Fortunately, any size business can have a powerful brand name, and powerful brand names attract the media. That’s because reporters are only human. Their brains work like everyone else’s, and they’ll notice and remember a name that’s distinctive, emotionally compelling and relevant to a meaningful brand promise.

And like everyone else, reporters are more likely to talk about a powerful brand name than a weak one.

Recently, the Star Tribune published a story on local nonprofits that have rebranded. Although the article mentioned a number of organizations, the name that led the story was Think Small, a Power Name from Pollywog.

Minnesota do-gooders, not exactly known for their creative pizazz, are spiffing up their public images — and shedding some well-known nonprofit names in the process.

Resources for Child Caring, a 40-year-old St. Paul nonprofit, told its supporters last month that “the RCC brand didn’t feel bold or innovative to many important stakeholders.” It will now be known as “Think Small.”

Think Small?

“There are a few people scratching their heads,” chuckled Barb Yates, executive director of the newly named nonprofit. “But mostly what I hear is positive. People are talking about it and I don’t know if they talked about our other name.”

The story’s print edition featured a chart of nonprofits that had rebranded. Two of the ten brands–Think Small and Headway–were Pollywog-created.

And here’s the best thing yet. Reporters, who naturally seek to clarify and illuminate, may feel the need to “explain” evocative names. In doing so, they’ll link the brand name to the brand promise.

This Tails Magazine reporter understood that Kindest Cut referred not only to saving animal lives, but also to the kindness of a reduced rate offered to low-income pet-owners. That message was elevated and summarized in a headline tying directly to the brand name.

So when you’re creating a brand name or rebranding your business or organization, remember that reporters are all about the story. A powerful brand name–one that’s unusual, has emotional trigger and alludes to a relevant benefit–is not only more likely to be noticed and remembered by reporters, it also gives them an easy hook.

Share on Facebook

According to RCC, “Too many didn’t recognize our name, or confused us with others. In short, our brand was not working hard enough to help us achieve our mission, and that was not okay with us.”

For the next year, Pollywog worked closely with RCC management and key team leaders in every stage of the rebranding process: brand positioning, naming, tagline creation, domain name search and brokering, brand identity design, brand standards development, Web site design and top-level copywriting and brand voice.

We’re happy to announce that Resources for Child Caring is now:

“We chose a thought-provoking and provocative name that will call attention to the needs of Minnesota’s smallest children,” Executive Director Barb Yates said at the brand’s unveiling event. “Think Small captures our mindset, our passion, our call to action.”

Added Janet Bisbee, Director of Development, “It’s been a pleasure working with Pollywog. Our new agency name is powerful and unexpected. The genius of it is that it makes people want to know more. It opens an exciting conversation about ways we all can be more and do more for children.”

Share on Facebook

The branding world is abuzz today with reactions to AOL’s advanced look at a rebranding campaign, the cornerstone of which is a revamped logo.

AOL said in a press release:

AOL today previewed its new brand identity for its future as an independent company committed to creating the world’s most simple and stimulating content and online experiences.

The new AOL brand identity is a simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images. It’s one consistent logo with countless ways to reveal. The new brand identity will be fully unveiled on December 10, when AOL common stock begins trading on the New York Stock Exchange.

“Our new identity is uniquely dynamic. Our business is focused on creating world-class experiences for consumers and AOL is centered on creative and talented people – employees, partners, and advertisers. We have a clear strategy that we are passionate about and we plan on standing behind the AOL brand as we take the company into the next decade,” said Tim Armstrong, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of AOL.

So I gather the company’s positioning (repositioning?) is that it offers “the world’s most simple and stimulating content and online experiences.”

Herein lies AOL’s problem.  Its positioning is neither clear nor focused nor different from hundreds of other information/entertainment services on the Web.

AOL’s brand image is as indelible as any brand’s can be. It rose to prominence as “the Beginner’s Internet.” AOL was a safe and easy way for novices to get used to using the Web.

Those days are over. Like Polaroid, whose name now stands for an obsolete technology, the AOL brand stands for a need that people no longer feel.  Never mind the Time Warner merger debacle. AOL’s halcyon days were certain to come to an end as the universe of users became adept at roaming the Web without AOL’s training wheels.

It’s clear that AOL understands the power of their brand’s heritage, because they retained the idea of “simple” in their brand messaging. But now the company is clinging to the very brand attribute that’s dragging them down. “Simple” is now a best practice in Web IA and design, and most marquee information/entertainment sites are designed so even a novice user can find his way around.

Take a look at the AOL home page. Is it any simpler than, say, Entertainment Weekly, People, or USAToday? I don’t think so. It might even be more complicated than some. Is the content more “stimulating?” Not that I can tell.

If AOL wants to save its brand, it needs to burn its ships like Cortez on the shores of the New World, forget about making “simple” part of its brand positioning–that’s table stakes now–and focus on offering something really different and believable.

“The world’s most stimulating content and online experiences” is neither.

AOL’s biggest problem is that, like GM, the company is still huge, but it’s no longer in the market position to act like a category leader. They need to think like an entrepreneur, who looks for ways to carve out a unique niche or, better yet, create a new category. If they ever found that opportunity, they should dump the AOL name and its associated baggage–burn their ships–so they can launch unfettered and go about conquering this new territory.

But I suspect they will limp along, like Polaroid, continuing to offer a me-too product and being just profitable enough to keep the lights on.

Share on Facebook