all well and good that they want to try and target a younger audience, but when they already have such a recognizable package ca it be harmful to their brand image to change?
I myself am an HP user and whenever I go to buy ink for my printer I am looking for the recognizable blue HP box. Of course, when I can't find the blue box, I look a little further to see that the ink is still there just in a different box, and I can deal with that, I'll just know to look for a different box next time. The problem is though that not everyone may be as open to change as I am. Perhaps hay do not trust the ink coming from a different box, perhaps their perception of the entire company changes because of the frustration they felt when they couldn't find the box they were looking for.
Packaging redesign can work wonders for lesser known companies who are trying to stand out amongst the crowd. But for larger already established companies the change can end up being a negative rather than a positive.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Case Study 3
Case Study 3
Equity, Brand and User-Experience
1. The focus on brand and control of user experience are attempts to overcome the "complacency of the artifact." Creating new forms of interaction is a way to escape the push towards sameness.
Qualitative differentiation is one of the keys to tackling this complacency. By creating new and different forms of interaction design it is possible to create a user experience that forms a positive brand view and allows a product to stand out amongst the rest.
I think tag galaxy is a great example (http://taggalaxy.de/). As far as image searches go they're all pretty similar. Google images is okay but a little unpredictable, and there's sites like photobucket and flickr which have the images but aren't the easiest to navigate. Tag Galaxy on the other hand really sets itself apart. It is based off of flickr but contains an interactive element that sets it apart. You can search for a word and be presented with a sphere of images that you can explore and view all at once. You can see related words and explore the galaxy of images. It is a veer unique search engine and provides a excellent user experience.
2. I think this was made quite clear in the article BMW website gives 'best experience' . BMW's website was a stronger web experience because it included many things that customers were looking for such as lists of cars and test drive information. Ferrari's website did not include such information and so scored lower in customer experience.
Customers who visit BMW's website are going to be more likely to purchase a product in the end because of the good user experience. This helps substantiate the brand because a customer will remember the experience they had with the company and their view of the brand will be positive.
3. User-experience design is about consistently representing and delivering the brand values you have led your customers to expect in order to achieve a desired brand perception. Positive user experience has direct correlation to positive brand perception. And to achieve positive brand perception, a user must be able to link your brand values to your brand through effective interaction design.
For example, take FedEx (http://fedex.com/us/). FedEx's brand values are about delivering your mail and packages in a fast and efficient manner. Their website reflects this by putting everything you need right there on the main page. There is a tracking form to check the status of your packages, there is information about shipping, fees and store locations. Their website is efficient and fast, just like how we see their brand.
4. I think the obvious example here is Amazon. Customers were getting annoyed with having to enter their credit card information each time they bought something. Amazon listened to what customers wanted and provided an easy solution. Now you only have to enter your credit card information once and Amazon will remember it.
Another example that can be seen as either good or bad is Facebook. Facebook changes the layout and function of the site unusually frequently (at least three times in the last few years). The apparent reason behind the changes is that it is listening to what users want and responding by trying to make the site safer and easier to use. However, every time the site layout is changed there is an uproar from users who do not appreciate the change. They just got used to the new design and now everything is changing again. They like consistency and familiarity and to them nothing needed changing. It appears that Facebook is listening and responding to some of their users, but it is not listening to those who want things to stay the same.
5. “Brand represents the intellectual and emotional associations that people make with a company, product, or person. That is to say, brand is something that actually lies inside each of us.”
When a user experience is comfortable, intuitive, consistent and trustworthy, then the user will relate the emotions they get to the brand and they will form a positive view of the brand.
I'd like to compare Google to Yahoo in terms of a search engine.
Google's user experience is pretty flawless. You have your main search box as the main thing on the page while other parts of the site are listed neatly at the top left out of the way. Google is intuitive as anyone can use it, it is comfortable because of the clean design and simplicity of use, and it is consistent and trustworthy too. Customers want to be able to find what they are looking for, and Google provides them with the perfect tool.
The user experience in Yahoo's site is very different. The main page is littered with things like news, "my favorites", "trending now", ads, funny videos, and other such boxes. A user feels overwhelmed in the site and the ease of use is not apparent. Yahoo is trying to be too many things at once, and because of this the user experience suffers. And this negative user experience leads to a negative view of the brand.
Equity, Brand and User-Experience
1. The focus on brand and control of user experience are attempts to overcome the "complacency of the artifact." Creating new forms of interaction is a way to escape the push towards sameness.
Qualitative differentiation is one of the keys to tackling this complacency. By creating new and different forms of interaction design it is possible to create a user experience that forms a positive brand view and allows a product to stand out amongst the rest.
I think tag galaxy is a great example (http://taggalaxy.de/). As far as image searches go they're all pretty similar. Google images is okay but a little unpredictable, and there's sites like photobucket and flickr which have the images but aren't the easiest to navigate. Tag Galaxy on the other hand really sets itself apart. It is based off of flickr but contains an interactive element that sets it apart. You can search for a word and be presented with a sphere of images that you can explore and view all at once. You can see related words and explore the galaxy of images. It is a veer unique search engine and provides a excellent user experience.
2. I think this was made quite clear in the article BMW website gives 'best experience' . BMW's website was a stronger web experience because it included many things that customers were looking for such as lists of cars and test drive information. Ferrari's website did not include such information and so scored lower in customer experience.
Customers who visit BMW's website are going to be more likely to purchase a product in the end because of the good user experience. This helps substantiate the brand because a customer will remember the experience they had with the company and their view of the brand will be positive.
3. User-experience design is about consistently representing and delivering the brand values you have led your customers to expect in order to achieve a desired brand perception. Positive user experience has direct correlation to positive brand perception. And to achieve positive brand perception, a user must be able to link your brand values to your brand through effective interaction design.
For example, take FedEx (http://fedex.com/us/). FedEx's brand values are about delivering your mail and packages in a fast and efficient manner. Their website reflects this by putting everything you need right there on the main page. There is a tracking form to check the status of your packages, there is information about shipping, fees and store locations. Their website is efficient and fast, just like how we see their brand.
4. I think the obvious example here is Amazon. Customers were getting annoyed with having to enter their credit card information each time they bought something. Amazon listened to what customers wanted and provided an easy solution. Now you only have to enter your credit card information once and Amazon will remember it.
Another example that can be seen as either good or bad is Facebook. Facebook changes the layout and function of the site unusually frequently (at least three times in the last few years). The apparent reason behind the changes is that it is listening to what users want and responding by trying to make the site safer and easier to use. However, every time the site layout is changed there is an uproar from users who do not appreciate the change. They just got used to the new design and now everything is changing again. They like consistency and familiarity and to them nothing needed changing. It appears that Facebook is listening and responding to some of their users, but it is not listening to those who want things to stay the same.
5. “Brand represents the intellectual and emotional associations that people make with a company, product, or person. That is to say, brand is something that actually lies inside each of us.”
When a user experience is comfortable, intuitive, consistent and trustworthy, then the user will relate the emotions they get to the brand and they will form a positive view of the brand.
I'd like to compare Google to Yahoo in terms of a search engine.
Google's user experience is pretty flawless. You have your main search box as the main thing on the page while other parts of the site are listed neatly at the top left out of the way. Google is intuitive as anyone can use it, it is comfortable because of the clean design and simplicity of use, and it is consistent and trustworthy too. Customers want to be able to find what they are looking for, and Google provides them with the perfect tool.
The user experience in Yahoo's site is very different. The main page is littered with things like news, "my favorites", "trending now", ads, funny videos, and other such boxes. A user feels overwhelmed in the site and the ease of use is not apparent. Yahoo is trying to be too many things at once, and because of this the user experience suffers. And this negative user experience leads to a negative view of the brand.
Case Study 1
What is the Starbucks brand?
A brand is not a company’s logo, or the product it sells. It resides inside the customer’s brain, it is their gut feeling about the company. Customers see Starbucks as an authentic coffee experience, that conveys the artistry of espresso making. It is a place where they can gather and talk over a great cup of coffee, away from work and home. Starbucks welcomes people and rewards them for coming with a layout that allows for both fast service and quiet moments. These are the things that customers think of when they think of Starbucks. This is what the brand is to the consumers.
How did Starbucks build such a successful brand?
There were many factors that went into the creation of such a successful brand. The store location was important; Starbucks spent time choosing the ideal places in cities to set up their stores. Locations that had a desirable demographic and that were easily accessible. The stores were later designed to reflect one of the four coffee making procedures: growing, roasting, brewing and aroma. These involved certain lighting schemes, color combinations and specific furniture. The design of stores was important in the creation of the brand because how the customer sees the store depends on what they see in the store.
What is Starbucks DSI?
On their website, Starbucks mentions “Putting people before products.” I believe this is their DSI. They form good relationships with coffee farmers, they make connections with customers in the community, and they provide support for their employees. It is through these people that they are able to make and sell great coffee.
What role has design aesthetic played in the rise of Starbucks?
How would you characterize Starbucks’ positioning?
Starbuck’s positioning as a coffee seller is probably the highest possible. Their stores are everywhere, allowing for convenient access wherever you may be, especially with their drive-up service. There are a lot of other coffee shops out there who are attempting to rival Starbucks but none of them have come close. Starbuck’s move into supermarket products such as ice cream, canned drinks and their own coffee has taken them another step further, becoming the best of these supermarket products too.
How would you summarize their product and market development strategies?
It seems as if Starbuck’s product development reflects the needs and wants of their customers. They came out with compilation CDs due to customer requests. The artwork on their products also reflects the people in that particular city – with peach-shaped mugs in Atlanta and Statue of Liberty artwork in New York. Customers want cold drinks, tea drinks, low fat drinks, and Starbucks delivers. Not without proper market testing first though. Starbucks makes sure to test each new product first before rolling it out into the rest of their stores. This is important in making sure that most of the general public only gets the best of the best.
Why has Starbucks encountered difficulties in recent years?
There is a thought that maybe Starbucks is becoming too big for it’s own good. “Their level of saturation in some markets leaves community members feeling as though they have been invaded.” Howard Shultz himself says, "Stores no longer have the soul of the past and reflect a chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store." Starbucks has run into a cost issue, where they are demanding a price that is no longer reasonable for something that isn’t “special” any longer. Most of the early Starbucks goers enjoyed spending a quiet time with their cup of coffee, now they are out numbered by the customers who want their coffee fast and easy. The introduction of many new products has led to longer waiting times, greater skill needed by baristas, and the loss of the “coffee purist” customers.
What recommendations would you make to Starbucks marketing executives to help them moving forward in terms of their use of design as brand?
I would say that Starbucks needs to make their stores special again. I like the idea of new designs reflecting the character of each store’s surrounding neighborhood. Though there may be an issue due to the vast number of stores, causing close stores to appear similar still. I believe they should try to return to their roots and concentrate their store designs on the coffee experience. Making a place that isn’t so overwhelming with products, but is inviting and comforting. They should stick with their current logo and outside store design as it has become recognizable and this has led to a lot of their success. However inside their design should be warm and inviting and speak to the kinds of people who come there. With stores in a busy city center reflecting the urban life and stores out in peaceful suburbs catering to the quieter lifestyle.
A brand is not a company’s logo, or the product it sells. It resides inside the customer’s brain, it is their gut feeling about the company. Customers see Starbucks as an authentic coffee experience, that conveys the artistry of espresso making. It is a place where they can gather and talk over a great cup of coffee, away from work and home. Starbucks welcomes people and rewards them for coming with a layout that allows for both fast service and quiet moments. These are the things that customers think of when they think of Starbucks. This is what the brand is to the consumers.
How did Starbucks build such a successful brand?
There were many factors that went into the creation of such a successful brand. The store location was important; Starbucks spent time choosing the ideal places in cities to set up their stores. Locations that had a desirable demographic and that were easily accessible. The stores were later designed to reflect one of the four coffee making procedures: growing, roasting, brewing and aroma. These involved certain lighting schemes, color combinations and specific furniture. The design of stores was important in the creation of the brand because how the customer sees the store depends on what they see in the store.
What is Starbucks DSI?
On their website, Starbucks mentions “Putting people before products.” I believe this is their DSI. They form good relationships with coffee farmers, they make connections with customers in the community, and they provide support for their employees. It is through these people that they are able to make and sell great coffee.
What role has design aesthetic played in the rise of Starbucks?
How would you characterize Starbucks’ positioning?
Starbuck’s positioning as a coffee seller is probably the highest possible. Their stores are everywhere, allowing for convenient access wherever you may be, especially with their drive-up service. There are a lot of other coffee shops out there who are attempting to rival Starbucks but none of them have come close. Starbuck’s move into supermarket products such as ice cream, canned drinks and their own coffee has taken them another step further, becoming the best of these supermarket products too.
How would you summarize their product and market development strategies?
It seems as if Starbuck’s product development reflects the needs and wants of their customers. They came out with compilation CDs due to customer requests. The artwork on their products also reflects the people in that particular city – with peach-shaped mugs in Atlanta and Statue of Liberty artwork in New York. Customers want cold drinks, tea drinks, low fat drinks, and Starbucks delivers. Not without proper market testing first though. Starbucks makes sure to test each new product first before rolling it out into the rest of their stores. This is important in making sure that most of the general public only gets the best of the best.
Why has Starbucks encountered difficulties in recent years?
There is a thought that maybe Starbucks is becoming too big for it’s own good. “Their level of saturation in some markets leaves community members feeling as though they have been invaded.” Howard Shultz himself says, "Stores no longer have the soul of the past and reflect a chain of stores vs. the warm feeling of a neighborhood store." Starbucks has run into a cost issue, where they are demanding a price that is no longer reasonable for something that isn’t “special” any longer. Most of the early Starbucks goers enjoyed spending a quiet time with their cup of coffee, now they are out numbered by the customers who want their coffee fast and easy. The introduction of many new products has led to longer waiting times, greater skill needed by baristas, and the loss of the “coffee purist” customers.
What recommendations would you make to Starbucks marketing executives to help them moving forward in terms of their use of design as brand?
I would say that Starbucks needs to make their stores special again. I like the idea of new designs reflecting the character of each store’s surrounding neighborhood. Though there may be an issue due to the vast number of stores, causing close stores to appear similar still. I believe they should try to return to their roots and concentrate their store designs on the coffee experience. Making a place that isn’t so overwhelming with products, but is inviting and comforting. They should stick with their current logo and outside store design as it has become recognizable and this has led to a lot of their success. However inside their design should be warm and inviting and speak to the kinds of people who come there. With stores in a busy city center reflecting the urban life and stores out in peaceful suburbs catering to the quieter lifestyle.
Critical Questions 03-09
For Readings: Phase 4, The Case for Brands, Truth in Advertising
Do customers pay more for a brand because it seems to represent a way of life or a set of ideas? Is that why people are drawn to Apple, because of the lifestyle associated with it? Do they see others using the products and see those people in a certain way? A way that peruades them to also want to buy the product? Is it really just about wanting to fit in in the world, to not feel like an outcast because you don’t have the phone that eveyone else has?
Can anti-brand activism really damage a large company? We’ve seen major companies subject to things like alleged sweatshop abuses and predatory business practices, but do these allegations actually hurt them, or are they too powerful to be fazed? Take Nike’s trouble with the sweatshops. The suggestion that this shoe company was involved in such actions led to many people believing it and losing their trust in Nike. But look at the company now… they are still as popular and productive as ever, as if nothing ever happened. Is it because of the size of the company and the power they already had that they managed to survive?
Do customers pay more for a brand because it seems to represent a way of life or a set of ideas? Is that why people are drawn to Apple, because of the lifestyle associated with it? Do they see others using the products and see those people in a certain way? A way that peruades them to also want to buy the product? Is it really just about wanting to fit in in the world, to not feel like an outcast because you don’t have the phone that eveyone else has?
Can anti-brand activism really damage a large company? We’ve seen major companies subject to things like alleged sweatshop abuses and predatory business practices, but do these allegations actually hurt them, or are they too powerful to be fazed? Take Nike’s trouble with the sweatshops. The suggestion that this shoe company was involved in such actions led to many people believing it and losing their trust in Nike. But look at the company now… they are still as popular and productive as ever, as if nothing ever happened. Is it because of the size of the company and the power they already had that they managed to survive?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
