Think

 Our crew's perspective on ideas that move people.
Nov 09, 2009

When Good Brands Go Brandless, Part I

If a product has any sort of defined presence in the marketplace, going “brandless” may seem impossible—or potentially foolish. Intrigued by the logo-less café that Starbucks opened in Seattle this summer, I set out to explore that and other intentional moves to drop, disassociate or reinvent a brand. In comparing these efforts to Muji—a brand built on being brandless (sort of)—I looked at what value there is in seeking symbiosis and adopting a long-term perspective when experimenting with a brand.




brand_muji1


Japanese retail store Muji was founded on principles of design minimalism and environmentally friendly practices. It has a “no-brand” policy, meaning you won’t see a name or logo on its wide variety of household and consumer goods (clothes, home furnishings, travel containers, etc.). Spending very little on traditional advertising, Muji’s success lies in word of mouth. The brand appeals to those drawn to clean aesthetics (read: design snobs). It is authentic in that its lack of a brand has become the brand.


On the other side of the Pacific, in Seattle, is 15th Avenue Coffee and Tea. Refurbished chairs, wine by the glass, treats from local bakeries...all the makings of an indie refuge. Though the wavy-haired goddess logo is nowhere to be found, its website says “Inspired by Starbucks”— roundabout speak for “owned by” the coffee giant. The atmosphere draws inspiration from the original Starbucks on Pike Place. But confusion as to why Starbucks buried the name prompted reactions that were skeptical, if not cynical. In opposition to the smattering of positive comments on the 15th Avenue blog, one particularly amped up individual said, “FRAUD!!!!!!!! FAKE!!!!!!!! PHONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” Somewhere Holden Caulfield is smiling.


brand_starbucks


Starbucks is the world’s largest coffeehouse chain. Backlash was to be expected, despite their embracing a local community. The café is a one-off...an experimentation with a specialty sub-brand. It’s an attempt to regain authenticity by better serving a local neighborhood and catering to customers disenchanted with the formulaic chain. Starbucks is certainly big enough to handle such an experiment and the accompanying criticism (despite increasing competition from lower-priced rivals, as this Huffington Post article notes.) Some found their behavior sneaky, but was it that different from when McDonald’s held majority ownership of Chipotle? Both are examples of fortune 500 players appealing to consumers seeking a different type of eating or dining experience.


Size notwithstanding, what distinguishes Muji from Starbucks is that its operations, product and marketing are inseparable. That’s why it doesn’t need to advertise. Few brands are so well aligned. So what value was gained in opening the 15th Avenue café? We don’t know just yet, but its store, product and marketing are at least on parallel tracks. I think it was wise to avoid the Starbucks logo. This is not an indie-looking Starbucks. It is a neighborhood coffee shop, one that supports and features local artists, musicians, poets...and even brings in tea masters to share their knowledge. Such behavior is supporting a new brand and vice versa. A second café is in the works.


And speaking of McDonald's...


In Part II of this series, I'll explore a logo-less move McDonald's performed last year while introducing the Quarter Pounder to the Japanese market. Stay tuned.




Jessica Berta    

Share this Post


                           

Comments


Brad Fredricks     Dec 31, 2009
I appreciate this post, but think that there are some major holes that should be identified.

First, Seattle is an interesting City, that ferments a hostile environment to their own beloved Queen of the grind. 15th is s local vibe. Many of the popular shops are small, being independently owned. People feel a connection and sense of ownership, often knowing the owners directly, and having a cultural intimacy with this small brands.

In Seattle, you have coffee shops like Coffee Messiah, that are excellent grinders and purveyors of some of the best cups of designer joe to be had. Brands like coffee messiah make it their job to be the cultural opposite of the mega brand, starbucks.

Literally, you can buy shirts in seattle that say, 'Fuck Starbucks'. You'd be hard pressed not to be able to find them, as multiple indy outlets, which are a staple of Seattles culture, provide them.

Hearing the "fraud, phony..." feedback is not a major bit of news. The reality is, often the minority detractors, are given the majorities credit. They're just loud enough to get the attention they desperately desire, but realistically don't deserve.

To summarize. You have a major brand breaking trail and doing a white labeled shop in an historically local and independent city, of course someone is going to bitch, but I have to wonder if you converted the number of complainers and chastisers to a number, and those that enjoyed and encourage this new experience, you'd see a fully marginal percent being the bitchers and moaners.

The thought that Starbucks wants to create a new experience, lightly affiliated with the giants brand, makes sense. I'd argue that the question of "un-branding" does not qualify for this. Their efforts to make a different experience would of been hampered had they closely affiliated. Consumer perceptions would of been created before they entered the building. Thus, removing a full on affiliation allows for social experimentation. If they want reliable information as to their experimentation, they had to disassociate. One event, is not the progenitor of many, although it could be a sign.

Your study of Muji, on the other hand, is a strong opportunity for discovery. A brand that has broken from the Al Riesian logic of '22 immutables' is a brand that is more in line with the future of consumerism, then the current behaviors of brand whores.

Furniture is, essentially, not about a brand. Its a about a design, and its function and psychology with space. We subconsciously love the couch that is a little deeper, with cushions a little softer. We all appreciate the Aeron office, ergonomically designed, that Miller brand transforms the essence of its brand to a tangible experience.

Muji's minimalism is maximum branding, down to its core identity. A white washing of logo's, by doing so, it puts its focus on the product, a focus on the experience the product creates. A focus on the products function in space, and time. If it is well made, it is timeless.

The fact that they've built a brand without a logo, does not make it a faceless brand, it just says that the brand is not a graphically observed experience, it is an actual felt experience. That's pretty rad when you think about it.

I own multiple Herman Miller items. Other then styling, you don't see any outward signs of its iconography. This does not make it a faceless brand, nor is it the white washing of one. It's furniture, which means its focus is on function. The brand is the experience, as most should be.

Interesting statement. 'The brandi s the experience'. That would elude to a great truth that most brands never get. The idea that most brands are never an experience, just a silly logo with a useless product. Seems like Starbucks is building an experiential brand. Seems like they've not lost anything, just gained an insight into an elevated experience, which elevates their brand.

Looking for examples of products and experiences with the province of a brand, that's an interesting case study. I thank you for provoking the thoughts.

duckman     Nov 27, 2009
this is a great article

Todd     Nov 12, 2009
You've got to pay Starbucks for not 'moderating' a comment like “FRAUD!!!!!!!! FAKE!!!!!!!! PHONY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!” though.

I think we should be encouraging creative experimentation by big companies - we might reap a richer culture overall if we did - given that big companies have such a high impact upon our collective space.

lelo     Nov 12, 2009
this is another example of no-logo philosophy

http://www.bertellibici.com

James     Nov 11, 2009
I'm with the Mariac. I think this is about corporate identity (one component of a brand) than anything else. Starbucks is just going through a refresh of its retail strategy which has included creating a flexible, less corporate identity for it's stores.

Brands are what you stand for.
Both Starbucks and Muji are very clear for what they stand for.
I know exactly what a Muji product looks like and stands for.
Neither of them are brandless.


Ian     Nov 11, 2009
Interesting post. I take the point about Muji, but the underlying principle is symptomatic of something that is only going to gain momentum in a socialised communication landscape.

Brand interaction will rapidly assume reputational precedence over branding which, after all is a consequence of the requirement to visually signpost brands in a mass media context). Where there are one-to-one episodes, its all about the conversational experience and not how the conversation appears to be.

So the ambition among brands will be to create 'signature brand interactions' - just like Google has by securing patent to its homepage design. Naturally, I blogged on it here - http://newtraditionalist.co.uk/?p=400 - I hope you don't mind the vulgar plug?!

Nonetheless, its not all digital of course, so how you marry digital and offline interaction design represents a fascinating challenge for any designer in future.

Peter     Nov 11, 2009
In this transparent world we live in, brands will succeed by being authentic to their core values and culture. A clear, well executed brand promise brings those core values and culture to the fore. Muji does this in spades. Starbucks is in experimentation mode.

conrad     Nov 11, 2009
Great post! This is an interesting phenomenon given how much time, energy and money gets put into branding and marketing globally. We’re on perpetual mission to concoct the perfect mix of brand + message + media + experience (or whatever you subscribe to ☺). But this mission is largely predicated on starting with a brand (and logo). What’s so interesting about this example is how they’re still creating a “brand” and an “experience” without all of the usual advertising tomfoolery.

Conversely, one could argue that “non-brand” is, in fact, a brand, and also a marketing tool. We’re discussing it now, aren’t we? Like Freshjive, anyone going rogue (aka brandless) will benefit from conversations like this one. Until, like all things, big brands goof it up by treating it as a trend to get it on.


Mel Exon     Nov 11, 2009
Nice post. A golden rule is 'be transparent'. You can't get accused of 'fake' if you're upfront about what you're doing. That doesn't have to mean shouting it from the rooftops before you're ready - with British Airways we created http://www.Metrotwin.com (a social utility that twins major cities - NY and Mumbai so far - with London, British Airway's home). We set out from the very start to be open about the fact it was 'powered by British Airways' and were also clear the site was in beta and we were learning as we went.

Even if your intentions are nothing other than honourable (perhaps you're experimenting with something new & not sure how it will turn out, but are hoping for the best) if a community perceives you are hiding the origins / backing behind a project, they invariably react badly. The opposite seems to be true (at least judging from the positive reaction we got to Metrotwin) if you're upfront. I'd add, the bigger the brand, the more important this seems to be. If this sounds like common sense, great. Sadly, some brands see a risk attached to transparency and - ironically - take a bigger risk with their reputation by avoiding it.

Johnny     Nov 10, 2009
I'm sure you already have this on your list too, but just in case there's also the recent logo-less bottle from ABSOLUT.

“For the first time we dare to face the world completely naked. We launch a bottle with no label and no logo, to manifest the idea, that no matter what’s on the outside, it’s the inside that really matters. The bottle visually manifests our belief in diversity and our standpoint when it comes to sexual identities. Off course it is also a wonderful piece of delicate and minimalist design, a true collectors item”. via http://tr.im/EIlX

@jeccaberta     Nov 10, 2009
Thanks for the feedback all. @Jeff: I fear you're telepathic. I've looked at Freshjive as well and will be exploring it in the follow-up post for this series.

Jeff     Nov 10, 2009
Muji is definitely a unique example, because as you point out, the brand is so well aligned from operations to marketing. At it's core is minimalism, so why would they bother with an unnecessary brand?

On the flip side, I recently read about the fashion brand FreshJive which recently moved to a brand-less approach (http://bit.ly/1HRyTC). In this case it seems to be more of a publicity stunt than a marketing strategy. Transparency is everything when it comes to re-branding, and Starbucks will need an awful lot of that to de-brand it's stores and make this a long-term strategy.

mariac     Nov 10, 2009
Muji is a brand, that simply doesn't go brandless, though it goes logo-less. It is a common mistake to see brands as logos, though brands are much more than their visual representation. Said this, Muji preserves its brand identity by infusing its own principles in the design. By doing so, each muji product can be easily identified as being part of the muji range, they are clean in design, eco-friendly for choice of materials, pure and functional. Chairs like this http://www.loprestisedie.com/public/upload/-4483398791.jpg don't need any logo to be identified and therefore are capable of transferring good associations to its maker, namely Thonet.


Speak






Submit »