My buddy Mike and I often mock advertising and branding strategies. I guess we're more traditional and we just aren't receptive to being sold an "image". I prefer the advertisements that inform me of something (like a sale or new product). I like funny beer ads, but while I remember the jokes I don't always remember which beer it was-and it's never caused me to buy that brand of beer (one exception here is the Coors light ads with the twins, I almost bought Coors light). I also think way too much analysis goes into ads and logos and all that other stuff.

That's why I was pretty peeved to find out that my bank was changing it's logo-not it's name, it's logo. Standard Federal recently switched to the logo of it's parent company ABN Amro. I actually don't care what the logo is. What frustrates me is that they sent a 8.5 X 11 four page, full color pamphlet, along with a letter, to tell me that while the logo is changing, nothing else is. So why change the logo? Why bear the expense of the stupid mailer telling me nothing else is changing? Why nickel and dime me in bank charges when you can afford the mailer, new ATM cards, and new signs at all the branches? I actually had to go to a branch (this only happens about once a year). As we were pulling into the parking lot I said to the wife-"Good thing we got that big mailer, or else I would have kept driving even though the name is the same, and building is the same."

So it's not so much the logo that bothers me, it's all the cost that goes into changing the logo when there is no reason to do it. It is situations like this that remind me of Father of the Bride when Steve Martin goes on his rant about the disparity between the number of buns in a package, and the number of hot dogs in a package. "Because some big shot at the branding strategy company, got together with some big shot at the bank..."
... 2:52 PM | Talkback []