For designers, our bible of colour has always been the long established Pantone matching system. These colour swatch books are universally accepted as the industry standard for ink. In fact, Pantone is so popular, it is used as the global standard for choosing and matching colours in every country. It's almost like a universal language for designers.

For years, Pantone has been expanding their reach beyond just ink. They have evolved into other markets such as web, fashion, home, paints and interiors. And now, it seems they are getting into the hotel business.

Yes, you can now find all your favourite colours prominently displayed at the Pantone Hotel, located in Brussels, Belgium. The hotel offers you a variety of Pantone matched rooms, just choose a colour. In addition, they have used Pantone colours in almost every feature, from the exterior of the building, right down to the room key.

Now, not only did the hotel go so far as to use Pantone colours and the Pantone name, but they also stayed true to the Pantone brand itself. Everything from the familiar colour blocks, to the font itself, look EXACTLY like the Pantone products. The only question is, will designers want to sleep in a room that reminds them of work? Next time you're in Europe, a mere 89 euros will get you a beautiful Pantone 186 room. Hmmm, I wonder if the room numbers match the ink colours? If you go, let me know!

Check out the hotel: http://www.pantonehotel.com/

Most of us have seen the latest Old Spice TV commercials - an attractive, shirtless, bearded dude, spouts a ridiculous yet witty sales pitch as the setting changes around him (if you haven't seen them, watch the latest here.)

Old Spice has been updating their image rather successfully lately with their hilarious, off-beat commercials starring Bruce Campbell and, now since the Super Bowl, Isaiah Mustafa of Seahawks fame. Today they've taken their campaign a huge leap forward through viral social media by taking over the @oldpsice twitter feed, announcing "Today could be just like the other 364 days you log into Twitter, Or maybe the Old Spice man shows up."

Sine then, the "Old Spice Guy" has been going strong, fielding questions and comments from users on Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit and responding with personalized videos posted to YouTube. What's more, these personalized responses are being posted about every 10 minutes and are getting the attention of celebrities, tech magazines, and newspapers. What's more, this campaign isn't just selling product, it's bringing people together. In the following video, the "Old Spice Guy" proposes to a woman on behalf of a twitter user.

She said yes.

If you're looking for a laugh, to learn how Old Spice can make you smell like the manly Old Spice Guy, or to see an awesome viral campaign at work, visit the Old Spice channel on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/oldspice or tweet them @oldspice.

I recently had the opportunity to watch a presentation by Ipsos Reid's Steve Levy on the CMA's 2010 Digital Trends report. While I was disappointed that most of the material was a little stale (by today's standards), one thing Steve mentioned got stuck in my brain and I've been thinking about it off and on for the past few days. It was regarding mobile marketing and its lack of traction in the market.

For what feels like a decade, marketing pundits have been predicting that mobile marketing will be the "Next Big Thing", and that reaching customers on their mobile devices is the obvious convergence of targeted and location-based advertising. But, as Steve put it, every year people make this prediction, and every year it fails to come true. The question is, why?

What is Mobile Marketing?
First, it's important to define mobile marketing. The Mobile Marketing Association defines it as "a set of practices that enables organizations to communicate and engage with their audience in an interactive and relevant manner through any mobile device or network." While the MMA lumps in-game advertising into this definition, for our purposes I'm considering text messages as the primary form of mobile marketing (since this is what most agencies consider "true" mobile marketing).

The rise of advertexts has been slow compared to growth in other areas of marketing. Generally there are two types of these programs - opt-in campaigns, or spam campaigns (whereby users' mobile numbers are sold by their carrier to a 3rd party, who bombards the users with unwanted advertising messages). I think it's obvious why the latter has been a flop, but the former is a more interesting problem.

This Should Work, Shouldn't It?
Everything we know about permissions-based marketing tells us that as long as users sign up to receive relevant messages, they should be effective. We've seen the same thing in email; people hate email spam, but they will read and react to promotional emails as long as they've actively signed up for them. Personally, I'm signed up on a few hockey-related websites that send me notifications of upcoming sales and new products; those emails have directly influenced my purchasing decisions, and I know I'm not the only one.

But people don't appear to react the same to mobile marketing SMS messages. A recent survey discovered that 77% of users don't like to receive promotional texts, a surprisingly large number when you consider that 1.3 trillion text messages were sent last year.

There is no qualitative data as to why people seem to dislike these SMS messages, but after considering the problem for a few days, I've come up with a couple of theories:

#1 - The cost of response
Okay, lets say that Rogers sends you a text message about a new program they've developed. That's great, but how do you take the next step to learn more? Typically it's by using your smartphone to visit their mobile website, which in turn uses up your data plan (costing you money). Many users don't want to waste the KBs to see a promotional offer they may or may not like. Until responding to these offers is free, users won't be tempted.

#2 - It doesn't create value
Think about the email offers I mentioned earlier. I've responded to them because I saw value there, either in sale prices, or new products. Unfortunately, too many advertexts are just being used for brand building, and aren't communicating enticing offers to users. Roger's texting me about it's new tethering service doesn't provide me any incentive because it gives no monetary offer and doesn't really tell me anything interesting.

#3 - It's invasive
I'm sure I'm no different than most people in that I always read my texts as soon as I get them. When I go to the trouble of pulling out my phone to read the message, it's irritating to find an advertisement sitting there. No one likes to be interrupted for no good reason, and with SMS there's really no other way but to take up someone's time.

What's the Future of Mobile Marketing?
So if advertexts don't work, what will? I think the main thrust of mobile marketing in the next few years will divert from SMS into two main areas - location-based ad services and augmented reality systems. For the former, I can imagine a situation where a user checking local showtimes on their phone sees banner ads for upcoming movies, influencing their buying decision. As to the latter, augmented reality apps (like the Nearest Tube app for iPhone) could direct users to landmarks, while also allowing nearby business to post tiny ads onto users' screens.

Either way, I'm forecasting the demise of SMS advertising in the next 5-years. Smartphones killed it off, but I don't think it'll be missed, and I think at least 77% of people will agree with me.

As I patiently await the release of the iPhone 4G, I couldn’t help but contemplate the great marketing machine of Apple. A few months ago I wrote that I didn’t really want an iPad, until, last week, I stopped to see one at the store. It was, I admit, kinda cool. I might even…want one. I might even be able to convince myself that I need one. Yes, I will admit my apparent weakness for Apple anything, I’ve had it since 1989 actually. And, as I toss my Blackberry to the curb, in favour of adding an iPhone to my ever growing collection of Apple products, I thought I’d make fun of myself just a little, content in the knowledge that I’m not the only one out there with a soft spot for Apple.

For example, you can date other Apple fans on a Mac-inspired singles dating site: cupidtino.com

Or, you can join a church of Mac: www.macgeniustony.com/thechurchofmac.html

Watch a movie about Apple fanatics: www.macheadsthemovie.com

Dress (or undress) Steve Jobs: www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/692flash.html

Read a blog dedicated to the cult of Mac: www.cultofmac.com

Make fun of us Apple owners: theoatmeal.com/comics/apple

And, last but not least, shop for Apple online: http://store.apple.com/us

Oh come on, I’m not the only fan out there, who else has some fun ones to add?

We're big in to celebrity news around this office, or at least us women are. The entertainment section of the paper is the first to be read each afternoon, and the recent cheating scandals of Hollywood were hot topics for gossip around the lunch table. And that's how we can understand the power of a celebrity when it comes to endorsing your product or brand.

Celebrity endorsements are everywhere you look in the modern market. Catherine Zeta-Jones has recently become synonymous with T-Mobile, while Britney Spears was once well known for her promotional run with Pepsi. What about Jamie Lee Curtis and her recent commercials for Activia, the probiotic yogurt that keeps you regular? No product, brand or service is off-limits when it comes to star endorsement. Insurance companies do it, clothing companies do it, weight-loss companies do it, and all with quite a measure of success.

Celebrity endorsements give a brand a touch of glamor and offer name recognition even when product recognition is lacking. A celebrity's fame, lifestyle or values attached to your company may also reflect on to your own brand, and if all else fails, publicity for them means publicity for your brand.

But we're all aware of the drawbacks. Tiger Woods was dropped from the majority of his endorsement deals when his sex scandals broke the news. Most of the companies he was affiliated with wouldn't touch him as his new, very public, lifestyle harshly contrasted with the ideals of their own brands. Nike's damage control could only do so much.

The wrong celebrity endorsement can backfire and leave you scrambling dealing with damage control. But if done right (such as collaboration with the right celeb) awareness and demand for your product or brand are sure to sky rocket as high as Lady Gaga's last record sales.

Here are a few commercials offering celebrity endorsement. I personally prefer the subtlety of the first Adidas commercial, that and the fact that it features David Beckham eye-candy
Is there one you find more successful than others?

It's hard to believe that The Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell is eight years old, but it's been almost a decade since the book changed the face of marketing. I recently finished his 2008 book Outliers, which encouraged me to re-read his original blockbuster for the first time since I was in college. Now that I'm working at a branding agency it got me thinking - can good design contribute to making a product sticky?

If you recall, in The Tipping Point Gladwell refers to stickiness as the memorability of a product. His conclusion was that stickiness plays an enormous role in "tipping" a product in the public consciousness - the more memorable a product is the quicker it will take off in popularity. When the right people (Salesmen, Connectors, Mavens) view a memorable product (Stickiness) at the right time (the Power of Context), a product is well positioned to tip.

When I first learned about the Tipping Point, I looked at the formula as a marketer would - how can I target my client's products towards Salesmen, Connectors, and Mavens? But now that I've spent more time at a branding agency I've started to see how important stickiness is to the whole equation - in fact, it might be the most critical piece.

Take the song "Soy Tu Aire" by the Spanish band Labuat:

It's a pretty song, and if you speak Spanish it's probably even more relevant to you, but, twenty minutes from now you'll more than likely forget you've ever seen this video. In short, it's not sticky. You could send this to every connector you know but chances are they're not going to recommend Labuat to anyone, because it's just not powerful enough to motivate them.

So the question is, how can we make the song sticky? Obviously the music isn't going to change, so what can we do to improve the experience? Well, that's where design comes in.

I want you to visit this page: http://soytuaire.labuat.com/ . Make sure you have your speakers or headphones on (it's useless without the music), and once it's done loading simply press the play button (PS you'll need Flash, sorry Apple).

Go ahead, I'll wait.

Back? All of a sudden listening to that song has become an experience. You've become a part of it, and it's helped you create something wonderful. Now you have a reason to like it, share it, and remember it. Simply by adding a beautifully designed user experience, they've created something sticky. Get this into the hands of a connector, and Labuat could see their popularity sky rocket.

It's too easy for marketers to focus solely on the finding our target market; sometimes we need to turn our attention inward to make sure our message is as polished as it could be. This doesn't just apply to musicians, it is relevant to any business; even if you're a small widget maker today, well-designed marketing materials could be the memorable impetus that tips your company on to bigger things.

By Chandra Blouin, Marketing Director

It's a big decision. Do you change your name? Drop a name? Merge the names together? There are a number of options to choose from.

The Black Hole

When looking at the two brands, if one has equity and one doesn't, the one without is thrown into the black hole, similar to what happened when Bank of America bought Fleet Bank.

Marriage
Getting married seems to be one of the most popular options. If both brands have good equity and combining both brands will create a stronger brand that strengthens and differentiates it in the minds of the customers, then it’s time to march down the aisle. The only pitfall is the possibility of one really long name – like PriceWaterhouseCoopers.

Newborn
If neither brand holds a lot of equity, then it could be advantageous to create a new brand. This is also effective if both brands are strong and you want customers to change the perception they have for each brand and create a new perception. And finally, if you’ve acquired so many companies that merging all of the names together is not an option, then it’s time to develop one, all-encompassing name similar to what pharmaceutical giant Novartis did a number of years ago.

Christian Seiwald, CEO of Sandoz GmbH (now part of Novartis), commented, "While we are currently the world's second-biggest generics group, we are not recognized as such due to the large number of different company names. The establishment of a uniform identity represents a milestone in our strategy for strengthening and harmonizing our international business."

Harvest
If both brands have equity, but one more than another, you may want to take a step-by-step approach, slowly moving the equity from the lesser over to the other. As this occurs you will often see the two original logos presented in combination, similar to the ACS and Xerox logo combo above.

Over time the equity from ACS will be moved over to Xerox and eventually the ACS logo will be dropped altogether. In this case no branding or marketing resources are budgeted for ACS. Instead communications from both brands focus on educating customers of the acquisition and benefits, slowly transferring loyalty from ACS to Xerox. As an example, Xerox’s Press Release Boiler Plate, now reads:

“Through ACS, A Xerox Company, which Xerox acquired in February 2010, Xerox also offers extensive business process outsourcing and IT outsourcing services, including data processing, HR benefits management, finance support, and customer relationship management services for commercial and government organizations worldwide.”

Sisters
Sometimes each brand is so unique, each with its own equity, that they are left, as-is. They become brand sisters, or sometimes children to the parent brand, but the customer may never be aware of the relationship. On October 9th, 2006 it was announced that Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion. Even today there’s no mention of Google’s ownership on the YouTube website, however there is a link on the homepage to try out the new Google Chrome web browser. Now that’s just smart cross-marketing. Smile.

You thought doing a company rebrand was hard, try rebranding your entire life. As we all know, our Brand Manager, Mike is a HUGE fan of Miley Cyrus. Well okay, if not a huge fan yet, he may soon be, after her rebrand this year, as she goes from Disney teen sensation to adult pop star.

Celebrities are brands, and often need to reinvent their image to target a new audience. Michael Jackson was the first to do it in the 80s, jumping from a 70s kid disco star, to an 80s pop superstar. In his case, and in many others to follow (JLo, Madonna, even Victoria Bekham), it was a success.

However, not all stars hit the mark on a rebrand. I bet no one remembers when country superstar Garth Brooks tried to reinvent himself as an alter ego rock star named Chris Gaines? He even launched the whole fiasco with an NBC TV special. Ick, what a creepy nightmare that was. At the height of his career, Brookes changed his look, his hair colour, his clothes, his music and his name, all at once. He would even talk about himself in the third person. It was such a horrible disaster that it wasn't long after that he announced his retirement from music. Could it have been the millions lost, the decline in his fan base, or the bruised ego? Guess we'll never know for sure, but one thing is certain: his rebrand was a failure.

Celebrities need to follow the same hard and fast rule as all businesses: if you are going to rebrand: stay recognizable. Without some kind of tie to your previous self, whether it's your corporate identity or personal identity, failure is certainly going to be in the cards. As far as Mike becoming a die hard Miley Cyrus fan? That's in the cards too, perhaps he needs to watch her new video "Can't Be Tamed" before he decides:

Did you know that the trusted company of Yellow Pages, best known for creating business directories that double as booster seats, has finally worked up the nerve to rebrand? That's right, apparently the recent popular opinion of Yellow Pages being "a great place to advertise if you're in the business of selling walking sticks, mobility scooters or perhaps buggy whips" has finally lead to the complete overhaul of the company's logo, branding, marketing strategy and advertising campaign.

Logo-wise, most notable of all the changes is the absence of actual pages in the business' identity. However Yellow Pages’ iconic walking fingers remain for brand recognition. Additional alterations include the logo shape, as it's changed from a square to something much more iPhone app-like that, according to reps, better represents Yellow Pages' new multi-platform business approach, featuring Yellow Pages-branded web production services and smartphone applications. Even the yellow hue as been readdressed, appearing as a more "radioactive, fluorescent tinge" that has been described as "crisper, lighter, purer … more yellow."

While the jury is still out on the overall success of the redesign, no one can fault the company for their lack of guts. In a world full of businesses that would rather hide behind a familiar logo and traditional branding, the fact that Yellow Pages followed through once the need for a redesign was recognized deserves major kudos. The transformation of a primarily print brand into a company fit to compete in the cutthroat digital world which is no easy feat, so though there may be critics, Yellow Pages should be proud that they have so far handled the transition with a measure of finesse.

See some of Yellow Pages' finesse in action as their new advertising is widely well-accepted so far. View a few of their ads below and let us know if you're for or against this new side of Yellow Pages.

As a designer, it's important to stay on top of the latest colour trends, and be aware of how they're being applied today. It's been shown that over 80% of visual information is related to colour, and that can be seen in design trends and traditions. Designs that want to invoke a sense of trust and strength traditionally use blue (see Sears, Wal-Mart, Pfizer, Dell, IBM, etc.) Add in a bit of red to the mix to ramp up the technological and futuristic aspect of the design with purple or magenta tones (think Sony, Nokia, Verizon, and T-Mobile). Green is used to communicate ideas of nature and environmentalism (recycling, BP), while red has always brought with it a sense or energy and immediacy used most prominently in the fast food industry (McDonalds, Wendy's), but brought in whenever ideas of speed, service and sales abound (K-Mart, Johnson and Johnson, Canon, Safeway, Shell, Target). There's a great image here originally from Wired magazine, showing the sheer volume of companies battling for ownership of the blue spectrum - a sense of longevity, trustworthiness and strength is incredibly valuable in the marketplace.

As an increasing number of companies battle over a limited spectrum, an interesting phenomena is developing. People aren't simply seeing colours any longer. What used to be "firetruck red" to many is becoming "Coke red." There's GAP blue, and Starbucks green. T-Mobile is now famous for its ownership of the colour Magenta. Yep, if you use the color magenta around anything to do with phones, communication, digital media, or the internet, prepare to be taken to court. Even the names of colours are becoming property. UPS trademarked the slogan "What can Brown do for you?" Owens-Corning, an insulation company, has registered the term "PINK."

Considering all of this, it's easy to see how colour is an incredibly important aspect of your brand, and yet so many companies tend to ignore it. Back when I worked at a printing company, we'd see hundreds of business people come in to print off signage, letterheads and presentations, all with varying shades of their corporate colour. Do some research into your colours, and make sure you or your designers choose a proper colour palette for your identity. Make sure you get specific CMYK colour values as well as Pantone values for your colours, and follow through by creating a brand strategy guide, outlining the placement, sizing, and colour usage of your logo. Finally, bring your brand across all levels of your business, internal and external, to ensure you have a solid identity.

It's the oldest question in web design: What's the best monitor screen resolution to use when building your website? The answer has changed throughout the years as technology improved and consumer needs changed. Here are my views on the present and short-term future of website size and screen resolution.

What's the best monitor screen resolution to use when building your website?
Unfortunately, there's no short answer to this question. Different people use different resolutions, and the popularity of devices like the Blackberry and iPhone have added even more screen sizes to the mix. Let's look at the data:

The Stats: According to the January 2010 Web Statistics and Trends at w3schools.com, only 20% of computers use the classic standby screen size of 1024x768, with a whopping 76% using a higher resolution. That's a huge jump from last year, when 36% used 1024x768, and 57% used higher resolutions. 800x600 barely registers at about 1% of users.

1024x768 has been the reigning champ in monitor resolution for a number of years, and most websites have been designed to fit comfortably in that space. Here at Studiothink, we design most of our sites to be 950-1000 pixels wide, meaning the main content fits nicely in that space with a slight margin on either side. We'll use a well-designed background to tie the site together and ensure there's something to look at on larger screens, but the main bulk of the site content sits nicely within 1000 pixels. Most web designers seem to follow this guideline. Take a look at CNN and Nike and you'll find that both websites fit their content in containers that span 1000 pixels wide.

So most websites fit a 1024 pixel width, but what about the height?
Just a few years ago most designers would tell you to keep your content, at least on the homepage, 'above the fold,' meaning within about 700 pixels high so everything would fit on a 1024x768 screen. Recently, however, due to increased monitor resolutions that give the user more real estate, and increased public comfort with the scrollbar, more companies and designers are embracing longer websites. Feel free to make your website longer than the average user's screen can contain, but not too long that download time is slowed by the amount of content on the page or the user gets lost in a pit of content. We tend to average between 1200 - 1700 pixels on our longer home page designs.

So keep it within 1000x700?
Not necessarily. Web design would be pretty boring if all websites were 1000x700 pixels, and don't think you have to be stuck in a 1000 pixel box. Websites can be built using a 'fluid' or 'liquid' design, where the content expands or contracts to fill the entire browser window, no matter the size. These are fun to build, but design opportunity is limited.

You could build a complete website in Flash and program it to fill the browser window, giving you much more design control, full screen content, animation, and even giving the user the option of going full-screen, rather than simply full-browser.

Other options, like side-scrolling or micro websites, give you or your company a great opportunity to stand out in the web.

Summary
Keep in mind most users are comfortably browsing websites that contain content within about 1000 pixels wide. While it's true, according to the stats above, that most users are using screen resolutions larger than 1024x768, that doesn't necessarily mean their browser windows are larger. For example, my computer at home has a resolution of 1920 by 1200, but it's very rare that I browse full-screen, partly because it makes multitasking easier, partly because nearly all websites are optimized for a smaller size.
So keep the content at a comfortable width for now, until trends or technology pushes common web design even further.

You can't please everyone and, at the moment at least, it's hard to make a fully fluid website that's both functional and stylish. Try to make your website so it's easily accessible to everyone, no matter their resolution. You don't need to ensure it looks the best at every size, but ensure the content is viewable and the site can be navigated with ease.

Finally, know your user. Is your target market aging baby boomers? Keep scrolling to a minimum, use a large font, and contain your content within a relatively small screen resolution. Does your target use smartphones to access your site? Consider getting a special site designed just for mobile browsers. Want to make an impact on a younger, more-tech savvy, or well-off crowd? Feel free to use large spaces, big images, and big, beautiful design to get your point across.

Mike and I were in the McDonald's drive-thru last week on our daily lunch excursion when we spotted an advertisement for McDonaldland cookies. We were instantly flooded with long-lost childhood memories of the tasty snack, and we decided to add a box to our order. Imagine our surprise and sadness when we returned to the office to find that the vessel that contained these wonderful culinary delights was not the same from our childhood, namely a sturdy box with bright hues, bubbly fonts, and colourful characters, but rather a minimalistic, one-colour plastic pouch adorned with Ronald McDonald's mugshot. Something was not right in McDonaldland. Where was the rest of the gang? Where was the sneaky Hamburgler, bumbling Grimace (who's a giant taste-bud, by the way), authoritative Mayor McCheese (my favorite), or the obligatory-but-utterly-boring Birdie? The cookies were still shaped to represent the various mascot faces, but any hint as to who or what you were about to digest could only be garnered from hazy memory.

Mascots have been selling products and services with charm and smile for years (Bibendum, the Michelin Man, was created in 1894 and is still going strong), and many that we know and love today were born during the mascot golden age of the 1950s and 60s, when companies sought to add personality to their business, and instill trust and familiarity within the consumer. As a graphic designer, I would absolutely love a chance to work with a team to develop or revamp a corporate mascot but, unfortunately, times change, and mascots aren't in favor like they used to be. There are some mascots, however, who have recently been given a new chance at life and have been given a timely reboot, bringing sometimes effective, sometimes disturbing results.

Jack from Jack in the Box: Created in 1951, Jack was simply a clown head atop the franchise signs, with little to no personality. In 1980 the company decided to reject its image, become more "mature" and do away with Jack altogether. Finally, in the mid-90s, following a major food contamination crisis, they rebranded again and brought Jack back, this time in an ironic, humorous business-suit-wearing executive, that helped raise sales and gain brand notoriety.

The King, from Burger King: Originally part of the sign of the first Burger King restaurant in Miami, Florida in 1955, the king had many different representations throughout the years, including a role as the "Marvelous, Magical Burger King" in the late 70s, who wore Victorian garb and performed magic tricks. In 2003 the Miami advertising firm Crispin Porter + Bogusky took over the advertising and decided to use a 70s era over sized King head found on eBay, originally meant as a brainstorming prop, to reboot the brand. Now, after a few years of humorous viral marketing starring a creepy and disturbing king head, Burger King has a mascot powerhouse loved by its target market, and featured on shows like The Tonight Show and the Simpsons.

So how 'bout it, McDonalds? Ronald has always been a strong part of the brand, but when will you bring back the rest of the gang and give them the camera time they deserve? Or, barring that, when will Ronald himself get another reboot? Perhaps creepy, ironic, and modern, just like your competition?

On second thought, scratch that idea. You're fine just the way you are, Ronald.
What about you, dear reader? Who are your favorite mascots?

Branding is a mandatory but risky process. Change is seldom welcome, especially when it can cost a lot to implement, and many careful considerations are made to ensure the brand is a success. Whether caused by lack of vision, poor planning or simply bad luck, here are three companies that set the standard for failed branding this past decade.

New Vegemite Product Name Leaves a Bitter Aftertaste

In June 2009, Kraft released a new, cheesy version of their iconic Australian food spread, Vegemite. To coincide with the release of this new recipe, Kraft ran a competition to give it a name. They received over 48,000 submissions, and each was reviewed by a panel of marketing and communication experts. Three months later, during a popular televised sporting event, Kraft announced that the new Vegemite product would be called...drumroll please...iSnack 2.0. Yep, a panel of marketing experts thought a great way to appeal to a younger market would be to capitalize on the popularity of Apple's iPod and iPhone...4 years after the trademark was assigned to Apple, and a full two years after the world was fed up with the tech-fueled iProduct naming phenomenon.

Just four days later, after a flood of criticism through opinion columns and social networking sites, Kraft declared it would drop the name, as it wasn't "resonating with success or favour." After another online poll asking the public to choose from six potential names, the product was finally renamed "Vegemite Cheesybite." Only later was it revealed that the Cheesybite name had narrowly won out over "none of the above."

Tropicana Has Consumers Seeing Red Over the Rebrand of Their Pure Premium Orange Juice

For many years, Tropicana has used the very recognizable image of a straw stuck in an orange to communicate their message of fresh, straight-from-the-orange juice. It was easily identified and did a great job communicating their brand and its values. So why did Tropicana choose to do away with the straw and orange and rebrand their Pure Premium line? That question was on the mind of many consumers when the new packaging was released at the beginning of 2009.

The iconic orange and straw was replaced by a generic glass of orange juice, prompting many bewildered consumers to comment that Tropicana had lost its identity - it now looked more like an uninspiring, generic store brand, rather than the premium brand it truly was. An attempt to modernize and clean up a slightly dated look managed to strip the brand of much of its personality.

Sales plummeted 20% between January 1 and February 22. On February 23, less than two months after the new packaging had been on the market, Tropicana announced it would scrap the new packaging.

Royal Mail Delivers a Royally Disastrous Rebrand

In March 2001, Royal Mail, the UK's Post Office founded in 1635, changed its name to Consignia. Sixteen months later, after a reported £1.1bn loss and the departure of its chief executive, it was announced Consignia would rename itself Royal Mail, thus securing its place in the annals of disastrous rebranding history.

Billed as a "modern, meaningful and entirely appropriate" name suited to its goal of becoming an international postal operator, the new name failed to mask the company's pre-existing financial issues and set the stage for a poorly-planned, misdirected attempt at restructuring. When asked what the new company name meant, Consignia's chief executive said it evoked the word consign, “mean[ing] to trust to the care of. Which is what our customers do each day.” Not long after, his answer changed: “The name doesn’t actually mean anything.” A complete rebrand is difficult enough without such confusion and flippancy among its leaders.

Though the rebrand might have indeed been modern, it failed to consider its 260 years of history and culture, and lost its connection with the people.

So what have we learned? A rebrand needs to clearly reflect who you are and what you offer in a timely, relevant way. Your core values and key messages must be communicated with the same or more vitality and transparency as the original brand you are seeking to replace. Today's consumers want honesty, integrity, and respectability in their brands, and shallow, blatant attempts to pander to consumers through trends will be immediately identified and criticized. Learn how you're seen by your customers and identify the best ways to realign your branding with your company goals without destroying your reputation. Do your market research – talk with partners, suppliers, staff, and customers. After all, these are the groups who will be interacting with this brand for years to come.

If you've seen the front cover of the Vancouver Province today, you know that one of my favorite brands, Lululemon, is having a battle with the organizers of the 2010 Vancouver Olympics (VANOC) over their new line of clothing. Actually, not so much a battle as a very public scolding for coming too close to infringing on the 2010 Olympic trademark rules...but not quite.

Their new line of clothing, cleverly called "Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition" does not technically infringe on the Olympic brand, however the right to market 2010 merchandise is an exclusive right only for game sponsors, and VANOC doesn't approve of being teased to the edge of their very expensive copyright.

So, the question is, has Lululemon made a fatal marketing mistake, or found a genius way to capitalize on a piece of the 2010 Olympic marketing pie?

I had a look at the clothing line, and to tell you the truth, it doesn't look anything like Olympic wear, what it looks like, is, well, patriotic wear. A quote from Bill Cooper, VANOC's director of commercial rights management says, "Just because an advertiser finds a creative way to avoid direct use of recognizable brand elements doesn't necessarily in and of itself mean that they have avoided building an unauthorized commercial association with the Games." (insert my groan and eyeroll here).

Isn't finding creative advertising solution what marketing is? Isn't this what we want creative, successful Canadian companies to do? What do you think? Has Lulemon crossed the boundaries of our polite Canadian manners, or just found a really creative way to sell their stuff? I'd love to hear your opinions!

p.s. please add "Cool Sporting Event That Takes Place in British Columbia Between 2009 & 2011 Edition" to my Christmas list.