The Dumbing Down of Font

IKEA is one of the most widespread and well-known brands in the world today. Even from miles away, the massive blue warehouses with bright yellow lettering serve as a beacon of affordability to our increasingly price-sensitive society. And for marketers, IKEA is the epitome of an affordable brand that doesn't feel cheap.

The company spends 70% of its annual marketing budget on its annual catalog, which is now published in 55 editions, in 27 languages for 36 countries. Distributed to over 200 million people worldwide, IKEA's catalog has now surpassed the Bible as the world's most published work. This puts the company squarely in the spotlight for all aspiring marketers to look up to.

So it was no minor edit when IKEA decided to change its iconic font for all marketing materials from Futura, which it has used for over 50 years, to the more widely available Verdana. From a purely financial standpoint, it's easy to understand why the company decided to do this. IKEA spokeswoman Camilla Meiby responded to an uproar of controversy within the design community with this statement:

"We're surprised, but I think it's mainly experts who have expressed their views, people who are interested in fonts. I don't think the broad public is that interested. Verdana is a simple, cost-effective font which works well in all media and languages."

Sure, the average IKEA customer is not going to be that "interested" that the company changed its font. After all, people shop at IKEA because they want design-conscious furnishings at very low prices. However, the company is clearly forgetting one important aspect of this equation: brand equity. Obviously, WalMart customers aren't "interested" that the company recently changed its logo, but its apparent that the new design, which drops the blocky original font for a more approachable font with a sunburst at the end, makes the brand feel better.

Verdana was originally created for clear, easy-to-read online applications due to its simplicity; it was never intended to be used in print. Dropping the Futura font from the company's arsenal has severe implications. Browsing through the recently released 2010 catalog, I can't help but get the feeling that IKEA is moving into the bargain bin. The use of the streamlined, personality-less Verdana shows a brand cheapened by its own desire to save money and create additional efficiencies, a concept the brand stands for but has taken too far. IKEA is a simple brand composed of a few memorable things, and Futura was one of them, speaking to the simple but elegant design of its furniture. It would be wise for IKEA to take a good hard look at itself and decide just how far it wants to take its cost-cutting.

A New Kind of Journalism

Following the passing of Walter Cronkite, Time thought it would be a good idea to do an online poll of Americans, asking "Who is the country's most trusted newscaster?"

The winner? Jon Stewart of The Daily Show, with 44% of a four-way vote.

While this doesn't say much about Jon Stewart, it says quite a bit about the sad state of American journalism. There's something very wrong when a comedian can elicit more trust from our society than the very people who provide us with global information on a daily basis. But is Jon Stewart even trustworthy, or just more trustworthy than the figureheads of the prominent news networks?

This poll shows our continuing desire for alternative news sources. The last election, more so than any in recent memory, allowed citizens to strongly challenge network biases and hold them accountable, mostly due to continuing increases in internet usage - providing exponentially more sources than just the Big Four news networks. The entire Ron Paul movement began online, despite networks such as Fox choosing to not even recognize him as a candidate on numerous occasions. We are going to see a lot more of these "cyber-movements" and alterna-news outlets separate from the mainstream media, as public interest in the search for truth blossoms.

Twitter Blip

I just don't get Twitter. Its user base has been growing exponentially - they now have 17 million monthly visitors, up from 1 million a year ago. But a Harvard Business School study found that more than half of all Twitter users post messages on the site less than once every 74 days. And 90% of Twitterers/Tweeters/Twitwads - whatever you want to call them - aren't Tweeting. The other 10% are generating almost all of the site's content. That basically means that the site has become more of a celebrity stalking outlet and place for businesses to talk about themselves - but no one is replying. The site's usefulness is severely limited if businesses aren't getting valuable feedback.

Or maybe the problem is that after the media firestorm over Twitter last year, it just didn't live up to the hype. Sure, Oprah and Ashton and Apple Twitter, and we all remember how our respected lawmakers were more interested in updating their statuses than listening to Obama's first speech to a joint session of Congress. If I were a celebrity or national politician, I would probably also love Twitter, since there would be thousands, if not millions of people following me. What a great way to keep my fans happy or get my political message out. But what if I'm just a normal person?

I recently signed up for Twitter to test it out. After 30 minutes of searching for my friends, I realized that despite my 350+ Facebook friends, there were less than 10 people I knew on Twitter.

Twitter may be great for tech geeks or Perez Hilton fans, but the reports of it being the new generation's "chosen" tool of communication are way off. My recent discussion with 30 undergraduate marketing seniors failed to elicit any rave reviews of the medium, and most of them didn't understand why it was so popular or why anyone would use it instead of Facebook, which by design offers far more capabilities.

So while the media is garbling up the fad, don't expect it to replace Facebook or have much more of an impact than it has. As Cara Wood at DMNews points out, the economic downturn has lengthened the sales process for any company, and 140-character messages on the web aren't going to cut it for most businesses' social networking strategies. Expect Twitter to remain popular as a place where Lindsay Lohan and Lenny Kravitz can attract attention by posting semi-nude pictures of themselves, but it's not the beacon of two-way communication that the media has talked up.

Taking the Short Cut

Today, the FDA advised Zicam customers to "stop using three products marketed over-the-counter as cold remedies because they are associated with the loss of sense of smell (anosmia)." The warning does not apply to the company's signature spray product, but it does apply to Zicam Cold Remedy Nasal Gel and Nasal Swabs. According to Janet Woodcock, M.D., Director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), "consumers may unknowingly use a product that could cause serious harm, and therefore we are advising them not to use these products for any reason."

Apparently the FDA has received over 130 reports of loss of smell, many of which occurred in the patient's first dose. And this isn't the first time. In 2006, Zicam settled a class action lawsuit worth $12 million over the exact same issue. Dr. Terence Davidson, Director of the University of California Nasal Dysfunction Clinic, says that if you "put zinc on the olfactory receptor [...] you effectively kill the receptor. It's like pouring acid on an open wound."

This presents an interesting case study in the American consumer's constant desire for shortcut remedies and our willingness to blindly trust decades old product research of a "homeopathic, natural" product and a bureaucratic federal overseer. Marketing Daily reported back in February that consumers are switching to generics and cutting down on how much of a drug they take, and the Kaiser Family Foundation's Feb. 09 poll indicated that 36% of consumers are relying on home remedies and OTCs instead of seeing a doctor. So what does this mean?

Of course, the economic downturn has made people more willing to seek out cheaper solutions to their problems. But there's more to it than that. Customers are completely changing the way they incorporate products into their world view. Flash back to 2003 - it was all about who's got the newest Escalade or the condo in Vermont. Six years later, upper-class women are hosting private shopping parties for their friends at home to avoid the embarrassment of carrying that suitcase-sized Barney's bag home. Labels are no longer our identities, but rather something to be shed, and companies are no longer trusted after the WorldCom/Enron/Lehman/...etc. debacles.

Everything is do-it-yourself, and people are eating it up. Companies would be wise to provide products that equip customers with customizable products to improve their own lives, rather than trying to always offer a one-size-fits-all solution. Clearly, more studies are needed on the side effects of zinc-based cold remedies like Zicam before they should be trusted for general use if they are obliterating people's senses. For now, I recommend sticking with a classically reliable and always trendy glass of OJ - and you can choose how much pulp.

New Balance Is 100%, 25% American

Today, AdAge reported that the New Balance shoe brand will be launching a national ad campaign based around the everyman's "Made in America" concept.

New Balance wants to capitalize on the fact that only 75% of the company's products are made overseas, compared with 100% for competitors. 1300 of the company's 4000 manufacturing employees are based in Maine and Massachusetts. And boy, does New Balance want you to know.

They've created an online documentary, as well as print, radio, and TV ads as part of the campaign, which goes old school by profiling small town manufacturing life, ostensibly demonstrating how New Balance is just as much a part of the backbone of blue collar America as GM or Ford. Upon opening their homepage, my entire screen is practically inundated with American flags and the slogan "Made in the USA."

Who does New Balance think they are fooling? Since when does being 25% made in the USA give you the right to use that as a marketing slogan and brand identity? The whole thing ends up coming off as more of a cheap marketing tactic than a true reflection of New Balance's identity. Phil Rist, exec VP-strategic initiatives at BigResearch, notes that "the fact the the majority of its footwear is not made in the U.S. might prove a sticking point." I really hope they didn't spend too many late nights concocting the brilliant plan to paint American flags all over a mostly foreign product. I'm sure the nationalistic message will resonate well with the uninformed, but now you know that it's all marketing gloss.

Welcome

Welcome to my blog! This site is going to be an outlet for me to share and comment on news stories related to a wide range of my personal interests, including marketing/advertising, politics, media, and global affairs. Check back soon for upcoming posts, and anyone can comment!