Marketing Morons

We’re all familiar with companies that screw up their brands — Bud Lite coff coff — and I often wonder how they stay in business.

Chief among these offenders are companies which change their logo, a change which may not only cause customer confusion at the moment, but which can screw up future brand recognition as well.

One shining example of when it’s a good idea to change one’s logo is that of Federal Express, abbreviating that (unnecessarily-long) name to simply “FedEx” — and it made sense because ta-da!  that’s what their customers had been calling them for years anyway.  (And adding colors to differentiate the various services:  genius.)


And to be honest, FedEx hasn’t made that many mistakes anyway, over their relatively-short corporate history.

That makes sense.  But this one doesn’t.

WH Smith has left shoppers baffled after dropping ‘Smith’ from its signs in a trial rebrand. The High Street retailer has shortened the signs to simply state ‘WHS’ in a move that has confused customers.

The sign now consists of the three letters ‘WHS’ in a white font on a blue background, dropping the surname of William Henry Smith, who turned his father’s business into a nationwide concern.

I should point out that the stationery company has been known as WH Smith since 1846.  (It was originally founded by WH’s father in 1792.)  This is not a heritage to be messed with.  The change is massive;  it goes from this:


…which everybody knows, even internationally, to this:


…wherein the sign would idiotically incorporate the name of the town, as though customers would be unaware of where they are.

All that said, however, there may be some hope:

A spokesperson for WH Smith said the new signs were designed in mind to raise awareness of the range of products sold by the company.

He added that there were currently no plans to roll the new design out to further stores.

What fucking bullshit.  How does shortening the company name increase awareness of the product range?  More to the point, who was the moron who came up with this idea?

Here’s the thing.  “WH Smith” is inextricably linked with things like books, stationery, newspapers and such.  Yes, they sell other stuff such as toys and games — but mostly it’s paper and paper-related products, and it’s what they’ve been known for since the nineteenth century.

What are they going to do to their product range that would make so fundamental a change necessary?  Expand into tools and hardware?  Clothing and perfumes?  Garden furniture?

You see, that’s the problem right there.  It’s because WH Smith is so linked with paper and publications that it might be difficult to tell customers that “Oh no, we don’t just sell newspapers, we also sell motor cars and cookware!”

One ironclad marketing rule is that you never mess with your core brand’s identity — New Coke, anyone? — but if you want to expand your product offering, you do it under a new brand.  It’s why Procter & Gamble doesn’t sell Pampers tampons, even though Pampers and Always are part of the same corporate entity, and often manufactured under the same roof.  Most consumers, by the way, are blissfully unaware that the two products are made by the same corporation, nor should they or anyone else care, because it’s irrelevant.

So if WH Smith wanted to branch out and extend their product offering — and there’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily — they would need to separate the non-stationery items under a new brand, and preferably in a new location altogether.  Frying pans ain’t magazines, Bubba, and they require a different approach altogether.

FFS:  this is Marketing 101 stuff, and I feel like I’m explaining the need for personal hygiene to kindergartners.  I’m sure there are all sorts of Smart Young Things at the Swindon headquarters of WH Smith — pardon me, WHS — who would love to bend my ear about The Need For Change, and Not Letting Your Brand Become A Dinosaur and every other marketing trope (I nearly said “tripe”, which would have been equally appropriate).

I would have thought that said Bright Young Things might have learned from the debacle of New Coke — yeah, I know, but that was such a Long Time Ago and Times Have Changed, Old Man — but it pains me to think that they couldn’t even learn from the very recent debacle of Bud Lite, whose dolorous ripples are still being felt even as I write this.

The problem, you see, is that Marketing always has to stay relevant.  That’s what is taught, and it’s regarded as gospel — when in fact it really isn’t.  The core principle of marketing — Never Fuck With Your Brand — is about as unyielding, and as timeless, as the principles contained in The Gods Of The Copybook Headings.

Then again, the latter are also regarded as old-fashioned nonsense nowadays, so perhaps this whole “WHS” nonsense is unsurprising.

I just hope that this “WHS rebrand experiment” remains just that, and is tossed into the trashcan quickly.

Many A True Word

…spoken in jest, as the saying goes.  Here’s the jest:

…and here are the true words.

Back when I was a business consultant, I belonged to a share group of same-industry consultants who would meet twice a year at some pleasure spot (#BusinessDeduction) to swap stories, pass on potential leads and so on.

I was moaning about a recent catastrophe which had befallen me (details unimportant, but “fuckwit client” will suffice), when everyone at the table laughed, and one of the guys said:

“Never take on a gig when the client CEO has a Harvard MBA.”

And it’s true.  Not only are these ivory-tower assholes devoid of any true business sense, but the Harvard MBA must be a pretty shitty course, judging by their track record in the real world that I swam around in.  (That particular company failed, spectacularly, and the CEO left the country for a while.)

The only reason I can think of for anyone to get an MBA is if their undergrad course didn’t include things like Accounting, Stat or Marketing.

Proper Attire

Oh FFS, this just takes the cake:

British Airways bosses have apologized for telling cabin crew members what bras to wear under new ‘transparent’ uniforms which led to comments from passengers.
The see-through blouses were issued as part of a new uniform, unveiled earlier this year, designed to ‘take the airline into the next chapter’ and for a non-binary crew.
Last year BA relaxed the rules around its strict uniform policy and went gender-neutral to allow male pilots and crew to wear make-up and carry handbags.

Lemme just deal with the low-hanging fruit first.

  • Companies have every right to create a “uniform” policy, and to dictate what does and does not constitute “proper” clothing under that policy
  • the corollary is that if the uniform consists of “transparent” clothing, they also have the right to set policy for “proper” undergarments
  • but if they do specify transparent clothing, they deserve everything that comes to them.

Now for the ugly stuff.

I’m sick and fucking tired of companies feeling that they have to apologize to their employees for bullshit like this.  Were the topic that of terrible salaries, foul working conditions and in short things that deserve corporate groveling, okay;  but for causing hurt feeewings?  Screw that.

But in to the topic at hand.

Nothing would make me question the capabilities of an airline’s crew faster than the whole thing turning into some kind of costume party, with the “men” wearing clown makeup and the “women” wearing no bra under a transparent blouse (although at first glance the latter wouldn’t seem too bad, please consider that the average age of trolley-dollies now appears to be 50, and all seem to have been recruited from branches of the Ugly Tree).

And frankly, I’m not sure I want to see any of the flight crew wearing transparent clothing, given that said crew will likely include girlymen and butchygirls, all of indeterminate gender.

I don’t know why I bother fulminating about this stuff anymore, considering that my chances of flying at all are minuscule, and on any British airline even less than that.

I’d give this one a try, though.

Personality Hires

Gawdallfuckingmighty.

Apparently, Gen Z has decided that a skillset isn’t the most important thing you need in the workplace because morale and smiles are more important than all that efficiency nonsense, right?

I remember “personality hires” back when I was in the supermarket business.  We referred to them as “baggers”, because a) they didn’t need much in the way of job skills, and b) customers liked it when they interacted with young smileyfaces at the end of their transaction.

The best part was when these inkstains on the corporate blotting paper decided that they “deserved” either a salary increase or promotion just because they’d been on the job for a couple months.

It’s been a while, so I’ve forgotten the corporate-speak for “you must be out of your fucking mind”  or its companion statement, “fuck off and come back when you’ve proved why I shouldn’t fire you right now”.

If the only thing you’re bringing to a job — any job — is your “personality”, you may as well resign yourself to a life of poverty.  Or prostitution (e.g. in the public relations industry, don’t get me started).

Fucking entitled wankers.

From The Archives

Seen SOTI, this intriguing little question:

Note too the reference to Cuba.  Then this:

Someone tell James Cameron… and speaking of getting it wrong:

Still asleep, apparently.

Finally:

Given the newspaper, I’m amazed they didn’t lead with “Connally Shot” and only then in the sub-head: “Kennedy Caught In Cross-Fire”.

Good times, good times.

Irrelevant Protest

Talk about misplaced priorities outside Rome’s Colosseum:

Alexis Mucci, who has 7.5million followers on Instagram, donned nothing but satin robes and black lingerie sets with fitness model Issa Vegas. In the clip, which has gained more than 134,000 likes, the pair untied the belts on their robes to reveal their skimpy outfits.

Dark-haired beauty Alexis was seen in a strappy bra that barely covered her cleavage with a lacy thong and pair of patterned fishnet stockings. Meanwhile, Issa wore a black lace bra with a matching thong and similar stockings.

So far, so good.

However, some Instagram viewers took to the comments begging the OnlyFans model and her fitness star pal to “cover up.”

One user said: “Cover yourself it’s cold.” Another added: “Move I can’t see the colosseum.” A third commented: “What a shame they have to sell themselves like this.”

It’s the last comment which got me shaking my head.

Anyone who’s ever been to the Colosseum knows that it’s a hive of hucksterism:  people offering tourists “private tours” of the place, and gawd knows how many assholes dressed up as Roman legionaries offering to pose with said tourists in front of the ruins, all for a (horrifying) price, of course.

So in fact the Colosseum is the perfect place for two houris  to sell themselves.

Feel free to scrutinize them via the link, but be warned that they’re nastier than cheap Italian red wine.