Re-branding iPod

Yes it’s old – but it’s good, and good things must share.

[kml_flashembed movie="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=36099539665548298" height="300" width="425" /]

This has slowly become the canonical example that I show people when I discuss about branding. In fact most of us in the IT industry in Singapore care very little about branding, unless it is to the mass market. Naturally, branding has always been considered an extra cost to projects, and branding is not exactly marketing, where one would need to perform additional activities to create demand in the market. Here I’m talking strictly how something is packaged to be perceived by the buyer.
Here are some simple comparison with the video commentary (M) – I added some of my own corresponding commentary which would probably come from Apple’s designer (A), and some orthogonal thinking that goes through the head of a Project Manager of some local project in Singapore (S):

M: Make sure it’s on brand
A: Make the product ubiquitous so that it itself is the brand
S: My company’s logo is the brand

So, seriously, who remembers the iPod logo? You only remember the iPod itself right? When is the last time your product was the sole breadwinner of your company such that your company’s brand is yours?

M: We still need something expressively human
A: We need something expressively human, something our customers would like get to, maybe some pop star
S: Let’s just copy this ang moh picture and put it on the product / login screen – surely people will like an ang moh staring at them

Really, should one go for a human touch or a human feel?

M: FOB stands for Full of Bullets
A: Let’s catch their attention first – the benefits are better said through word of mouth than a cardboard box
S: Where’s my sales director? I need his powerpoint slides!

Would my customer know why my product is good without me telling them? Maybe it’s better to make the product tell its own story.

M: Stars and Snipes
A: Design beautiful products
S: So bombastic, must look professional a bit…

If the extra highlights are to catch people’s attention, then why bother with other stuff on the box?

M: Spines and Sys Regs / communicate the richness of the product / we should clarify 5 GB
A: Let the retailers communicate the sys regs, we communicate the simplicity
S: Let the users try out first, if it doesn’t meet their requirements (too simple / complex) there’s a chance for enhancement / new sales of a different reg, means more business.

IMHO, the market is rather flooded with products these days, so sing and dance about a particular capability of a product means less and less (so what if your iPod is 80GB and my creative zen is 90GB) – in fact the human factor is back at play now (come to think of it, iPod really brought that message back). Usability / Human Computer Interaction anyone?

M: Why isn’t she using the product?
A: They already know the product – what else would my customer fantasize about?
S: Argh – all these picture in the stock photo is just someone staring at a PC in office suit smiling…

It is not easy to portray a brand based on the usage of the product. In fact, most of them doesn’t look appealing (most marketing activities abstract it – e.g. think of the multi-color background with shadows holding iPods on their hand dancing) so maybe it’s better to spend the attention spam of the user on something else that’s iconic. Here’s a stupid but telling example – sell essence of chicken with the top PLSE school children – sounds familiar?

M: Don’t forget the 3rd party endorsements
A: 3rd party endorsement isn’t something they take home – they take home our product – we’ll leave the 3rd party endorsement in some corner and sing about them on other marketing activities
S: How much is it to get XXX certification?

More and more government agency like to help businesses by creating some form of endorsement. Actually most respected endorsements comes from the industry where people are sick and tired of snake oil. If there’re too many of them, they it means less too – think of your typical “famous” hawker center stall with like 8 or more “awards”.

M: Please insert product chart here
A: Please don’t show any details when not necessary
S: Please don’t show things we cannot confirm if it’s in the product, later customer complain…

I notice a conservative boasting atmosphere in this part of the world. Perhaps it’s for the better.

M: It really stands out (rich)
A: It really stands out (simple)
S: It really stands out (cheap)

Do you think this is a fair assessment?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

2 Responses

  1. “Naturally, branding has always been considered an extra cost to projects”

    funny you say this, is this the perception in sg? over here branding and identity is an essential part to any consumer product – to give it a certain character that will allow it to appeal to the target audience. hence, branding=better product presence=better product = better sales and higher profits.

    I think you are right to say though that branding isn’t marketing. Branding is building character while marketing is direct pushing of sales.

  2. It’s more like – branding is an after thought. That’s my pet peeve. Marketing might be an after thought, but a brand is part of the design concept that has to go into the initial requirements stage of making any product (or doing any project for that matter). It’s often lamented that the original person who started the product development typically never sees his/her product/project to market – and the character of the product morphs with the owner/champion of the product during its life-cycle. Is this fair?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back to Top