While that’s actually kinda sorta literally true, since automobile manufacturer Porsche AG is owned by Porsche Zwischenholding GmbH, which is a sister company to Volkswagen AG (both companies are owned by Porsche SE), we assume Mr. Scheiner  intended his comment metaphorically.

To us the Volkswagen stands for good value with a bit of style. We’re not sure we’d describe a $109,400, 385hp car as the Volkswagen of anything, but we get his point. Which got us thinking – can your stakeholders categorize you as easily as Mr. Scheiner categorized his car?

GREAT BRANDS MAKE TOUGH CHOICES

• The Mercedes-Benz of office chairs
• The Toyota of cloud storage
• The BMW of smartphones

These phrases describe very clearly how a brand could be positioned in a given category. The reason they  work is that each of these automobile manufacturers made the difficult decision to build its brand around a clear value proposition: luxury, value and performance, respectively.

IF YOU TRY TO BE EVERYTHING TO EVERYONE, YOUR BRAND MAY NOT MEAN ANYTHING TO ANYONE

Let’s be clear – the Yugo didn’t fail because of its brand. It failed because it was the worst car of the millennium. But many organizations offering good products and services don’t build the brands they could because they can’t decide what value the brand should stand for. Rather, they hype features, chase fads and broadcast a mixed bag of messages that never get real traction in the minds of their customers or of their employees.

So go for it. Become the Jeep, Bentley or Alfa Romeo of your industry. Or the Nordstrom, or the Southwest, or the USAA  - car brands aren’t the only ones capable of rigorous focus. Strive for the same level of positioning and communications discipline that these brands exhibit. It may not get you name checked by hedge fund managers, but if you choose your focus wisely it will help cement a powerful reputation in the minds of your customers and it will help galvanize your workforce around a common cause.

And if that fails? Well, there’s always The Force.

Their auto clients have not only spanned Ferrari to Hyundai; they’ve ranged from Maserati to Mitsubishi; from Rolls Royce to Ford. They’re moving into electric vehicles. Their non-auto work includes speedboats, commuter trains, perfume bottles and luxury hotels. (photos of some of their work below)

How do they pull it off successfully?

1. A Rock-Solid Foundation. If Pininfarina had only designed one or two luxury vehicles and then moved into other segments and industries, the brand would have been relegated to mediocrity long ago. They haven’t and it hasn’t. Pininfarina has designed almost every Ferrari of the last 60 years, creating an extremely strong base from which to grow their brand. It’s the same reason Missoni can sell at Target and sell a jacket for $5,500 a few weeks later.
2. Confidence in their Customers. Pininfarina can trust that virtually every one of their prospects (corporate buyers – not consumers) knows their body of work intimately. That’s why they don’t have to splash Ferrari all over the home page; that’s why they have been happy to work (in moderation) with non-luxury/non-performance/non-automotive brands.
3. Knowledge of Self. While Pininfarina’s business depends on auto work, they do not define themselves as car designers – they define themselves as designers. Their mission is not merely to design cars  - it is to create and innovate with style.

Are Pininfarina perfect? Of course not. They’ve just announced the closure of their auto production operations, they’ve sold their majority stake in their eight-year-old JV with Volvo and their stock is close to de-listing territory. The assertions above are our educated professional opinions, but there is the chance that their brand-building success could just be dumb luck.

Despite the inner volatility, the brand it projects to the outside world remains sleek and desirable. It is, after all, Italian. Anything else would be off-brand.

Ooooh	Aaaaaaah
Niiiiice	Sweeeet
Siiiiigh	Swoooon
Looooove	Must...Have...

LET’S SEE…WE’LL TRY… HOW ABOUT THE 2007 FOGHAT

AC/DC aren’t the first musicians to make their band name a brand name in wine – check out a few vintages from The Rolling Stones, KISS, Madonna, Barbara Streisand and Foghat(?!) here.

Not long ago we excoriated Cosmo for trying to stretch its brand to a male-oriented publication. So what do we have to say about AC/DC as a wine brand?

GOOD ON YA, MATES!

Pretend we said like that Paul Hogan, and hear us out. Of course someone looking for a nice wine is unlikely to choose the Highway to Hell Cab for their next dinner party. But aging AC/DC fans might. And in a licensing agreement like this one, there’s no downside to the band. Even if the wine is swill, their fan base is rabid enough that it would have to be lethally poisonous to diminish their fervor. Actually, their fans might even prefer if it was moderately toxic.

Whether or not Warburn Estate has made a good decision producing AC/DC wines is another question. But given that the company exports about $15,000,000 of private label wine annually, we’d guess they have a pretty good system for designing and producing labels and packaging cheaply, deep relationships with distributors who can secure some decent shelf space and a set of protocols to make sure that failures are fast rather than expensive.

IT’S A BUSINESS DECISION

Loyal readers of this humble blog will recognize that we think of brand strategy as a set of business decisions. In the case of AC/DC wine, it’s one that has potential upside and manageable downside. You Shook Me All Night Long Muscat, you say? What the hell – we’ll drink to that!

Yes, our mouths are hanging wide open as well, and not because of the exquisite subtlety with which they’re promoting the new publication…

Is there any brand that is more unequivocally identified with the female gender than Cosmopolitan? Doesn’t the mental image of a man buying a Cosmo-branded product or service look a little bit like this?

Cosmo: Clever Like a Fox?

Maybe Cosmo thinks that women who appreciate the periodical’s redoubtable reputation for salacious sagacity will do the buying, gifting the app to the men in their lives? Except that the data we’ve seen indicates twice as many men as women use iPads, and women prefer to purchase magazines on e-readers than tablets.

Or maybe they’re trying to create confusion between CFG and similarly-named, similarly understated lad’s mag FHM?

Not a Fatal Mistake, but a Missed Opportunity

Here’s our beef with CFG. It’s not that it’s going to ruin the Cosmopolitan brand – no matter how many or how few men start reading the publication, Cosmopolitan’s reputation as a recycler publisher of sex “secrets” is impregnable.

Our problem is that it’s a business mistake, because while you’re busy trying to convince men that Cosmo isn’t just something to read while they’re in their sister’s/girlfriend’s/friend’s mom’s bathroom, it gives both current and new competitors more time to capture a greater share of the market.

It’s also a misunderstanding of the target’s mindset. When men do read Cosmopolitan, they do so precisely because it’s intended for women. They’re getting a glimpse behind the curtain, which means the chance to learn something secret and valuable. When the magazine is intended for men – even when the content is written by women – that sense of exclusivity is gone.

It’s similar to our questions about Dove’s Dove Men+Care line:

We don’t doubt Unilever’s claim that 51% of men use women’s skin care products. But, again, we think they do so because they are women’s products. How could a product intended for a man ever get his skin as soft as a product intended for someone who actually cares about how soft her skin is?

We get that Cosmo and Dove are strong brands, and we know that it’s less expensive to extend a brand than to create a new one from scratch. But if it’s not the right way to position and sell your product, it might be a very costly error.

P.S. Here’s the video that’s being used to promote CFG. Judging by the amount of coverage the video’s getting despite how boring it is, we’re guessing Hearst Magazines is pulling in favors left, right and center.

It’s great to see a big company opt out of stock photography (not completely, mind you), and an illustration style that is as bold in eschewing light flares and reflection effects as it is in its use of color is an aesthetic feast for the senses.

But does it make sense for IBM?

To our minds, it’s a little forward for Big Blue. Corporations don’t choose IBM to be on the cutting edge – they choose it because of its reputation for solidity and reliability. In isolation, we love these graphics. But, while eye-catching, they don’t help underscore those attributes that are fundamental to the IBM brand.

On the other hand, maybe they’re part of an effort to help IBM be a little less safe and a little more innovative? Possibly, but it’ll take some advanced technology products and services and a good amount of time – not just nice graphics – to help IBM reposition itself.

Decisionmakers take heed: when you’re looking at the design that will accompany your company and its products and services, forget about what you like. Instead, think about what that design communicates. Or, even better, do some research and find out what it communicates. That’s how you get design that helps solve business challenges.

What’s not to like about that?