In general, when we’re designing an identity experience we want that experience to be seamless. That is, all the identity values of the maker will map directly to corresponding identity values of the user. Thus, the user (buyer) actually buys himself or herself when they make a purchase.
Well, that’s the goal. Middlemen do get in the way.
In December, 2008 a Marine Corps F/A 18 fighter jet suffered a dual engine failure on a training flight near San Diego. En route to a Marine Corps airfield it crashed into a populated area, destroying three houses and tragically killing four members of one family.
This tragedy was a test of identity for the US Marines.
The crash of a Marine fighter jet in San Diego that killed four people was “clearly avoidable” if the pilot and officers on the ground assisting him during the emergency had followed proper procedures, a Marine general said today.
…
The Marine officers relieved of duties include the squadron commander, operations officer, standardization office and maintenance officer.
Besides the four Marine officers who were relieved of duty . . . nine other Marines have received administrative reprimands.
The plane’s pilot, who safely ejected just moments before the plane crashed, has been grounded ever since and will receive a further review to determine if he should keep his wings.
Read the full ABC News account here.
Barry Ritholtz (who should be in every brand builder’s blogroll, if not speed dial) lays out a classic case of brand vs. business in the financial services industry.
In the case that Barry cites, two portfolio managers help their clients avoid huge losses in 2008 by moving most assets into cash:
Overall, the clients do very well. In a year where the markets are practically cut in half, their clients lose about 10%. The investors are ecstatic, and while the two brokers annual compensation was schmeissed — they went from over $3 million gross to under $1 million — they have happy, referral making clients to rebuild their business upon. It’s a short term income hit that should generate gains over the long term. And, they got there by doing the right thing.
For this, their employer (rhymes with Schmerrill) cuts their compensation and stuffs them in the penalty box.
Creating brand value is the best way to create customers. A company that penalizes brand value has major problems, often right down to its core.
From an interview with a division general manager of Saturn, responsible for the brand’s product planning, sales, service and marketing operations:
We have the good fortune of having an exclusive network, so we don’t have other products in our facilities. When people come in, it’s a great environment. We’re very focused on delivering on the brand promise to the consumer.
You can’t have just a marketing message. Your marketing has got to be in your actions as well as in your words. I could give you numerous examples where I get customer letters and they’ll tell me about retailers staying open late at night to take care of their service needs. That’s Saturn.
Unfortunately, Saturn’s parallel with Apple does not extend to the bottom line–perhaps because it never extended to the quality and innovation of the product line. GM has announced that it will close down Saturn production by 2011, leaving Saturn retailers to find a new source for vehicles to sell under the Saturn brand.
“It’s a good distribution network. If someone comes up with an offer, we’re very open to that.” GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner told a press conference. GM intends to produce new Saturns only for the current product line up which expires in 2011, according to the company’s latest plan as submitted to Treasury.
Under the new plan, Mr. Januska said, Saturn dealers would be open to selling vehicles made by Indian or Chinese manufacturers that would be sold as Saturns. “There are not a whole lot of alternatives,” said Mr. Januska, who is on the Saturn Dealer Council. “Someone is going to see the value of us and I don’t know who it will be.”
To me, the Saturn brand always had the imagination boiled out of it, as if it were supposed to be “different” in ways that didn’t really matter. It was like driving “the big idea” instead of driving a car. Comparing itself to Apple means that Saturn came to believe its own illusions. Or maybe it was a brand of illusion from the very start.
You are currently browsing the Brands Create Customers weblog archives for March, 2009.
