The American YMCA unveiled its new brand identity today (July 12, 2010). The organization’s new brand name is “The Y,” which is the colloquial way people call the YMCA. The previous brand identity withstood the test of time, and has lasted 43 years. It is also in use in other YMCA organizations around the world. It is unclear at this time whether these other Ys will adopt the new brand identity, keep the existing one or use a brand identity unique to their country (which some already do).

The press release announcing the new brand identity stated they expect that it will take up to five years for all 2,687 Ys in the United States to transition to the new brand identity.

It is difficult to comprehend what the Y’s design firm was thinking when they designed the mark and how/why the Y signed off on the design. The first impression is actually quite positive: There is a similarity to the previous mark (retaining the brand equity of the previous mark), the new mark is colourful (it comes in 5 different colour combinations), friendly and has forward motion, all positive. But they have inexplicably placed “YMCA” on a diagonal, as if this were a footnote or copyright notice. If the full name was required – which runs counter to the rationale given for this rebrand – then this should have been properly dealt with, not as a graphic footnote. What a way to ruin what would otherwise be a very good rebranding effort!

A review of this brand identity will be featured in the next issue of New Identity Alert.

The five colour versions of the new Y.

As the news coverage of the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico continues, this story is becoming much more than about an oilrig that has blown up and the resulting oil spill. There is, of course, the whole eco-system that is at risk, and the resulting loss of sea-life, birds and animals, and the loss of livelihood of the fishermen of the region.

This is also becoming a story of how or even whether the BP  brand will survive.

The future of BP as a company has started to be questioned. Historian Douglas Brinkley stated that much on CNN in an interview with Anderson Cooper, saying that we’re seeing “a great company crumbling before our eyes.” He also stated that this is the third BP environmental disaster in the United States in the last five years. Words such as greed and negligence are being associated with BP.

From a branding perspective, how can a brand built on being the oil company that is moving away from petroleum and touts itself as an environmental champion – whose whole brand is built around the idea of “beyond petroleum,” right to their green eco-friendly symbol – how can that brand remain credible?

It is one thing for one of the “big, bad” oil companies to have one of their rigs blow up, it is another for BP with all its green brand claims.

While the company itself may not, at the time of this writing, be in any danger of disappearing, its brand’s credibility is at the mercy of the oil heading towards the Gulf coast. If they (with the efforts of various levels of governments involved and volunteers) manage to somehow contain and minimize the effect of the spill, BP may be able to contain the damage to its brand. On the other hand, if we are witnessing one of the worst environmental disasters in the United States, with the effects of the spill taking 50 years to dissipate, BP may have no choice but to abandon its Beyond Petroleum brand and revert to British Petroleum, anything, to move away from being seen as the Bad Petroleum company.

In the brochure produced to launch its Beyond Petroleum brand in June 2000, BP stated:

“We are committed to:

• respecting the rule of law, conducting our business with integrity, and showing respect for human dignity and the rights of the individual wherever we do business

• creating mutual advantage in all our relationships so that people will trust us and want to do business with us

• demonstrating respect for the natural environment and work towards our goals of no accidents, no harm to people and no damage to the environment

• managing our financial performance to maximize long-term value for our shareholders”

They have certainly met their financial goals. It is not clear they are meeting their other objectives. In the same CNN report as the Brinkley interview, CNN revealed that BP had been asking volunteers to sign waivers, indemnifying BP in case a volunteer is injured during clean-up efforts (they have since recalled the waivers: not exactly living up to their claims of respecting rights of individuals, trust, etc.).

To be fair, BP is doing certain things right, from a branding perspective. Their web site touts their efforts in coping with this disaster; Tony Hayward, their current CEO, has been in front of the cameras to explain what BP is doing in the Gulf to stop the spill. In the face of tough questioning, he claims that the spill wasn’t their accident (it was a subcontractor’s rig, employees etc.), but that the oil is their responsibility.

A few months ago, various blogs (including this one) offered opinions on the damage to the Tiger Woods brand. That was silliness, a diversion from the day-to-day life. This brand crisis is not. And how it will play itself out, will directly affect the lives and livelihood of a great many people.

Method Branding has recently designed the brand identity for a new shelter for domestic animals.

Help Us Heal will provide a home for abandoned and abused family pets. Unlike typical institutional humane society shelters, the cats and dogs will have a home-like setting in an environment that reflects their natural interests, with room for dogs to run, for example. Help Us Heal will try to find supportive homes for the pets in its care, and if not, Help Us Heal will provide a long-term and caring residence.

© Sochi 2014

The new brand and emblem for the Sochi 2014 Winter Olympics has been unveiled ahead of the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games this coming February.

That the wordmark is also the Games’ URL and that Sochi and 2014 are supposed to be mirror images are touted as two of the main characteristics of the emblem. IOC President Jacques Rogge is quoted as saying this emblem will become one of the most visible and recognised marks for people of all ages from around the world

The emblem may indeed become recognized around the world, but that doesn’t make it good. To begin the web address is soichi2014.ru but that’s not how the emblem reads. So much for that idea.

But, so what if the emblem is the URL? This would have seemed truly innovative for the Liilehammer 1994 Winter Games, or the Atlanta 19996 Summer Olympics. In 2009, let alone 2014, URLs are no longer innovative. Besides, the 2014 Games will really be about the exploits of athletes on the ski slopes, ice and trails, not on any online experience. The web and other media are all important communications vehicles, but the Olypmics are not interactive games. An Olympic apps for smart phones would be relatively innovative, but then who would suggest that the emblem be an app icon?

The characters 2014 is supposed to be a reflection of Sochi. Nice idea if it only worked. It doesn’t though because the characters are not in the same order. It certainly is not a strong enough idea to make it the main point of the emblem.

© VANOC, ©LOCOG

Mostly, this emblem is not bad, but it’s just boring. It is not as bad as the London 2012 emblem, nor as amateurish as the Vancouver emblem. But it does seem to continue a recent trend of Olympic brands that are distinctly uninspiring.

The Olympics are probably the world’s largest promotional/sponsorship event.  A cynic would say that the Games are just one big commercial enterprise; that they are more about making money than athletes competing and excelling. That would all mitigate towards better emblems and stronger brands.

The past few days has seen a number of allegations about Tiger Woods’ infidelity, all coming on the heels of his car accident outside his Florida home. It has generated a torrent of comments as to how much damage this has done to the Tiger Woods brand.

Tiger Woods issued a statement on his web site, beginning his statement: I have let my family down and I regret those transgressions with all of my heart. I have not been true to my values and the behavior my family deserves. I am not without faults and I am far short of perfect. I am dealing with my behavior and personal failings behind closed doors with my family. Those feelings should be shared by us alone.

All kinds of commentators and pundits have commented on whether the Tiger Woods brand has been damaged. A number of companies with whom Tiger Woods has sponsorship agreements, have issued statements of support. Even some editorial pages have found the need to comment on whether Tiger Woods has been sufficiently forthcoming and contrite. This controversy evens seems to have overshadowed Barak Obama’s speech at West Point.

The first observation is that this is silliness, verging on the absurd. First Tiger Woods has not been accused of a crime (despite the somber declarations by a Florida Sate trooper that a traffic citation has been issued). Comparisons with Kobe Bryant are therefore irrelevant. When that story broke, there were not only allegations of infidelity, but also that a crime had been committed. In the meantime, Mr. Bryant seems to have survived that episode with no ill effects.

Secondly, Tiger Woods is not an elected official who has “betrayed the public trust. This is not the same as a governor running off to another country to be with his mistress and not leaving a number behind where he can be reached. Even within the realm of politicians and their indiscretions, how many Americans, if given the choice, would today rather being back Bill Clinton as President, rather that George W. Bush? President Clinton would probably win in a landslide. Mr. Woods is also not a preacher who tearfully begs for forgiveness for having sinned while he has been spewing invective towards all who don’t fit his view of morality.

Tiger Woods is an athlete, an incredibly talented athlete, obvious to even those who don’t follow golf. He was also a brand long before he was married. He was famous even before he had any interest in women (considering he first gained attention on U.S. national television when he 3 years old).

The Tiger Woods brand has more to do with talent, focus and determination than with family values. The brand certainly is also about class, Tiger Woods being as a good person, as a classy guy. In that respect, the brand has not been wrecked or even damaged, though it was probably not a good thing. If anything, this has humanized Tiger Woods, who was sometimes seen as a bit robotic in his conquest of all things golf.

The number of people in the public spotlight who have been or are currently unfaithful to their spouses is innumerable, not to mention people in all walks of life who also cheat on their partners. How many artists, writers, scientists, athletes, clergy, and of course politicians (among others) have had their private lives and failures exposed? All the while, many who are damning Tiger Woods for his failures are not doubt being unfaithful to their spouses at the same time.

Certain people thrive on celebrity for its own sake. They crash White House state dinners. They say their son is floating out of control through the sky in a balloon. A private videotape of a person performing sex is the ticket to even greater celebrity.

I’ll take Tiger, his infidelity and his brand over these other wannabe brands anytime.

The mayor of Quebec City has hired a New York firm to rebrand the city, and Ian Bussières wanted to know why certain brands, specifically, city brands succeed and others fail. He asked about the I Love NY, the Las Vegas brands as successful brands, compared to Toronto Unlimited which was poorly received when it was launched few years ago.

The article was touches on the fact that the most successful brands are brands that resonate and connect with their stakeholders on an emotional level. How a brand is launched, how it is introduced to its key stakeholders is also critical to its success. The brand may not fail if it is not properly communicated, but it may not be successful either, just a neutral factor for that organization.

Below is a screen capture of the newspaper article (in French).

The new MSN brand identity. MSN ®

On November 5, Microsoft introduced the new brand identity for MSN. Intended to work along side Bing, Microsoft’s web search engine, the new identity and home page, MSN is designed to be the best home page on the Web. Microsoft also announced it had reduced the number of links by half and content is provided by partners MSNBC. FOX Sports, Mayo Clinic and others.

Well, that’s fine, but was it necessary to revisit their 9-year old MSN brand identity?

(A point of disclosure: the original MSN butterfly was created by friends and ex-colleagues.) The new brand identity cannot be viewed in isolation. First it has to work with the unfortunate Bing brand identity (See the July 2009 of New Identity Alert for more information). Viewed through that prism, at least the new light face logotype makes sense, it is closer to the Bing wordmark. In fact the MSN logotype font is better than the Bing’s. The logotype also moves MSN further away from Microsoft. Is that a good thing? One can debate the merits of both sides of that argument.

Blah Bing. Microsoft™

It is clear that Microsoft in the past couple of years has introduced a number of brand identities that are visually appealing. They have trended towards lighter logotypes, not only for the brand shown here, but also for their ubiquitous Windows brand and sub-brands.

One gets the impression though, fairly or not, that there is no overarching strategy or vision guiding all these brands. A brand manager responsible for a product or range of products engages a branding firm to create a brand identity or series of brand identities, without any regard to the other brands in the Microsoft portfolio. Hence, the difference in fonts for Bing and MSN, and to no discernible advantage or benefit.

One would think that Microsoft would/should be taking a step back and examining all their many varied brands, determining how they interact, establishing a cohesive brand architecture and potentially rebranding the whole thing. They are more than welcome to contact us for assistance.

And the new butterfly? It is simpler and more abstract but not as friendly or accessible as the original.

Three visually appealing Microsoft brand identities. Microsoft â„¢

It's time for Micorsft to rethink their corporate brand identity and their whole portfolio of brand identities. Microsoft ®