Seat at the Table

Marc Babej bring’s up an interesting point that goes beyond Kodak changing their logo - a logo change is not their problem. The merit’s of the design aside, fixing a logo before fixing a company simply means spending money on a new brand look that will be associated with the old brand message (i.e., broken company). Or, as Mike Bawden of Much Ado About Marketing says, “their logo is the last thing they need to worry about.”.

I agree. But it’s also the easiest thing to worry about and fix (assuming you don’t care if the new logo still represents a broken strategy).

All too often broken companies or broken product lines seek to fix things by changing the brand and launching new meaningless PR campaigns about the “new” company with the “new” strategy. The the more successful companies focus on strong new branding after fixing the business and product problems. And the best PR and marketing counsel follows this line (note: I’ve been found guilty of not doing so).

How often are PR and marketing executives pushing back with the counsel that public relations, marketing, branding etc is most effective - and a far better investment - when it tells a true, substantive story (the company really does have better products as measured by the public market, really is restructured in a new focus area as measured yb product development etc)?

To make a comparison, Enrons aside, I’ve found that corporate lawyers and acc0untants push back far more often than our profession if they feel the wrong strategy is being requested by senior management. And guess which functions have more respect for their counsel.