Project Challenges
To start, there is room to learn about consumer demands for TV and develop in-depth aspects of this TV service.  An endless amount of possibilities as a designer to pick from whether it’s branding, advertising, or designing for specific platforms.  It’s probably the biggest challenge I currently face by far.

Having such a large project is daunting (larger than I had expected), but picking the right issues to address for this concept is extremely important, especially with the short time frame given.  However, it’s not to say that I can’t continue to develop another area once the project deadline has passed.

The primary goal within the next few months is to develop a brand voice since this is a fresh new idea that currently does not exist.  Immediately after that would be to design a tool for a platform along with a brief marketing campaign.

Key Issues
There are several key issues relating to the project concept which will require some research in order to address: the competitive landscape, existing and future infrastructure, influential political factors, economic conditions, and the variety of target audiences.

All these issues play a vital role which helps determine the branding associated with the concept.  It almost feels like I’m drafting a business proposal in itself.  That aside, research needs to be done to address these factors and to figure out how much they influence the brand concept decisions down the road.

But to kick things off, I’ve been pondering over a few names as to what this service would be and I finally decided to call it PressPlay.  And yes, it is intentional that there is no space between the words.

The more I thought about it, the more I kept referring back to a TED Talk I watched in class from the past semesters.  It’s called How Great Leaders Inspire Action. Although the title might sound misleading, Simon Sinek discusses the driving factor behind why companies do what they do.  He also adds that the purpose of making money isn’t a purpose, but a result of what they do.

From a designer’s perspective it is rather interesting and challenging to think in a different light.  When addressing a brand that doesn’t exist in the marketing landscape today, how does a designer create a brand with a strong character voice that reflects company’s belief?  Perhaps this voice is derived from the company’s mission statement.

A good example of a company that continually tells great stories in everything it does is Nike and their Jordan brand.  A few months ago, the Jordan brand updated and re-released the Air Jordan 11 Retro Concords pictured below.  The release of this specific pair of shoes was timed to fit with the 2011 holiday shopping season.

A lot of hype was building upon the release of this shoe to the general public.  Many have lined up days before the release to be one of the first to purchase these shoes.  At the moment of the official release, people were hurt as potential buyers rushed store entrances to get a pair of shoes.  In the end, police had to be called in to keep the peace.  So how does a brand such as Nike’s Jordan brand get to this point?

Well, with every good brand, there’s a story to tell.  In this case, it’s the story of Michael Jordan, the person signified within the brand.  Many refer to Jordan as one of the greatest NBA players of all time because of his 6 championships with the Chicago Bulls.  But even before his first championship, he was just another rookie trying to be successful in the league.

In the commercial above, Jordan describes his failures he had to overcome to be successful.  There is no mention of shoes anywhere in the commercial but a lot of credit goes to the copyrighter with a powerful script to tell the story.  At the end of the commercial, it sums up the story with two words: Become Legendary.

Looking at Nike’s mission statement on their website, their goal is to bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world. On their website they add “if you have a body, you are an athlete.”  And with the Jordan brand, people associate the shoes with the brand’s story of hard work, motivation from failure, and lastly the result of greatness from success.

Without a company’s mission statement, there will be no story to tell.   Without a story to tell, there will be no one to inspire.  And without inspiration, a brand won’t become memorable in the minds of its consumers.

As an owner of an Android device and an student of design, I am very pleased to see this.  Google Android recently released a design standard for manufacturers of Android devices to adhere to.  Although these design standards aren’t enforced by law, they are a step in the right direction in terms of brand consistency.

For such a widely used operating system, it’s fairly difficult to do.  Having a design standard provides a unified voice across all applications that contribute to the brand experience.  It’s one of the many reasons why Apple has a strict approval policy that many developers need to follow.  Too long has Google Android allowed it’s developers to bathe freely in poor design and I am glad they finally established a standard.

There is even a Pure Android section in which the design standards emphasize not to copy similar design structures from competitor devices such as the iPhone.  It is also a work around to help manufacturers to avoid patent disputes and financial loses.

I am glad these standards came about and I hope to see more good design standards from Android being enforced.  These design standards might be a pain to adhere to, but the end benefit of providing a better experience for their end users usually result toward the increase of financial profit.

I also hope that manufacturers who produce Android devices take this as a hint to start building design teams within their own businesses to build well-designed hardware and software.  Good design never hurts anyone.

Source: Android Design Standard

Just shortly after the previous semester ended, we were all sent an email.  In the email, we were advised to think of three ideas for a major project this semester. Two of my three ideas are technology focused since I believe that having both a creative and technical mind offers many benefits to employers.  In addition, technology partnered with a strong message can captivate audiences and move them.  The third idea is centered towards my love for sport.

So here are my three main concepts supported by the logic behind each concept:

1. Online On-Demand TV Service
   One thing that have always bothered me whenever I watched TV at home was the shows would always get canceled after a few seasons.  They might not have been the greatest shows, but they were good entertaining shows that deserved to be on the air.  The current business models for most networks works in a way that a disproportionate amount of revenue generated from viewers stay with the networks rather than provide more funding for the content provider.
2. User Interface Design for Mobile Devices
   A lot of credit needs to be given to Apple for revolutionizing the communication industry.  When the first iPhone came out, it changed the way we communicate.  But many manufacturers are focused on pushing bleeding edge hardware that it has now far surpassed the needs of software. We need to change the way we think about using our devices as well as the way we see them.  Yes, simple is best, but what if our smartphones and tablet devices can truly feel and be personal by adapting to what and how we use these devices.
3. Haters Gonna Hate Canucks Campaign
   Lastly, after the end of the 2012 Stanley Cup Championship, the Vancouver Canucks have become one of the most hated franchise in the NHL.  And with the riot that followed Game 7 in Vancouver was the fuel to the fire.  However, what if the city as well as the team embraced the negativity?  Instead of using fighting words to defend the city’s beloved hockey franchise, we embraced what the critics say of the team and its players.  The team may not be Stanley Cup champions, but in the hearts of the people living in this city, the Vancouver Canucks will always be number one.

The difficult decision now is to pick one of these three concepts.  Although, I would love to work on them all equally, I will need to decide on one that highlights my passion and my ability to think and develop an idea into reality.  It’s not to say that I won’t be working on the remaining two ideas in the future (unless if someone else steals my idea).

And so the semester begins once again for the very last time.

My favourite feature from TomTom was the ability to download and install different voices for the GPS device from movie and TV show characters, and other well known celebrities.

Like most technologies, they eventually grow dated and something more captivating and engaging comes along to gain our attention as did the smartphone.  The smartphone changed a lot of markets.  It definitely revolutionized the phone and how we viewed it originally as a communication device to now an entertainment device.  But smartphones were also endowed with the ability to help us navigate making TomTom and other GPS devices near obsolete.

Looking at Garmin and TomTom’s annual reports for 2010, the two companies reported different results due to the structures and focus that differ.  Garmin being the more automotive focused business has suffered profit setbacks because of the availability of GPS receivers in smartphones.

TomTom, however, was able to make a slight profit because it not only focused on providing solutions in the automotive sector, but also consumer, and business sectors as well.  The biggest challenge TomTom and Garmin face is the every growing popularity of smartphones.

If they aren’t already, smartphones will become the norm in which communications revolves.  Manufacturers continually pack features and functions we never thought were possible in a handheld device.  Garmin and TomTom face a situation where they need to evolve their business or be left behind as consumers and businesses alike shift focus away from a product that does one thing to one that does many things.

The rise in housing prices has affected Vancouverites as young adults move out of their parent’s homes.  Developers in and around Vancouver are building more apartment townhouse complexes.  In the surrounding districts, housing communities are beginning to pop up as well.  All these factors play a significant role in its affect on the home improvement industry in Metro Vancouver.

When it comes to home improvement warehouses, the incumbents come to mind.

• Home Depot
• Rona
• Lowes
• Home Hardware
• Canadian Tire
• Dunbar Lumber
• Other smaller sized hardware stores

Canadian Tire, I feel, is a special case because it really isn’t a direct competitor in the home improvement industry in some areas, but can be in others such as power tools. More often than not, they are competitors

So considering all the aforementioned, how do the home improvement players build their businesses and their mind share?

With any business, they want to be the first in your thoughts.   When it comes to home improvement, if you need a bolt, Company X wants to be the very first company you think of.  If you need bulbs, Company X wants to be first.  But what happens when you need to replace a toilet or sink?

If you are a Vancouverite, would you think of Company X?  Probably not.  And here’s why.  Many young adults moving into apartment townhouse complexes pay for strata fees.  These strata fees pay for a maintenance person or crew to handle repairs or damages to the complex or a unit within the complex.  Most often these repairs are done as economical as possible and quality is of no concern regardless of what the building owner tells you.

However, many home improvement businesses still target the home owners.  And with many factors influencing home purchases in Vancouver, perhaps it’s safe to conclude that the percentage homeowners are becoming fewer and fewer as housing prices increase.

Home improvement businesses at this point shouldn’t be looking to offer more of the same products but should be examining the types of services they can and should offer their customers to avoid a stagnant business model.

“Because it’s the thing to do” doesn’t mean they should do it.  Brand building on social networks is definitely difficult yet interesting, and one that many companies should explore.  I’m not denying that it should be at least be looked into but if it is done without a driving purpose such as “look how well our competitor is leveraging Facebook” or “we need to be the first movers on the social network” then the core business value is lost.

Businesses who do this usually spend more man hours trying to put out fires instead of building its brand.  Social networks are an interesting bunch.  Originally it was a way for people to connect with each other to share their lives with each other online.

And now businesses are allowed to establish pages to connect to their consumers.  But other than this or that event, sale, or charity, are companies saying much to engage the attention of their audiences?

Yes, it is true that social networks allow conversations to happen between businesses and their customers.  However, I have yet to see it done effectively where the customer leaves with a positive experience that offers repeat business in later on.

Facebook, Twitter, and other online social networks, to me, appear to be an avenue for customers to rage about a business.  And if Company X offers a product that customers aren’t happy with, their Facebook page or Twitter account become inundated with complaints.

In my opinion, this results in the social media guru spending more time fielding complaints and redirecting customers to customer service representatives to handle and less time actually building brand awareness through new products and services.  As a result, its brand devalues significantly.

In situations like these, I’d like to use Apple as a case study.  Apple has a brand valued as high as their stock price.  Consumers associate a well-designed product, both inside and out, to Apple.  Up and down their lineup of products and software, everything plays nice with each other and looks cool while doing it.  So why don’t they have a Facebook page?

It’s rather simple.  Apart from what they already offer in store and on their website, what else can they offer to their audience?  Nothing.  Nothing that adds value to the Apple brand which is why they steer clear of social networks.  Only until recently have the Apple executive staff (Philip Schiller and Scott Forstall) started Twitter accounts.

The primary question companies should ask themselves is: How will pursuing a channel on social networks leverage the products and services I offer to my customers be beneficial?  From there the advantages and disadvantages are weighed against each other.

Upon checking my Twitter feed, Karo, a design studio, tweeted this interesting infographic about branding in social media.

In the case study of HP, Moving Brands briefly mentioned their strategy, identity, and experience involved with evolving the HP brand forward.  To me, HP has become as relevant as the peripherals I might purchase for my desktop or printer and it says something to have Moving Brands solidify that fact in their study.

HP had lost its forward leaning culture after over 50 acquisitions in the past five years.  The once iconic brand was deemed dull and lifeless by consumers and business customers alike.

Even HP’s very own Global Creative Director of Brand Strategy and Experience Design, Greg Johnson, hit the nail on the head when he mentions their customers thinking of HP as a commodity or hardware.

More recent to HP’s history was the acquisition of WebOS from Palm for $1.2 billion.  WebOS was intended to be HP’s answer to iOS from Apple and many people, including myself, greatly anticipated their first product launch.  WebOS was the first smartphone operating system to natively and intelligently multitask applications with the simplest of gestures.

But WebOS quickly fizzled prior to the launch of their smartphone and tablet lineup due to constant delays and developer support was non existent.  In the end, consumers moved on while HP dropped WebOS and shifted it to an open source project.

The work done by Moving Brands definitely brings a smile to my face and as far as a design studio is capable of doing in terms of reviving a stagnant brand, Moving Brands has done all it can.

But branding is far more than just slightly altering a corporate logo, it needs to drive to the very core of a company’s values and be able to reflect that in through the people they hire and through the products and services they deliver.

A brand is an experience and to offer a successful brand is to be able to provide a uniquely controlled, yet positive experience at the moment of introduction until the end of time.

Source: Moving Brands

Of course, in the smartphone infancy, things weren’t always this way.  Much credit needs to be given to Steve Jobs and his vision of what a phone should be and do. And while the iPhone platform has stayed marginally the same, Android has flourished through developer and manufacturer support due to its open source nature.  It’s current success reflects that.

However, I’m not here to point out which is the more superior device, even though we all know Android is the clear winner.  I’m here to provide a perspective on Google’s recent marketing push from the geek space to mainstream space.  When Google first started working closely with a manufacturer to begin build their Nexus line of smartphones, very little was done to market or even publicize their products outside of the Internet realm which left it targeting a small highly technical market of developers.

So now we have come to a point where  Google is relying on mass media strategies to sell its Nexus brand of smartphones.  Primarily, Google would usually target developers seeing as how it would be those very same developers who purchase the Nexus smartphones and publish apps in turn building the Android Marketplace.

A good comparison would be to look at this current Nexus commercial comparing it to that of the iPhone 4S.  It’s only fair seeing that they are competitors that we should also compare their commercials.  Both Google and Apple tout groundbreaking software features of their devices: Apple with Siri, iCloud, and new camera features; and Google with Face Unlock, Android Beam, Panoramic Camera, and Voice Typing.

The Nexus commercial is more apparent in its attempt to cater to the mainstream.  Similar to yesterday’s Tommy Hilfiger commercial, Google personified their target within their commercial.  Apple was the first to do this, but it usually follows a initial marketing blast of videos with their executive staff praising the iPhone of its magic as they did when design changes were introduced in the iPhone, 3X, and 4X models.

There is a slight difference in Apple’s 4S commercial where the use of the application received more face time over who was using the feature.  Whereas, Google’s Nexus commercial predominantly showed people with brief glimpses of software being used.  This commercial leaves a lot to be desired.

Google does manage to show the beauty, elegance, and vibrance of the device; however there are many out there who would touch Android with a ten foot pole because they haven’t seen the device as well as its complex sounding name.  And perhaps that is what needs to be address: the name.  But first and foremost, the Nexus needs to demonstrate that it’s not as intimidating as it sounds.

Source: YouTube

Now I’m not a fan of Tommy Hilfiger, nor am I their target audience but it’s safe to say the Tommy Hilfiger brand is recognizable. The colours; red, white, and blue; used in the brand is a clear sign of who they are targeting. If you were to browse to the corporate pages of Tommy Hilfiger’s website, it won’t take much for you to discover their brand values and vision.

The brand celebrates the essence of Classical American Cool and provides a refreshing twist to the preppy fashion genre.

Tommy Hilfiger uses common elements shared with the American flag to create the brand connection. But does the company’s brand value extend itself to its current marketing campaign?

So who are the intended target audiences for Hilfiger’s campaign? It might not be apparent at first sight and even I didn’t notice it right away but they are the individuals in the commercials themselves. Actually, they are physical representations of their psychographic market: Affluent males and females, young and old.

I may not be affluent but having still been exposed to such a commercial on television would make me a potential consumer of their product in terms of mind space. However, I am skeptical about finding the Hilfiger audience during a Canucks hockey game and how affluent preppy fashion has any relation to hockey fans. A relationship like this might make better sense if the commercial took place during a golf tournament or tennis match. Wouldn’t you agree?

What bothers me most isn’t just the ineffectiveness of the commercial and its poor relation to the audience at the time the commercial was aired, but the whole “douchey” vibe I get from watching it. Who seriously decides that a pair of snow goggles, a neck pillow, and sleeping pants are fashionable together? Or even wears sunglasses at night?

Source: YouTube