The Pollywog Blog

Back in the olden days, when I was getting my Masters of Advertising at Northwestern University, I had a professor named Don E. Schultz. He was the guy who literally wrote the book on advertising strategy. A tall, balding, round-shouldered man (he reminded me of the harmonica player in the Country Bear Jamboree), Dr. Schultz was known for demanding rigor from his students–in analytical thinking, creative innovation and, especially, the art of creative brief writing.

We were writing briefs for ad campaigns, which would theoretically be executed in print ads, TV spots, radio, etc. But even though the campaign might produce a full-page newspaper ad or a :60 spot, the creative brief–particularly the brand promise–absolutely, positively had to be concise and laser-focused.

One customer benefit.

But– but– but– Sometimes the assignments were for products that had a multitude of benefits. It saves time! It’s convenient! It tastes good! It’s healthy! It’s 100% natural!

We quickly learned, though, that we had to choose.

“One benefit!” Schultz would bellow in his Oklahoma drawl. “Not TWO benefits! Not THREE benefits! ONE benefit!!” Schultz understood that it didn’t matter if an advertiser had ten seconds on the radio or two pages in a magazine spread to sell someone on their products.

Because it’s not about the advertiser and how much they want to say. It’s about what people can comprehend in the split second of attention they may privilege you with.

What mattered then, as now, is that people need simplicity. And an advertising message can’t hope to be simple if it tries to convey more than one benefit.

Fast forward from grad school to Pollywog.

Brand creation requires the same level of rigor. But unlike an advertising campaign, which you can change if it’s not working, a brand needs to last a lifetime. It’s critical to get it right from the beginning.

At Pollywog, we take clients through a Power Positioning session to gather the information we need to proceed into name generation. Sometimes it starts as an info dump. Clients want to include every possible facet of a product in order to make it more attractive to their customer. And that’s when we have to prioritize, whittle away, consolidate, soul-search and then eliminate even more.

While the Power Positioning brief will contain helpful background information, as well as an articulation of a brand differentiator, ultimately the brand promise that remains is one sentence.

ONE sentence.

If you can’t fit your brand promise into one sentence, you’re probably trying to say too much. Saddling a new offering with a brand that’s overly broad, complex or ambiguous will doom it to failure, or at best, a lifetime of anemia.

So here’s a test. Write your brand promise in the form of a customer benefit, then send it as a tweet. You’ll start with 140 characters, but leave room to spare so that it can be retweeted. (See How To Determine Your Personal ReTweet Character Count)

Here’s Pollywog’s. Be looking for it on Twitter:

Your Pollywog-created brand will be a business-building asset from launch through the long term.

Now show us yours.

Share on Facebook

There was a time when publicly attacking the The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) would have been like attacking Mother Teresa. How could anybody be against helping animals?

But social movements are like physics. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. You don’t meddle in other people’s business—working to end inhumane slaughter methods, alleviate suffering among laboratory animals and stop the practice of supplying research labs with dogs from animal shelters, as The HSUS accomplished shortly after its founding in 1954—without raising the dander of some powerful interests.

Certainly even in those early years, The HSUS had enemies—research labs, scientists, foundations, agricultural interests. But they weren’t sophisticated communicators, nor particularly well-funded. They didn’t know how to fight back without turning the public against them. After all, it’s not nice to pick on charities just trying to trying to make the world a better place for All God’s Creatures.

But that was then. This is now:

Now, industries whose profits are threatened by animal welfare legislation have found a way to fight back: Fund a “charity” that purports to be concerned for animals.

The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

HumaneWatch is a registered nonprofit organization whose mission is to “keep a watchful eye on The Humane Society of the United States.” But follow the money. According to the copyright line in the Web site’s footer, the content is owned by the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a nonprofit lobbying group founded by Richard Berman, a D.C. lobbyist notorious for attempting to knock the halo off charities genuinely working for the betterment of society, such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through CCF, he has defended the tobacco industry, minimized the dangers of mad cow disease and mercury in fish, fought against minimum wage, demonized unions—in short, he has been doing the bidding of corporations even when it’s against health, safety, economic and environmental public interests.

Though its funding sources are a closely guarded secret, CCF’s agenda supports Big Pharma, Big Ag, Big Tobacco, and the food and restaurant industries—all of which would have reason to counterattack The HSUS for its efforts on behalf of research and farm animals. Given Berman’s lobbying experience and communications savvy, it’s almost certain that CCF conducted focus groups to ascertain weaknesses in HSUS’s image among its supporters and uncovered significant confusion regarding The HSUS’s role and relationship to local shelters.

The (likely) key finding: Many people erroneously believe that local humane societies are affiliates of The Humane Society of the United States.

How a Branding Issue Became a Weapon

The strategists at CCF are smart. They know that it’s almost impossible to change strongly held perceptions and values. So instead of directly attacking The HSUS and trying to build sympathy for corporations over animals, you exploit an existing value to your clients’ advantage. You leverage people’s love for animals, take advantage of the brand confusion surrounding HSUS and tell people that The HSUS doesn’t support local shelters. Never mind that it was never The HSUS’s mission. If people have been confused, they’ll be angry that their donations are not going to where they mistakenly thought they were.

It has been an effective strategy, save for one flaw. HumaneWatch has been directly linked to CCF, making it a little too simple to follow the money, uncover the motivation behind the attacks and deduce its goal of diverting donations away from The HSUS. (Local shelters are no threat to big corporations, after all, so in one deft, disingenuous message, HumaneWatch can defund The HSUS and look like a hero to animal lovers.) But genuine watchdog groups, such as HumaneWatch.info (known on Facebook as Stop HumaneWatch), have been exposing the lies and distortions. Gradually, people are getting wise to HumaneWatch and its corporate-friendly, deceptive agenda.

A slight adjustment in tactics was required.

Enter a Warmer, Fuzzier Wolf

The Humane Society for Shelter Pets (HSSP) exploded onto the animal welfare scene in late 2011 with a multi-million-dollar ad blitz in newspapers nationwide.

A registered 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, the HSSP’s publicly stated mission is “to help animals at local pet shelters.” HSSP’s agenda and communications strategy and tactics are identical to HumaneWatch’s, leading animal welfare advocates to immediately question its origins and motives. What nonprofit organization is founded one month, then spends millions of dollars in advertising the next?

After some digging, bloggers discovered that HSSP shares the same street address as CCF. When asked directly about the relationship, an HSSP spokesman said:

The speciousness of this answer, of course, lies in the fact that tax status is simply a matter of paperwork. Two organizations can be considered separate entities and still be steered by the same individuals and strategies.

Another blogger ferreted out the truth and got this quote directly from Berman:

I’m proud to say that my firm, Berman and Company, helped get this excellent group off the ground by providing substantial pro bono PR and operational services.

In response, HSUS posted this FAQ about Berman and the HSSP. In addition to voicing indignation over the distortions and manipulations inherent in Berman’s attacks, HSUS wrote this:

In hijacking the proud name “Humane Society” from groups at the local and national level—groups that have worked honorably to help animals for decades—Berman cynically sought to fool people into thinking that he had the interests of pets in mind, when indeed the real point of the group was to attack The Humane Society of the United States. …  If pickpocketing the name “Humane Society” wasn’t shameful enough, Berman and his undisclosed backers lifted the words “Shelter Pets” straight from the established “Shelter Pet Project” of The HSUS, The Ad Council and Maddie’s Fund.

Welcome to the Department of Redundancy Department

The Humane Society of the United States. HumaneWatch. Humane Society for Shelter Pets. Animal Humane Society. Humane Society International. Shelter Pet Project. Humane Society of Arizona. American Humane Association. Humane Society Legislative Fund. Humane Society of Greater Savanna. Washington Humane Society. Capital Humane Society.

Confused yet? There are hundreds more organizations in the nation with “humane society” in their name. While unintentional, naming a national organization the “The Humane Society of the United States”—when there were already similarly named local groups—has created profound brand confusion.

Then there’s this:

What If It’s Not All Bad?

I know of no scientific published studies confirming that people have been mistakenly donating to The HSUS, thinking the funds were going directly to local shelters. But from a branding perspective, I can imagine that it happens. So while The HSUS has not actively cultivated this perception and has overtly tried to educate the public as to its relationship with local shelters, conflation is almost inevitable due to the similarity of their names.

Only The HSUS can know how much revenue comes from confused donors. Some, certainly. Most? Doubtful. How much is too much? Is the confusion HSUS’s fault? Is it their responsibility to clear up?

What to do? What to do?

Before HumaneWatch and HSSP, it’s likely that any brand confusion between The HSUS and local shelters was to The HSUS’s benefit. Now it’s become a liability. From a branding perspective, The HSUS has these options:

1. Retain its venerable though problematic brand name and continue attempts at educating the public. This appears to be the current course of action. The HSUS has called Berman “a small-fry sideshow act that operates on the periphery of American life,” and believes it’s doubtful that Berman’s attacks will have any impact on animal welfare.

Pros:
• Prevents the costs and disruption of rebranding, not to mention a potentially significant drop-off in donations
• Avoids giving the opposition added publicity that would follow a more significant response

Cons:
• May not be enough to overcome negative perceptions spreading virally among animal lovers; the “sideshow” may become more of a “main event” if HSSP throws more money into negative ads.

2. Rebrand.  View this situation as an opportunity to develop a new name that will distinguish the organization from all others in the nation.

Pros:
• Removes a weapon from the opposition and would potentially force a rebranding of HumaneWatch
• Enables the organization to communicate its position as a national leader with a name that cannot be confused with local shelters, and allows it to rise or fall on its own merits

Cons:
• Costly; costs of rebranding must be weighed against damages from continuing confusion
• May result in significant loss of donations if previous brand confusion was indeed responsible for a large share of revenue

3. Fight back.  The name “The Humane Society of the United States” is a registered trademark. The HSUS could mount a case for brand confusion with “Humane Society for Shelter Pets,” which does not appear to have been registered with the USPTO. They should also sue HumaneWatch for trademark violation with regards to its logo.

Pros:
• Helps safeguard The HSUS’s good name
• Pursuing trademark infringement cases is often considered necessary in order to continue to own the mark
• Puts the spotlight on HumaneWatch and HSSP as entities with dubious motives

Cons:
• Diverts funds from mission
• Costly, unless The HSUS can find a firm to provide pro bono services

If this were a case of brand confusion among for-profit companies, the solution would be much simpler. Rebrand. Bite the bullet, spend the money and create an ownable brand. Spend more in marketing the first year to make up for a potential short-term loss of customers. With a strong brand, you’ll get them all back and more.

But donations muddy the waters here. A nonprofit organization doesn’t as easily rebound from a sharp decrease in revenue. Because its mission mandates responsible spending, it can’t sink a huge bulk of its budget into fundraising campaigns to rebuild a donor base—not without blistering criticism, anyway.

I don’t see any clear path, but then again, I’m viewing this from an outsider’s perspective. Perhaps the answers lie in The HSUS’s financials and donor surveys. Perhaps the answers will be more clear in a year, especially if the wolves in sheep’s clothing manage to steal enough of the flock to make a real difference. It will be interesting—and painful—to watch.

Share on Facebook

You almost have to feel sorry for Netflix. Once a towering paragon of transformative online business and delivery models, the entertainment giant has done a face plant.

Netflix launched in 1997. Using an online ordering system (the “Net” in “Netflix”), customers could choose from a huge selection of movies (the “flix”) and receive them by mail under a flat monthly subscription rate. This unique delivery system, combined with the ubiquitous red banner ads that were inescapable for many years, served to make Netflix such a powerhouse that it drove brick-and-mortar stores to bankruptcy.

A year ago, Netflix added streaming video, wisely choosing not to give this offering its own brand name. Instead, it was generically called “Watch Instantly” and was offered to subscription customers at no additional cost. Then, this past July, Netflix split its DVD-by-mail and streaming services into two separately priced offerings—a strategic decision that set off a firestorm of protest.

Adding insult to injury, they branded their DVD-by-mail service, “Quikster.” Quikster. Of all the benefits they could have named this service around—choice, flexibility, convenience, etc.), they chose speed?

In what universe is it quicker to order a movie by mail than it is to stream over the Internet?

And why would they want their brand name to remind customers of other failed Internet ventures like Napster and Friendster?

Pricing issues aside, this service did not need its own brand name. Netflix’s two offerings could have been more simply articulated as generic services under the Netflix brand, i.e., “Netflix DVDs” and “Netflix Streaming” or some such.

Eventually, as broadband infrastructure improves and smooth, seamless streaming becomes more viable in more homes (while the cost of postal delivery continues to increase), DVDs-by-mail will go the way of the dodo. Netflix will deliver the pure “online + movies” offering its name communicates best.

The only reason I can see to brand the DVD-by-mail service separately is if Netflix is planning to sell off this part of their business.

But unfortunately, Netflix will lose an estimated one million customers due to the pricing brouhaha, which has caused its stock price to plummet.

For the foreseeable future, Netflix must hang on to its cash cow. It’s a shame they scarred it with such a silly brand.

Share on Facebook

Recently, Pollywog had the privilege of speaking to design and technology students at Rasmussen College in Brooklyn Park, MN. Here is a recording of that 23-minute presentation.

Share on Facebook

Share on Facebook

The Star Tribune reports on a feud between the Susan G. Komen “Race for the Cure” and small nonprofit also dedicated to fighting breast cancer. In a formal opposition to a trademark registration, Komen claimed that the Minnesota-based group’s name–“Mush for a Cure”–was confusingly similar to its own registered trademark. The all-volunteer sled-dog race fundraiser was only one of dozens of groups earning Komen’s enmity because their name contained “for a cure” or “for the cure.”

Ultimately, Komen dropped its opposition to “Mush for a Cure” and a New York group named “Kites for a Cure” after their stories garnered national attention on NBC News. The USPTO has seen fit to grant “Mush for a Cure” a trademark registration.

What can we learn from this story?

And that last point is good advice for all organizations–for-profit and nonprofit alike–because a shorter, distinctive and creatively unexpected name performs better in a crowded marketplace than a longer descriptive one.

Share on Facebook

Animal welfare advocates agree: The best way to reduce the heartbreaking volume of animals euthanized by overcrowded shelters is to prevent unwanted litters.

But when times are tough, a lot of pet owners can’t afford to neuter their animals, which ultimately results in more unwanted litters.

To address this problem, the Animal Humane Society (AHS), the leading animal welfare organization in the Midwest, teamed up with a local veterinarian to introduce a subsidized spay/neuter service for low-income pet owners, delivered by way of two mobile surgical units. Pet owners can sterilize their dog, cat or rabbit for a fee ranging from $35-$100–a substantial discount over regular veterinary costs.

AHS asked Pollywog to lead the naming of this new service. Because sterilization surgery is key to saving more animals–and because the service is made possible through the generous donations of strangers–we recommended “Kindest Cut.”

Logo and brand identity were created by our friends at Sussner Design.

We count it a privilege to work on such an important cause and look forward to partnering with the Animal Humane Society on future projects.

Share on Facebook

From the It’s Nice To Be Noticed Department comes this—a thoughtful (and completely unsolicited!) response from someone who really understands what the Sprockets brand can do for the community:

Mired in a series of budget cuts, union issues, declining enrollment and a persistent and staggering gap in achievement between student groups, the Sprockets “power name” provides a very strong platform and hopeful ray of sunshine that the strife-ridden local education environment can use as a flash-point to spark a fresh approach to things.

Let’s hope that in addition to engaging and inspiring struggling students in our urban education environment, the vibrant, value-add of the Sprockets brand can give a much-needed extra-curricular boost to the tone and essence of the struggling district leadership as well.

Katherine Emmonds is a Minneapolis-based writer who specializes in civic engagement, education, science, the arts, innovation and creativity. Thanks for the kind words, Katherine!

You can read the rest of Katherine’s blog post here.

Share on Facebook

How do you increase high school graduation rates by more than 90%? Get kids to keep learning, even when they’re not in school.

And how do you do that? By offering them such a wide range of learning opportunities, they can fill their out-of-school time with activities they love–and in so doing, find out what they’re really good at.

That’s the idea behind a new initiative from the City of Saint Paul. The program coordinates the city’s many existing resources to offer kids hundreds of free or low-cost activities and programs, from art to basketball to reading to music to math tutoring.

Key to the initiative’s success was its brand, which had to be youthful (but not too young), fun (but not flippant), and somehow communicate the idea of an interconnected network (without being complicated).

Pollywog led a diverse group of influencers and decision-makers–including the Mayor’s Office, school board, library system, parks and recreation department, Youth Commission and students themselves–through the branding process to give this innovative program the energetic, youthful name it deserved, along with an aspirational tagline.

Sprockets. Find out what moves you.

The brand identity–and this cool little spot–were created by our friends at Peggy Lauritsen Design Group.

Share on Facebook

What makes some movie titles work and others fall flat?

Read this interesting interview with movie marketing specialist, Matthew Cohen, and you’ll discover a lot of common ground with traits that make brand names powerful.

It should come as no surprise that what works in a brand name also works in a movie title. That’s because the human brain processes information the same way, regardless of industry. Jane the movie-goer has the same brain as Jane the grocery-shopper and Jane the executive decision-maker.

Yet too often, brand creation is restricted by artificially constructed silos, and marketers believe that brands in certain industries must have a certain type of name.

Packaged goods have one type of brand name. Nonprofit organizations have another. Law firms have their own prevailing naming convention. And B-to-B services have yet another.

Certainly there will variations in tone and personality, depending upon audience makeup in these various industries. But the broad concepts of what makes a name powerful hold true across all of them.

Why? Because only in the movies do people have more than one brain.

Share on Facebook