High Fructose PR Problem
The folks at PRWatch.org are concerned about the attempts to change the image of the cheap, subsidy-sweet high fructose corn syrup (HFCS) by changing its name; even comparing the HFCS lobby to the evildoers at Philip Morris and worse, Blackwater:
Philip Morris tried to escape its tarnished reputation by re-branding itself “Altria” and the private military contractor Blackwater tried to ditch its bad image by re-naming itself “Xe.” Now the Corn Refiners Association is taking a tip from these companies and trying to re-brand its much-maligned product, high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS), as “corn sugar.” Consumption of HFCS is at a 20-year low. This might make doctors and nutritionists happy, but it’s bad news for manufacturers of HFCS, who hope to turn the trend around. No longer should we refer to chemical-sounding “high fructose corn syrup,” but instead we should use the fresher, gentler and more natural-sounding term “corn sugar.” HFCS has gotten a reputation as obesity’s public enemy number one, and over-consumption of HFCS and other sweeteners has been linked to a list of chronic health problems. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has not yet approved the name change for food labels, but the corn producers are already working to change public perception of their product. They are running TV ads featuring a down-home family farmer and sweeping shots of nature, and their Web site extolls the virtues of HFCS.
The re-naming could work. In the 1980s, there was an ingredient called “low erucic acid rapeseed oil” which was re-named “canola oil,” and more recently, the FDA permitted prunes to be marketed under the name “dried plums.” In both cases, after the name change, sales of the products increased.
As they say, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it’s still unhealthy, delicious bacon. Dr. Andrew Weil has weighed in:
Instead, in the web age, the name-change petition quickly became an appropriately sticky public relations mess. After just nine days, a Google search for the twin terms “high-fructose corn syrup” and “corn sugar” garnered 143,000 results, and asking social media posters for their own alternate names became a raging meme. I happily joined in, posing the challenge on my Facebook page and Digg profile. Hundreds volunteered tags including “liquid suffering,” “cellulite syrup,” and several that can’t be published in a family website, despite my instruction to avoid profanity.
via Dr. Andrew Weil: Fortunately, ‘Corn Sugar’ Has Become a Sticky PR Mess.
So, PR geniuses, what would you do if the Corn Refiners Association were your client? I think I’d be looking up case studies on New Coke, myself.
Brand New Day or Fight Another Day?
“I just hate our logo–we’ve had it two years and business is flat.”
“People buy more from fresh, new companies.”
“The news media will cover our name change. No, really, they will.”
Pity the person who has heard any of that from their boss, board or consultant. People get antsy when business flattens or declines, and often instead of examining the product, service or marketing strategy, attention is turned to the brand itself.
Your brand is your company’s or organization’s public face. It’s your identifier, your differentiator and not a plaything for the bored or those grasping for an explanation of declining market share. I’ve worked in several situations where the boss was convinced by branding consultants or “brand alchemists” that the only thing holding them back was their brand identity.
Hold on a second–I should say strongly that changing your brand is not always a bad move–far from it. I work with some branding consultants and firms who are downright kickass at what they do. They just happen to be professional enough to tell a client when they don’t need a rebrand. (Sound crazy? Nah. Just ethical and smart in the long run. What company is going to hate a consultant who saved them from wasting thousands of dollars?)
I’m by no means saying that a lousy logo, tagline or brand message is worth keeping simply because it’s expensive to rebrand. What I’m getting at is that before you make any move towards engaging a brand identity firm you do some research, serious thinking and some long conversations with objective people who have no skin in the game.
It’s all about brand equity. Wikipedia says “Brand equity refers to the marketing effects or outcomes that accrue to a product with its brand name compared with those that would accrue if the same product did not have the brand name.”
If you’ve invested thousands of dollars and years of consistency in your brand and decide that it’s what’s holding you back; then you need to put pen to paper and ask “If I jettison our identity and create a new one, how much will it cost?” Are you prepared to flush your brand equity–essentially zeroing out your name recognition–and pay a consultant or tie up your marketing team for weeks or months? (Not to mention waiting perhaps a year or two to see if it pays off.)
Google “costs of re-branding” and the results may take your breath away. Some claim that research alone for a re-brand lies in the $50K range–that doesn’t include creating a new logo, tagline, website, collateral printed material, etc.
Well worth a second thought, wouldn’t you say?
Is it your marketing strategy, rather than your brand identity? If so, then a complete overhaul of that strategy–not necessarily your logo and brand identity–is in order.
As for the news media caring about your re-brand? In general they will devote time to your re-brand only if it’s really lousy one. It can also be a PR nightmare if you tick off your current customer base (see Coke, New. or more recently Tropicana.)
So before you go for a brand new day, think carefully. It may be that your brand just needs a better marketing strategy under it–and it needs to live to fight another day.
