Note that the Staples example is particularly interesting in that the top of the "L" is not only shaped like the end of a staple, but the brand name is depicted at an incline, sybolizing the top bar of a stapler.
]]>
Note that the Staples example is particularly interesting in that the top of the "L" is not only shaped like the end of a staple, but the brand name is depicted at an incline, sybolizing the top bar of a stapler.
]]>
Note that humor is often derived from unusual graphics and linguistic devices such as rhyming, alliteration, wordplay, and use of colloquial language.
]]>
A similar technique is used in the brand symbols for logos, exclusive of the brand name itself. This branding strategy creates images which can be viewed in two or more different ways, each having a different or complementary meaning. Here are some interesting examples:
Three of these logos use this device fairly subtly. Suite101 depicts a child formed from the numerals 1, 0, and 1. Urban seed depicts a green leaf in a "U" (for Urban), which doubles as a flame in a lantern. And Trickle Up is particularly ingenious as the "U" is pushed "up" by the pointer below it; This pointer also doubles as the legs of a person with raised hands; And these raised hands are, of course, also the letter "U" in "up".
Many companies and organizations, in fact, use their phone number as the primary element of their branding strategy:
Note that while the domain names of 1-800-Flowers and 1-800-Got-Junk are Flowers.com and GotJunk.com, even if your phone number is a much less important part of your branding strategy, the value of your brand is enhanced by having a correspondence between your domain name and phone number. Such is the case with Comcast(.com), which can be reached via 1-800-Comcast, 1-877-Comcast, as well as 1-888-Comcast, and Best Western(.com), which can be reached at 1-800-Western.
Of course, it helps if your brand name happens to be seven characters long. If the name is shorter (or longer) than this, the phone number is often presented with a mnemonic combination of numbers and/or letters, either using the brand name, or a word or words related to the brand name. Orkin, for example, uses two very effective phone numbers, 1-888-OrkinMan (in association with their most recent ad campaign) and 1-800-800-Orkin.
In another example, Super 8 Motel's phone number strategy illustrates a particularly interesting and ingenious tactic which uses a mnemonic yet meaningful string of numbers:
Others use a variety of tactics in their efforts to make their phone numbers more memorable than what would otherwise be a string of a 10 digits which only the cognitively gifted would be able to successfully store and later retrieve from long-term memory. The examples presented below represent an array of effectiveness levels.
Similarly, Fedex Kinkos developed NoMoreAllNighters.com to promote their new “Print Online” service:
Lexus also created TheLexusEvent.com to facilitate the promotion of their annual Summer sale:
Finally, the American Heart Association also uses this strategy in conjunction with their "Beat Your Risk" campaign. BeatYourRisk.com appears as follows:
Other campaign-specific domain names include EnvisionYourGoals.com (Wachovia Securities), GetHealthyLegs.com (VNUS Closure), BeyondPetroleum.com (British Petroleum), EnergyTomorrow.org (American Petroleum Institute), ObeyYourThirst.com (Sprite), ThinkOutsideTheBun.com (Taco Bell), FedExFootball.com (FedEx), and BeATiger.com (Accenture).
]]>
On June 4th, the London 2012 Olympic committee unveiled its new logo for the games, “a jagged emblem in bold colours designed to define the image of the Games in five years’ time…The logo, based on the date 2012 itself, comes in a series of bright shades of pink, blue, green and orange, and includes the signature five Olympic rings emblazoned onto the ‘0’. ‘This is the vision at the very heart of our brand,’ said London 2012 organising committee chief Sebastian Coe…’It will define the venues we build and the Games we hold, and act as a reminder of our promise to use the Olympic spirit to inspire everyone and reach out to young people around the world’ (“London 2012 Logo Unveiled”, The Peninsula, June 4, 2007).
Unfortunately, the logo so far has fallen well short of these objectives. Most find the logo utterly unattractive and not representative of the host city. It was even termed a “catastrophic mistake” by a member of the Olympic Committee. Olympic fans were less polite. Petitions were started calling for organizers to “scrap and change the ridiculous logo”. A blogger for Guardian Unlimited wrote: “There's some truly hideous sights in the world, but the newly revealed London 2012 logo tops them all.” He went on to say that the logo closely resembles “the multicolored vomit sprayed across the capital's pavements at 3 a.m. on your average Sunday morning." Although the logo appears to be targeted most directly at kids and teens, a survey by Q Research found that 68% of respondents in the 11 to 20 year-old age group actually stated that they “hate” the design. Exacerbating the reaction to the logo was the fact that it cost $800,000 to develop. However, there were also other even more serious problems with the logo. Many felt that it resembles a swastika, arguably the single worst symbol in the history of civilization to associate with your brand, most especially the Olympics brand. Moreover, the Olympic committee had to pull certain parts of its promotional video from their website because it was triggering fits in people suffering from epilepsy. Although this range of negative reactions to the brand may possibly make it the worst (major) brand concept ever, the Olympic Committee intends to keep the logo, assuring the public that "it will grow on you".
and managed in the same way that companies build and cultivate their products’ brands. The one key difference between product brands and celebrity brands, of course, is that celebrities are human beings whose actions can create dramatic swings in their own brand equity. Recent memory for celebrity events of the negative variety are readily accessible. Just this week Paris Hilton was sentenced to jail for a parole violation, O.J. Simpson was refused service at a restaurant because the owner found his presence repugnant, and a video of a drunken David Hasselhoff was made public . Last week a tape of Alec Baldwin surfaced in which he called his daughter an ungrateful pig, New Jersey Governor John Corzine's SUV crashed while speeding (the governor was not wearing a seatbelt), charges were brought against Richard Gere in India because he violated a decency law by kissing a Bollywood star in public, and Lindsey Lohan went to rehab. The week before that Don Imus’ radio show was cancelled by CBS and MSNBC because of a racial slur directed at the very accomplished Rutgers women’s basketball team. In fact, due to the public nature of a celebrity’s life, these events are occurring continuously because most of a celebrity’s life is documented by 
tenacious paparazzi, pervasive surveillance technology, and widespread use of cell phone camera technology. In the past year, many other prominent celebrities have been involved in events which have severely impacted their personal brand equity: actor Mel Gibson, comedian Michael Richards, actor Isaiah Washington, singer Britney Spears, actor Tom Cruise, cyclist Floyd Landis, socialite Nicole Richie, ‘American Idol’ judge Paula Abdul, singer Madonna, fashion model Naomi Campbell, singer Sir Paul McCartney and his wife Heather Mills, singer Jessica Simpson, actor Danny Devito, singer George Michael, Miss USA Tara Conner, actor Kim Basinger, actor Nicole Kidman, fashion model Kate Moss, actor Angelina Jolie, actor/model Pamela Anderson, etc… However, notice that while all of the above celebrities were involved in at least moderately extreme negative events, many of them either benefited from them, or recovered -- after a period of retreat in their equity – to a level of fame much higher than before the event. For example, a few weeks ago Paula Abdul appeared on a number of talk shows under the influence of (apparently) pain medication (view one of these interviews). She slurred her words, kept moving in and out of the camera frame, and rambled 
extensively in her responses. While this would appear to be an event that would be extremely detrimental to her career, it was in fact just the opposite. She was suddenly in great demand on news and talk shows, who wanted desperately to discuss the issue with her, and many people undoubtedly tuned in to ‘American Idol’ that week specifically because the events of the week had made her relevant and even more fascinating. She received incredible amounts of press across the board, making her more visible, more famous, more marketable, and more valuable to the producers of ‘American Idol’. However, in the case of Floyd Landis, who tested positive for steroids after winning the Tour de France, the opposite effect was observed. After achieving the status of national hero as the come-from-behind Cinderella victor of the most grueling cycling race in the world, he became a national disgrace and an embarrassment to his sport. He tried to do damage control by making the talk show circuit and refuting the charges against him, but the results of the drug test appeared to be accurate, and his image could not recover. He fell from public view, lost his endorsements, and 
has not competed in any significant professional races since he tested positive. Landis can redeem himself and rebuild his image by winning more races and generating positive press, but this can only be achieved if subsequent drug testing reverses the original results. Landis continues to fight for this, and has written a book entitled “Positively False” in which he makes a case for his exoneration.
So why were the responses to Abdul and Landis so different? I researched this topic with two of my colleagues at the University of Washington (Therese Louie and Robert Jacobson) and our results suggest that the critical factor in these events is ‘blameworthiness’ (view a synopsis of this research on MarketingProfs.com). That is, if the general public perception of the event assigns a high level of blame to the celebrity, then the celebrity’s image will likely be damaged rather than enhanced. So in the case of Abdul, blame was assigned to the pain medication rather than to her, absolving her of any serious repercussions. Landis, however, (allegedly) cheated, and was wholly to blame for the very serious events that transpired after his win at the Tour de France.
Since the direction of blame is largely a matter of public perception, many of these situations can be managed by publicists and agents by responding to the events in a way that deflects blame away from the celebrity and toward 
situational factors. For example, when Britney Spears left rehab and went immediately to a salon to have her head shaved, the general perception seemed to be that she had “finally gone crazy.” Blame was assigned to her, very seriously tarnishing her public image. The correct response from her publicist should have been to deflect blame toward recent uncontrollable difficulties in her life, such as her divorce and subsequent problems with alcohol. In a similar set of circumstances, Miss USA Tara Conner almost lost her crown after developing a reputation for a hard-partying lifestyle, including allegations of substance abuse. Responsibility for her actions could easily have been assigned to her, harming her reputation and likely leading to the loss of her crown. However, she was very contrite, admitted she had problem, and promised to go to rehab. All these actions deflected blame away from her, and toward her ‘problem’, the control of which she was not responsible.
Nevertheless, the examples of Spears and Conner illustrate the potential ineffectiveness of public relations efforts as one cannot help but wonder if society would have blamed Spears and sympathized with Conner regardless of their damage control efforts. Certainly, statements released by the celebrity and their publicists have an impact on the public perception of their actions, but these efforts are often but a small ripple in the massive undulations of societal consciousness. And it seems that as the severity of the event increases, so does the futility of the celebrity’s response. One of the most egregious and difficult-to-defend types of events is one that involves racism. Some celebrities recently involved in such events include actor Mel Gibson, comedian Michael Richards, and radio host Don Imus. These celebrities’ images now indelibly include racism as a central element. Even though Mel Gibson and Michael Richards went to rehab and Don Imus emphasized his long history of philanthropic 
endeavors in the community, it was almost impossible for the celebrities to deflect responsibility for the events. Michael Richards could simply state that he was sorry, but had nothing on which to blame is own thoughts. Similarly, Imus’ words were his responsibility and his alone. Following Gibson’s rant with police about how “the Jews were responsible for all wars”, many found it critical to ask if his thoughts were because of his alcoholism or just encouraged by it. In short, it was important to know if blame should be assigned to Gibson’s alcoholism, or to Gibson himself, before a judgment about the star could be made.]]>endeavor to find the name that will be most effective for the business by investigating a range of options using a number of different techniques and approaches. One of these techniques is the word merger. This branding strategy fuses two very meaningful and positive words to create a unique and indentifiable brand name. This technique is effective because, firstly, it prompts the consumer to engage in an extended cognitive process as the word combination is identified, understood, and appreciated. Moreover, even if the word combination is not 
identified consciously, it will still have a positive effect on the consumer subconsciously. For example, many consumers are very familiar with the Verizon brand name. However, the majority have probably never taken the time to consider the origin of the brand, which is a merger of “vertical” and “horizon.” Nevertheless, the subconscious mind does recognize and absorb the meaning of both words in the merger, which has a positive impact on consumer’s perception of the brand.Secondly, the meanings of the two words create positive meaning which is then transferred to the brand. The best word mergers will create a new, distinct “word”, in effect, which clearly 
conveys the meaning of both words simultaneously. The brand “Fruitopia” is an excellent example because the brand creates its own unique meaning – “a utopia characterized by an abundance of fruit”. Similarly, “Striant” could be defined as “striding forward with confidence and defiance”, and “Travelocity” as “planning a trip or traveling with speed, ease, and convenience.” Note that Travelocity has the additional feature of fitting both words together seamlessly as the last three letters of “travel” are the first three letters of “velocity.” In fact, 
Nextel, Striant, Fruitopia, and Verizon all have this characteristic, although not to the same level of elegance as Travelocity.
It is worth mentioning the Accenture brand, which is interesting in that the words in the merger are ambiguous. It could be a merge of "accent" and "adventure," but the brand is actually intended to convey "an accent on the future." The logo helps to clarify the meaning by using the accent mark above the "t" to suggest the word "accent", and the direction of the mark to imply the word "future".
Here are some additional examples of word mergers:
]]>
well known brand names utilize wordplay, and while not necessarily all consumers will consciously process the wordplay, the strategy often works on a subconscious level. A good example is the sandwich franchise Subway. In one sense, it refers to submarine sandwiches, while in another it refers to an underground train. Examining the subway logo, notice that arrows 
going either way imply a subway, and in fact suggest that the depiction of the word “Subway” itself is an abstract representation of a subway. Note also that these meanings are also reflected their business model, as the sandwiches are made in an assembly-line process, suggesting a subway with stops at many different stations.
is, the consumer will process the meaning of “a men’s clothing warehouse”, indicated by the word “wear” and the implied meaning, “warehouse.”Wordplay is also used in the branding strategies of television programs. One quite clever example is the early morning news program on the CNN Headline News channel, Robin & Company. The program is hosted by Robin Meade, and implies 1) the name of a company with the common “& Company” suffix, as well as 2) “Robin and the people who keep her company” (as depicted in the banner).
Here are some additional examples:
Please note that Spotrunner is a television advertising agency, Get Real is an organic food company, MeetWithApproval.com provides web meeting technology, Sleep On It is a mattress retailer, Jumpstart Automotive Media is an advertising network company for the automotive industry, AnyWhey is a protein powder that can be mixed with food, HeadOn is a pain reliever that is applied to the head, The Ugly Mug is a coffee shop, Eventful.com is a site that promotes events such as concerts, politcal speakers, religious conventions, etc., and Far Fetched is an Asian import company.
Finally, notice the wordplay in the title of this post. "Branding Wordplay" has a more noticeable meaning of "wordplay in a branding context." However, perhaps a less obvious connotation is "taking wordplay and branding it."