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.

The City of Culver City?

Maybe destination branding wisdom in 1917 differed from what’s hot now, but you’d think that sometime in the last 93 years it might have occurred to the powers that be in Culver City that their seal might be repetitive as well as redundant, not to mention repetitious.

Now, for all we know the City of Culver City is legally unable to change its name, or required to use the word ‘City’ twice in its formal appellation, but that’s besides the point. The city, or one of its departments, decided to put their awkwardly-phrased seal at a bus stop – rather than a more reader-friendly sign – and that was an error in communication.

Whether you’re a business, a product or a city, every time you put your name out in public, you’re creating a brand impression. So why not take a few minutes to make sure it’s a non-laughable one?

First a site with a header that is the ne plus ultra of understatement. (Be sure to mouse over the sparkling watch)

And second, one of Mr. Kandola’s influences:

a book with a title only its author could love.

We needn’t belabor these efforts. Let’s just say we hope they provide slightly more diversion than inspiration. On the other hand, given the gleam of Mr. Kandola’s timepiece and Mr. Olson’s undeniable success (he built three multi-million dollar sales and distribution forces – early in his career!), perhaps they’re laughing all the way to the bank…

Hate the name, which we believe is a success despite its complete lack of relevant meaning. And Blackberry’s new marketing campaign, built on the idea of Love itself, falls squarely in the ‘hate’ category too.

Here’s why, in terms so simple even Al and Laura Ries would embrace them: iPhone = Love; Blackberry = Work

Okay – it’s not quite that simple, but what we basically mean is that iPhone is the brand associated with fun, touchy-feely, we don’t need no stinkin’ discounts, unconditional agape , and Blackberry has the market cornered on accessibility, utility, productivity and value.* But instead of capitalizing on a position of strength, Research In Motion is trying to fight their main competitor on that competitor’s own turf – never an easy task, always an expensive one and in the case of Blackberry a decidedly inauthentic effort.

Some people truly, hopelessly, romantically love their Kitchen Aid’s, their Air Jordans and their Camaros. Many other people purchase, prefer and are extremely loyal to – but do not love – their Osters, their Rockports and their Altimas. Blackberry falls into the latter camp, and it would avoid confusion and save marketing dollars by realizing that.

What’s next Blackberry – white earbud headphones included with the next model of Storm?

*We don’t have quantitative data to back this assertion up, but when’s the last time you saw people camped around the block to buy a Blackberry?

The earlier “Pass it on” FedEx commercial was even more explicit about the need for speed, featuring a package with the admonition, “If this package doesn’t arrive in Peoria tomorrow, it’ll be your job.”

Over the years, FedEx naturally expanded its shipping operations from urgent overnight delivery to shipping packages and parcels to less than truckload to full truckload freight to FedEx Ground.

Then in February 2004, FedEx took a major step beyond logistics when it acquired print and copy shop Kinko’s for $2.4 billion. Last year, FedEx spent nearly $700 million to rebrand the 1,900 FedEx Kinko’s “FedEx Office.”

But with FedEx now standing for so many different services in addition to overnight delivery, the consolidation may be fracturing the core FedEx brand promise to the point of fracture. An example: the other day, a member of the old guard here at BrandCulture HQ was out of the office and enlisted the aid of a colleague to ship some urgently needed documents. A frenzy of coordinated activity ensued, with electronically circulated drafts edited, finalized, packaged, labeled and dispatched by the early evening. But instead of arriving at their destinations the next morning, the FedEx envelopes greeted the dawn in the same courier bin where they had been deposited after the FedEx pickup the previous afternoon.

Our old guard member never explicitly said “these documents absolutely, positively need to be there overnight,” but instead thought that “these need to go out by FedEx” meant the same thing.  Back at HQ, the co-worker (who wasn’t even alive when the spot above aired, let alone in 1971 when FedEx started its overnight delivery service) simply didn’t realize that there was a need to get the package out that day. Apparently lost in intergenerational translation as FedEx has expanded its brand significance is the focus on speed; the FedEx brand is no longer inextricably interwoven with “extremely urgent,” but spans the value proposition of “Make it, Print it, Pack it, Ship it” — all valuable offerings to have under one roof, but no one of them terribly imperative.

FedEx is without question one of the great companies and among the most valuable brands the world. It is perennially ranked among the world’s best companies to work for by FORTUNE, this year claiming the 7th spot tied with Southwest Airlines.  But perhaps it is time for FedEx to adopt a more explicitly tiered brand architecure, separating ancillary services from the core promise of reliably pulling off the nearly impossible through millions of overnight deliveries a day thoughout the world.  Not only would this help FedEx justify continued premium pricing, it could help usher in a new era of Baby Boomer/Gen X/Millennial workplace productivity and harmony.  Perhaps a switch back to FedEx Kinko’s for another $700 million?