All galleries can be seen through the ‘Gallery’ link in the header, or click here (especially if you’re on a mobile device). I append to this entry through the month.
When I talked about Nicholas Ind’s book, Meaning at Work, a few weeks ago, I said there were two titles that I wanted to mention.
The second is by my friend Stefan Engeseth, who has followed up some very innovative titlesâDetective Marketing, One and The Fall of PR and the Rise of Advertisingâwith Sharkonomics.
The premise is simple: how have sharks survived millions of years, and can we learn any lessons from them for business?
I’ve been involved with Sharkonomics since Stefan pitched the idea, and I’ve had word of him heading down to South Africa to dive with the beasts.
I’ve dived with them, too, many years ago, except mine weren’t as treacherous as the ones he confronted.
A few of us, in endorsing his book, couldn’t help but use a bunch of shark puns. Don’t let them put you off.
He wants to get further word out and the first 100 people to do so will get the book for free (details here). You can read a brief summary about it here. It’s published by Marshall Cavendish, the people who published One. Also head to Sharkonomicsâ Facebook pageâthere’ll be more information on the upcoming launches and some of the great ideas Stefan has planned for them.
A leaked GM memo revealed: âWeâd ask that whether youâre talking to a dealer, reviewing dealer advertising, or speaking with friends and family, that you communicate our brand as Chevrolet moving forward.
âWhen you look at the most recognised brands throughout the world, such as Coke or Apple for instance, one of the things they all focus on is the consistency of their branding. Why is this consistency so important? The more consistent a brand becomes, the more prominent and recognizable it is with the consumer.â
The document was signed by Alan Batey, vice president for Chevrolet sales and service, and Jim Campbell, the GM divisionâs vice president for marketing.
Bad example there, Alan and Jim.
Coke is to Chevy as Coca-Cola is to Chevrolet.
And no one ever complains of Coke being inconsistent.
This is the sort of daft thinking that makes any of us brand professional shudder: total amateurs talking about brandingâout of their rear ends.
Itâs this lack of awareness of what branding is, inter alia, that started GM down its slippery pathâwith only a brief reprieve when Bob Lutz, aware of what GMâs brands stood for, was around.
By demanding that Chevrolet people not refer to the brand as Chevy does the exact opposite to what brand experts and marketers recommend today: to be one with the consumer.
I can understand if Chevy was a very negative word, but it isnât. Itâs an endearing word and it does not create inconsistency with the full Chevrolet word. It complements it, connects the brand to the audience, and, perhaps most importantly for GM, builds on the brandâs heritage.
After all, Chevrolet itself has encouraged the use of the Chevy name for decades in its own advertisingâincluding during its heyday. Omitting the use of Chevy instantly cuts many Chevrolet connections to its stronger past. And thatâs a past that can be used for internal brand-building and loyalty.
There was even, formally, a Chevy model in the 1960sâthe line that later became the Nova. The Chevy II nameplate even continued in GM in Argentina in the 1970s.
The Chevy diminutive is used in many countries where the brand is sold, including South Africa, where it was once as local as braaivleis, rugby and sunny skies.
Maybe GM canât afford the same branding advice it used toâin which case it might be better to shut up than issue memoranda that can be ridiculed so easily. Or get Bob Lutz back again. One month after retirement, and the natives have lost direction again, Bob.
PS.:From Robin Capper on Twitter, who sums this blog post up in 140 characters or fewer: âPoor Don McLean: âDrove my Chevrolet to the levee, but the levee was dryâ just doesn’t workâ.âJY