It’s like magic.

Last year, Stratasys, a leading manufacturer of 3D printers, contracted Pollywog to help them brand their important new product–the first professional-grade desktop 3D printer priced under $10,000. At this size and price point, 3D printing is now within reach of small product design companies and high schools who need rapid prototyping for commercial and educational uses. This quick, relatively inexpensive physical confirmation of a design’s actual shape and functionality enables product engineers and designers to be more creative.

Pollywog provided positioning, naming and brand identity services, along with consultation on product color and logo placement. In addition to a strong power name for the printer, we provided an appropriately descriptive name for the consumable–a pack of ABS plastic that makes material replacement fast and easy.

Introducing the Mojo™ 3D printer with QuickPack replacements.

News of this disruptive new product spread like wildfire across the blogosphere. And as has happened with other Pollywog power names, reporters picked up on the idea behind the brand promise and echoed it in headlines:

As more designers and engineers experience the magic of Mojo, we expect the name will be informally integrated into their workflow vocabulary:  “I’m going to Mojo this and see how it looks.” “Did you Mojo that yet?” “It’s in the Mojo.”

We’re excited about this brand/product and what we expect it will do for the company’s profitability and stock prices. It’s a winning combination. As The Street remarked, “There’s Mojo in the making at Stratasys,” and we’re pleased to have played a part in it.

Share on Facebook

For the next year, General Mills is helping to address the hunger crisis with a program to secure up to 15.6 million meals for needy families. It’s the corporation’s biggest charitable initiative since Box Tops for Education launched in 1996.

Here’s how it works: Consumers find a code printed on packages of more than 25 General Mills brands, including Cheerios, Lucky Charms, Totinos pizza, Bisquick and Betty Crocker muffin mixes. Each code entered at the program’s Web site provides five meals through Feeding America.

Working in tandem with Imagination Publishing, Pollywog led more than 30 General Mills team members through a process to name this important new program, Outnumber Hunger.

Look for it on specially marked packages of your favorite General Mills products. Then please do visit the site, enter the code and transform your purchase of one product into five meals to help Outnumber Hunger.

Share on Facebook

A few years ago, Pollywog branded RAGOM’s annual fundraiser, Goldzilla. It has since grown into what may be the largest Golden Retriever event in the nation–the self-fulfilling prophecy behind its audacious name.

Recently, RAGOM asked us to brand another smaller fundraiser, a craft beer tasting and silent auction at Summit Brewery, with proceeds benefiting Golden Retriever rescue. For this project, I teamed up with freelance graphic designer Jennifer O’Brien, also a RAGOM volunteer, and together we created Stouts for Snouts.

When RAGOM introduced the brand and began promoting the event in social media, there was an immediate demand for tee shirts. Between tee shirt sales, the silent auction and admission fees, Stouts for Snouts raised almost $5,000 for needy Golden Retrievers in Minnesota.

With Stouts for Snouts, I was once again fortunate to work in that gratifying place where professional skills are committed to a personal cause.

Why yes, I do have a photo of my dogs. Thanks for asking! Chaz (left) is a purebred Golden Retriever I adopted from the Animal Humane Society. And Pippin, who was rescued by RAGOM, doesn’t have a drop of Golden in him. He’s a mix of Dachshund/Chow/Shar-Pei/Rat Terrier and many other breeds–a survivor of a hoarding situation, who had the good fortune of looking like a “mini-Golden.”

Share on Facebook

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

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

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

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

Share on Facebook

In 1970,  a small group of parents in Richfield, MN began meeting in a vacant commercial space to discuss the needs of suburban families that were not being met by more urban-centric programs. Their venue became their name: Storefront. Over time, they relocated, expanded and grew out of their name, yet continued to operate under it for 40 years.

Last year, Storefront asked Pollywog to help them develop a new name and brand identity to more clearly communicate the value of what they bring to the community–comprehensive and effective mental health treatment, intervention and education that can transform lives.

The new brand was unveiled this month on the group’s Web site: Headway Emotional Health Services.

We’re very proud of the work we did for Headway–and pleased again to have provided affordable, effective branding for a worthy cause.

Share on Facebook