At Hexanine we’ve always been interested in practically using our design and branding skills to give back. Over the years, I’ve experimented with different ways of doing “pro bono” work to worthy organizations. Some have been individual relationships based on need, others were group efforts intent on doing more for cash-strapped non-profit organizations (NPOs). But I’ve never had a more focused, fulfilling experience than my time as part of an EPIC creative team earlier this year.
This month we have the distinct privilege of being featured as one of How Magazine’s November Top 10 Sites for Designers. It’s great to be among such good company. Thanks to everyone at the great design pub HOW.
This is the second of two parts on Zombie Brand. If you haven’t, check out yesterday’s Part 1.
While it’s impossible to hard-wire the possibility for resurrection into a brand or product, there are lessons to be learned from the best Undead Brands. So, let’s do a brand autopsy of Atari to discover the signs that might have led to its second and third lives. These characteristics are also good checklists for new, growing companies, as well as those looking for some supernatural longevity.
Sometimes a company taps into an existing ethos so deeply that nothing–irrelevance, poor management or even lack of product–can keep it from rising again. Today in part 1, we’ll look at the story of one such zombie brand. In part 2 we will find out if there’s a magical ingredient that allows brands to crawl back from death.
There’s no silver bullet to fend off death in the marketplace. Brands cease to innovate, fail to evolve, or simply meet the end of a natural life cycle. But looking at the story of one particular brand’s resurrection might provide clues to the ingredients for a Lazarus-like return.
As the feast of All Hallows’ Evening (Halloween) nears, some of our work has risen to the shelves of Target. We designed several exclusive products for Target’s Halloween seasonal line, including a “bloody” rimmer (red sugar melted over cocktail glasses for candy-flavored martinis), Scary Sangria drink mix, and a few flavors of ghastly party punch. These in-store only products were designed with partners Creative Commune and Urban Accents.
(This is part of an ongoing series of posts, “50 Lies About Clients”, revealing the truth behind some of the sacred cows designers and marketers hold dear. )
Shepherd your ideas through the approval process
Originally, I had titled this post “Protect your ideas through the approval process”. And with that, I unintentionally revealed a tension designers and marketers face when working alongside clients. Underneath the talk of strategic partnerships and client service, many of us still harbor an “us versus them” mentality. We walk into presentations skeptically trying to figure out how the client will mess with our babies, our beautiful designs and airtight concepts.
Steve Tanner runs BevReview, a great site devoted to reviewing and finding soft drink/soda products. He has been reviewing drinks since 2001 without incident (and often having drink manufacturers send him review samples) until recently. BevReview received a pointed lawyer message from Hansen Beverage Company (makers of the Monster energy drink) informing them that the review site violated the Monster trademark. This is silly lawyering, as BevReview enjoys protection for its fair use of product for review purposes, and doesn’t sell or advertise anything that would confuse/harm the Monster trademark. Maybe this is really about the lukewarm-to-bad review their product received from BevReview.
Really, the actions taken by Hansen’s lawyers are counterproductive, if not plain bullying. This all adds up to a publicity black eye for Monster and Hansen. To see exactly how they’ve harmed their brand image, check out the comments in both posts. And no amount of design or positioning is going to help gain back the goodwill Hansen has spilled. Now who is the Monster?
Several years ago, pundits said that soon “everyone” would be working from home or remotely. Supposedly, the traditional office was nearing extinction. Well, that hasn’t really happened, but there are plenty of times when remote working arrangements make sense. At Hexanine, we have offices in Chicago and L.A, so we deal with this reality on a daily basis. Having multiple locations is a big benefit for us, with a variety of markets, differing pools of talent, client diversity, etc. Existing in different places means that communicating via phone/chat/email/Skype becomes the standard of interaction. Unless you’re intentional about it, this way of working can be a struggle. Even if this sort of communication suits you well, it still presents hurdles to communication that wouldn’t exist in a typical physical office. We manage the process pretty well, I believe–but this article on Freelance Switch had some great nuggets for us to remember. Also, these are great thoughts for anyone considering this sort of working arrangement.
My favorites:
6. Don’t Pretend to Understand
If you miss something your client said on the phone, or you don’t really understand what they are saying, don’t pretend that you do. If you get lost, say “Sorry, I didn’t get that. What are you saying?” Pretending that you understand when you don’t will usually only lead to greater confusion, and it will be more embarrassing to admit it down the track.13. Set Out Your Email Replies Like a Conversation
When replying to a long email, or an email that addresses various points, set out your reply like a conversation. Quote each of the writer’s points one by one, with your own response after each point. This makes your reply easier to follow, and your answers to different issues won’t be confused. Don’t quote irrelevant parts of the original email, just the issues you are responding to.
So, what are your experiences in working remotely?
One of our great partners, Urban Accents, is featured in the excellent Chicago web magazine Gapers Block. Check our the packaging work we’ve done with Urban Accents, especially the fantastic Dryglaze line of products.
It’s been circling through the design community online—iStockphoto will soon be offering “stock logos” for sale on their site. Much digital ink has been spilled in outrage, disgust, indifference and excitement. But what does this really mean for the design industry and the creative marketplace of the future?
Why this will be bad for iStockphoto
The move hurts their brand. iStockphoto has been good at what it does—providing inexpensive stock photography for designers and marketers with small budgets. Its high-quality photos and vector illustrations are miles beyond its competition. But much like BMW’s entry into the SUV market, iStock is venturing into untested waters where maintaining the same quality level will be much more difficult (and expensive).
Is iStock biting the hand that feeds it? Their primary buyers are graphic designers, art directors and marketing people looking for affordable photos and illustrations. Up to this point, these creative types saw themselves as customers and partners with iStock, and their offerings were a useful creative resource. But that strategic friendship will probably be strained as the company seems to be competing with its customers. I can foresee many designers boycotting iStock in an effort to fight the perception that the company wants to take away their business.