Nick recently wrote a post about the Civil Branding website and whitepaper. Here's his distillation of the whitepaper's argument:

Branding is a form of mass-communication. For better or worse, choosing brands is how we express which ideas we think are important. Therefore, marketers should encourage companies to adopt and promote progressive values in order to build a better society.

His argument against so-called civil branding is old hat for BlogLESS readers: Brands in fact shouldn't make vague, value-based promises in their advertising because in the best case they can't possibly keep them. He also noted that in many cases, these promises contradict a company's actions.

Putting a finer point on the latter case, Nick brought up a ludicrous set of recent advertisements for Citibank, who now promote their company using the notion "that there is more to life than the pursuit of money." Nick notes that Citibank hardly has the moral authority to make such claims: "That's a great sentiment, but it's hard to take seriously from a company that skims money from it’s customers’ accounts and takes unacceptable risks with their funds - all for the sake of making as much money as possible." I made a similar point in November to a PR person from oil multinational BP whose recent branding upgrade situates them "beyond petroleum."

The individual who wrote the Civil Branding whitepaper responded to Nick's concerns in the comments, suggesting that by merely putting forth "progressive messages," companies are taking on an ethically "constructive" role in society.

This idea is not only credulous, it's dangerous.

Read More...

Via.

So I spent a fair part of my weekend trolling the internet for information about the BP rebrand. But there was something that's been really bothering me: why does BP's clearly hypocritical branding strategy seem to be working (and indeed even on me)?

This was really sticking in my craw, not because I think the world of corporate branding is morally comprehensible, but because I honestly believed that brand hypocrisy didn't work. So BP's rebrand was chewing at me. Did I just miss the boat here?

The answer hit me in an unlikely place: the in the comments of an article about BP's recent technical woes at America's largest oil field. Let's read the comment that was my lightning rod.

The focus of the article was the numerous challenges faced by the oil industry in general. They even specifically mentioned that in an overview of the story. Guess it's easy and popular to take shots at BP.

Hold on. Why is it easy and popular?

I've got an idea.

Read More...

Back in July of 2000, British Petroleum, the world's third largest global energy company, launched a massive $200 million public relations and advertising campaign, unveiling their current "green" brand image, in an attempt to win over environmentally aware consumers. The campaign was created by the British advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, who later the PRWeek 2001 "Campaign of the Year" award in the 'product brand development'. All told, BP spent around $200m on the rebrand.

The big ideal? What's that again?

The heart of the rebrand involved changing the company's name to BP (back from BP-Amoco, the result of a recent mega-merger), creating a wordmark in which small letters were used ("bp" was thought to have fewer imperialist associations than the erstwhile "BP"), and finally implementing a new corporate tagline, "beyond petroleum."

BP's then CEO John Browne said: "It's all about increasing sales, increasing margins and reducing costs at the retail sites." And it apparently did: During more than a decade with Browne as chief executive (ending last year), BP's market value rose fivefold and its share price rose 250 percent.

Read More...

BP is the world's third largest global energy company, is among the largest private sector energy corporations in the world, that is one of the six supermajors (vertically integrated private sector oil exploration, natural gas, and petroleum product marketing companies).

Now just look at that logo: The lush variegated greens, the beautiful, regular geometry and the holistic gaia-esque overtones: I feel like I'm looking at the planet earth through the dreaming eyes of James Lovelock. Which are eyes I like: I have to admit the first time I came across a BP in my town, I stopped there for gas. There's no doubt something about this strategy works.

That said, is it just me, or is something about it a little fishy?

Read More...

One of the questions that has been on my mind recently is, "what exactly happened on Wall Street last week, and why?" Thankfully, we have the New York Times' Freakonomics column, which offered a beautifully clear summary in a guest post by economists Doug Diamond and Anil Kashyap on Thursday. I paraphrase what they say below.

1. The US Treasury nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on September 8, and has since replaced the management of both companies and will presumably oversee their operation.
2. On Monday, the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history was made by Lehman Brothers.
3. On Tuesday, the Federal Reserve made a bridge loan to A.I.G., the largest insurance company in the world, securing the option to purchase up to 80 percent of the shares the company.

In short, the Fed has intervened on an unprecedented scale, in an unprecedented form, and in firms unprecedentedly far removed from its own supervisory authority. Wow! That's about the craziest thing that's happened in the financial universe since the Great Depression.

But why?

Read More...