What in the world is UX?

UX of course stands for User Experience, and experience design is hot these days. The challenge in defining UX lies in its interpretation often skewed to a digital connotation. Of course, geographical locations and industries have an influence on the interpretation, but let’s not pigeonhole user experiences to digital applications, or even to design for that matter!

Thanks to the rise of the digital age, companies no longer question their digital presence, but only how they will be digitally presented. And in the case of purely digital companies (e.g. Facebook, Airbnb, Uber) user experience is manifested through the interaction design and interface of their website & apps and is mostly the star of the UX show. This recent image shows the digital emphasis on User Experience, which is often the (mis)understanding of what UX is all about:

Wikipedia claims "User experience design encompasses traditional human-computer interaction (HCI) design, and extends it by addressing all aspects of a product or service as perceived by users". UX design origins can be arguably traced to Don Norman when he was responsible for Advanced Technology at Apple and his role in product user-experience, further outlined in his book "Psychology of Everyday Things" (1988). As much as I want to lean on digital as a driver of UX design, I strongly believe user experience is much more than digital, even in a digital environment, and is the sum of all experiences, extending from product to branding to communications to customer service.

During a recent introduction visit to a world leading financial software provider, I was rather impressed to learn that they have recently grown their UX department from a handful of designers to over 200 people, many of whom have management roles and are integrating and influencing colleagues across the organisation. When I asked the Head of Design “what about the other design functions?” he looked back with a kind of blank stare. I had to then clarify “you know, (3D) packaging design, (2D) graphic design”? The answer was somewhat expected, obvious, and rather discouraging: packaging and graphics were sitting in the other buildings, completely disconnected, working under marketing. Yet again, the ominous silos.
While I understand in this case the main product is digital, we always strongly advocate that all touch points with the company/brand should be seamlessly developed and integrated to deliver an optimal user experience. Even while most software services go to the clouds, retail partners will still require a physical product/packaging of some sort to fill their physical shelves. And this is part of the overall experience and brand perception.

Further on the subject of digital landscapes, I recently attended a rather good conference in San Francisco titled 'Managing Experiences', ran by a leading UX design and consulting firm. The event had a rather extensive line up of reputable and respectable speakers. I was inspired by their efforts to position design into their respective companies. Although, being in San Francisco and near Silicon Valley, most of the representation was weighted towards the digital front. Even in this context, I was very much enlightened to hear the bold statement from Katie M. Dill, Head of Experience Design at Airbnb, who claimed in her presentation that ”90% of their users’ experiences happen outside of the website”.Seems they are on the right path and have both an interesting challenge and great opportunity ahead to utilize design to develop & deliver improved user experiences across the entire journey.

Most of the attendees I met at the conference were coming from a digital function, and were managing departments of web developers, programmers and interaction designers, much like the above illustration. I did happen to overhear a great statement made by a participant at one of the workshops, in which he stated: 

“We no longer have a user experience role in our organization. User Experience is the outcome of many roles, including marketing, sales, service and design”.

In a recent LinkedIn post by UX designer Martino Liu, Martino claims “Most of the time, people confuse UX designer with a highly skilled programmer individual and a strong engineering background. The following chart shows the real thing”.

I tend to like Martino’s viewpoint, however this model seems to me suspiciously similar to the Design Thinking lens of Desirable, Viable & Feasible. A Design Thinking approach will certainly help deliver an optimal user experience, but this model implies to me that UX is again the star of the show. In my opinion, a good deal of emphasis should be made on User Experience design (management) as a strategic influencer & integrator across the journey.

When we work with clients in various consumer goods industries, digital is only one element of the overall user experience. The main experience is in the product itself (e.g. the ice cream flavor & texture, the shampoo scent and lather, the feel and sound of the clicking bricks, etc.) along with packaging, point of sale and [marketing] communications. It is in these environments where the understanding and interpretation of User Experiences gets pretty confusing. Nowadays in an omni-channel environment, the digital and physical blur, and digital is often an element incorporated in many touch points. Even packing nowadays may have a digital element integrated in it (for example LEGO augmented reality packaging).

A simple model we use at PARK is putting the user in the center surrounding them with all of the touch points they may encounter on their journey. Each one of these touch points needs to be designed and developed and seamlessly integrated with one another. This is the often the job of the (UX) design manager. However, please do not misinterpret the role of the design manager in large complex organizations. In the grand scheme, typically the responsibilities of the (UX) design manager are to drive the product/pack/formula portion while influencing or informing the “other” functions in hopes that their output is aligned with the overall design/experience intent. Too often, this is where we see the user experience being compromised, by no proper alignment or breaking down of functional silos during the development.

How your customers feel about your brand is in fact due in large to the product experience, which may or may not be largely digital, but is also heavily influenced by all other experiences along their journey. So, depending where in the world you are (industry wise), User Experience could be interpreted differently. However, like design thinking going off in different directions, I hope that the design community comes to an early consensus and clearly communicates what exactly is UX [design]. I like to put forward the claim that UX is:

“the sum of all activities that a user encounters in the process of researching, identifying, buying, sharing and interacting with a product, brand and service”.

What’s your interpretation?

Jay Peters

Design Management & Innovation Specialist | Educator

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/what-world-ux-jay-peters?trk=mp-reader-card

The Makings Of A Great Logo

Six questions to ask yourself when designing a brand

Your company's logo is the foundation of your business branding. It is probably the first interaction that you will have with your customers. An effective logo can establish the right tone and set the proper ethos. After years of crafting logos for different projects, I've come up with a set of questions that I always ask myself before delivering a new logo.

1. WHAT EMOTIONS DOES THE LOGO EVOKE?

Above all design guidelines, the most important criterion is whether the logo reflects the character of the company. The emotions that the logo evokes should be appropriate to the company values. For example, the Disney logo evokes a sense of happiness and optimism. The curvy, fun typeface is appropriate for a company that has been making cartoons and animated pictures for kids. However, a similar logo style on a sales platform would not be appropriate.

BEHIND EVERY GREAT LOGO IS A STORY.

Designers should understand the psychology of colors and the effect that typeface has on the design of a great logo. For example, green promotes relaxation and usually reflects growth, health, and the environment. Red, on the other hand, may evoke danger and passionate emotions. Similarly for typefaces, Garamond, Helvetica, and Comic Sans all elicit very different sentiments. Serif fonts like Garamond promote the idea of respect and tradition, and are hence more suitable for an environment that demands integrity such as a university or a news publisher. Sans Serif fonts like Helvetica are clean and modern, and are well suited for high-tech businesses. Casual script fonts like Comic Sans are probably best left for fun companies such as toy companies. A good understanding of the psychology of colors, typefaces, and shapes is an important part of making a great logo.

The styling of the Disney logo is appropriate for a company that aims to be fun, but such a style would not be appropriate for a sales platform company.

2. WHAT'S THE MEANING BEHIND THE LOGO?

Behind every great logo is a story. A great logo is not about slapping your business name on a generic shape, which is why choosing from ready-made logos is a poor idea. A logo has to have a meaningful story. A good designer first understands the culture of the company, the tone of the product, and the vision of the business, much before embarking on ideas for the logo. The end result of a quality logo is reflective of the philosophy and values of the company.

The arrow in the logo represents that Amazon sells everything from A to Z and the smile on the customer's face when they buy a product.

3. WILL THE LOGO STAND THE TEST OF TIME?

How will the logo look in two, 10, 20 years? Designers should avoid getting sucked into flavor-of the-month trends. Trends like ultra-thin fonts and flat shadows are design styles that will probably not stand the test of time. Simple is far better than complex. A simple yet memorable logo can be used in 20 years without looking dated.

A good way to test the logo is to let it sit with you for a while before releasing it. Some logos grow with you--the more you look at it, the more you like it. Some logos start to feel nauseating after a while--the more you look at it, the more you hate it. If after a couple of weeks with the logo you find it boring, the logo is probably not strong or timeless enough.

The simplistic outline and shape of the Apple Inc. logo allows it to endure the test of time. The first prototype of the logo would definitely not be suitable today.

4. IS IT UNIQUE? CAN IT BE INSTANTLY RECOGNIZABLE?

A great logo is distinctive, memorable, and recognizable. Even if you have only seen it once, you should still be able to remember what it looks like after a period of time. A good way to test this is to show your logo to a friend, then cover it up and have your friend describe the logo in a week. A fresh pair of eyes can be very effective in figuring out the most memorable components of a logo.

In addition, if the logo reminds you of others you have seen, it is not distinct enough.

The logos of Path and Pinterest are very similar.

5. HOW DOES IT LOOK IN BLACK AND WHITE?

When I begin designing a logo, I always start in black and white. Designing with this limitation first forces you to make sure that the logo is recognizable purely by its shape and outline, and not by its color. A strong logo is one that is still memorable just by its contours.

A one-color logo also provides the benefit of using your brand easily in multiple mediums with different backgrounds and textures.

It is much harder to recognize the National Geographic symbol once we remove its signature yellow color.

6. IS IT CLEAR AND DISTINCT IN SMALL DIMENSIONS?

Another way to make sure logos are simple and recognizable is to scale it down dramatically. Even at tiny resolutions, a strong logo should still be recognizable at a glance. This is also a good test to make sure that the logo is not complicated with unnecessary design flourishes. Here, you see that the Nike, McDonalds, Twitter, and WWF logos are still very distinct at small sizes. The GE and Starbucks logos are far more cluttered, and less recognizable when they are small.

These are not hard-and-fast rules, just guidelines for making an effective logo. It is still possible to make a strong, complicated logo, but understand the trade-offs.

http://www.fastcodesign.com/3031328/the-makings-of-a-great-logo

Branding Best Practices Learned From the GAP Logo Debacle

I took some heat for my last post on how the new GAP logo was better. In that post, I explained how the old square shape makes it smaller than competitors, and how the old serif font is out of tune with their otherwise ubiquitous use of Helvetica.

Soon after my post, the GAP responded to the 'gapocalypse'. First, saying they would use the outcry ('engagement' in their speak) to try again by crowdsourcing their logo. And then, when the design community reacted with even greater outrage, deciding that they would just keep with the old logo ad infinitum. End of story.

So what can we learn?

Lessons For Brand Holders Like the GAP

1. 2009 to 2014 will see more change in the marcom industry than all of the change we've experienced since the Mad Men era. You cannot take anything for granted in this sci-fi day and age. Check all your mental models before you plan to ship.


2. In this case, the GAP assumed the crowd didn't care. Don't make the same mistake. This ain't up there with the 1985 New Coke disaster but it has the same taste.


3. The GAP assumed they could solve their problem with a crowdsourcing contest in time for the holidays. For gold-plated brands, great crowdsourcing is a campaign unto itself, nothing less. Case in point: I went into my corner store this summer and saw a bag of Dorritos that had no name, and a contest to come up with a name. That kind of thoughtfulness will garner respect from the creative community, rather than the anger the GAP got from designers who see crowdsourcing as a threat to their values.

Lessons for Logo Designers

Since the weekend, I've seen hundreds of GAP logo designs that have sprung up in various online contests and forums. What concerns me is how many of the ones clearly done by brilliant artists miss the mark on the importance of shape, the value of simplicity, and the importance of continuity.

1. Logos should be landscape rectangular to fit the human field of view. Square or round logos will always be smaller, and therefore less viewed than rectangular competitors.


2. Logos should be the simplest thing that works. For example, if a name says 'GAP' you don't need to actually draw a gap. If a name says 'Tide' you don't need to show the sea.


3. When the brand is a big part of people's lives, continuity is king. Change your brand so the audience sees evolution, not revolution.

With these lessons in mind, Todd Major and I threw together in a few minutes the wordmark above. It mirrors a safer, saner, best pratice-ier direction that would have stuck.

By Axle Davids

The Diffuse Brand Strategy - What Went Wrong?

This post is one in a series on our biggest brand strategy secret here at Distility: That most bad brands can be traced back to a failure of exploration, a failure of commitment, or both.

This diagram sums up the way most brands go wrong, and what it takes to get to the holy grail of the authentic brand.


















The Fragmented Brand and Diffuse Brand share a common lack of team commitment. But the diffuse brand also lacks exploration. This is the brand we find with our most R&D focused clients. Hard core science - not marketing - is their life blood. Given the right facilitator and workflow they are great at inventing brands. But left unattended, brand is absent from their brilliant minds.


There is a certain kind of business apathy to a Diffuse Brand. No time has been taken to explore possibilities, and no one is willing to commit to any one brand strategy. While exploration may have seemed like a waste of time, not taking the time can mean no one ever knows who you are, even inside your very own company! That seems a bigger waste. Even if people do know about you, with ambiguous and undefined positioning at the helm your team may find it difficult to confidently sell the brand convincingly to the right people.

You don't want to be this brand. There isn't enough energy behind this brand to even bother with good marketing, so why should any client want to bother considering it?

The Conformist Brand Strategy

This post is one in a series on our biggest brand strategy secret here at Distility: That most bad brands can be traced back to a failure of exploration, a failure of commitment, or both.

This diagram sums up the way most brands go wrong, and what it takes to get to the holy grail of the authentic brand.

The Conformist Brand Identity is the result of authoritarian leadership refusing to explore and commit to an authentic brand.

The firm with a Conformist Brand may have dabbled in the exploration of brand promise, position, and personality, only to be stopped short by an overriding pressure to commit. Or, the brand may have simply been dictated to the group by an authoritarian leader. Regardless, there's typically little concern as to whether or not you have the story right. The story itself is likely not authentic to the team or offer, but rather an imitation of another brand that worked, or simply the opinion of a higher-up. This puts your brand at risk of being positioned as unappealing, or simply another face in the crowd. Without an authentic, differentiated voice to tell your brand story, your audience or stakeholders may struggle to consider or buy into your brand.

You don't want to be this brand. In fact, you probably don't even want to be part of this team.

To make a difference, your brand needs to blaze a new trail and engage truly like-minded people in taking that path. To Distility that's an Authentic brand.

The Authentic Brand Strategy

This post is one in a series on our biggest brand strategy secret here at Distility: That most bad brands can be traced back to a failure of exploration, a failure of commitment, or both.

This diagram sums up the way most brands go wrong, and what it takes to get to the holy grail of the authentic brand.

The objective of a successful branding exercise is to find a balance that gets you to your brand essence - a balance between those ideas that have become a part of how your team sees your offer and those that will truly resonate with your audience. It is only when you understand the core of your brand (what we call the Brand Promise) that you can clearly communicate it to others - and live up to it day to day. This requires exploration without the fear of bad ideas yet without too many unproductive tangents, and commitment not to the first good idea for the sake of time, but to the ideas that are most true to you.

You don't only want to be this brand, this brand reflects who you truly are.

The Fragmented Brand Strategy

This post is one in a series on our biggest brand strategy secret here at Distility: That most bad brands can be traced back to a failure of exploration, a failure of commitment or both.

This diagram sums up the way most brands go wrong, and what it takes to get to the holy grail of the authentic brand.

Clients who come to Distility with a fragmented brand are usually fed up with time wasted, opportunities lost, and the general inability to get their team aligned around a unifying 'story' 'message' 'idea' or what we eventually have them calling a 'brand promise, position and personality.'

The fragmented brand breeds from any one of these scenarios:

• A creative culture that doesn't know how to promote, manage, or - when required - kill ideas
• A rush culture that can't create the time for brand marketing collaboration and consensus
• Team members who re-invent the brand when it isn't asked or required
• Leadership that encourages the brand being everything to everyone, and neglect the potential of a focused brand strategy.
• A lack of an overall business strategy that precisely defines the target customer, what they are being sold, and what competitors the team must differentiate against. How can you commit to a brand without clarity around these fundamentals?

The fragmented brand is the most chaotic and frustrating for the team. There is lots of energy, which is fantastic, but it just creates confusion. In trying to be everything to everyone, you end up doing nothing well enough to really stand out. You may find your audience or stakeholders struggling to buy into a story told by multiple voices. Moreover, your own people may feel they don't even understand what kind of team they're a part of - and wonder why they are even part of it at all.

You don't want to be this brand. Every marketing spend is just a point in time event, providing you with no build-up over time in terms of brand awareness, consideration and loyalty.

What truly differentiates a brand in the marketplace is a purposeful, committed, and shared understanding of how the company needs to be perceived to achieve business success. To Distility that's an authentic brand.

Brand Strategy = Exploration & Commitment

In our last post, we introduced Distility's big brand strategy secret: At the heart of our approach lies a deep cultivation of the way a team explores and commits to their brand.

Based on the quality of the team's exploration and commitment, they can arrive at four distinct brand strategies:

1. Fragmented
2. Diffuse
3. Conformist
4. Authentic

To make better sense of these strategies, let's put business aside for a moment, and see how this works with people.

Authentic

Take a teenager for example. It is natural, at some point, for teenagers to explore their 'brand'. Rocker. Punk. Tough. Sweet. Shy. Risk taking. The list goes on. This is considered healthy human identity development... so long as at some point the exploration slows and the person commits to a defining personality. The identity theorists call this 'Achieved Identity'. We call the business equivalent, done right, an 'Authentic Brand.'

Fragmented
If the person, or brand, never stops exploring - never commits - then they are "Fragmented". At the extreme, in a person, this would be psychiatrically diagnosed as Dissociative identity disorder, where one body shares multiple personalities. As far as branding is concerned, this is at best, the team that is full of ideas but can never agree on the best one. At the worst, it is the sickness of a firm that is making contrary promises every which way to Sunday.

Conformist

Of course, there are a great many people who are not allowed this healthy kind of exploration. The culprit is usually cultural, making it against the rules to explore and enforcing commitment. The teenager must conform to a way of dressing, behaving, even thinking. In people, this results in what the Identity Theorists call the 'Conformist Personality.' Obviously, the same inability to explore and enforcement to commit result in 'Conformist Brands'.

Diffuse
Finally, there are brands and individuals that never explore, nor commit. It is not in their DNA, not in their culture. There is no drive for identity. The outcome is a 'Diffuse' personality or brand. From a business perspective, this translates to the inability to get even the most reptilian form of strategy in play.

Don't be diffuse, fragmented, or conformist

Far too many brand strategy failures can be traced back to pathologies in the decision making process. A failure in exploring ideas and/or a failure to commit to the best brand idea can result in a diffuse brand, conformist brand, or fragmented brand. The authentic brand is the end goal of branding and the key to presenting a clear, consistent, and compelling image to your customers.

Brand Licensing Basics

An easy way to get started on the topic of Brand Licensing is to break the subject into its two component parts – brand and licensing. Let's start with the latter part first. What is licensing? Licensing means nothing more than the renting or leasing of an intangible asset. An example of intangible assets includes a song (Somewhere Over The Rainbow), a character (Donald Duck), a name (Michael Jordan) or a brand (The Ritz-Carlton). An arrangement to license a brand requires a licensing agreement. A licensing agreement authorizes a company which markets a product or service (a licensee) to lease or rent a brand from a brand owner who operates a licensing program (a licensor). Before we move any further, let's discuss what we mean when we use the term brand.

What is a brand?

According to Philip Kotler and Gary Armstrong a brand is defined as “a name, term, sign symbol or combination of these, that identifies the maker or seller of the product” or service. The brand or its legal term, trademark, affixed to the product helps the consumer understand where it was manufactured or produced. In essence, a trademark simply states “I made this”. From the brand owner's perspective, it distinguishes the products or services from those of its competitors. Consumers, in turn, can be assured the product they are purchasing is exactly what they want. Based on its reputation, a brand will convey a level of quality, reliability and durability.

Why do companies brand their products?

The primary reason companies choose to brand their products is to differentiate them from their competitors' products. For example, most consumers have no problem differentiating a Coke from a Pepsi. By giving their products a brand, a company or brand owner can begin to communicate with their consumers regarding the attributes of their products. Over time, a consumer can rely on the brand to connote not only a product's value but also its reputation. If a consumer likes what a brand represents and they have purchased it before, there is a higher likelihood they will choose the brand of their preference over a competitor. In fact, consumers will often purchase a brand for the first time if it has a strong reputation or if it is used by friends or celebrities. Brands also lead consumers to develop certain expectations of products. The longer they experience predictable, consistent quality and performance, the more they will expect any new products sold under the same brand to have the same. The brand, therefore, adds value to these products.

For example, customers expect new products sold under the BMW brand to be of the same quality as an existing BMW. Consumers will associate a brand with a certain price level and standard of performance. If we look at two distinct watch brands: Rolex and Timex, one is associated with a high price and high performance and the other with value through a low price and durability. These same attributes can also be of benefit to businesses. Many companies as well as consumers look to UPS for their shipping needs because Brown has developed the reputation of actually adding value to an organization through its understanding of its customers' needs and its consistent reliability.

When consumers and businesses get into the habit of buying certain brands, they automatically buy them again. This reduces the amount of time and promotion needed to make future sales, and it results in brand loyalty. According to Philip Kotler, brand loyalty, in marketing, consists of a “consumer's commitment to repurchase or otherwise continue using the brand' and can be demonstrated by repeated buying of a product or service or other positive behaviors such as word of mouth advocacy. Brands usually pass through successive stages of brand loyalty, which is the customers’ allegiance to a particular brand. The stronger the brand loyalty, the higher the value of the brand and the greater revenue it will drive for its owner.

Why do companies license their brands?

As we said above, a licensing agreement authorizes a company which markets a product or service (a licensee) to lease or rent a brand from a brand owner who operates a licensing program (a licensor). Companies who know their brands well will have a good understanding of the equity of the brand. A brand's equity is derived from the awareness and image a brand holds with its consumers.

Licensing enables companies whose brands have high preference to unlock a brand's latent value and satisfy pent up demand that exists. After Apple launched the iPod a number of years ago it created an immediate need for accessories; Apple could have chosen to manufacture and distribute these themselves, but decided they were not core to the business and therefore, chose to satisfy the need through licensing. Licensing the iPod brand enabled many companies to produce all kinds of terrific products to make the iPod more user-friendly and enhance the listening experience. Examples include the Bose Sound System with iPod docking station, other products that enable an iPod to be heard through a vehicle's built-in stereo and iPod holding devices that allow users “to take their music with them” when they go running. All these accessories are sold by licensees.

Apart from benefits to licensors, there are benefits to licensees as well. Licensees lease the rights to a certain property for incorporation into their merchandise, but traditionally they do not share ownership in it. Having access to major national and global brands, and the logos and trademarks associated with those brands, gives the licensee significant benefits they previously did not possess. The most important of these is the marketing power the brand brings to the licensee’s products. Building a brand from scratch can take years, millions of dollars and a lot of luck. The company which licenses a brand gains immediate access to all the positive brand and image building that went before it. The licensee also takes with them the reputation of the licensor. Often this “halo” effect can translate into many intangible and immeasurable benefits such as returned calls, an agreement to meet, or simply the benefit of the doubt.

Using licensing to enter new categories

Often brand managers will enter or extend their brands into new product categories to drive strategic growth for the company.

For example, Crest several years ago extended its brand from toothpaste into whitening (Crest Whitestrips). Before, Procter & Gamble (P&G), the owner of the Crest brand launched Crest Whitestrips, they conducted research to understand if the brand had permission to enter into the retail whitening category, long held by established brands such as Rembrandt and Aquafresh. P&G wanted to find out if consumers would expect Crest to offer a whitening product and if so, based on the preference for the Crest brand, purchase this new product. As we know Crest Whitestrips have performed well since their launch in the market and have achieved high rankings and advocacy ratings. While P&G decided to source the product overseas and distribute globally, they could have chosen to manufacturer it themselves and distribute or enter the market through licensing. In the case of P&G's Mr. Clean brand, P&G discovered that consumers expected them to sell cleaning accessories under the Mr. Clean brand. In this case, P&G decided to enter the market by licensing the category to Magla, a company that already had expertise and presence in this category.

The diagram below illustrates the different stages that are a part of the Licensed Product Process Flow:

What are the expectations of Licensors and Licensees?

Licensors expect that the licensee will be committed to investing in the category they license. This means they will work hard to understand the essence of the brand and develop their licensed product in a way that captures that essence. In other words, the licensed products should connect with the consumer both functionally and emotionally. If the licensee does this, the products they develop will normally be approved without delay or difficulty. To achieve this takes time and money. So while both parties want to commercialize the category as soon as possible, the licensor will expect the licensee to start with building the brand into the product first. The licensor will also expect the licensee to be familiar with the contract and to meet the obligations of the contract. That is why it is important for the licensee to ensure all employees in the licensee's organization working on the license are familiar with its contractual obligations. For example, when a product becomes approved, the licensor will expect the licensee to commercialize the licensed product expeditiously in each of the authorized channels. Finally, the licensor will expect the licensee to meet or exceed the projected sales targets for the category as outlined in the contract. When all of these things happen, the result can truly be award winning products that meet or exceed annual sales and royalty projections.

Licensees, in turn, expect that the license they have acquired will provide them with sales growth, and rightfully so. This sales growth may be in the form of growth within existing channels or the opportunity to enter a new channel or new market. To accomplish this objective, licensees expect that the brand they are licensing is as strong or stronger than they believe or have been told, that it will open doors and ultimately help them meet or exceed their business objectives. Moreover, licensees expect that the licensor or their agents will run a simple, straight forward licensing program that will not administratively tax their organization. Finally, they expect that the licensor will approach the licensing relationship with a win-win attitude that will allow them to move quickly to take advantage of opportunities that present themselves. Because licensing contracts obligate the licensee to sales targets and royalties, the licensee's goal will be to quickly achieve sales of licensed product to meet these requirements.

Royalty and Payment Flow

Royalty is the monies that are paid to a licensor by the licensee for the right to use the licensed property. It is calculated by multiplying the Royalty Rate by the Net Sales. Below is an example of how the royalty payments would flow from the retailer to the licensee and ultimately to the licensor. The example assumes a 10% royalty rate.
Brand Licensing is probably one of the least explored methods to enter a new product category by most brands. However, we hope that through this module, we have been able to explain what Brand Licensing is and the numerous benefits that it has to offer both to licensors and licensees.

Needless to say, the entire process is lengthy and time consuming. One must also keep in mind that the goal is not to achieve the license but to make a success of it and the activities that follow the signing of the contract. These processes, if executed well, on the one hand, can ensure huge success of the program. While on the other hand, if either the licensee or the licensor do not live up to their commitments, it can affect sales, and more importantly the reputation of the brand.

Contributed By: Pete Canalichio, Licensing Brands, Inc.

Sponsored By: Brand Aid

Master Branding Seminars

We’re taking a moment today to share a very powerful internal brand education seminar. We constructed “The Art & Science of Brand Management - Proven Tools & Techniques for Creating Winning Brands” for those organizations that desire to bolster the toolbox of their marketers in a comprehensive 3-day format.

This master branding seminar will help you know how to design, build and leverage strong brands over time. While many concepts will be presented in the seminar, the emphasis is on practical tools and techniques. Numerous brand examples across many industries and product categories will be cited to reinforce specific concepts. Team exercises are interspersed throughout the day on each of the three days. Handouts will include templates and checklists.

The seminar is offered world-wide and lead by Brad VanAuken, Chief Brand Strategist of The Blake Project and Author of Brand Aid. TARGET AUDIENCE:

Valuable to all those working in various marketing-related functions, including:

• Chief Marketing Officers (CMO)
• Marketing Directors
• Marketing Managers
• Head, Marketing, Marketing Services
• Brand Managers
• Product Managers
• Marketing Officers/Executives
• Finance Managers
• Sales Managers
• Advertising Agency Account Executives
• PR Professionals

DAY 1

Part 1

· Introduction

· Why strong brands are critical to business success?

Ø Decrease price sensitivity.

Ø Increase customer loyalty.

Ø Increase bargaining power for manufacturers and retailers.

Ø Enable independence from a specific product.

Ø And much more…

· Brand leadership

Ø What is it?

Ø What are the measures of brand leadership?

· The five drivers of customer brand insistence

Ø Awareness

Ø Relevant Differentiation

Ø Value

Ø Accessibility

Ø Emotional Connection

§ Numerous examples of each

· How these five drivers work together to move customers from brand awareness to preference to purchase to loyalty

· Brand Equity Measurement

Ø Ten key measures

§ Including loyalty (attitudinal and behavioral measures)

Part 2

• The brand management process

Ø Steps

Ø Roles of the brand manager

· Using brand research to develop, strengthen and leverage the brand

Ø Types of brand research by brand management function

§ Brand positioning

§ Brand identity

§ Brand extension

§ Ongoing brand management

§ Brand advertising

Part 3

· Positioning the brand to win

Ø Defining target markets

Ø Multiple approaches to segmentation

· Defining brand essence (the “heart & soul” of the brand)

Ø Brand essence exercise

· Identifying compelling customer benefits

Ø Functional

Ø Emotional

Ø Experiential

Ø Self-expressive

· Crafting the brand promise

· Creating “category of one” brands

Ø Choosing a preemptive competitive “frame of reference”

Ø “Category of One” case studies (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Strong National Museum of Play)

· Identifying brand promise proof points and “reasons to believe”

· The most important sources of brand differentiation

Ø Self-image reinforcement

Ø Values alignment

Ø Unique purchase or usage experience

Ø And much more…

· Differentiating commodities

Ø Proven ways to differentiate commodities

Ø Differentiating a commodity exercise

DAY 2

Part 4

· Reinforcing the brand promise at each point of customer contact

· Customer touch point design

Ø Pre-purchase, point-of-purchase, immediate post-purchase, during product usage and ongoing touchpoints

§ Generic strategies and tactics for each phase

Ø Ideation techniques

Ø Identifying current touch points

Ø Creating new touch points

Ø Customer touchpoint design exercise

§ Brand loyalty building tools and techniques

Ø Events

Ø Membership organizations

Ø Advisory boards

Ø And many tools and techniques

Part 5

· Inside-out branding – aligning the organization in support of the brand

Ø Strategies for transforming employees into brand advocates

§ Securing top management support

§ Securing employee support through

Ø Hiring criteria

Ø Education

Ø Communication

Ø Objectives

Ø Rewards and recognition

§ Tools and techniques for each of these

§ Applying these concepts to the seminar participants’ brands and companies

· Managing the brand’s identity

Ø What leads to a strong brand identity?

Ø Brand architecture and naming

Ø Brand identity standards and system

Ø Organizational control mechanisms

Ø Online asset management systems

Ø Brand identity exercise

DAY 3

Part 6

· Brand extension

Ø Brand extension benefits

Ø Successful brand extensions (Jell-o, Ivory, Woolite and more…)

Ø Brand extension blunders (New Coke and many more…)

Ø Brand extension process

Ø Brand extension research

Ø Concept development and testing

Ø Volumetric forecasting

Ø Market testing

· Global brand management issues and considerations

Ø Global branding considerations

Ø Common global branding problems

Ø Global branding measures

Part 7

· Research revisited

Ø Qualitative research techniques

§ Laddering, guided imagery and projective research techniques

· Projective research technique exercise

Ø Research methodologies

§ Conjoint analysis, electronic real time (ERT) research and dozens more

Ø Scaling

Ø Market segmentation

§ Different approaches to market segmentation

Ø Cluster analysis

Ø Factor analysis

Ø Cross-tabulation

Ø Regression analysis

Part 8

· “Out of the box” marketing techniques that really work

Ø Dozens of techniques covered as a game

Part 9

· 33 common brand problems and their resolution

Ø The cumulative result of gradually and incrementally decreasing product or service quality to reduce costs

Ø Frequently changing your brand’s positioning and message

Ø And more…

Part 10

· Pricing strategy

Ø Price sensitivity

Ø Reference prices

Ø Price segmentation

Ø Price setting considerations

· The role of the brand manager

· The future of brand management

Some of the brands used as examples in this seminar: 3M, Amazon.com, AOL, Apple, Bayer, Ben & Jerry’s, Bic, BP, Coca-cola, CNN, Dole, GE, Genesee Valley Trust Company, Google, Gucci, Hallmark, Harley-Davidson, Harvard University, HSBC, Hyundai, IKEA, iPod, KFC, Las Vegas, Lazarra Yachts, Levi’s, Lumi-Nox, McDonald’s, Mini-Cooper, Nordstrom, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Ritz Carlton, Rubbermaid, Sony, Starbucks, Strong National Museum of Play, The Body Shop, The Oriental Bangkok, Toyota, Unilever, Virgin, Volvo, Wegmans, Working Assets

Our brand education clients include: AAA, Abbott, Bausch & Lomb, Best Brand Moscow, CBC Radio – Canada, Hallmark, McKesson, Unilever, Utah Jazz, Wyndham Hotels, Xerox

See our complete list of brand education topics here. We would be happy to tailor a seminar specifically for your needs. I can be reached via email or directly in the U.S. at 813-842-2260.

Derrick Daye