Brand Maintenance

Does the partnership between KFC and the Susan G Komen Foundation make sense? For either brand? Such a partnership worked very well in the case of McDonald's and the Olympics. The fast-food chain's choice to partner with the Olympics- the epitome of an event and brand that symbolizes health- is just one of the many steps taken to maintain popularity among the increasingly healthy American population. Still, many question this campaign because it seems the only common denominator they share is the word breast.


In this case, I don't believe consumers will lose any affection for the Susan G Komen foundation for partnering with a large national chain that has the media budget to bring in the biggest donation ever for the foundation. KFC's "A bucket for the cure" campaign has a goal to raise over $8 million dollars by donating 50 cents for every bucket of chicken sold.

In this marriage, who is the parasite? Who is more in need of the other when each needs different things - one dollars and one a boost in brand identity? At first glance, the brand values do not align. KFC is just one contributor to the country's obesity problem where 1/3 of American adults are considered obese. On the other side, there is Susan G Komen who is most known for their Race for the Cure event, raising money and awareness for breast cancer. In my opinion, Susan G Komen is reaping more than she sows. The lending of her name will put millions in her pocket.

Whether it makes sense on the surface or not, I cannot deny that when first entertained by the campaign's commercial, I had positive thoughts about KFC. That is probably the first time I could say "positive" and "KFC" in the same sentence. It is a brand I did not find relevant to my lifestyle nor did I believe they were socially concerned. One campaign will not get me to change my complete perception of the brand or get me to start buying their product, but I do believe it is a good first step in revitalizing their brand identity.


Sometimes as a brand it's not about creating, but maintaining what you have already built and making changes around it.

Brand strategists can be guilty of jumping to solutions before truly uncovering the problem. No one will know the success of the campaign until brand tracking is done. My guess is this campaign was a result of KFC's last brand tracking results.

When brand tracking, we consider reporting on things such as awareness, usage, brand attitudes, perceptions, and purchase intent. But with a brand being an experience living at the intersection of promise and expectation, it would only make sense to track consumer experiences as well. KFC can't just say it, but must do it. The messaging must translate interally as well as externally. If employees call BS, so will the consumer.

KFC's brand maintenance attempt may take some additional clean up... the brand and the counters.

Renaming the Brand

Company naming. Product naming. The paper shredder.

Five days out of the week, that about sums up my daily physical and conversational interaction. But seven days a week involves some variety of conversation relating to personal name change, as my fiancee and I prepare for that uniting day. Yes, you could say the Steichen "brand" is growing, as I've found a partner I could not be happier with and believes in my brand enough to take on its school debt.

Every brand has a story. No matter what a name is representing, a person or product/service, it has something it's representing and a reputation it continues to build and sustain. Our culture is littered like the LA streets with names that are a result of rebranding. Did you know Shania Twain was once Eilleen Regina Edwards? Alice Cooper was Vincent Damon Furnier? Accenture was Anderson Consulting?

With all of the soft and hard costs to consider when renaming, the diagram below shows some of the similarities between corporate and personal renaming.

Brand Names Battle

We don't often think about what the names GAP or Sony really mean. We just know what they stand for. These brand names have become a staple in American, and for some, world culture. It's fun to think about why someone would name an athletic apparel company, Mizuno. Or why a company that deals with hardware is called Microsoft.

I picked some well-known brand names and placed them in a tournament bracket to evaluate some reasons why I think some are more effective than others.

"What We Think About Is What We Talk About"

I wish I thought about what GOOD magazine writes about. Instead, my thoughts are like a Redbull Vodka, the depressant (daily duties) and stimulate (future optimism) counteracting when the 5 am alarm chirps good morning.

Having been involved in Special Olympics, subscribing to GOOD magazine, and recycling, I sometimes feel I'm contributing to the bigger picture. Short lived. Until I hop into my GNC Envoy to go pick up more computer paper and bottled water. My thoughts are often jumbled between my immediate concerns and surroundings, and what life I want to lead and leave behind for younger Steichen generations. Having taken the Strength Finders 2.0 test by Tom Rath, which I suggest grabbing a copy of, I was reminded that futuristic is one of my five strengths (along with developer, competition, strategic, and empathy).

Given that, my thoughts paused from thinking about food and sports for a couple minutes and wondered, are consumers or corporations the influential group to start social change? Consumers voice wants and needs, but aren't often in position to make new environmental or political change without provided an alternative option. Corporations have R&D, resources, and ad budgets to take a responsible approach. Those that are proactive such as GE will succeed, their thought bubble is much bigger than my average consumer bubble is.

I'm impressed by a new and upcoming clothing company in my backyard called, Holy Cow. Their brand promise stands on sustainable methods from production to product. By developing sustainable practices in third world countries, companies like this are changing what we wear and changing how we think to better business.

Private Label Competing On More Than Price

Private labels have always been perceived as the lower quality but cheaper alternative, benefitting retailers with high profit margins and low marketing costs. No more are private labels a 'me too' product. They are now equalizing major brand names in quality and becoming a trend leader with category leading design.

Costco has created a desired private label in Kirkland Signature, with its name on clothes, food, office furniture, and everything in-between. They continue to bring in consumers with major brand names like Sony and Crest, but make no mistake, they are building trust and loyalty with their Kirkland brand.

Their innovative design reminded me of Method. Kirkland may be more focused on functionality while Method is focused on aesthetic appeal, but they both have identified an open space in the market. Method made hand soap and shower cleaner bottles that consumers wanted to have sitting out. Kirkland has made square shaped milk cartons and detergent bottles that save space in the fridge and on the shelf.



Beyond bringing added value to the consumer, they are achieving pallet efficiencies and cutting internal costs for Costco. By changing the packaging from a circular to square shape, Costco could get more on a pallet, saving 600 truck loads a year. Retailers are now taking the time to rethink the way they are utilizing their brand. Target has recently renamed their private label, Up and Up. How many years in the making was this insightful name being thrown around in meetings? I would guess not as long as you think.

With private labels now battling the giants in quality and continuing to be in the drivers seat for price, how will the Tide's and Charmin's fight back and sustain their shelf space? With private labels addressing environmental friendly products and staying ahead of the curve, will this make it increasingly difficult for new brands to break-in? Would the cost be too great?