I’m inspired by my friend Mike’s new renegade promotional efforts to stir up some commotion over his client/friend Rachel Nasvik’s handbag line. Inspired by the book The Pirate’s Dilemma, Mike decided to subvert the New York City street stand piracy game by beating those vendors to the punch.  Using Twitter, he alerted fans when a limited number of genuine Rachel Nasvik bags (normally sold at high end department stores) would be available at those ubiquitous street stands for a discounted amount – then sat back and let the excitement build.   Fans were delighted to be let in on the deal, and Mike strengthened the Rachel Nasvik community by giving loyalists a reason to stay tuned in.  Plus, by accessing an irreverent and fun new “channel,” the brand made a statement about its personality and, I’ll say it, joie de vivre.   Sounds like a brand worth staying in touch with.  More here.

I’m not a graphic designer. I’m not a designer of any kind. And I’m certainly not a typographer. But I have always, always loved the power and persuasion of a beautiful typeface. Each one with their own distinct personality and inherent message… think about how Times Roman conveys a stately, tried-and-true seriousness versus, say, a Futura that’s so wonderfully clean and contemporary (but with a timelessness to it, likely because it’s been around since the 1920’s).  The picture above left by Penelope Dullaghan highlights the artistry of typography that transcends “text”.

All this said, there’s a wonderful article in last week’s New York Times Magazine about the slow change to the signage of America’s roadways from the tired and less-clear “Highway Gothic” font to the newly developed and much more legible “Clearview” font (designed by Don Meeker, an environmental graphic designer, and James Montalbano, a type designer). In a nutshell, their new font is statistically proven to be more legible than the old design, thereby giving drivers more time and distance away from the sign to read it and react to its message. Through the power of design, these two guys are literally going to save hundreds of lives a year in reduced traffic accidents… not to mention helping the elderly and seeing impaired (like me without glasses) rest a little easier as we drive.

It’s an incredible example of how design can literally change (or save) our lives. Meeker even has a wonderful quote, saying “I’ve always believed that design can be a form of social activism.” To those of us working in or at least adjacent to graphic and typographical design, it reinforces the importance and the power of the choices we make as we build better and more effective communication.

There is a wonderful Harold Innis quote about the impact of technology that speaks volumes about our changing times. He said that “changes in communications technology invariably have three kinds of affects. They affect our culture by changing the structure of our interests (the things thought about), by changing the character of our symbols (the things thought with) and by changing the nature of community (the arena in which thoughts are developed).”

It’s a brilliant summarization of what’s going on today in marketing, as the digital arena has taken us from messaging at people to having conversations with them. The niche communities that have emerged are enabling a new long tail of interests. And interactivity is changing the very nature of the way we think, as we move from a geography of knowledge to intelligence that is organic, not bounded by spacial constraints.

Think about it. How can you take advantage of changes in interests, symbols and community? It’s the next generation of branding.

Mini is readying the launch of its new wagon, the Clubman, but more recent news from BMW reveals a Mini SUV is also in the works (artist’s rendering pictured).

Mini’s huge success in North America has been based on its unique personality - an impish rebel in a world of bland sedans and lumbering SUVs.  Celebrating its smallness has been integral to its brand - launch advertising even poked fun squarely at SUVs.  

So surely someone at Mini can see that an SUV is an inherent contradiction to the brand’s core values - pandering to the desires of American drivers - rather than following its own road as it has always done.   

Or maybe it’s such an unexpected twist, that it fits perfectly with a brand that has always zigged?  What do you think?

Bear with me on this one.

My 9 year old daughter is an excellent soccer player. From a very young age, she understood the game. Maybe not the rules, but definitely the game. She plays the field and looks for space, not just the other team. She plays where the ball is going to be, not where it is.

I’ve been thinking about how this idea applies to branding and innovation. Do you understand the rules or the game?

So many companies are playing by the rules. Extending brands and platforms along expected lines. Playing the competition. Understanding narrow consumer needs defined by their categories and “innovating” accordingly.

An example: S.C. Johnson understands the rules. Procter & Gamble understands the game.

SCJ has owned the air freshener category for eons with Glade. The brand has extended in a thoughtful manner to new forms…developed platforms and then expanded on these technologies…contemporized their products each decade or so in expected ways. They played the category.

Procter & Gamble stepped in with Febreze and reshaped the category, taking a big bite out of SCJ along the way. They understood what consumers want, not what they have (or say they need). They invented new categories of solutions…designed packaging and products that entice and intrigue. A newcomer to a mature category, Febreze became the new definition of fresh.

Does your company develop against its brands or the empty spaces? Do you play your competition or the field? Do you use traditional narrow research tools to understand the category you’re in, or do you use expansive tools to understand your consumers in all their complex glory? Do measure your brand’s performance over time or the way people live and how that changes over time? Do you look at dayparts and categories or lives and lifestyles? Category or culture?

Innovation requires seeing what’s not there. You’ve got to take your attention away from the category and the competition and focus on people and how they live. Where is the ball going to be?

My dad, a fabulous writer, used to tell me never to underestimate the power of a good editor. Ain’t that the truth! While editing used to be a talent reserved for the literate, today it’s a role being played by brands in the modern marketplace. With an excess of choice and an explosion of information, we’re all challenged these days to make it through what used to be the simplest of tasks. We’re drowning in brands, retail channels, media choices, an ocean of constant communication, and blather. We’ve got all the information in the world to make smart choices (more on this another day, as true transparency has reached the marketplace - corporations look out!), but we’re left without the time, desire or the sheer capacity to wade through it all.

How’s an informed, intelligent consumer to make a decision?

Trust the editor!

It used to be we sought human consumption editors. Oprah is a perfect example. An Oprah book recommendation could turn a dusty orphan paperback into a bestseller in a matter of minutes. Her Christmas Wish List is legend. And her disownership of the beef industry put prices in a free fall. (Ah, the editors can give and also take away. More on that another day.) When Oprah spoke, we listened. And followed. And bought.

Today’s consumption editors are often less human, but equally powerful, authentic and single-minded — they are brands and retailers. When Starbucks promotes a CD or a movie, its millions of coffee addicts (me included!) pop it right on the Starbucks card. The Buck has become not merely a source of caffeine, not even a simple third place, but a trusted arbiter of taste for those of a certain age (again, me included!). Rather than sort through the thousands of CDs at my local Target (assortment selected based on billboard sales, not “ear”) or the millions of songs available on iTunes, I go to the retailer I trust to make a recommendation.

My other music editor is Pandora. And she’s a natural! Pandora, an internet streaming radio (for those not in the know - www.pandora.com), makes music recommendations based on my own musical preferences. It’s a personal editor (much like a personal shopper, but not on commission!).

Daily Candy, one of my favorite email newsletters, sends out edited information every day about what’s hot. This weekend, my husband and I will be dining with Ghetto Gourmet, an exclusive underground supper club, based on their recommendation.

Which leads me to Wal-Mart. Awkward transition, but the point is, Wal-Mart is missing the boat. Wal-Mart still views themselves by the old school retail model of an assortment provider, not an editor. They offer stuff cheap. That’s their value proposition. That’s their positioning. That’s their message. They could be a discerning editor of value. They could offer families what they need and want, at the best possible price known to humankind, based on their unbeatable, unassailable, untoucahble ability to work over the manufacturer (if you know what I mean), but instead, they don’t edit a thing. It’s just stuff. Cheap.

Perhaps they need to edit themselves?