JWT works on ‘Brand USA’ - the country’s first global consumer brand

JWT has created what claims to be the United States’ first-ever global consumer brand, the Brand USA project, for US government organisation The Corporation for Travel Promotion.

The identity is set to be unveiled in London on 7 November.

Working with WPP sister consultancy The Brand Union and PR agency Hill & Knowlton, JWT’s New York office has named the brand, developed an identity and a brand manifesto.

The CTP did not start searching for its consultancies until July and the consortium of agencies were not appointed until late August.

WPP says its consultancies beat ‘two undisclosed global agencies in a pitch’.

The CTP, which is understood to have a $200 million (£125 million) budget, was set up in 2010 as a partnership between the travel industry and federal government to market the USA to international visitors and in turn create jobs in the industry and economic growth.

Launching at the World Travel Market in London on 7 November a discussion of the ‘rigorous strategic positioning and brand identity process’ is promised by CTP.

http://www.designweek.co.uk/

Brand Agencies Won't Like This New Way to Value Brands

Posted by Andrew F. Stewart

Yesterday, I stumbled upon a great rant about the recently published Interbrand 100 top brand rankings of 2010. On his blog, Chicago based Brand Strategist Jonathan Salem Baskin suggests a far better way to value a brand, one the brand agencies are bound to hate.

After sending it to my team, I decided to share the part we all found most interesting with you. Have a read, enjoy and please give us your thoughts.

He writes:

I have long argued for a more operationally-focused definition of branding that would arise from business processes, not the imagination of marketers or branding gurus. Instead of trying to find indications and hints of some ethereal definition of brands, why not look at how businesses perform? Why couldn't we define the qualities of brands through measuring outcomes, like:

• Development: Stronger brands should have an easier time identifying the products its customers want, so they should do it faster and more often.


• Efficiency: Better brands should be able to create things not just faster, but more economically than lesser-known names.


• Marketing: Awareness of a brand should make it cheaper to tell people things, so marketing expenditure should be less over time than brands that aren't as strong.


• Efficacy: Branding should provide an umbrella that makes tactical marketing work better. The viral or direct marketing programs of strong brands should work better than others.


• Premium: Customers should be willing to pay more for brand benefits beyond functional attributes if the brand is strong, and less if it isn't.


• Sustainability: The average percentage of customers who've endured a product failure, corporate crime, or other negative impact to your brand should be better than those of one lesser-known brand name in the same business category.


• Repeatability: Return business should be larger, more frequent, and more profitable for stronger brands that it is for weaker ones.


• Employees: The cost of acquiring and keeping employee talent should be less for great brands.


• Risk: Supply chains should be more secure for great brands, which means insurance exposure should be lower and expectations for reliable business performance higher.
  
  
  

For the full post please read Jonathan Salem Baskin's 'Interbrand's Rankings Are Nonsense.'