Top 10 Branding Tips We Learned from Letterman

[Cache #200]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

10.  Focus.  Dave didn’t get the Tonight Show, and Leno beat him in the ratings every week, but Letterman didn’t fiddle with his formula in an effort to get more market share.

9.  Think fresh, not new.  Over the years, hundreds of regular features came and went – but the cranky, weird, self-deprecating tone never changed.

8.  When you screw up – and you will – apologize and mean it.  Dave is remembered as a humble man, not as a jerk, because he (eventually) learned how to say “sorry.”

7.  Celebrate your team.  Dave honoured his crew by including them in innumerable gags and always admitting he was nothing without them.

6.  Care about what people think, but not too much.  Letterman cared deeply about his brand, but he cared more about sticking to his vision at any cost.

5.  Long term consistency pays off.  Even if someone doesn’t like Letterman, they have to respect his 33 years and 6,000 shows in the can.

4.  Be authentic.  Dave was unvarnished every night – whether jolly, angry, tired or downright unfunny – so everyone felt they knew him.

3.  Don’t be afraid to show some humility.  Dave could be a tough interviewer and his jokes could be vicious, but people loved him because he made the most fun of himself.

2.  Content is king.  If Dave couldn’t continue to attract the top celebrities and public figures, he would have been toast years ago.

1.  You’ve got to be good.  Letterman endeared himself by being both funny and human – but without the funny, no one would have cared.


Posted in brand authenticity, brand character, brand differentiation, consistency, positioning | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Introducing Foster, the Oaken squirrel

[Cache #199]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

It turns out there is indeed a first time for everything, for I am now a father.

Sort of.

Because I have parented – or more accurately, named – a squirrel.  He is Foster, the animated brand spokessquirrel of Oaken Financial, Canada’s newest direct-to-consumer banking brand.  Oaken sells predominantly GICs to a target market of savvy savers.  The brand’s core values, which Foster will be integral in expressing, include great security, great savings and great customer service.

Why a squirrel in the first place?  The squirrel concept was developed by the Oaken team before they came to me.  The idea of a squirrel to help tell the brand story is very clever and highly promising.  In a nutshell, squirrels are nature’s savers.  They also happen to live in oak trees and they store things for the future, because they want to be comfortable in that future.

The characteristics of Oaken’s particular squirrel were defined before his name was finalized.  My clients gave him the job of embodying Oaken’s down-to-earth, transparent company culture and encouraging Canadians to take control of their financial future.  He is intelligent, witty and sometimes cheeky – but never cheesy.  And above all, he is well versed in the financial world and he imparts knowledge of smart saving practices.

How was Foster chosen from a shortlist of names?  Names, of course, have jobs to do.  Five criteria, all related to telling the brand story in a memorable and remark-able fashion, were especially key in this case, being references to / double entendres with:

-the Oaken brand story (great savings, great security, etc)
-the name Oaken and its positioning statement, Plant for your future
-squirrels, trees and other forest imagery
-this particular squirrel’s characteristics


And, perhaps most important was the remark-ability factor:  how well suited was the name to hook in people’s minds and have them talking about it with others?

The definition of foster, aside from its meanings relating to foster children, is To encourage or promote the development of something.  It is also synonymous with words including nurture, cultivate, enrich and strengthen.  All of these words and meanings relate to the squirrel’s ability to securely foster savings, as well as foster in consumers the knowledge of how to plant for their future.

And, it turns out that Foster as a baby name has meanings that include keeper of the forest.

Being a word rich with on-brand meaning, and also one that happens to be a real and rather cute name for a boy, Foster has the remark-ability factor in spades.

And so I wish Foster well.  He’s back in the hands of his true parents – the team at Oaken – who now have the all-important job of giving him a productive life.

Toronto Star story here, including coverage of Oaken’s beautiful new store in Toronto’s financial district.

Posted in best brand names, brand names, positioning, remark-able, taglines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments


Click on the image to see the first news clip about the Oaken mascot I was proud to name.

More to come…

oaken financial foster mascot character

Posted in best brand names, brand names | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

WestJet: Cockpits and Cocktails Don’t Mix

[Cache #198]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

What is a flight deck?

Why, it’s a place you drink booze, of course.  At a Blue Jays game, in the enormous stand-up bar overlooking centre field, into which crowd hundreds of fans for a bird’s eye look at the action.  I’ve been to the venue several times, right under the formerly-named Jumbotron, and it’s definitely a unique vantage point and a lot of fun.  And it’s the best deal in professional sports:  anyone with a ticket can access it, so you can just buy a nosebleed seat (sometimes less than $10 on StubHub) and you’re in.

At the Blue Jays-Yankees game this week, one could see a new, massive sign indicating the bar has been given a new name:  The WestJet Flight Deck.

The double entendre WestJet was no doubt aiming for is with one of the two definitions of the term flight deck found on

1. The cockpit of an aircraft – the place from where the pilots fly a plane.
2. The area on an aircraft carrier on which planes take off and land.

It seems sensible that the first definition was the one being aimed for, and so we have WestJet drawing a connection between the cockpits of their planes and alcohol consumption.  And not just alcohol consumption, but – taking the metaphor a further, obvious step – flying on alcohol.   By this I am not referring to the idea of actually flying the plane while drinking, but to the idea of flying, i.e. being very much under the influence of something.

It’s not a no-no for an airline to associate itself with booze: they sell the product in their lounges and on their planes, after all.  But making a direct association between booze and the area from which the plane is flown?  That’s off-brand for any airline whose primary concern is to be associated with safety.  Which is, presumably, every airline.

Air Canada has lounges in major airports, called the Maple Leaf Lounge.  So they managed to create a name that avoids flying references while at the same time, refers to the all-important Canadian aspect of their brand.

Even if you think it’s pedantic to fuss over the second meanings of Flight Deck, ultimately the name adds no value to the WestJet brand story.  We know WestJet flies planes.  Every airline flies planes.  Every plane has a flight deck.  So Flight Deck is not differentiating.  There is no upside to this name, only potential downside.

How can WestJet make a more judicious choice, and simultaneously reinforce the absolutely most crucial part of their brand – that they care because they’re owned by their staff?  With a name like The Owner’s Box.

Posted in best brand names, brand character, brand differentiation, brand names, positioning, worst brand names | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Be Different. In A Good Way.

[Cache #197]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

Each of us has a profoundly deep desire to be different.  If we did not believe that we were unique, that we had some one-of-a-kind value to offer the people and world around us, life would hardly be worth living.

If you are trying to build a brand for you personally or for your company, the trick is figuring out how to say you are different in a way that is in fact different, because cliché is everywhere.

The distance one must travel to get to original can appear to be very short, but this can be a mirage, for it can also be surprisingly arduous. Consider the originality, elegance and clarity of Roomba, the name for the vacuum cleaner that moves around your home, automatically giving the sidestep to obstacles in its path.  Or take this tagline from TekSavvy, an upstart Internet service provider:

We’re different.  In a good way.

Looking at this statement on paper, so to speak, it does not exactly scream of genius.  This brand has claimed that it is different, which is not earthshatteringly different.  But there are two things that do in fact make it not just different, but full-on brilliant.  First is the addition of the qualifying term:  In a good way.  This doesn’t in itself seem like such a big deal, but second, and vastly more important, is the way they’ve used this slight twist as the creation mechanism for a cast of remark-ably original characters that brings TekSavvy’s messaging to life.

Here they are on the website:

And here are some of their “bios” and catchphrases:

And here they are in TekSavvy’s ad campaign:

Just as We’re different.  In a good way. does not scream of genius when viewed as dead ink on a page, when you peruse some of the most famous taglines and positioning statements in history, many of them give zero impression that they can be differentiating in any way.

Who would have thought that something as mundane as Time to make the donuts would become a legendary line for Dunkin’ Donuts? (check out the classic ad here)  Or that Pardon me, do you have any Grey Poupon? would be a mega-home run for the eponymous mustard-maker?

Here’s who:  The creatives and clients who understood that a great key message can only be as brilliant, or as differentiating, as its execution.

Posted in brand advertising, brand copywriting, brand differentiation, brand messaging, key messaging, positioning, rebranding, remark-able, taglines | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

When To Keep “Rape” In Your Tagline

[Cache #196]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

Normally, it would be a very short conversation.

Client:  ”Should we include the word ‘rape’ in our town’s tagline?”
Me:  ”No.  Here is my invoice.”

But Tisdale, Saskatchewan, whose slogan since 1960 has been The Land of Rape and Honey, is not in a normal situation.  This tiny place of 3,500 has been traumatized by a horrifically cruel multiple murder, committed just two days ago.  So some sensitivity is called for when contributing to the serious discussion, which has been coincidentally ongoing, about whether it’s time to change their slogan.

The argument in favour of changing the slogan is obvious.  This is not to suggest that the argument is necessarily “right,” but only that it’s obvious.

The argument against changing the slogan is that the town should not turn its back on its history, a large part of which has been the importance to the local economy of honey and rapeseed, or rape.

I checked yesterday with the authority on these matters, my 94-year-old grandmother in Winnipeg, and indeed the product has been called canola, a coined name which stands for Canada and oil, for some time.  The change from rape or rapeseed was made in the 1970s by the Rapeseed Association of Canada, at least partly because of the unpleasant double meaning of rape.

Knowing nothing additional of Tisdale’s situation, and having an emotional and geographic detachment from it, here are two questions that might help deliberations:

1. For the people of Tisdale, Saskatchewan, what is the objective of having a town slogan?

2. Given that objective, does The Land of Rape and Honey accomplish it?

If it does, keep it.  If it doesn’t, carefully go through the process of coming up with another one.  ”Carefully” in this context does not refer to any need to correct a past “mistake,” but to the care and due diligence that should guide any brand positioning exercise.

Posted in key messaging, positioning, rebranding, taglines | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Would You Call a $20 a “Vimy?”

[Cache #195]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

If someone had told you, nine months ago, that people were going to pour buckets of ice water over their heads, and that it would so permeate the public consciousness as to become the single most successful fundraising campaign in history, you would have been right to call them crazy.

Today, the idea seems to have been brilliant.  But before the campaign began, no one could have known that the ALS Association would raise $41-million in less than a month – double the amount raised in the entire previous year – while engaging 740,000 new donors and raising awareness with hundreds of millions if not billions of people around the world (Cache #168).

So it is not impossible that the campaign of the Vimy Foundation, to have Canadians henceforth refer to the $20 bill as a Vimy, might succeed.  The campaign is timed to dovetail with the 100th anniversary on April 9, 2017, of Vimy Ridge – the First World War battle that is regarded by many historians as the moment Canada truly became its own country.  Before that day, Canadian soldiers had always fought under British command.

On that day, Canada lost a mind-boggling 3,600 men with another 6,000 wounded, but won an important strategic victory – with Canadian leadership at the helm.  The battle has been most notably commemorated with the dramatic Vimy monument in France – which appears on the back of the Canadian $20 that was newly issued in 2012.

The Vimy Foundation’s mission is to preserve and promote Canada’s First World War legacy as symbolized by the Vimy Ridge victory.  They have enlisted Canadian celebrities including Rick Mercer, Don Cherry and Celine Dion to their cause – to encourage Canadians to call the $20 a Vimy and also to “Give a Vimy for Vimy” to help fund an educational centre at the monument.

Yet as reported yesterday by Joe O’Connor of the National Post, only 600 Canadians have given a Vimy for Vimy since the campaign began in 2013.  Which would seem to indicate that the concept of a nickname for the $20 has not yet caught on.

Why not?

From a branding point of view, the fundamental problem is a lack of remark-ability.  Remark-ability is defined as the level of ease with which a concept can be shared with others through word of mouth.

There are a number of remark-ability issues that stand in the way of the Vimy Foundation’s idea.  If the typical Canadian was to hear someone else refer to a $20 as a Vimy, they would be quite confused.  If – if – they possessed a natural curiosity about why someone just called a $20 a Vimy, they would ask why.  This can be a good thing, because it gives the first person the opportunity to tell the story.

But if the hope is for a massive majority of Canadians to use the word Vimy, the fact that there is no highly obvious, intuitive connection between the $20 and Vimy presents a very large obstacle to adoption.  Loonie and Toonie, names which achieved near-100% adoption almost instantly, both derived from connections that were so obvious, they could not be avoided.

- See Peter Mansbridge refer to the new dollar coin as a Loonie in his very first story about it in 1987 -  

The name Loonie obviously derives from the bird on its front that to Canadians is very widely appreciated, the Common Loon.  Crucially, the Loonie was a new coin:  the slate was clean for a nickname.  The slate was also clean for Toonie (or Twonie), which is the richer nickname of the two, because it not only rhymes with Loonie, it has the feature of expressing the coin’s worth.

None of these remark-ability factors are in place for Vimy and the $20.

The $20 is not new.  People have been calling it a “Twenty” presumably since its creation.  An image of the Vimy monument is on the back of the bill, yes, but unfortunately the image is not that prominent.  The word Vimy and the battle itself do not relate in any way to the bill’s worth.

Two Ideas That Could Work
Remark-ability is all about making it easy for your audience.  And the anniversary of the battle does relate to a rather obvious number:  100.  If the Vimy monument artwork was to be moved to a newly-designed $100 in 2017 – a design that unmistakably conveys Vimy – this connection could be remark-able enough.

But the Vimy Foundation wants the Vimy name attached to Canada’s most commonly-used bill, the $20, perhaps as a symbol of our ability to go about our daily business – to live our lives – because of the men who died in the muck at Vimy and on many other horrific battlefields.

Which leads to an idea that is perhaps more promising: the creation of a limited edition $20 that is dramatically different in design, including colour, from the current $20.  The design would have to feature the Vimy monument, and even the word Vimy itself, in a fashion much more prominent than on the wider-circulation $20.

The most remark-able factor of such a $20 would be its scarcity – just like freedom itself.

Joe O’Connor’s story in the National Post, in which I was honoured to comment.

Posted in rebranding, remark-able | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Is Your Brand Worthless? Then Your Name Shouldn’t Be Either.

[Cache #194]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

“What’s a Zoosk?”

This query formed the first sentence of our chapter on naming in Brand: It Ain’t the Logo.  Three years later, it is still a bloody good question.  Zoosk is a name that tells us nothing, not a thing, about what industry it’s in, what value it might offer you, and ultimately why you should care in the least. It is a name that robs its employees and everyone else in the world from an opportunity to easily spread the brand story, because we have been given no clue as to what the brand story is.

Compare Zoosk as a name with these three, all from Zoosk’s industry:  eHarmonyMatch and Plenty of Fish.

Now do you know what industry Zoosk is in?  eHarmony and Match advertise like mad, but even if they didn’t, their names are so meaningful and memorable that you still get a very good idea of what they do and thus can easily spread the word to others – the phenomenon we call remark-ability Plenty of Fish is an even finer example of remark-ability, because they have what I would argue is the most meaningful and memorable name of all in this cohort – and they barely seem to advertise at all.

I blame my commute this morning for this flashback, for I spied an ad in my subway car for this brand:  Zazeen.

Maybe it was the Z that set me off.  But really, it is the name as a whole – which, like Zoosk and another name I just noticed from the world of dating websites, Badoo – that is wasting a maddening amount of human potential.

Zazeen is actually not in the dating site industry, so would you like to guess from which industry they actually come?  Just as it is impossible to situate the Zoosk name without mentioning competitors such as eHarmony and Plenty of Fish, Zazeen is unplaceable short of mentioning a brand like Fibe TV.  Fibe gives us a pretty good sense that it’s delivering television programming over the Internet.  Zazeen?  Zip.

The loss of human potential created by a name not just void of meaning, but actually confusing, is very real and operates on many levels.  The employees of this company will spend an inordinate amount of their productive time repeating and explaining this name, because a high percentage of potential customers, investors and other stakeholders, upon hearing it, will very naturally respond “What?”, followed by “What’s a Zazeen?”, followed by ”Why did you call it that?” followed by ”How do you spell that?” and finally “What is the name again?”

This same tiresome merry-go-round will ensue when customers try to tell their friends about what could be an amazing service cloaked in a name that does everything to hide that fact.

Others will see the name somewhere and, receiving in their brains not the slightest clue what it means, not bother to think any further about it.  Some potential employees will see nothing in the name that inspires them to consider working there.  Some potential investors will see the name and assume the brand owners don’t know much about branding and marketing, and therefore that the company is not a good bet.

Shomi You Care
The bottom line is that the company and its people will struggle unnecessarily to get their message across and be profitable in a business that is already extremely tough.  Contrast that self-inflicted challenge with the relative ease created by two other names just on the Canadian telecommunications scene:  Crave and Shomi.  I have seen a few ads for both of these services, and I seem to recall that they are not creating much if any new programming, but rather are showing previously-released TV series and movies.  Beyond that, I have no in-depth awareness of what they offer.


What can we assume of their offers, based just on that info and their names?

– Crave sounds like a service that gives us the favourites from the past that we really, really love.  Crave as a name also implies rapid satisfaction of that craving – that it will be easy for us to watch the shows that we want, when we want to watch them.

– Shomi conveys a similar positioning, except that, because it is being presented as a verb – as an actual demand – it places more emphasis on the on-demand dimension.  On the less positive side – and this is really not a big deal – Shomi has a slight pronunciation challenge to overcome, as the proper way to say it is not self-evident.  The name must be seen or heard in context to be understood.

What’s a Zazeen?  A company that deliberately chose a name that means zero.  Which makes sense only if you think you have nothing to offer.

Posted in best brand names, brand differentiation, brand names, key messaging, positioning, remark-able, worst brand names | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Belieb It: Ghomeshi Could Bounce Back

[Cache #193]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

Last week, I was asked by CBC reporter Ioanna Roumeliotis if Jian Ghomeshi could ever rehabilitate his brand.  My answer was that it’s difficult to see a path to recovery for him.  If there is to be any hope at all, there are many things that would have to happen, especially these two:

1.  In the criminal proceedings against him and in the CBC investigation, nothing substantially worse than what’s already known about his conduct can come out.
2.  He has to make a real apology to his victims and fans, not a weasel-worded “If you were hurt, then I am sorry” excuse.

Cue, of all people, Justin Bieber.

The now 21-year-old pop singer is famous around the world for earning hundreds of millions of dollars and turning into an insufferable and reckless pain before our very eyes.  From racing his Ferrari through his residential neighbourhood, to spitting on a neighbour, to drunk driving and resisting arrest to having his bodyguards carry him up the Great Wall of China, Bieber’s fall from grace has been epic.

He has a lot in common with Rob Ford, with whom he shares the title of world’s most famous Canadian, except that Rob Ford is twice his age and weight and still doesn’t realize he’s done anything wrong.  That’s right: Justin Bieber made a real apology last week:

“I turned a lot of people off over the past few years, but I know I can still turn out good music and turn everything all around.  I’ve lost some of my best qualities.  For that, I am sorry.  I’m looking forward to being someone who you guys can all look at and be proud of.”

Even more remarkable, he made his apology at the podium, after subjecting himself to the ritual humiliation of a Comedy Central Roast.  If you’ve ever watched one of these events, you’ve been shocked by how incredibly profane and mean the celebrity roasters are, in this case including Martha Stewart, Snoop Dogg and Shaquille O’Neal.  US Weekly called the putdowns “staggeringly harsh.”

Comedian Chris D’Elia summed up the feeling in the room:  ”You have it all.  Except for respect, love, friends, good parents and a Grammy.”

On the cruelty scale, roasters are second only to the people who leave comments after stories in the Toronto Star.  And even they feel bad for the beating Justin took:

“I mean I guess he deserves it in some way, but still.  I kinda feel bad for him.”  Or:  ”What a strong young man.  Took a roast in his twenties.  Kudos Justin.”

In other words, Bieber’s strategy is working.

The stuff that Bieber did is bad.  The stuff that Ghomeshi is accused of doing is considerably worse.  So if conditions #1 and #2 above were to be met, and Ghomeshi was to subject himself to a televised verbal beating – and otherwise put himself at the mercy of the public – it would simply not be enough for some people.  Then again, this is Canada, and we respect apologies and niceness.  As roast host Kevin Hart put it:  ”Justin’s Canadian.  He’s actually considered American, because no Canadian has ever been this much of an a–hole.”

But there is another possibility:  that Ghomeshi’s actions will not actually damage his brand that badly in the first place.  Consider this quartet:

Bill Cosby has been accused by at least 34 women of drugging or raping them, and he continues to tour and receive standing ovations, including in Kitchener, Ontario.

Rush Limbaugh railed against illegal drug users for years, then became addicted to prescription painkillers and vigorously fought prosecution and prevailed.  His radio show still draws 15 million listeners every week.

Mike Tyson was convicted of rape and spent three years in prison, but is a favourite among movie- and theatre-goers for his frequent cameos, including onstage with Neil Patrick Harris at the 2013 Tony awards – and even had his own Broadway show, directed by Spike Lee.

Bill Clinton had an extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky, lied to Congress about it, became only the second president in US history to be impeached, and, as far as I am aware, never lifted a finger to defend Lewinsky’s reputation.  Lewinsky has endured public harassment and humiliation from every corner of the world for almost 20 years.  Clinton commands enormous respect from every corner of that same planet, and in his first eleven years as a private citizen, delivered 471 speeches at an average fee of $189,000.

In the context of branding, what do these cases demonstrate?  That it’s never the point to get everyone supporting you.  In contrast, the point has always been to get enough of the right people supporting you.  It’s called brand positioning:  resonating so deeply with just a segment of the population that they’ll follow you to hell and back.

Especially if the criminal case proceeds, Ghomeshi’s fans – many of whom are still out there, waiting – may very well get that opportunity.

See Monica Lewinsky’s acclaimed TED Talk, “The Price of Shame,” delivered just this week.

Posted in brand differentiation, personal branding, positioning, rebranding | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Beer Store’s Brand Goggles

[Cache #192]

By Andris Pone

President, Coin Branding

Yes, a brand is what people think of you.  And in a recent moment of inspiration, I suggested that even more important is what we think of ourselves.  But: too high a level of self-regard can kill your brand, as we have seen so dramatically in the cases of TargetJian Ghomeshi and coming soon, The Beer Store.

The Toronto Star is reporting today that Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne will be introducing legislation in the spring budget that will bring beer (as well as wine) to large-format grocery stores in Ontario.  Skepticism is the most appropriate response to this kind of news, given that in Ontario we have been talking about taking away The Beer Store’s monopoly at least since I was sufficiently underage to care about alcohol.

And yet, for anyone who cares about drinking beer or cares about someone who does, there is fresh reason for optimism, because the government seems to have defined the problem in a slightly different way than in the past.  Given that there are less than 500 Beer Stores in a province with almost 14 million people, the pro-liberalization argument has historically revolved around giving consumers easier access to their favourite wobbly-pop.  The chief supporting argument has been that The Beer Store’s monopoly (the chain is owned by Molson-Coors, Labatt and Sleeman, all of whom happen to be foreign-owned and controlled) is inappropriate in a democratic, capitalist-oriented society.

The problem with these arguments, and the reason they have ultimately failed, is that in Canada in general and perhaps more so in Ontario, large swaths of the population are awash with guilt about booze and capitalism both.

The new, optimism-inducing argument discerned from this morning’s Star coverage is that people are demanding a different kind of convenience.  Convenience in the past was framed by restrictionists as meaning the ability to get drunk more conveniently.  But then this from the Star:

“The government’s thinking has shifted. …it is taking account of recurring complaints about poor service and limited choices at The Beer Store.  Under increasing pressure from local craft brewers, and media reports that reflected public discontent, the Liberals are now stressing consumer convenience and support for domestic producers.”

This new kind of convenience is that of being able to enjoy a high-quality product and support Canadian (read: craft) brewers without having to jump through hoops.  It is not about getting blotto – although beer has been known to have that effect from time to time, and we can expect examples of that trend to continue – but rather, it is about appreciation.

Anyone who has in fact tippled a pint or two will be familiar with the concept of beer goggles.  For the Beer Store, it is a severe case of brand goggles that has allowed this existential threat to brew:  they have provided a truly crummy experience for decades and deemed it wonderful.  Only recently in their history did they actually take the step of allowing customers to look at and touch the product before paying for it.  They have been very slow to innovate and improve their brand experience because they didn’t think they had to.

And then they made it difficult for the burgeoning number of independent craft brewers in Ontario, the upstarts who’ve ushered in a new era of brand appreciation, to get their products on the shelf.  That, ultimately, was the tippling point.

Dear Reader:
I greatly appreciate the emails I get each week from people who’ve enjoyed the blog. I’d like to encourage you to use the comment field instead of sending me an email, because:
-It is fun and enlightening to get a conversation going with other commenters, as Cache readers are an extremely smart and good-looking bunch.
-I respond to every comment you leave.
-If you have a website, your comment helps your website rank higher on Google (because there is a space for you to leave your web address).
-Even if you do not have a website, your comments definitely help build the Coin brand as a provider of thought leadership related to branding.

OR, you can just continue to send me your emails, which I love to receive and respond to.

With thanks -

Posted in brand experience, customer service | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments