This summer, luxury brand Yves Saint Laurent announced that it would be switching out its classic logo in favor of a new, minimalistic “Saint Laurent Paris” logo. Fans of YSL complained that there was no need to change the logo, and that it lacked the original’s elegance and famous interlocking letters. As the date gets closer and closer, loyal fans of the old logo are spending furiously in hopes of snatching up the remaining merchandise.
Brand renewal is a risky move for any company. It can have adverse affects on the brand positioning of the company if consumers don’t find the logo sexy or appealing. On brand renewal, Milton Pedraza of research and consulting firm the Luxury Institute says:
“If you run away from your classic product or reinterpret your classics […] too far away from the DNA of the brand, you will fail. Period.”
While I think that the new logo strayed too far from the original created by Cassandre, I don’t believe that YSL will “fail” like Pedraza warns. Top brands like YSL don’t change much in terms of brand positioning because they already has an established following. However, the demographics of its customers will likely expand to include younger consumers who are excited to be part of the “new”YSL Saint Laurent Paris (SLP?).
The one-for-one business model, touted as a successful means of engaging consumers in real change, is simple and direct: for every product purchased, a beneficial product or service is delivered to someone else in need. One of the most popular brands with this mission is TOMS Shoes. The shoes given to children prevent soil-transmitted diseases and give the children a chance to receive education. Ark Collective’s Get to Give offers backpacks for children in the States; Baby Teresa donates baby rompers.
I agree with this well-researched post by A Personal Diaspora that the traditional one-for-one model is just a band aid to serious underlying problems, and that it undermines local markets. Here are three companies that take the traditional one-for-one model and improve upon it:
Two Degrees provides locally-produced meals for children through non-profit partners like IMA World Health and Akshaya Patra.
FIGS’s Thread for Threads initiative partners with local tailors in Kenya, Tanzania, and Nepal to make school uniforms, providing jobs and education.
Warby Parker provides funding to VisionSpring, a non-profit partner that trains local entrepreneurs to conduct eye exams, design and sell affordable glasses to their own communities.
Thus, the key to become a successful social enterprise with the one-for-one model is to not just give, but to utilize local people and resources to deliver the product/service. This fosters communities and reduces the neo-colonialism and dependence on aid.
Referring to this article in The Globe and Mail, this post is a response to Vanessa’s post about the potential success and safety of Facebook’s new gift service.
This new online gift service is Facebook’s attempt at entering the e-commerce market and answering the skeptics that do not believe in the hype of Facebook advertising. It’s clear that Facebook, with it’s one-billion-and-growing users and large user information database, has the ability to turn a profit for companies looking to sell their products using this service. I disagree that Facebook could compete with sites like Amazon, Ebay, and even Etsy, who are seasoned e-commerce competitors that have a positive reputation for being reliable and safe.
The success of this new project is inevitably dependant on the safety of user’s private information on addresses, credit cards and the like. In the past, Facebook had several problems with security. There was a time when users’ mobile phone numbers were displayed publicly on their profiles after connecting to the site/application via their phone. Recently, Facebook also changed users’ displayed emails to ones with Facebook domains. These incidents make consumers wary of Facebook’s security, which may affect the future success of its service. Unless Facebook keeps user information private and utilizes a consumer-trusted method of payment like PayPal, the success of its gift service will be limited.
The story of Avison Young illustrates how crucial a strong business strategy is in a rising company. In less than five years, the company revamped its vision to expand beyond Canada into the States and is already competing alongside international real estate giants.
In last week’s class about business plans and strategies, the concept of sustainable competitive advantage was introduced. Basically, it is an advantage that the company gains when it runs a combination of activities differently relative to competitors. Avison has a sustainable competitive advantage because…
It is independently owned, not publicly traded or owned by a strong shareholders
It focuses on the longterm (clients’ needs) over the short term (shareholders’ interest in profit)
It carefully targets its markets, choosing cities in the US by analyzing their recovery from the recession
As a new player, the company can enter markets cheaply
Overall, Avison has a clear mission, vision, and objectives with short term implementations that lead to long term approaches at strategy. In addition, it has BGHAGs to compete with large firms like CBRE and Colliers International with a relatively small brand image.
As an interesting thought, would Avison have had as much success if a Canadian CEO had taken over instead of an American one? Is Avison’s combination of Canadian roots with an American CEO confusing to consumers?
It’s been a few weeks since the launch of Apple Inc.’s iPhone 5, and the list of manufacturing defects and software bugs is already quite long. Personally, I know people on their second or third iPhone 5 who complain about the weak battery life, scratches in the aluminum, etc. When I ask what they like the most about it, there are no real answers; it somehow “feels” superior. It may be a stretch to call this phenomenon a cult, but this video from Jimmy Kimmel may make you think otherwise.
At the launch of the iPhone 5, the image of the device spinning in a lazy circle alone had the audience clapping and cheering. When it comes to brand positioning in consumers’ minds, Apple has got it down.
A video during the iPhone 5 launch praised it’s new 4G LTE feature and the sleek manufacturing process. However, 4G LTE has been available on other phone models and manufacturing processes are easily mimicked. The key is that consumers believe that Apple is doing it first, or in an improved way. Because of this, Apple has maintained its top position of multiple ladders.
Knock-off Coach bags, Nokia cell phones, and even Calvin Klein underwear are all products sold by unauthorized dealers. As journalist Robert Neuwirth points out, many informal economies function openly without paying taxes or formerly registering with the government. Neuwirth’s 15 minute interview on NPR summarizes the informal economy’s role in society:
Reasonably, businesses and governments are concerned by the lack of taxes and regulation associated with the informal economy. However, last November, the Nigerian government banned what they call “street trading” in Lagos, mainly to reduce crime, clean up the streets, and be more environmentally friendly. Is this the right reason to be restricting the informal economy?
The main ethical issue lies in the majority of the population that depends on the informal economy as their only source of income. For average Nigerians, jobs in the formal economy are inaccessible due to societal barriers. In addition, the Nigerian government doesn’t use its vast oil revenues to provide basic services for its people; almost all Nigerians in Lagos depend on the informal economy for basic services like clean drinking water.
Would it be ethical to regulate or restrict an informal sector that is vital to the well-being of citizens? Can government restrict the informal economy if it plans to implement replacement programs?
This summer, luxury brand Yves Saint Laurent announced that it would be switching out its classic logo in favor of a new, minimalistic “Saint Laurent Paris” logo. Fans of YSL complained that there was no need to change the logo, and that it lacked the original’s elegance and famous interlocking letters. As the date gets closer and closer, loyal fans of the old logo are spending furiously in hopes of snatching up the remaining merchandise.
