When some companies hit a downturn, those in charge instinctively begin to reinvent themselves

Big mistake.

Too often, companies are treating the symptom and not the cause. Usually, a lack of brand focus is the problem. An example of sharp brand focus is Volvo.

When you think car safety, you think Volvo. Sure, safety isn’t the trigger for everyone shopping for an auto. But for the segment of the market that cares most about safety, Volvo is its brand. The company seizes every opportunity to remind them of it.

When you check out this video, you know it can only be about Volvo.

Consistency of message is how brands become real. Companies that understand that find the emotional undercurrent that is unclaimed in the market and ring that bell as loud as possible.

Brands doing this become unmistakable, unforgettable and coveted.

Companies that find themselves in need of frequent change should look to the example of Volvo.

There are many fascinating things about consumer behavior and their effect on brand preference. One of the most interesting is how quickly tides can shift and how the apple of a consumer’s eye quickly becomes rotten.

The most recent example of this is Facebook. Sure, there are still legions of loyal followers, but, since the first whiff of negativity from its IPO, we’ve seen a constant barrage about its long-term viability, usership on the decline, lawsuits, negative press, you name it. The same happened with Netflix when it attempted Qwikster. Almost overnight, the angry mobs grabbed their pitchforks, where just a few days earlier they would have sung Netflix’s praises. Yes, consumers love you when your hot, but is cold comfort.

Customers are emotional. They are human. This is why, when rebranding companies, we find the highest emotional intensity in the market. The higher the intensity, the more willing a consumer is to switch to you and the more loyal your current customers become. Never take for granted decisions that your customers will remain loyal if your brand is not aligned with that intensity. Loyalty is created by consistent and intense brand meaning. If you are not consistent, the intensity you have built will come crashing down. If your brand strays, so too will the customer.

So take heed brands. Make your decisions wisely and, above all, respect the power of an emotionally intensive brand. The decisions you make have a great effect on it.

I live among a family of health nuts.

Whether they’re seeking the benefits of taking a long hike, going on a juice fast or contemplating a vegetarian diet, my family is keen when it comes to the matters of treating your body well.

So, in my desire to be one of the group, I tend to enjoy seeking out what may tickle the nourishment needs of my flesh and blood. Needless to say, when I noticed POM Wonderful hitting the news of late, I was intrigued. But as I dug deeper, my intrigue quickly turned sour.

For those of you unfamiliar with this “Super Juice” (as its site claims), POM Wonderful is made with a pomegranate base and sports a medley of blends.

Here is the problem. POM Wonderful has made powerful claims that its juice can be a risk reducer for heart disease, prostate cancer and impotence before having the evidence to back those claims. Turns out, as the New York Times reported, “an administrative law judge has issued a cease and desist order… [and that] The order will remain in effect for the next 20 years.” Adding, “[the order] was issued after a Federal Trade Commission complaint filed two years earlier which contending that POM Wonderful had engaged in false and misleading advertising.”

And so, POM Wonderful is now in dire need of rebranding as it has found themselves in a precarious position.

Why?

Because POM Wonderful is a healthy alternative as well as being beneficial for your body. The problem is that it has tarnished its image by making unsubstantiated claims and now have very little breathing room to prosper — and it should prosper as few juices have such rich levels of natural antioxidants.

There are several reasons to rebrand. The most obvious one is to grow market share. But one of them is to shed a negative image because the equity in the current brand has been tainted. You don’t want to overreact, but it’s something POM Wonderful should consider when caught in this net. On the other end of the health spectrum, the cigarette industry has actually done a pretty good job of rebranding to shed its image. So has AIG and others.

(The one that hasn’t: Radio Shack. “Radio” certainly constituted an old technology in terms of meaning, but rebranding to “The Shack” wasn’t the solution.)

My advice. When building your brand, never attempt to be what you are not, but embrace what it is that you are. POM Wonderful has attempted to be what it is not and now its brand is paying the price.

Despite a turnaround in its image, messaging and overall brand, JCPenny has not done well so far this year. My message to JCPenney, however: Stay the course, and focus on the long term.

JCPenney’s rebranding to “fair and square” is a good one if only for the fact that it positions JCPenney against the competition. Suggested in the themeline is that the rest are not fair and square, which may tap into consumers’ belief that other retailers bilk them. It touches on an idea that is steeped with a bit more emotion, a first step in establishing a brand. What is refreshing about the move is the operational changes JCPenney has made to reinforce the new language.

Even though there is slow change, the rebranding positions JCPenney positively for multiple reasons.

First, it creates greater distinction in defining who the brand is for. It is for those who value fairness.

“Fair and square” has been taking a hit so far, with most of that hit being attributed to JCPenney’s elimination of coupons and replacing them with fairer prices.

Sure, this change might cause some coupon’ers to stop shopping at JCPenney but a coupon’er is only loyal to the coupon, not the brand. They are deal shoppers and, most often, the least brand loyal by defintion.

While “fair and square” has lost some of these customers, with constancy of message, it will begin attracting new ones in their place. Think of it this way: Those of us who do not coupon, believe that, if I need to coupon, that means the listed price is not fair. The building of preference for JCPenney will slowly build with those who are not necessarily looking for the lowest price (which those who coupon are), but the fairest.

Secondly, JCPenney is taking steps to make “fair and square” more than just talk. It is easy to say something. It is much more difficult to put it into action. An intensive marketing message can draw customers, but, if it is not backed up with action to reinforce that message, customers soon become the wiser. It is better to be trusted by customers and represent nothing than to try to stand for something and it not be true. JCPenney is taking a bold step with its brand and it shows it understands its importance by the actions it is taking to make its new messaging believed.

Lastly, it is different. The initial downturn for JCPenney proves the point that those who coupon are not brand loyal. And, to coupon, you must believe that all retailers are the same. Fortunately for JCPenney, there is value in putting a stake in the ground. It provides direction and creates a brand identity.

A brand rarely changes the market overnight. Often marketers become nervous and make an about-face at the first sign of trouble. JCPenney must stay committed and remember that the changes it has made make a brand. It doesn’t want to revert back to simply being a store.

Yahoo’s Scott Thompson is stepping down. The swinging door reminds me of the Union leadership during the Civil War. There were so many changes in generalship that the average enlisted man could barely keep count. Each was shown the door by a less than impressed Abe Lincoln — hoping he would eventually find someone who could beat General Lee.

Until Lincoln found U.S. Grant, each promising general fought the war according to standard practices of the day. And each ran from the battlefield, tail between his legs after that old grey fox, R.E. Lee, bested them again. The stakes for Lincoln were high. He had to find a way to beat Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia or the game might be up.

Yahoo is in the same life and death struggle. It doesn’t need a new CEO. It needs a new approach to the battle and it needs to find a way to beat an enemy (Google) that so far has won every battle.

Will Yahoo succeed and win?

What Yahoo needs is to rebrand, desperately. I am not talking about a name change. I am talking about a new strategy that delivers a meaningful relationship with its search engine.

Rebranding is not just a marketing ploy. It is a cultural shift in thinking that challenges all of the assumptions of the past and moves with alacrity and vigor towards a new vision for who they are and what they need to accomplish. These secrets will not be found by the “smartest guys in the room” but they will need to be embraced by the very same.

Grant understood Lee’s weakness and doggedly pursued his celebrated rival until the tide of war had turned. Yahoo will win or lose depending on how out of the box it is willing to go, who it puts in charge, and its willingness to rebrand. Anything less and it will fade away to become another “Lotus” — a company instrumental in the formative days but obsolete in the new ways of computing.

With news that Google is developing futuristic glasses as well as a possible competitor version made by Oakley, it seems everyone uses the word “smart” when describing high-tech products. These are being called “smart glasses” or “smart goggles.” While this moniker has only been attributed by the media so far, my recommendation to both Google and Oakley is to create another category name. “Smart” just is not that smart anymore. 

When it came to tech, “smart” once meant something. It seemed to imply simplicity, innovation, and change. Thanks to the TV and phone industries, however, the word now seems hollow and thrown away.

For the past two years, “smart” televisions and set-top devices have been all the to-do. It was a promise made by the industry with words that never actually translated into action. Every manufacturer touted its own version of how it perceived “smart” and it all turned out to be rather dumb. There was equity in being “smart,” but when words do not translate into action, they become meaningless. It is for this reason we tell companies we rebrand that they are better off executing none of our strategies if they are not willing to perform the operations that make it true.

“Smart” in many ways has been relegated to a buzzword, like synergy or streamline in business speak. You can use it as a filler, but you never want to use it for substance.

My message to Google and Oakley, don’t let the media paint your glasses with the tarred brush that the television market created. Define the category and give it meaning. Right now, “smart” glasses look like glasses with apps. My imagination, however, would like to imagine so much more than that.

IKEA has a new line coming. Its name is UPPLEVA and it is essentially a home entertainment solution with a natural approach to smart TV. A perfect choice for a company whose brand is about simple, clean and designed.

The new design features a TV connected to a stand. Within the stand are speakers, media players and hidden wires while the entire unit is controlled by a single remote. The idea is both interesting and absolutely fitting for the IKEA brand.

Much of the smart TV discussion is about how to revolutionize television, such as adding 3D, increasing refresh rates and pixel density, etc. The discussion has always been about how to make TV smart rather than focusing on making the viewer smart. IKEA, however, is brand aware enough to realize the latter is where equity lies. Herein lies the secret sauce of successful brands: Focus.

When we harp on brands such as Best Buy, it is because the moves they make are not single-minded and, therefore, not very meaningful. Think about the paradox of choice (where the fewer choices you have the less remorse you have for the decision). For many brands, they try to be everything to everybody which means, in the end, they are for nobody.

For example, as much I think UPPLEVA is on brand strategy, it is not for me. I am a bit too much of an audiophile to not have complete control over my audio setup. When it comes to my home “mainframe,” I end up making the cords and other materials into “beautiful complexity.” The fact that IKEA does not let segments of the market like me affect choices like the UPPLEVA means it understands it’s just as important to know who you are not for as it is who you are for.

IKEA’s new UPPLEVA TV solution may or may not be a big seller. But when I see it, it is simple, clean and designed. That constant commitment to the focus of the brand is what makes it so recognizable and coveted.

A telltale sign of the power of a brand, especially in retail, is its scarcity. The more scarce something is the more it is desired. Too often, companies overextend themselves. (In another market, think of Krispy Kreme or Boston Market.) The same cannot be said for the IKEA’s and Apple’s of the world. So while the UPPLEVA might not be the TV for me, I am still looking forward to experiencing it on my next visit to IKEA.

Over the past year or so, retailer Best Buy has been trying to establish a presence in the used game market. The transition has not been immediate. Over time, it has established a small pre-owned section, dedicated game trade-in kiosks in the store, and a subscription-based game magazine. Best Buy has done a relatively decent job getting itself up to speed on the table stakes needed to compete, but now it needs refocus its brand if it ever wants to get an edge over the 800-pound gorilla, GameStop.

I say this primarily because of something I noticed this week. On Sunday, I was in a Best Buy and noticed a big advertisement that, for one week only, it was offering 50% additional trade-in credit for games. On Monday, I was on the other side of town and noticed, plastered on the window of a GameStop, that, wouldn’t you know it, GameStop was offering 50% trade-in credit for game trades for one week only.

A word to Best Buy, GameStop is watching and has the ability to match whatever great offer you create to get game trades through the door. The impetus for traders must come from something other then a percentage of credit. It has to also be in tandem with a brand that says why you are offering the discount and why it should be important to customers.

Best Buy’s “Thousands of Possibilities. Get Yours.” brand position had a bit of that potential, but it’s not nearly emotional enough.

The difficult part of entering into the used game business is not location, customers, or even prices. Those are problems that arise down the road. The problem before you even get on the road is inventory. You can’t sell pre-owned games if you have no stock to sell, and inventory is something GameStop has plenty of. Best Buy’s pre-owned section is small. BestBuy’s used section could fill a small single row of shelves while GameStop can fill a store.

Best Buy’s game trade effort is a lesson in confusing table stakes with a reason to choose. If price is the only deciding factor (and inventory), then GameStop will win every time. Best Buy is in desperate need of a rebrand. It needs to uncover a meaningful idea within the market and claim it. That’s the way it can beat GameStop at its own game.

GameStop’s success certainly proves there is a market for pre-owned games, but not if the switching triggers are category table stakes. Then again, my belief is that, regardless of deals, inventory, and customer loyalty, both GameStop and Best Buy will both face future challenges when the industry transitions to digital distribution.

It’s only a matter of time until that happens and only a meaningful and different brand can create preference during the transition.

Design books rarely tickle my fancy, yet, when I recently perused Stylepedia: A guide to graphic design mannerisms, quirks, and conceits recently, I was hooked. The chapter that grabbed me was entitled, “Pastiche”. For those like me who are unfamiliar with the definition of “pastiche”, it means: “a dramatic, literary, or musical piece openly imitating the works of previous artists.” Which is a perfect title for the selection. I found the chapter an absolute gem as it conveyed an engrossing explanation on the laziness of brands reusing vintage concepts.

Traditionally, when companies reuse nostalgic imagery, it draws upon our sentimental feelings of the past. (Pepsi “Throwback”, anyone?) But the bigger question remains — does the reemergence of vintage design symbolize a lack of branding smarts? I believe it does.

As stated in Stylepedia, the initial re-exposure to vintage concepts is indeed a sentimental experience, but doing so alludes to a lack of fresh concepts, modern brand recognition, and moreover “courage, inspiration or ingenuity.”

Noted by Debbie Millman (a brand expert and also the director of the Sterling Group) in Stylepedia:

“I think that the brand is suffering from ‘no new-news’ situation, and thus management is trying to drum up any reason possible for consumers – and/or the media – to take notice. While the packaging had a certain charm to it, there was no real ‘reason’ for doing it other than to (potentially) tug at older consumers heartstrings waxing for anything nostalgic.”

It’s hard to not agree with these sentiments. While there are absolutely brands whose look and feel can stand the test of time (Classic Coca-Cola bottles, Converse All-Stars and Heinz, for instance), these are companies whose brands are at the forefront of their respective markets. More than not, the followers of those market leaders only appear weak when they rely on their past, rather than examining the endless possibilities of their future.

Nostalgia only works if a yearning for that bygone time – and what it means in context of the market – has the highest emotional intensity in the market. More often than not, however, it’s just lazy rebranding.

With sales of $8.5 billion in 2011, Wendy’s just the claimed number 2 spot, moving ahead of Burger King but was well short of McDonald’s $34.2 billion. This second place battle of the pygmies needs to find greater meaning in the market if either ever wants a crack at McDonalds.

My worry for Wendy’s is that its rise will prompt it to confuse activity with accomplishment. Yes, from a marketing perspective, Wendy’s is doing things, but its rise has been relative to Burger King’s inconsistent execution of any strategy.

Most of our battles at Stealing Share when rebranding companies is changing the internal mindset of those companies. Positive news, like Wendy’s received, provides a false sense of security. Fortune favors the bold and, if my past experience has taught me anything, it is that a third place Wendy’s would be strategically more bold than a second place Wendy’s.

Strategically, Wendy’s should set its sights on the white whale: McDonald’s. At the moment, however, it seems to be doing the same as Burger King by marketing product instead of brand. Copy in a recent Wendy’s ads goes: “No matter who you are, Wendy’s will make a Dave’s Hot and Juicy Cheeseburger fresh just for you, so its special, just like you.” Give me a moment while I my eyes stop rolling. Beyond its campy verbiage, it provides no switching trigger for the customer. Does anyone believe they would be refused service when they go to a fast food restaurant? Or that a competitor will not make hamburgers?

McDonald’s has been successful due to its message clarity, consistency and firm brand meaning of “fun.” In fact, that brand promise is represented as an experience rather then product.

Wendy’s is certainly in a good position. Number two is nothing to scoff at. But it will take focus to clear the gap with McDonalds and being able to spot the pivotal brand difference between its brand  and the Mickey-Dee one.