Over the last year we’ve been talking to a number of organizations all with the same problem; they have an identity crisis. These aren’t five-year old companies finding their way – these are 15, 20 even 30 year-old organizations who have had a startling revelation. My target market is changing – and I haven’t changed a bit. Sure I’m successful, but who am I? (See Vanessa’s post about your brand as a person)
How often have you heard yourself say – “Let’s swing by Blockbuster.” Chances are, less so lately. Once the go-to source for families and individuals seeking on-demand entertainment, Blockbuster is now the subject of CNN’s latest headline. Title? Blockbuster bleeding to death. How’s that for family entertainment? Blockbuster became successful in the 90s by pioneering a revenue sharing agreement with studios that guaranteed it premier access to new releases and major profit margins that fueled the growth of almost 4,000 stores. When you’re in every neighborhood in the country, your brand equity is as strong as Kleenex’s. So what happened? The internet transformed renters’ meaning of entertainment. From the laptop to the iPhone, devices became a source for any entertainment under the sun. While Blockbuster still did what it does best [movies], it failed to perceptually align itself with “entertainment” today. In a nutshell: Blockbuster failed to shift its brand equity from stores to the web. By the time they endeavored to do so in 2004, their brand was just a johnny-come-lately to the incumbent: Netflix.
Blockbuster’s misdirection was a strategic mistake, but I would argue that this was equally a matter of wasted brand equity. Just because a brand has been around for a decade or three and seems to be doing well, doesn’t mean that it is immune to irrelevance. The internet is only an example of the quickening pace of [r]evolutions and loyalties in industries and people. Whether your brand targets a demographic whose dynamicism is as speedy as its growth, or whether market leadership has made you deaf to the rumblings of your competition’s innovation, a brand is a terrible thing to waste. As the visual symbol for your organization, your brand must always reflect who you are today – not you 20 years ago. If you think your branding can be put off because it doesn’t affect your bottom line, think again. Your brand becomes old school – your reliable profits become old news.
What’s the lesson from this story? There’s a few: 1) don’t rest on your laurels, 2) brand stasis is slow suicide, and 3) stop asking yourself “Who am I?” Instead ask your audience who they are and where they’re going. They just might have the insight to keep you relevant [not to mention profitable].
The first thing that struck me with this poster is the starkness of it, there is something kind of beautiful about the barren grey background. This is offset by the heavy red lettering of the movie title. I have been noticing a trend of moving the credits that have traditionally been at the bottom of a poster and integrating it more with the overall design. If I had not seen the movie, I would have no idea what the person in the poster was doing nor would I have understood the term “hurt locker.” But I do get the gist that it is a war movie, and that war is indeed unpleasant. Rating 3.5/5
I saw marketing for this movie everywhere and had absolutely no idea what it was for. It looked like an ad for a video game or an animated movie. After seeing it, it was neither, but think that even though the main image is graphically well done, the poster did not relate well to the movie. Rating 2/5
In a word, masculine. What man doesn’t want to see the good guys fighting the bad guys led by Brad Pitt with some beautiful women in the background holding guns? The design has a bit of a 40’s look to it but with a modern twist to it. And it wouldn’t be a Tarantino movie without some blood which is aptly captured with the background strip of red. I thought overall it was very well done and gave a pretty good idea as to what to expect. Rating 4/5
This poster was hands down the best of the bunch. I thought that the illustration was amazing and captured the essence of what the movie was about. I liked the boldness of the red dress contrasting with the blackness of the figure’s skin and white clothing. My favorite part was the cleverly used Precious necklace which is a reference to urban living (made famous by Sex and the City). There really is nothing that I don’t like about this. Rating 5/5
After initially seeing the trailer and movie posters for this I had absolutely no interest in seeing it. But I did go and will be the first to admit that it was amazing. And I wish I could say as much for the poster. I think what bothers me the most is the typography, the papyrus font is one of the most reviled fonts by designers. Part of this has to do with the fact that it is the go-to font for most restaurants and it tries to be more than what it is, a mediocre default decorative font. If James Cameron is going to drop $300 million, is it too much to ask that he either purchase a much less overused font or have one made specially for this? The poster is a close up of a blue female face with a slightly come hither look, with “From the Director of Titanic” being the only other text, not terribly engaging nor interesting. Maybe it is the cropping that bothers me. Rating 1/5