One very, very, skunked beer brand.
For those who aren’t familiar, skunking is a flaw that can occur in beers (usually non-American beers because of the preferences across the pond). All beers contain hops, which is what gives beer it’s bitterness, and gives the beer a “fruity” aroma which can only be described in one eloquently formed word: hoppy. Essentially the chemicals found in hops interact with other chemicals in the beer when they are hit by light, and are transformed into a more sulfurous compound, giving off a significantly “stinkier” smell. Green and blue light are the worst offenders, which is why so many companies choose brown glass to store beer rather than green or blue glass (which only block one or the other) or clear glass (which blocks nothing).
So, to recap: beer + light = gross. (unless you find it gross anyway, in which case just think “worse than usual”)
That said, one thing can be said about the brand created when InBev purchased Anheuser Busch: it got skunked. The UnderConsideration BrandNew blog has images up of the new… logo? It’s not for the weak of heart, so cover your children’s eyes and carry away the tender ones. It appears that they’ve taken all of the good associations that Anheuser had with it’s product, history, and tradition and have replaced them with some janky web 2.0 vector illustrations. Gone is the ornamentation of the “A” that we all associate with the longstanding tradition of Anheuser, a brand 148 years old (1860). That letter screamed of tradition and time, recalling the art-deco period. Now the type screams “corporate”, it has little to no personality, and the swish connecting the A and B in “ABInBev” seems to have no rationale. It’s like someone said, “hey, I bet we could make the loop of the B from the crossbar on the A. The cut off on the V is no better or logical. And, the worst offense of all, was taking the traditional, artistically rendered eagle and replacing it with that janky illustration that screams of modern web 2.0 branding. Examples you say? Firefox. Mailchimp. (both brands done by the same source) Skype. The telltale signs that it’s a brand related to web 2.0 include animals, arbitrary gradients, and vector artwork. Sometimes it works well. The three previously mentioned logos and illustrations do a great job conveying to the user that those are technology based products. Last time I checked, beer was not a digital product. I know some people try, but it’s not.
So what we’re left with is a new brand that says nothing about the products it sells or the tradition behind brewing those products. It speaks nothing to the history with it’s customers, and it cares nothing to carry on with what was good about the original. It tosses out logic in favor of a fleeting “contemporary” approach that will do nothing for it. This brand was skunked.
Sometimes, it’s best NOT to brand.
Thanks to my friend Rob, I stumbled upon this little doozy today. (although I didn’t StumbleUpon it… but that’s another lesson for another time…) At it’s core, the five minute short explores what Starbucks would be like if it were marketed like a church. The result is somewhere between amusing and indicting.
At the end of the video, it left me pondering what it meant. What does the video actually say, and what action should be taken to resolve the problems it addresses. In the end, I’ve settled upon the idea that churches just shouldn’t brand. (sorry Kingsway, this isn’t to pick on you, my church is a sister church and we’re equally guilty on the branding side of things) The problem, as I see it, is that the church acts as though it now has a product to sell, and the way that the “marketing” is handled not only betrays the core values but it also dissuades new membership, creates a sense of exclusivity, and comes across as disingenuous.
The clip clearly illustrates these points.
The reason that I think branding should be dropped is because it misses the point. Churches, it seems, should be welcoming, encouraging, and loving without an initiative. Greeters are often used to put a face on the church to help new people, but I wonder if new people should not only feel welcome but shouldn’t feel lost when they enter the building. I recognize the necessity and good that comes from complex church buildings: extra study space, room for congregants to have community, a place for kids to stay off the street. But perhaps by emphasizing these things and “marketing” the benefits of the church, we’ve made it much harder to discover the reason for coming: the sanctuary.
It also seems to be a contradiction that the church has something to sell, and it strikes people as disingenuous in the same way that used car salesmen do. It seems that so many people have a snake-oil salesman perception of church leaders, and it seems to me that the cause of this is the focus on marketing that churches take. It seems that churches work so hard to sell people on their goodness, that they don’t take a minute to look in the mirror and see that they’ve been going for the hard sale. In the process, the “customer” is turned off to the purchase, and “yeah… we’ll be back next week… sure…” As the clip demonstrated, we want them to sign the dotted line, and in return we assume they want something they already have. We barely give them the coffee because we’re so worried about the mug.
Perhaps the worst part is the sense of exclusivity that the church can also breed. As a critical observation, rather than a judgement, it seems like we create the image that we’re a club. People drive around with stickers on their cars endorsing apple, political parties, and… church? The problem with “advertising” the church like that is that it creates competition. Us vs. Them. Apple vs. PC. Republicans vs. Democrats. Our church vs. …. you?
All of this led me to the conclusion that it might just be best to let go of branding the church and to return to the work of the church: service. That’s the single thing that Starbucks does right that the church should work toward. Forget the slogans, the “mood-setting”, the advertising, the sales team. Focus on service. Sometimes it’s just best not to brand.