1.3.08

Best Practices For Eco-Messaging

While the benefits of going green are numerous, the potential pitfalls are equally so. The following article examines why going green might make sense for your business and also provides some best practices when making the switch to the green team.

If you’ve changed your business and/or operational practices to reduce your carbon footprint, you should tell your customers about it. If you’ve changed your ingredients or manufacturing processes to be more environmentally friendly, you should take credit for it. But before you slap a green label on your product, consider this: While the benefits can be numerous, the potential pitfalls are equally so. Here are the pros and cons, and how you can make green labels work for – not against – your brand. By Matt Heinz

Many companies are adding green labels to their products, and doing so successfully. SC Johnson, Sun Chips, and Royal Hawaiian are just a few companies and brands successfully marketing their green (and greener) products today.

But on the other side of that slope are brands that have already faced the bite of customers who aren’t impressed with their shallow or deceptive green labeling practices. Wal-Mart is one of the biggest examples thus far of a company under fire for questionable green labeling, but they’re far from alone.

Let’s start with some specific reasons why green labeling might make sense for your business and products. These benefits apply to all types of business and products – online and offline, goods and services.

Transparency

The rise of citizen marketing and social media has accelerated a trend towards transparency in marketing. Consumers are increasingly skeptical of marketing messages with even a faint scent of spin doctoring. Your messaging needs to be more straightforward and forthright than ever. Every claim you make will be tested and tested again by your customers, and if they find fault they’ll tell the world through blogs, message boards, Facebook accounts, and more.

The upside of all this is that, for those brands leveraging authentic and verifiable green practices, transparency can provide a self-perpetuating message that flies through your customer and prospect audience through word of mouth. At the same time that consumers are quick to disparage companies they find less than authentic, they’ll heap praise on those who authentically live their brands, and transparently share what’s great about their products and services.

Thought Leadership

In the scramble by brands to claim a sustainability message, many good stories are quickly getting muddled. Sustainability claims are starting to melt together in a very undifferentiated way. This isn’t as much due to the overall volume of emerging sustainability stories, but the lack of clarity and authenticity from many of those claims. Companies that communicate distinct, compelling and authentic sustainability stories can still rise above the crowd and create significant (and still early) thought leadership for their brands as innovators and leaders in sustainable products.

This isn’t about first-mover advantage as much as it is about having the best, clearest, most meaningful story from a brand that’s already recognized and respected. Look no further than your local grocery store for a great example of this. If your supermarket is anything like mine, the “organic” selections (and sections) grow every day. Many of these products make sustainable ingredients and operational practices the heart of their story, yet beyond a few exceptions (Kashi being one) few of these brands have significant mindshare or market share.

Established brands have the mindshare advantage in this game, and through authentic marketing of sustainable practices, can leverage that mindshare advantage to quickly capture thought leadership as a sustainability leader.

Public Relations

The PR value of green labeling simply builds on the first two elements discussed here, thanks to the increasingly attentive media antennae searching for compelling “green” stories to share with an increasingly attentive “green” audience. If you have an authentic sustainability story to tell, can share it in a clear and transparent way, and can leverage your existing brand awareness and market share to accelerate your thought leadership on the sustainability front, additional PR for your products will result.

Sales

All of this is for naught unless it helps you sell more. And the fact of the matter is, plain and simple, green labels move more product. In the long-run, without authenticity and transparency behind your green label claims, those incremental sales will disappear (and in some cases may shrink from your pre-label basis if the consumer backlash is bad enough). However, adding a well-produced green label to your products is one of the quickest ways to accelerate point-of-purchase sales. It’s a “red-button” differentiator that can immediately send a positive message to a buyer, and make a significant buying decision difference for independent buyers without strong existing brand loyalties (who otherwise might just buy based on price and/or convenience).

How to Execute Successful Green Labeling

So the battle lines are drawn. Is green labeling a high-risk, high-reward endeavor? Only if you don’t authentically have a good story to tell. If you do, it’s almost all upside for your brand.

That said, there are several best practices to employ when executing green labels that will accelerate their value and ROI. Some of these best practices focus on what to include in your label and how to build its content. Others merely leverage the label as a launching pad for increased customer involvement and brand engagement.

Prove It

What are you claiming on your green labels, and how can you prove it? Can you summarize those proof points on the label itself? Has a credible third-party endorsed your sustainability practices? Could their logo be placed within your label to add credibility?

Think carefully about not just the claim you make on the label, but how that label’s contents help prove or validate the claim. Think as well as about how the label could be a starting point for that proof. For example, include a short, user-friendly URL on the label inviting customers (and prospective customers) to learn more about your sustainability claims. That URL destination can have all kinds of one-way and two-way information – updates on progressive sustainability initiatives, collective customer impact on reducing a carbon footprint (based on sales and pass-along, for example), etc.

The possibilities are endless and can be customized for your unique situation and brand, but don’t stop at simply making a sustainability claim on your green label. Use the label to prove it, too.

Take Credit for What You’ve Always Done

Is your company or brand already engaged in sustainability initiatives? Have certain green best practices always been at the heart of your story? If so, take credit for those achievements. Nothing sniffs of marketing puffery like a brand-new, yet-unproven sustainability initiative and claim by an existing brand. On the flip side, communicating something you’ve been doing for years to your customers allows your to leverage a claim few others can take credit for, and will accelerate your authenticity and thought leadership.

Encourage Interaction

Today’s consumer expects and responds to opportunities not just to read a one-way message from brands, but engage in an active two-way conversation with the brand itself and with other brand enthusiasts. Give your customers (and prospects) an opportunity via your green label to interact with you and with each other. Give them tools to share your green message with others. Give them incentives and rewards for doing so.

Word-of-mouth has always existed among consumers, albeit at a smaller scale without the right communication tools. The Internet in particular has simply given those individuals a louder microphone with which to share their story and/or opinion. Take advantage of this to accelerate your green message, and the extent to which more consumers hear it.

Encourage Participation

Is your sustainability practice something that consumers can do on their own as well? Give them the opportunity (and the tools) to “green” themselves in the same way you’ve optimized your own business. This best practices doesn’t work for some strategies (manufacturing processes, for example), but will work in several other scenarios.

If you sell food or drink, for example, and have made changes to the way you grow, cultivate or otherwise produce the product, are there steps in that more sustainable process that consumers can do at home – in their gardens, for example? Can you teach them about your sustainability practices, and encourage them to expect this higher standard from others around them?

Another example relates to power management. Let’s say your company has employed PC power management tools to significantly reduce your carbon footprint (up to 40% with Verdiem’s software, for example). What best practices can you share with your customers to enable them to achieve similar benefits and reductions in their own PC power usage?

Creating active alignments between brand and consumer can be incredibly powerful, and doing so with sustainable messages and best practices can be even more powerful, especially right now.

Solicit Feedback

The two-way communication your green labels should encourage doesn’t stop at empowerment. You also need to encourage feedback – feedback on whether or not your green claims are deemed authentic, feedback on how well those individual empowerment messages are faring, and further feedback on what your customers think you should do next to create more sustainable practices.

Your customers and prospects have these opinions whether you ask for them or not. Give them the microphone, and the opportunity to exponentially increase the size of your R&D department. It’ll give you a flood of new ideas, plus create stronger bonds with a customer that now isn’t just a buyer, but feels part of the process.


This is a mere start to what’s possible. Now let’s do as we say, and start the interaction. In the comments section below, share a bit about your brand. What are you selling? What green story do you have to share? How can that be more directly leveraged and communicated with green labels? What best practices above will you consider or execute in your own marketing? What additional ideas do you have to add to this conversation – either new ideas, or implementation stories (good and bad) that you’ve already tried?


Source - Sustainable Life Media

Calories From Ads

Forget your lunch at home? No problem. Just track down the new Welch's Grape Juice print ad which now comes with a lickable taste test. That's right, your can now lick the page to sample product. Think of it as an evolution of the scratch-n-sniff.

Scratch and sniff is so ‘90s. Marketers for Welch’s have gotten a lot more savvy when trying to appeal to the senses of their customers. The company has launched a new lickable ad campaign for their grape juice.

Similar to perfume ads that have panels you pull back to offer a hint of the fragrance, Welch’s is launching tabs in this month’s edition of People magazine in the form of a one page print ad that let the customers peel to taste.

Image when kids start to offer their friends a taste. Imagine the problems this could pose in the waiting room of a doctor’s office…

“If someone doesn’t rip off the whole sticker, First Flavor says, the flap can’t reseal, giving people an easy way to know whether the ad has already been licked,” the WSJ reported. I guess they’ve got all bases covered.

The idea is fantastic, but parents are still going to have to start watching out!

The ad was created by First Flavor who has launched other taste campaigns to test everything from pepperoni pizza to soy milk and flavoured kid’s cold medicine.

“In some lickable ads, including the Welch’s ad, some of the essence of the actual product is added to the strip, while in others, the strip is made up of unrelated flavors, both natural and artificial,” the WSJ wrote.

Source - Trendwatching

Do Annoying Ads Work?

Annoying ads have a way of getting stuck in your head but do they actually encourage sales growth? By referencing the HeadOn commercials, the article examines the implications of take on an "annoy your way to the top" strategy.

One of the most annoying series of commercials is for HeadOn, an analgesic which one rubs on one’s forehead to (supposedly) cure headaches. Does HeadOn work? I have no idea, but it seems doubtful. Their commercials must work very well, though, because they have multiplied like mushrooms in a dark basement. Not only has the apparent frequency of HeadOn commercials increased, but similar ads have been launched for spinoff products like ActiveOn. What distinguishes the HeadOn commercials is their repetitious yelling at the viewer. “Apply directly to the forehead! Apply directly to the forehead!” While I find it interesting that these annoying commercials have apparently achieved a modicum of success in gaining market share for HeadOn, their latest round of ads is even more interesting. These ads actually acknowledge how irritating the HeadOn commercials are by having an actor say, “I hate your ads, but love your product.” Naturally, these ads include their fair share of droning repetition, too. This raises the question, is it really a good idea to irritate potential customers with your ads?

I have to conclude that in the short term these ads must be effective. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t keep seeing them or the ads for new spinoff products. Like the “screamer” ads for mattresses and cheap furniture (in which an announcer quite literally screams at the viewers about this week’s sale), these HeadOn commercials are apparently effective in breaking through the clutter of commercials that viewers can (mentally) tune out. While any active viewer with a convenient mute or fast forward button will silence these annoying ads quickly, most won’t.

I also think that irritating ads could pose a longer-term danger to the brands that use them. At the cognitive level, I find myself repelled by an advertiser bold enough to acknowledge that their ads are annoying me, and then continue to assault me with the objectionable elements in the same ad. Even if my head felt like it had been split by a cleaver I wouldn’t spend a dime for HeadOn. (I’d like to see a neuromarketing study of the HeadOn ads that showed which areas of the brain lit up. I’d bet on pain centers.)

The real danger, though, doesn’t really involve conscious processing by the viewers. Rather, I anticipate a sort of Pavlovian conditioning to develop. If viewers begin to associate the brand or packaging with the negative emotion of a loud and annoying interruption of their entertainment, eventually the brand will suffer. Companies like Coca Cola and Anheuser-Busch know something about building long-term brands, and most of their ads are suffused with positive emotions. Then again, they have the budget and time to think long-term.

Bloggers, unsurprisingly, aren’t usually big HeadOn fans. BizSolutionsPlus, in Truth in Advertising Crashes Head On, takes issue with the fact that there’s no evidence the product even does what it’s supposed to. Waldoland also takes issue with the ads that acknowledge how annoying they are, stating simply, “What balls!” The Expecting Executive provides a great illustration of my prediction about the long-term brand impact of the HeadOn ads:

I saw your product on the shelf. Out of curiosity, I picked it up. At the moment my hand touched the Head On packaging, I had a flashback moment (just like the ones in the movies). All at once I heard the LOUD, and OBNOXIOUS “Head On, apply directly to the forehead” chant that I have come to LOATHE!!! As if my hand was on fire, I immediately dropped your product and gathered up my trusty (and commercial quiet) Dayquil and Nyquil products…

Who’s right? Time will tell…

Head On Video

Source - Neuromarketing

Lunchtime Is The New Primetime

Once again the internet is changing the way we interact with traditional media channels. This time your television is the victim. As this article highlights, people are beginning to watch more "television" programs on their computers during lunch break and work hours. The good news is this trend can be advantageous for marketers on a number of fronts. Is it time to rethink your media buy?

In cubicles across the country, lunchtime has become the new prime time, as workers click aside their spreadsheets to watch videos on YouTube, news highlights on CNN.com or other Web offerings.

The trend — part of a broader phenomenon known as video snacking — is turning into a growth business for news and media companies, which are feeding the lunch crowd more fresh content.

In some offices, workers coordinate their midday Web-watching schedules, the better to shout out punch lines to one another across rows of desks. Some people gravitate to sites where they can reliably find Webcasts of a certain length — say, a three-minute political wrap-up — to minimize both their mouse clicks and the sandwich crumbs that wind up in the keyboard.

“Go take a walk around your office” at lunchtime, said Alan Wurtzel, head of research for NBC. “Out of 20 people, I’m going to guarantee that 5 are going to be on some sort of site that is not work-related.”

The midday spike in Web traffic is not a new phenomenon, but media companies have started responding in a meaningful way over the last year. They are creating new shows, timing the posts to coincide with hunger pangs. And they are rejiggering the way they sell advertising online, recognizing that noontime programs can command a premium.

In 2007, a growing number of local television stations, including WNCN in Raleigh, N.C., and WCMH in Columbus, Ohio, began producing noon programming exclusively for the Web. Among newspapers, The Virginian-Pilot of Norfolk, Va., and The Ventura County Star in California started posting videos at lunchtime that have young journalists as hosts and are meant to appeal to 18- to 34-year-old audiences.

The trend has swept across large as well as small independent sites. Yahoo’s daily best-of-the-Web segment, called The 9 and sponsored by Pepsi, is produced every morning in time for lunch. At MyDamnChannel.com, a showcase for offbeat videos, programmers have been instructed to promote new videos around noon, right when the two-hour traffic spike starts.

“Based on the traffic I’m seeing,” said Miguel Monteverde, executive director of AOL Video, “our nation’s productivity is in question.”

From an apartment in Greenwich Village, Rob Millis and Will Coghlan are hosts and producers of a three-minute daily Webcast, Political Lunch, done around 10 a.m., followed by an hour and a half of editing, in time for uploading just before noon. Political Lunch, which was introduced in September and appears on several Web sites, is viewed 10,000 to 20,000 times a week, with a peak in traffic from 1 to 3 p.m.

“It’s an Internet version of appointment viewing,” Mr. Millis said.

One man who takes his midday video schedule seriously is Jason Spitz, a merchandise manager for a major record label in Los Angeles. He trades links to videos with his friends all day — usually low-budget sketch comedy bits from FunnyOrDie.com or CollegeHumor.com — and stockpiles them to watch during lunch breaks. He and his colleagues like to look at the same videos at the same time from their separate desks, turning the routine into a communal activity.

“The clips are shorter than a full 30-minute TV show, so we can cram several small bites of entertainment into one lunch break,” Mr. Spitz said. “The funniest moments usually become inside jokes among my co-workers.”

Noah Lehmann-Haupt, the founder of an upscale car rental company in New York, said that video snacking on short clips is “a good excuse to stay at my desk during lunch, which I prefer since it keeps the momentum of the day going.” He often watches segments from “The Daily Show,” now that Comedy Central has put eight years’ worth of episodes online for free viewing.

Plus, the format leaves both hands free to consume the day’s takeout meal. “I can’t exactly surf while eating, and it’s healthy to step away from e-mails and work for a few minutes a day,” he said.

Some content plays better over lunch. CNN.com, which draws an average of 69 million video plays each month, tends to promote lighter videos in the middle of the day. (“Cloned cats glow in the dark” and “Bulldog straps on skateboard” were among the most popular on a recent weekday.)

At NBC.com and other network Web sites, shorter videos draw more lunchtime traffic than longer ones, which are more often downloaded at night. For that reason, sites like NBC.com emphasize short-form highlights during the day and entire half-hour or hourlong shows in the evening.

From an advertiser’s perspective, the Web is a more flexible medium than television, because technology makes it easy to monitor people’s behavior and adjust programming accordingly. Better still, marketers have found that consumers are up to 30 percent more likely to make a purchase after viewing an advertisement at lunchtime than at other times of the day.

“Not only is advertising volume and Internet use increasing during the 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. time period, but people are actually buying and purchasing and reacting to advertising,” said Young-Bean Song, vice president for analytics at Atlas Solutions, a unit of Microsoft that helps companies with digital marketing campaigns.

Sticking to a set schedule turns out to be almost as important on the Web as it is on television. At blip.TV, a video-sharing site, Mike Hudack, the chief executive, encourages his producers to post videos at the same time each day or week.

“Continuity and consistency is incredibly important,” Mr. Hudack said.

“If you want to attract a loyal audience, you have to give them what they expect when they expect it.”


Source - New York Times

What Were They Smoking?

Check out some of the creepiest ads from the past century. Was it poor strategic planning or simply a reflection of the time? Let's hope it was the former.






1979 Pakistan Airlines ad
















Source: 2spare

Logos From Past To Present

This link takes a look at the evolution of tech company logos from their establishment to the present day. It's interesting how a different logo for the same company can evoke a variety of feelings and impressions about the brand. We like to think that logos are representative of their time and this article is a glimpse into out tech-branding past.

You’ve seen these tech logos everywhere, but have you ever wondered how they came to be? Did you know that Apple’s original logo was Isaac Newton under an apple tree? Or that Nokia’s original logo was a fish?

Let’s take a look at the origin of tech companies’ logos and how they evolved over time:

Adobe Systems


Source: Adobe Press

In 1982, forty-something programmers John Warnock and Charles Geschke quit their work at Xerox to start a software company. They named it Adobe, after a creek that ran behind Warnock’s home. Their first focus was to create PostScript, a programming language used in desktop publishing.

When Adobe was young, Warnock and Geschke did everything they could to save money. They asked family and friends to help out: Geschke’s 80-year-old father stained lumber for shelving, and Warnock’s wife Marva designed Adobe’s first logo.

Apple Inc.

In 1976, Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs ("the two Steves") designed and built a homemade computer, the Apple I. Because Wozniak was working for Hewlett Packard at the time, they offered it to HP first, but they were turned down. The two Steves had to sell some of their prized posessions (Wozniak sold his beloved programmable HP calculator and Jobs sold his old Volkswagen bus) to finance the making of the Apple I motherboards.

Later that year, Wozniak created the next generation machine: Apple ][ prototype. They offered it to Commodore, and got turned down again. But things soon started to look up for Apple, and the company began to gain customers with its computers.

The first Apple logo was a complex picture of Isaac Newton sitting under an apple tree. The logo was inscribed: "Newton … A Mind Forever Voyaging Through Strange Seas of Thought … Alone." It was designed by Ronald Wayne, who along with Wozniak and Jobs, actually founded Apple Computer. In 1976, after only working for two weeks at Apple, Wayne relinquished his stock (10% of the company) for a one-time payment of $800 because he thought Apple was too risky! (Had he kept it, Wayne’s stock would be worth billions!)

Jobs thought that the overly complex logo had something to do with the slow sales of the Apple I, so he commissioned Rob Janoff of the Regis McKenna Agency to design a new one. Janoff came up with the iconic rainbow-striped Apple logo used from 1976 to 1999.

Rumor has it that the bite on the Apple logo was a nod to Alan Turing, the father of modern computer science who committed suicide by eating a cyanide-laced apple. Janoff, however, said in an interview that though he was mindful of the "byte/bite" pun (Apple’s slogan back then: "Byte into an Apple"), he designed the logo as such to "prevent the apple from looking like a cherry tomato." (Source)

In 1998, supposedly at the insistence of Jobs, who had just returned to the company, Apple replaced the rainbow logo ("the most expensive bloody logo ever designed" said Apple President Mike Scott) with a modern-looking, monochrome logo.

Canon


Source: Canon Origin and Evolution of the Logo

In 1930, Goro Yoshida and his brother-in-law Saburo Uchida created Precision Optical Instruments Laboratory in Japan. Four years later, they created their first camera, called the Kwanon. It was named after the Kwanon, Buddhist Bodhisattva of Mercy. The logo included an image of Kwanon with 1,000 arms and flames.

Coolness of logo notwithstanding, the company registered the differently spelled word "Canon" as a trademark because it sounded similar to Kwanon while implying precision, a characteristic the company would like to be known and associated with.

Google

In 1996, Stanford University computer science graduate students Larry Page and Sergey Brin built a search engine that would later become Google. That search engine was called BackRub, named for its ability to analyze "back links" to determine relevance of a particular website. Later, the two renamed their search engine Google, a play on the word Googol (meaning 1 followed by 100 zeros).


Google.com in 1998

Two years later, Larry and Sergey went to Internet portals (who dominated the web back then) but couldn’t get anyone interested in their technology. In 1998, they started Google, Inc. in a friend’s garage, and the rest is history.

Google’s first logo was created by Sergey Brin, after he taught himself to use the free graphic software GIMP. Later, an exclamation mark mimicking the Yahoo! logo was added. In 1999, Stanford’s Consultant Art Professor Ruth Kedar designed the Google logo that the company uses today.


The very first Google Doodle: Burning Man Festival 1998

To mark holidays, birthdays of famous people and major events, Google uses specially drawn logos known as the Google Doodles. The very first Google Doodle was a reference to the Burning Man Festival in 1999. Larry and Sergey put a little stick figure on the home page to let people know why no one was in the office in case the website crashed! Now, Google Doodles are regularly drawn by Dennis Hwang.

IBM


Source: IBM Archives

In 1911, the International Time Recording Company (ITR, est. 1888) and the Computing Scale Company (CSC, est. 1891) merged to form the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (CTR, see where IBM gets its penchant for three letter acronym?). In 1924, the company adopted the name International Business Machines Corporation and a new modern-looking logo. It made employee time-keeping systems, weighing scales, meat slicers, and punched-card tabulators.

In the late 1940s, IBM began a difficult transition of punched-card tabulating to computers, led by its CEO Thomas J. Watson. To signify this radical change, in 1947, IBM changed its logo for the first time in over two decades: a simple typeface logo.

In 1956, with the leadership of the company being passed down to Watson’s son, Paul Rand changed IBM’s logo to have "a more solid, grounded and balanced appearance" and at the same time he made the change subtle enough to communicate that there’s continuity in the passing of the baton of leadership from father to son.

IBM logo’s last big change - which wasn’t all that big - was in 1972, when Paul Rand replaced the solid letters with horizontal stripes to suggest "speed and dynamism."

LG Electronics

LG began its life as two companies: Lucky (or Lak Hui) Chemical Industrial (est. 1947), which made cosmetics and GoldStar (est. 1958), a radio manufacturing plant. Lucky Chemical became famous in Korea for creating the Lucky Cream, with a container bearing the image of the Hollywood starlet Deanna Durbin. GoldStar evolved from manufacturing only radios to making all sorts of electronics and household appliances.

In 1995, Lucky Goldstar changed its name to LG Electronics (yes, a backronym apparently not). Actually, LG is a chaebol (a South Korean conglomerate), so there’s a whole range of LG companies that also changed their names, such as LG Chemicals, LT Telecom, and even a baseball team called the LG Twins. These companies all adopted the "Life is Good" tagline you often see alongside its logo.

Interestingly, LG denies that their name now stands for Lucky Goldstar… or any other words. They’re just "LG."

Microsoft


Microsoft’s "groovy logo" source: Coding Horror

In 1975, Paul Allen (who then was working at Honeywell) and his friend Bill Gates (then a sophomore at Harvard University) saw a new Altair 8800 of Micro Instrumentation and Telemetry Systems or MITS. It was the first mini personal computer available commercially.

Allen and Gates decided to port the computer language BASIC for the computer (they did this in 24 hours!), making it the first computer language written for a personal computer. They approached MITS and ended up licensing BASIC to the company. Shortly afterwards, Allen and Gates named their partnership "Micro-soft" (within the year, they dropped the hyphen). In 1977, Microsoft became an official company with Allen and Gates first sharing the title general partners.

On to the logo history:

In 1982, Microsoft announced a new logo, complete with the distinctive "O" that employees dubbed the "Blibbet." When the logo was changed in 1987, Microsoft employee Larry Osterman launched a "Save the Blibbet" campaign but to no avail. Supposedly, way back when, Microsoft cafeteria served "Blibbet Burger," a double cheeseburger with bacon.

In 1987, Scott Baker designed the current, so-called "Pac-Man Logo" for Microsoft. The new logo has a slash on the ‘O’ that made it look like Pac-Man, hence the name. In 1994 Microsoft introduced a new tagline Where do you want to go today?, as part of a $100 million advertising campaign. Needless to say, it was widely mocked.

In 1996, perhaps tired of being the butt of jokes like "what kind of error messages would you like today?", Microsoft dropped the slogan. Later, it tried on new taglines like "Making It Easier", "Start Something", "People Ready" and "Open Up Your Digital Life" before settling on the current "Your potential. Our passion."

Oh, one more thing: what was Microsoft’s original slogan? It was "Microsoft: What’s a microprocessor without it?"

… Microsoft’s very first advertising campaign "Microsoft: What’s a microprocessor without it?," which touted how Microsoft’s line of programming languages could be used to create software that would take advantage of the early microprocessors. The first advertisement in the campaign appeared in a 1976 issue of a microchip journal called Digital Design and featured a four panel black-and-white cartoon titled "The Legend of Micro-Kid." The cartoon depicted a small microchip character as a boxer who possessed speed and power but quickly tired out because he had no real training. The other character, a trainer complete with a derby on his head and big stogie hanging out of his mouth, related the story of how the Micro-Kid had a great future but needed a manager, such as himself, in order to succeed. (source: PC Today)

Motorola

Motorola, then Galvin Manufacturing Corporation, was started in 1928 by Paul Galvin. In the 1930s, Galvin started manufacturing car radios, so he created the name ‘Motorola’ which was simply the combination of the word ‘motor’ and the then-popular suffix ‘ola.’ The company switched its name in 1947 to Motorola Inc. In the 1980s, the company started making cellular phones commercially.

The stylized "M" insignia (the company called it "emsignia") was designed in 1955. A company leader said that "the two aspiring triangle peaks arching into an abstracted ‘M’ typified the progressive leadership-minded outlook of the company." (I’m serious, look up the logo-speak here: Motorola History)

Mozilla Firefox

In 2002, Dave Hyatt and Blake Ross created an open-source web browser that ultimately became Mozilla Firefox. At first, it was titled Phoenix, but this name ran into trademark issues and was changed to Firebird. Again, the replacement name ran into problem because of an existing software. Third time’s the charm: the web browser was re-named Mozilla Firefox.

In 2003, professional interface designer Steven Garrity, wrote that the browser (and other software released by Mozilla) suffered from poor branding. Soon afterwards, Mozilla invited him to develop a new visual identity for Firefox, including the famous logo.

Update 2/7/08: I goofed on this one, guys: it was John Hicks of Hicksdesign that actually made the Firefox logo, designed from a concept from Daniel Burka and sketched by Stephen Desroches - Thanks Jacob Morse and Aaron Bassett!

Nokia


Source: about-nokia.com

In 1865, Knut Fredrik Idestam established a wood-pulp mill in Tampere, south-western Finland. It took on the name Nokia after moving the mill to the banks of the Nokianvirta river in the town of Nokia. The word "Nokia" in Finnish, by the way, means a dark, furry animal we now call the Pine Marten weasel.

The modern company we know as the Nokia Corporation was actually a merger between Finnish Rubber Works (which also used a Nokia brand), the Nokia Wood Mill, and the Finnish Cable Works in 1967.

Before focusing on telecommunications and cell phones, Nokia produced paper products, bicycle and car tires, shoes, television, electricity generators, and so on.

Nortel


Source: Nortel History

In 1895, Bell Telephone Company of Canada spun off its business that made fire alarm, call boxes, and other non-telephone hardware into a new company called the Northern Electric and Manufacturing Company Ltd. It began by manufacturing wind-up gramophones.

In 1976, Northern Electric changed its name to Northern Telecom Ltd. to better reflect its new focus on digital technology. Nineteen years later in 1995, it became Nortel Networks "reflecting its corporate evolution from telephoney manufacturing company to designer, builder, and integrator of diverse multiservice networks."

Palm


Palm Computing Inc. was founded in 1992 by Jeff Hawkins, who also invented the Palm Pilot PDA. The company has gone through some rough patches in its history: its first PDA called Zoomer was a commercial flop. Next, it was bought out by U.S. Robotics who was promptly sued by Xerox for patent infringement over its Graffiti handwriting recognition technology.

Then it gets convoluted: U.S. Robotics was bought by 3Com, and Hawkins, disgusted with office politics, left to create his own company Handspring. Ironically, not long after he left, 3Com spun off Palm Inc as a separate company. Palm Inc split into two, PalmSource (the OS side) and palmOne (the hardware part). palmOne then merged with Handspring and then bought PalmSource to coalesce back into … Palm, Inc.!

Got that? No? Never mind. All along this journey, they not only change names, but logos as well. Well, at least the graphics designers got some money.

Xerox


Source: Xerox Historical Logos

Xerox Corporation can trace its lineage back almost 100 years ago to the Haloid Company, which was founded in 1906 to manufacture photographic paper and equipment.

In 1938, Chester Carlson invented a photocopying technique called electrophotography, which he later renamed xerography (Carlson was famous for his persistence: he experimented for 15 years and through debilitating back pain while going to law school and working his regular job). Like many inventions ahead of its time, it wasn’t well received at all. Carlson spent years trying to convince General Electric, IBM, RCA, and other companies to invest in his invention but no one was interested.

Until, that is, he went to the Haloid company, who helped him develop the world’s first photocopier, the Haloid Xerox 914. The copier were so successful that in 1961, Xerox dropped the Haloid from its name.

In 2004, fresh from a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission for cooking the books, Xerox tried to re-invent itself (complete with a new logo). Four years later in 2008, it tried to get away from the image that it’s only a copier company and adopted a new logo. The good news is people don’t think of copier when they see the new logo. The bad news is, they think of a beach ball.

Update 2/7/08: And yes, I missed the “Digital X” logo of Xerox. Check out Brand New blog for the entire scoop.

Previously on Neatorama:
- Wonderful World of Early Computing
- Wonderful World of Early Photography
- Lots more neat articles in the "Neatorama Only" Archive

Source - Neatorama

The Evolution Continues

Over the last five years, finding relevant information on the net has become incrementally more effective and user friendly. Now there's a tool that does the same thing for sourcing images that Google did for search queries. PicLens is a web browser plug in that provides an interactive full screen slideshow of online images based on your query. Check out the short tutorial for the full explanation. This tool is not to be overlooked.
















Piclens

Art & Science

Looking at the effectiveness of Super Bowl marketing, this article examines the cognitive process that leads to successful brand awareness and ad recall. There are in fact methodological processes which if taken to consideration when developing creative can actually increase the subconscious impact of your message. That's something to think about.

If you're not Bud, don't bother.

It's so tempting: the biggest stage in the advertising world, a collection of all your biggest customers and their friends. Why not throw that $2.7 mil at it and watch the bottles fly off the shelves?
Cognitive Mind Control

Well, because it probably won't work.

You might make a cool ad, a memorable ad, an ad beloved by all who behold it, but unless you've incorporated some very fundamental cognitive elements, your ad most likely will be attributed to Bud.

In a study released at this year's Cognitive Science Conference, that is exactly what researchers found. Ads with poor "cognitive scores" were misattributed by consumers, and beer ads were attributed to the huge Super Bowl presence that is Budweiser.

Beer wasn't the only category with problems. Many of the more popular ads suffered from the same breakdowns in cognitive principles. Remember those funny Ameriquest ads a couple of years ago-the turbulence on the plane, the crash paddles in the hospital? They made the Ad Meter top 10, but not a single person in the study could recall which brand they advertised.

It doesn't have to be that way. Understanding how people think, learn and remember-the basics of cognitive science-can produce reliable brand recall. The same study proved that researchers, using a model from cognitive science, could predict with stunning accuracy which ads would fare well and which would fall prey to misattribution. Those principles can just as easily be applied during development.

Take, for example, the concept of "working memory." Information has to go through working memory to get into long-term memory, where brand awareness and loyalty reside. One of the principles of cognitive science is that a person can hold and process only about seven items in working memory at any given moment. This actually varies from about five to nine in the general population. If your ad has so much information that it exceeds working-memory capacity, you'll lose control over what consumers are able to remember. Cog-sci lesson: Respect working memory.

At this point, some of you think I want to "kill the creative spark." You are mistaken. Science is here to augment good ideas, not replace them. Surely we can all agree that likability alone is not enough to make an ad effective. There is no ad sexy enough to overcome misattribution.

So here's another tip: There's a difference between a "punch-line" ad and a "piggyback" ad. Using a brand as the punch line to a story or joke is very effective. But a piggyback ad is entertaining for only 25 seconds and then has another five-second ad at the end. The hope is that the piggyback ad will enjoy some reflected glory from the ad it clutches on to, but that's not how the brain works.

Take the Nationwide commercial where Fabio rows a boat and then turns into a cryptkeeper, because "life comes at you fast." We already know Fabio, but now we're supposed to think "life comes at you fast" when we see him, and thus recall Nationwide. It's too much. Only about 4% of consumers remembered the brand.

It's not that a brand has to be mentioned early to be remembered. The FedEx caveman ad had a nice, funny story, and FedEx itself was the punch line. A year later, cavemen were synonymous with Geico, but 22% of consumers still named FedEx as the brand for this ad. Cog-sci lesson: Punch lines work; piggybacks don't.

Of course, an ad can make the "Cognitive Science Top 10" without any formal input from science. But the same could be said for making the Ad Meter top 10, and no one leaves that to chance. So you'd better hope you make both if you don't want to make another ad for Bud.

Lisa Haverty is a cognitive scientist at Brain on Brand, Brookline, Mass.