Brand Integrity for Destinations

Brands and brand imagery inevitably change over time. It's only natural for a brand to keep up with changes in consumer tastes and graphic styles. But unless the situation calls for a radical repositioning (like the Cadillac Escalade, which was a dramatic departure from its failing predecessors) brands evolve ... and stay true to their heritage. A well-considered evolution of brand imagery keeps a brand current without alienating its loyal customer base. Take a look at how Betty Crocker has evolved over the years ...

When it comes to destinations, managing the image is often a problem. In some destinations where there are strict government controls, the development of new buildings and infrastructure can be controlled. But in a place like Hawaii - with pesky features like property rights and a free market - it is much more difficult to control development. But, without some controls, the destination can lose its "look" and, indeed its soul. Don't get me wrong, I'm not about stopping progress, but progress should be consistent with the brand when possible. Is a sixty story hotel appropriate in Waikiki? How about a forty story hotel? I don't know the answer, but the question certainly merits discussion and debate. Is steel-wheel-on-steel rail transit the right rapid transit solution for a resort destination like Hawaii? Should aesthetics be part of the conversation about what transit is appropriate? Once again, I don't know the answer, but I think the issue should be discussed.

Just this week a developer removed the decorative grillwork from a 1960s era building in Honolulu (The "Queen Emma Building - see photo). The developer plans to "modernize" the building by replacing decorative grillwork with a glass curtain. Is that a good thing? It depends on the brand ... and what the brand should look like. I don't have an answer, but I wish these decisions would be discussed and considered rather than leaving decisions that affect the destination brand in the hands of a developer who probably hasn't thought about the bigger picture.

We've seen what happens when development isn't consistent with a well conceived brand identity. It doesn't look good.

First Movers Don't Always Stay Out Front

When I was in graduate school, I developed some case studies for Professor Ram Charan. One of them was on the AMPEX company. You may not have heard of AMPEX because it has literally disappeared from the business scene, but back then it was THE dominant player in recording tape and tape players. Dominant. Profitable. And, now, out of sight.

What happened? Sony and others took AMPEX products and made them better. So, while AMPEX was the first mover and early innovator of tape technology it didn't hold on to its advantage. That's true in many other cases. Atari pretty much invented video games, but Nintendo and Sony kept improving them. Xerox invented the mouse, but Steve Jobs saw its potential.

The lesson is that innovation is critical, but to remain successful you have to stay hungry. You have to compete with yourself. You need the restless spirit that asks "how can this be better?" over and over again.

As the saying goes ... today's laurels are tomorrow's compost.

Death by PowerPoint

I don't know why so many PowerPoint presentations are sooooooo painful. PowerPoint itself is a wonderful tool. It can allow a presenter to use graphics to illustrate content - and research shows that generally multi-media is better than single a medium in communicating. But despite the capabilities of the PowerPoint tool, so many presenters just put their text on the slides. Even worse, they put lots and lots and lots of text on the slides. The result is a numbing exercise in visual overload which impedes, rather than enhances, communication. I come from an advertising background and I've learned over and over again that one can only communicate a few points in a communication message. My worst nightmare has been clients who want to shoehorn twenty points into a thirty second commercial. Yet, presenters think nothing of this. Slides are free ... space is virtually unlimited ... so more must be better. The casualty is clear communication. For a comic look at PowerPoint gone horribly wrong, click here Academics and government folks seem to be the worst offenders when it comes to creating dreadful presentations. I guess they feel that they have to prove their worth by piling things higher and deeper. The good news is that there are good books available on creating effective presentations. I recommend them all the time. The option, unfortunately, is death by PowerPoint. And as someone once pointed out - they don't call them bullets for nothing.