Yes indeed.  Because this is a “merger of equals” (aren’t they all — remember AOL-Time Warner?  DaimlerChrysler? Or even PriceWaterhouseCoopers?), we can’t have one airline appear to “acquire” the other, hence the merged carrier will keep a bit of this and a little of that from each.  The United name, Chairman Glenn Tilton and Chicago HQ stay, but the new airline will adopt the Continental livery, logo and CEO Jeffrey Smisek (who will have offices — you guessed it — in both Chicago and Houston)!  Does this placate various constituencies?  You bet.  Is this smart brand-building?  No.

Recasting the United name in the Continental typeface looks like, well, recasting the United name in the Continental typeface.  Sure, over time, people will grow accustomed to seeing the planes say “United” rather than “Continental” next to the stylized globe logo.  But it’s a missed brand-building opportunity.  Instead of creating a new visual identity commensurate with creating “The World’s Leading Airline,” this pastiche just looks like — and is — a hodgepodge of elements, rather than an integrated, cohesive entity that represents a unique, new assertion of value.

As anyone who has poked around BrandCultureTalk knows, we believe that great brands make tough choices.  We also believe that great brands have to start with an idea.  The most famous assertion of United’s idea developed way back in 1965 by Leo Burnett, “Fly the Friendly Skies” ran an unprecedented 32 years and became one of the most successful and memorable in the history not just of aviation, but branding.

After some less memorable intervening incarnations (Does anyone remember, “It’s important for the human race to stay United“?  Neither do we.) United most recently exhorted, “It’s time to fly.”  We’d argue that providing singularly friendly service beats the more vague temporal urgency of the current United slogan (although we admire the trailblazing pluck of United’s legal department in that they evidently felt this assertion to be of sufficient importance to merit not one giant registered trademark symbol, but two in a row up in the header of this web page).

Continental, on the other hand, currently uses the more aggressive “Work Hard.  Fly Right.“  This promise of honoring and acknowledging the realities of the present business environment — as well as the present realities of flying — firmly puts the carrier on the side of the business traveler.  As itinerant carpetbagging brand-builders who spend a good bit of time in the air, this assertion resonates even more directly with us.

Unlike what they did with the logo and livery, the United merger marketing staff didn’t simply jam the words together into a meaningless amalgam of “It’s time to work hard and fly right.”  Instead they created a new assertion of “Let’s fly together.”  While it may not rival the “Friendly Skies” for the branding record books, it does seem on strategy with the “together” part, and the “Let’s fly” portion feels inclusive, elevated, even vaguely anagogical, as it reaches out toward the limitless possibilities in the wild blue yonder that the carrier . . . and its customers can now seize.

Here’s another idea for how the new United’s brand should look:  start over.  After all,  if ultra-low fare carrier Ryan air can carve out a visually distinctive look, so can the new United.  Think about what the word “United” really means.  It’s fantastic from a brand-building perspective.  And consider the possibilities to dramatize what a new era of aviation (willingly suspend that disbelief!) that will be ushered in by this global colossus.

Now we acknowledge that our being in the business of drawing logos and developing brand lines (among other things) could make us appear less than completely objective in assessing the wisdom of retreading existing brand elements vs. creating new ones.  But we don’t exactly have a lock on the airline design business that, say Landor does, and we like to think we can still opine relatively uncorrupted.  So come on, new United!  Develop a new look worthy of your new brand.  After all, you can’t build the airline of the future based on the trade dress of the past.

For the past month, Vanguard Group has bludgeoned anyone not already residing under a rock (or perhaps spelunking incommunicado on Eyjafjallajokull) with a relentless campaign across broadcast, print and digital media asserting that a salient distinction exists between mere investing and “Vanguarding.”  Stuart Elliott traced the etymological origin of this gem to “a brainstorming session” held at Kirshenbaum Bond Senecal.  Here at BrandCulture, we’ve been vocal supporters of Vanguard’s traditional focus on low management fees and investment fundamentals, but we find this new campaign inapposite for an institution of Vanguard’s gravitas and stature.  In short “Vanguarding” cheapens the Vanguard brand.

We’re not latter day Neo-Luddites decrying the devolution of English as trademarked brands turn into verbs.  We happily FedEx, Skype, TiVo, Hoover, Google and occasionally even Rollerblade.   We’re not opposed to the brand-building homophone, and have even observed folks “Do the Dew.” And we hope we never have occasion to utter, “Don’t Tase Me, Bro,” but for reasons independent of  the use of registered trademark “Taser” as a verb.  We’re not even relying on the oft-cited legal rationale that allowing verbification “genericides” brands and puts them into the public domain a la Xerox for photocopying or Kleenex for tissue.  (For the record, you can see from the superscript “TM” on screen capture above that Vanguard asserts trademark protection for “Vanguarding.”)

We object to “Vanguarding” because it’s, well, cheesy.  We bet we’ll even use “Bing” as a verb (much to the delight of Steve Ballmer) before we engage in the following conversation:

Q: Are you going to be able to send your kids to college and retire before you reach age 85?

A: No worries Bro . . . I’m Vanguarding!

The problem with “Vanguarding” lies in the incongruity between the seriousness of the subject matter — staving off debtors’ prison and the dole — and the glibness of coining a cheeky new word that purports to preemptively encapsulate and assert a long-term, time-proven, proprietary investment philosophy.   The Vanguard Group actually is different, and unlike many in the fund industry, has been a vanguard — at the front of an action or movement — in going against the grain to offer individual investors a fairer shake and a better deal. But sweets grown common lose their dear delight; low investment fees may seem to be a boring brand pillar, but, land sakes, do the results speak for themselves. What’s more, even the least sophisticated investor can understand “we take less of your money, so you keep more of it.”  But transforming its storied brand into a present participle pablum, the “Vanguarding” campaign isn’t the move of a vanguard, it’s more like getting mavericky.

Vanguard founder John Bogle (frequently a thorn in the side of the mutual fund industry even before his retirement) might agree.  Although we rarely spare precious BrandCultureTalk pixels to repeat quotations, this Bogle bon mot merits recapitulation:  “By adopting the customary and time-tested techniques used to sell cosmetics, aspirin and frozen foods, too many firms have come to view themselves as businessmen selling hot products, not as fiduciaries offering trust services.”

Well put as usual, Jack, even if you were bemoaning the state of industry affairs in 1987.  Vanguard has earned the right to take the high ground.  Let’s hope it consigns “Vanguarding” to the BuzzWhack annals of history and returns to what it does best: helping long-term investors earn and keep more.

…Huh?

With this ad, Burger King effectively commoditizes itself while positioning McDonald’s as the product/taste leader. While Burger King will undoubtedly encourage some switching (though how many people will change their routine to save a buck or so?), should the chain ever wish to raise the price of their knock-off, we suspect those customers they do convert will quickly return to McDonald’s to buy the genuine article.

And is it worth what they are giving up in terms of positioning the Burger King brand?

Television viewers: McDonald’s is “where it’s at” in fast food. How do we know? Because Burger King told us so in this ad. And based on our own work with McDonald’s in a previous life, we can bet the communications folks there are basking in this free publicity.

Here’s a little gratis communications consulting for any businesses/organizations/brands that aim to dethrone the number one player in their respective industries: don’t reinforce your competitor’s strength or commoditize yourself by promoting your products and services as cheaper, copied alternatives.

Burger King is the second-largest fast food chain in the world. With this ad, they appear destined to remain #2.

At BrandCulture Company, we have been seeing and are helping clients take advantage of a desire among consumers to shift their purchasing decisions back to smaller, local businesses. During the 80’s and 90’s, the Coca-Cola Company grew immense global market share with its “Think Global, Act Local” philosophy, but found that it became increasingly disconnected from its local bottling partners and customers.  In the beginning of the last decade, Coca-Cola began to evolve its go-to-market strategy with a “Think Local, Act Local” philosophy.  Coca-Cola continues today with its local community through its “Live Positively” campaign and Virtual Community Center .

Today, ‘buy local’ campaigns have emerged in cities ranging from Santa Clarita, California to Boston, Massachusetts – localized efforts to tap into consumers’ sense of place and home.

The “Move Your Money” campaign, while emanating from a populist dissatisfaction with mega-banks’ influence, also taps into this sense of local community.  Interestingly, among “Move Your Money” targets is Bank of America, a company that has attempted its own localized community focus, with community message boards and support of community arts.

But walk into a Bank of America branch and finding a banker that can actually do something for you is another story.  Instead of a real community focus, Bank of America’s sophisticated technology infrastructure supports a network of faceless banking professionals interacting with customers, cutting off their credit while charging extraordinary services fees. Its no wonder the Bank of America Community Message Board in this blogger’s local branch is nearly empty.

“Move Your Money,” we will follow with interest your effort to use consumer choice to spark a redistribution of power from big banks to community institutions. But let’s not forget that while local presence is important, what matters to consumers above all else is that the products, businesses and financial institutions that they choose deliver what they promise.

Even if you’ve never flown them, you’ve probably heard of European low-cost carrier Ryanair. And if you haven’t flown them it’s something you should try – at least once in your life. It’s less like Southwest and more like the second-class train car from Cuzco to Puente Ruinas: cramped, with people relentlessly trying to sell you something, but at a fraction of the cost of alternate means of transportation. And if you haven’t heard or read some of  CEO Michael O’Leary’s precious gems, well, that’s something you should experience as well.

From a WSJ interview: “…that’s what people really want—affordable, safe air transport from A to B. It’s a commodity. It’s not some life-changing sexual experience, which is what the other high-fare airlines have tried to convince you that it is.” (The rest of the short article is equally entertaining)

If nothing else, Ryanair is consistent: the taglines (see logo above, and sometimes they use “The Low Fares Airline”), a website that sets a new record for price promos per pixel, the CEO’s talking points and even in-plane advertising:

Adopting a strategy anathema to branding professionals, it’s all meant to focus travelers’ attentions on one thing: price. And is that really so bad? There are many competing low-cost airlines in Europe, but – based on our vast European network and our own extended sojourns abroad – Ryanair is where travelers go first when looking for low-cost travel.

Like Mercury in auto insurance:

and Walmart in retail (though they’re trying to change):

Ryanair has been able to build a strong brand based on cost.

But, to use our own old saw, the delivery must match the promise. Flights may be advertised at 1 cent, but airport taxes, online check-in fees, credit card fees, bag fees, sports equipment fees and many potential others bring the price up considerably and – in our own experience – into the same ballpark as advance fares on full-service airlines.

We applaud Ryanair’s focused execution, and we acknowledge that sometimes it makes sense for a brand to position on price. We believe, however, that if Ryanair’s extra fees mean that the company doesn’t make good on its low fare promise, then Mr. O’Leary – despite his protestations to the contrary – may just start looking for ways to make his airline a little more sexy and a little less commodity.

Perhaps that effort has already begun?