Kraft just announced that Kraft Dinner has now officially been rebranded as KD!
IMHO that’s fantastic, because sometimes I’ve had a bit too much KFC, haven’t been to the Y, and need to go lite, so I swing by BMO or TD, grab some $ and head to the store for my KD. And OMG, soon it won’t even have food dyes! Isn’t that Gr8?! SMH…
Converse has released its first new Chuck Taylor All-Star in 100 years. An article in Fast Company notes that All Star sales made up the “majority” of Converse’s $1.7 billion in revenue in 2014 and asks, “how do you redesign the Coca-Cola of shoes without becoming the New Coke of shoes?”
What do you think: is there a market for a “premium” All-Star?
Via your classmate Chetan, another effort by a growing group of brands to look like they care about the consumers who buy and use their products. This time, it’s removing food colouring from processed foods.
Chetan writes: “I think this has a lot to do with what we’ve been discussing in terms of sensory appeal and the need to rebrand to keep up with changing consumer preferences. Might be interesting to [consider] how this will change their branding strategy, especially since certain demographics (like kids) are drawn to cereal foods because they look very fun/colourful.
Chetan’s question is a good one – to whom must consumer products companies appeal most, the shopper (in this case, parents) or the consumer (their kids)?
I’m a bit slow to be posting this, but as the Supreme Court’s decision shows, it’s never too late to do the right thing! 😉
Via your classmate Ellen, brands showing their support of the ruling to make same-sex marriage legal in the US.
What are the boundary conditions on this? Can any brand be vocal about its politics, or does the organization need to be confident that it won’t be the target of consumer or competitive backlash? (e.g. the Stoli ad above; note that Absolut vodka has been a vocal supporter of the gay community for decades. Does Stoli risk being seen as insincere?)
Via your classsmate Shirin, a report on MTV’s recent–and questionable–rebranding effort. A new “look and feel” + a new YouTube-like offering called MTV Bump that allows viewers to upload their own content = relevant??? I was around for the original launch, and have seen the brand decline for years, so perhaps I’m the wrong person to assess the success of the rebrand.
What does Gen Y say?
From Adweek, the story of a symbolic tweak by Facebook’s product design manager Caitlin Winner. Apparently, the aptly-named Winner was thinking about the icons used on the FB site to denote friends or groups: they always put a man in front of a woman, so the woman was always in a man’s shadow.
Now, this is the company whose Chief Operating Officer, Sheryl Sandberg, wrote the book Lean In, which encouraged women to lead. And yet, that pesky women-to-the-back-of-the-pack symbol persisted. Until now. (She even fixed the female icon’s helmet hair – brava!)
What do you think – is this a silly little detail, or the kind of subliminal imagery that affects the beliefs both genders have about women?
Via your classmate Mathuri, an interesting article about brands that are attempting to stay relevant to the new powerhouse in the market: the Millennial Generation.
You tell me: do these gestures work? Or would you simply not consider these brands, so matter how they reinvent themselves?