MTV Changing its Logo after 30 Years

The change was announced on Monday. Notice the difference? Neither did I at first. The difference is that the logo no longer includes a reference to music. According to The Brandchannel and articles in MSN and Ad Age, the move is intended to align with the fact that MTV is now better known for reality TV shows than music videos. There seem to be at least three different motivations for the change.

1. Align with what we do

The MTV brand has represented more than "music television" for many years, and now – appropriately – the words "music television” are no longer part of the official logo. In addition, the original logo has undergone a slight morphing. When MTV launched, the upside of the logo was that it communicated the very specific, targeted business of the brand to a potential audience that had never heard of it. Of course, the downside of the logo is that once the brand diversified to include material beyond music, such as, say, Jersey Shore shenanigans, the logo became confusing, or even absurd." - The Brandchannel, Feb 10, 2010

2. Better appeal to Millennial target

"It represents a new visually defined MTV, stimulating its past, present and future and embracing its diversity. Everything from Jersey Shore, to the VMAs to collaborations with the MoMA. The logo is part of MTV's re-invention to connect with today's millennial generation and bring them in as part of the channel." -- MSN, Feb 10, 2010

3. Put greater focus on MTV talent

"The new logo is meant to put the focus on MTV's current slate of talent -- the stars of mostly reality shows like "Jersey Shore," "Teen Mom," and "The Buried Life." Since the logo (which seems to have a shorter "M" than the original) is also available in a see-through model, it can change when new stars come into the fold. Tina Exarhos, a spokesperson for MTV's marketing team, explained the change to "The New York Daily News": "If you watch the channel, you've seen that it's definitely going in a new direction. We really wanted to see the logo featured in a new way, and this was really meant to be able to house all the great things that are happening at MTV at any given time." PeaceFM, Feb 10, 2010

4. Increase brand recognition

"Mr. Friedman said MTV has also had a problem with brand recognition among viewers who would love certain shows but had no idea they aired on MTV. "The way the logo frames it makes it a simple reference point," he said.- Ad Age

The move has been questioned on several fronts.
Why now after all these years?
Is it enough of a change? Is tweaking enough?
Should the tagline be replaced?
Is it too mainstream/not irreverent enough?

Based on the case you just read and your experiences with MTV, what do you think?

Microsoft: Can this brand be saved?

Last week a remarkable op ed appeared in the New York Times, authored by a former Microsoft executive (Microsoft's Creative Desstruction), that indicted his former company, as only an insider can, for its suppression of innovation through internecine infighting. You can imagine the splash this made in Redmond.

"Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence. It’s not an accident that almost all the executives in charge of Microsoft’s music, e-books, phone, online, search and tablet efforts over the past decade have left."

Adding insult to injury, the Brandamentalist, David Ansett, posted this scathing indictment of the Microsoft brand this week on his blog based on consumer associations as reflected by BrandTags.

I forwarded the New York Times article to our speaker, Kate Mulcahy. Here's what Kate had to say.

There are some painful lessons for all large companies and the challenges that comes with success. I agree that change has to start with the top leaders attitude and actions. And at times, it means having the courage to replace the CEO, as with McDonald's from 7-8 years ago. In 2003 MCD stock was just above $12 per share and McD's was no longer relevant to consumers. McD's learned a lot from performance problems and it clearly taught many of us humility. It also taught senior leadership to never take success for granted. As Carol knows, the simplest analysis of what went wrong is the lack of focus on 3 brand-building basics: 1) Renovation,
2) Innovation and 3) Marketing. Creativity was not a supply issue, it was a demand issue. By the way, MCD stock is currently around $60 a share.

My question for the class is whether the Microsoft brand is irretrievably tarnished or whether, like McDonald's, it's possible to recover greatness? What do you think? What would it take?

Super Brands in Super Bowl

Let the hype begin. With nearly 150 million viewers, the Super Bowl is the marketing event of the year, with some of the best and worst thinking brand marketers have to offer on display. Marketers can make news simply by NOT advertising in the Super Bowl (Fedex, Pepsi, GM). Others are making news by how they leverage their $2.5-$3.0 investment outside of the event itself.

What sometimes is lost is the strategy impetus for promoting the brand in this high profile way. Does the Super Bowl offer a unique opportunity to build equity with customers and prospects? This Ad Age article provides some interesting perspective on brands favored by the fans of each competing team. Even more interesting, the brands favored by likely watchers compared to non-watchers.

"That anticipated audience may be big, but it's still not even half the country. So who are all those holdouts? According to ARS they over-index both as white and African-American. They're less likely to have children. Some 67% are female, and they tend to dislike advertising more than average. People in the West are also more likely not to watch, which isn't surprising given that the NFL abandoned Los Angeles years ago."

"Likely watchers are also predominantly iPhone users and over-index for Budweiser, which is a good thing given it's the game's biggest advertiser. Non-watchers prefer Sam Adams and Coors and the Droid. Watchers like Ford and GMC. Non-watchers like Honda, Nissan and Toyota. In general, Super Bowl watchers tend to overindex as loyalists of American car brands, while non-watchers overindex for foreign makes."

Which brand(s) do you think are using their $3.0 million or more investment strategically to support their business and brand objectives? Which are not?

Brand Architecture Toolkit

Here is a short-hand condensed version of the material you are reading on brand architecture. It is the presentation I WOULD have given tomorrow, but we have our speaker, Rob Osler to enlighten us instead.

Brand Architecture Toolkit Final2.25.09

View more presentations from Carol Phillips.

SONY Climbs the Walls for Recycling

So much controversial brand marketing news this week to choose from.... Apple innovates again with iPad, Burger King launches Whopper Bars, Toyota faces a crisis of quality, Snickers re-enters the Super Bowl, the Super Bowl stirs up controversy by allowing ads from Focus on the Family (why Tim Tebow's Mom didn't abort him).

Rather than discuss any of those, I'd like to highlight an effort from Sony in Japan. This 'campaign' involved recycling Sony billboard tarps into one-of-a-kind jeans, then placing the jeans back where they first hung, on the side of the Sony Building in Tokyo. There, shoppers could browse the whole collection and guys decked out in mountain climbing gear scaled the walls to bring them the pair of their choice. The profits from the sale were enough to cover the cost of the campaign, but Sony kept the recycling going by donating the money to restoring world landmarks.



Another Japanese brand, Toyota, has created special grasses and flower species to adorn its plants and support its 'green' profile. Numerous other green capital improvements have been made to the physical plant. Solar panels and special paint that absorbs harmful gases have been installed at Toyota's Tsutsumi plant.

These programs required considerable effort on the part of Sony and Toyota, all to show they are socially responsible. Yet, these programs do not touch the consumer. And in terms of scale (actual donations and impact) are rather small.

How important is it for companies to support their brands with these types of gestures? Does this make you feel any differently about Sony?

Open Happiness

Last Friday, Coke released a video for its 'Open Happiness' campaign that it hopes will become a global viral sensation. The video has so far had over 900,000 Youtube viewings. The effort is part of a global effort on the 'Open Happiness' theme that includes other social media efforts, including teams sent all over the world to identify 'stories of happiness'.

Here is how Mediapost described the effort on Tuesday.

The video, shot on the Queens, N.Y., campus of St. John's University, concludes with a title asking: "Where will happiness strike next?" and a message encouraging viewers to "Share the happiness, share the video."

A.J. Brustein, global senior brand manager, Coca-Cola, says the video was conceived as a way to connect with teens and young adults outside of TV ads and online games. "We wanted to give them something that would spread a bit of happiness and something they could pass on to their friends to keep the happiness flowing," he sums up.

Coke acknowledges that the effort is an experiment and future videos will depend on the success of this one. Do you think this is a good approach for a powerful brand like Coke to use to connect with younger drinkers? Why or why not?

Culture Networks & Iconic Brands

This week we are looking at the intersection of culture and brands, or what brands come signify in a cultural context. Some brands take on broader meaning and identity value. There are several great blogs and books that have explored this theme. I especially like NYT's journalist, Rob Walker's book, "Buying In: The Secret Dialogue between what we Buy and Who We Are" and its companion blog, "Murketing" (in honor of the increasingly murky line between culture and marketing).

As marketers, the this intersection can result in 'iconic' brands. Doug Holt, author of "How Brands Become Icons" describes icons as "the person or the thing widely regarded as the most compelling symbol of a set of ideas or values that a society deems important.’ Holt describes how brands become iconic, by studying current and past iconic brands.

It's also interesting to take this understanding and reflect on what might be the iconic brands of the future. What brands are speaking into important cultural dialogs now and have the potential to become iconic? I am especially curious why so few Millennial generation-specific iconic brands have emerged . Most of the brands young adults like are the same ones the rest of the culture likes. See "Why Arent' There More Iconic Millennial Brands" for more of my musings on this subject)

What brands do you think have the potential to become iconic for adults currently 18-29? Or is the idea of a generation-specific iconic brand inconsistent with the whole idea of being an icon?

(You may want to check out this Post, "Millennials: Mapping Their Culture Code" and the referenced slide presentation by Tim Stock of ScenarioDNA:

Culture Networks (Lecture)

View more documents from Tim Stock.