A little more than a week ago, The Baltimore Sun launched a “reinvention” of their newspaper which included among other things a fresh new look.  I’ve been meaning to comment on this but to be honest I truly hadn’t physically held the print version of the paper until just this past weekend, so I didn’t feel qualified to critique it. (Perhaps this lack of interest in the print version by many readers had something to do with the “reinvention?”)

One of the most notable changes for anyone that has read previous iterations of the print publication is the masthead design.  Whereas the old masthead was more traditional, the new one is more dynamic and colorful - perhaps even a little curvy.  I was also glad to see that they started calling it “The Baltimore Sun” in the masthead, rather than “The Sun” as it was previously.  The Baltimore Sun is, and will always be a Baltimore paper - why the city’s name was downplayed in the past doesn’t make much sense to me. 

Throughout the paper you’ll notice that color, graphics and images play a much bigger role in the paper’s design. Many folks claim that it’s at the detriment of content.  But as their editor Tim Franklin claims their goal was “a more visual newspaper for a more visual age.” They certainly achieved this. I think I’d be ok with the oversize graphics and floods of color alone, but when paired with what are clearly more opportunities for ad space, I begin to lose some faith in the new design.  

Here is the old design (left) next to the new design (right):

Overall, the paper is a quicker read than it used to be. In the image above you can see how low on the first page you have to scan before any content is present (nearly 1/3 of the way down).  They’re clearly trying to reach out to folks on-the-go, but I’m wondering if this strategy makes sense, particularly since in this market there are already a few dailies out there that cater to this audience - one of which is actually put out by The Baltimore Sun (b and The Examiner to name a couple)!  

I did a quick scan of blogs and articles that have been written to date and the reaction seems to be mixed so far.  Advertisers love it.  Many readers dislike it or can’t make a connection. Members of my generation are largely apathetic because they get their news from other sources (hello Twitter). Whether or not it’s the solution for the woes at the paper remains to be seen, but it seems to be a step in the right direction.  I invite you to check it out for yourself and let me know what you think.  Simply click HERE or pick one up at your local newsstand.

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

The new identity for the 2012 Olympic Games to be held in London, England has been released and I’ve posted it above.  Unfortunately for the IOC, the $800,000 logo has not been met with much acclaim since its reveal.  In fact, as ABC News reports, the criticism has been downright rabid.  Here’s an excerpt from that story:

An online petition posted by Jonathan Ellis Monday has generated more than 28,000 electronic signatures from around the world, many complete with scathing commentary, including repeated “Rubbish!” calls.

The criticism ranged wide. Many called the expensive price tag a waste of money, claiming that a national competition would have been more appropriate than using an expensive professional agency. Others balked at the design because it failed to capture the British spirit, saying the design was a source of collective embarrassment rather than pride. Still others complained that the “abstract” attempt was too much like a “1980s hangover.”

I was reading a post on Thought Gadgets this morning about this, and Ben points out that many blogs and Web sites are having official contests to see if ordinary people can come up with something better.  One of the more notable contests can be found HERE. Ben makes the point that this is a slippery slope because it really serves to devalue the work done by design + branding firms.

While I can’t argue that $800,000 is excessive for a logo design, the world has to have a better understanding of the work and process that goes into a design like this.  It’s not simply a few clicks of the computer mouse and voila!  It’s research, it’s brainstorming, it’s concept development, it’s design, it’s revisions, it’s production.  It’s a whole team of designers working together to achieve a solution. It’s concept after concept, direction after direction, revision after revision until it’s just right.

I personally don’t mind the logo.  To have tried to develop a logo that suits everyone everywhere would have been a nearly impossible exercise that would have resulted in a safe and generic solution. And don’t discount the importance of this word-of-mouth marketing for the event, still four long years away.  Sometimes controversy is key!

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

Giant Food, a local grocer with stores in Maryland, DC, Virginia and Delaware, has recently undergone a long overdue brand identity refresh.  Their old identity had become stale and quite dated - not nearly as impressive as some of their closest competitors, many of which had recently undergone brand redevelopments of their own:

Here’s what Giant had been working with until just recently.  Notice the heavy dependence on the G:

Their new identity gets rid of the “G” mark, but presents a more ‘fresh,’ colorful image.

While it’s a nice mark, I wonder if they have made a bit of a mistake by not preserving any of the equity they have been building for decades.  They have not only discarded the G mark they’ve worked so hard to drive home, but they have also changed the color palette entirely.  It is a complete departure from the existing brand.  And on top of that, I think it looks a little Bloom-esque both in shape and color scheme.  If I were Giant, I would have perhaps looked to come up with something that is both new and modern, but also preserves some of the decades of brand equity they had built up.

All in all, I think a rebrand was a smart move for Giant Food.  They needed it badly.  It was important for them to take measures to prove that they are keeping up with the competition and trying to stay connected to the needs of their shoppers - coming to market with a dated, ineffective brand was not a good way to do this, so the new identity should serve them well.

I’d love to hear what you think?!

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

It’s Monday, and aside from missing our favorite blogger and marketing director, Garret, the first thing we all had to talk about was how amazed we were after seeing the Beijing Olympic opening ceremony Friday night. If you haven’t seen it yet - there aren’t many videos that do it justice online yet but here’s a Dutch video that gives an idea. It’s hard to find words to describe the visual power of mass participants as the 2,008 performers created a human kaleidoscope on our screens. Take a look and most likely you will find yourself dropping your jaw in amazement as we were.

Check back this week for some noteworthy design highlights that went into the 2008 Olympics.

As brand marketers, we always seek to find businesses and organizations that have solid business models and a true unique quality that makes them better than the competition - and allows them to deliver a great brand experience. This makes our job much, much easier because we believe that a brand cannot survive on great branding alone. If we were in math class, it would look something like this:

Great branding + Great business model = Success
Great branding + Mediocre business model = Fail!

Unfortunately, not every business that seeks professional marketing help is backed by a solid business model. Many businesses simply exist, with no unique, compelling characteristics that consumers crave. I believe that these businesses, even with the help of a slick brand, cannot survive in the long-haul. And to add insult to injury, it’s a difficult fix that most business owners aren’t willing to embrace.

On the other side of the coin are businesses that deliver an amazing brand experience, yet aren’t supported by a healthy branding effort. The problem with this is consumers use a company’s brand image to decide whether or not they want to engage/purchase/patronize/etc (Think about it the next time you’re in the grocery store trying to decide which shampoo to buy). If the brand isn’t up to snuff, many consumers won’t give them the opportunity to deliver a brand experience because they’ll just move on to the next brand…That equation looks like this:

Bad branding + Great brand experience = Fail!

This happens too often. On a local scale, here in Maryland there are countless brands that I have come across that are truly remarkable brands. A couple that come to mind right now are Terracycle, Carols Western Wear, Chevy Chase Bank and Lemongrass (Thai food). Each of these are companies that I feel deliver a PHENOMENAL brand experience, but could use some help with making sure their brand communicates it. Luckily, I know just the right group of people to solve their problem…

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com

p.s. Thanks Alchemy for the image.

As marketers it’s always our goal to connect a brand with a qualified, highly targeted audience. We do this by focusing our creative concepts in a way that will resonate with the target, as well as defining a media mix that ensures the message is heard by the right demo/psychographic. Technology companies are aiming to take that targeting to the next level.

Enter NEC. They have developed and are close to releasing a technology that is essentially a physical display that can instantly identify a viewer’s sex and age range as they walk by and serve them with ads that are relevant to them. Think of the implications of this! No more ads for a Toyota Camry being served to 17 year old males…no more 75 year old women seeing ads for Under Armour training apparel. Speaking of that, I wonder if they will be developing modules that identify body type as well…

To take it even further, the technology includes a system in which the viewer can hold their cell phone over a special device which feeds them a URL link, coupons and other information on the products they’ve just seen on the advertisement.

Technology is changing the way marketers work at a dizzying pace. I love it. Via The Times of India. Thanks Zdnet for the image. What a classic poster.

Garret Ohm
http://www.orange-element.com