Office Depot or Office Max: No Diff

This is about as mundane and dry as brand differentiation comes.  One would think that after a competitor already stormed onto the market some 50 years earlier that the new guy would have the sense to really differentiate himself from his predecessor.  Instead he just confused the market.  Though Office Depot, the “new guy," is by far the more successful of the two office supply chains it isn’t by skill.  Instead it’s about increasing the number of locations compared to Office Max.  The only trouble is, when consumers want to buy office supplies, they could care less where they shop.  More often than not they are asking, “Where’s the nearest Office Depot or Office Max?”  Even so, they are mixing up the two brands when talking about them while the store is right in front of them.  It might have been the norm back in the 1930’s to be generic with general retail shops like Office Max, but by the 80’s the world was getting more creative with brands that use of a generic name like Office Depot is pathetic and lazy.  Enter Staples.

A simple, generic name? Yes, but that iconic symbol of the workplace is a fun, easily recognizable “staple” (pun very much intended) of businesses around the world.  The office may be boring and dreary, but Staples makes it exciting.  It’s no wonder why they are the world leader in office supplies with over $24 billion in sales last year alone while Office Depot only managed to generate $11.6 billion and Office Max continues to make a puny $4.3 billion a year.  Here is why:

1. Office Depot and Office Max have no real brand recognition.  They are bland, unconvincing, and without identity or personality.
2. Staples utilizes a simple yet sophisticated wordmark logo with a paper-clipped “L” and staple-ized “S.”  The other two try to get away with stock photo logos such as a Rubik’s cube and a ball of rubber bands.   Doesn’t matter which uses which.
3. Need I say more?
4. Staples is a superstore that offers just about every product a business could ask for to supply and then a wide range of other services.  Office Depot and Max offer pretty much the same kinds of products, many of the same brands, and even comparable services.  However, their stores are like boutiques by comparison.  When you don’t have much else to offer or differentiate yourself, sorry guys, but then size definitely matters.

2)   

3)      In order for a company like Office Depot or Office Max to compete with the likes of Staples they need to do more than just sell virtually the same products and offer the same services, not to mention incorporate the same colors.  Even slight differentiations in those areas won’t do much to circumvent Staples’ massive market share and sales revenues.  Instead they should target a niche, grow with it, and own it.  Or even so, merge, then divide and conquer by cornering the small business supply and service market, making Staples pee their pants – or worse.  

Because in the end when a customer needs a pen, they’ll go to either Depot or Max and get a pen – usually a more expensive pen, but a pen nonetheless.  However, when a customer goes to Staples for a pen, they get a whole experience.  It’s primarily due to the great big red building that bears its name, much like Best Buy and their use of blue and yellow on their stores.  Bold, exciting, fun – those are the marks of a successful brand.

Does Dr. Dre Need a Doctor?

(Image courtesy of Rap-Up)

Okay, the latest video from Hip-Hop beat-god, Dr. Dre, leaves quite a sour taste in the mind.  Yes, he has been out of the music game as an artist for the last decade, but it's not like any of us have forgotten him.  Hip-Hop-Heads have been anticipating Detox for what seems like an eternity.  If patience is a virtue, then we must be Buddhist monks.  So when Dre decides to release "I Need a Doctor" after the explosive "Kush" with Snoop Dogg and Akon, one would have thought he would release a banger like "Next Episode" or even "Forgot About Dre," but instead he gives us a featured-versed anthology song that doesn't do much at all for his legacy, nor the quality of his forthcoming album.  Even worse though, is the direction of the video.

His former semi-protege, 50 Cent, might have had an original with his "In The Club" video where he was being repaired in a lab on an operating table and then working out, but the fact that Dr. Dre is using it wreaks of unoriginality.  However, regardless of this concept-jacking is the attempt at paying homage to Dr. Dre's famous feud with his brother and former partner in crime, Eazy-E.  Not that it wasn't touching, it's just the wrong song to do that.  It is actually ten years too late due to the fact that on his ground-breaking, ahead-of-its-time masterpiece, 2001, he already had a song titled "The Message" where he talks about his regrets of feuding with Eazy amongst others.

What they should have done:

If they were heart-set on using this song then the better concept would be cinematic landscape meets performance piece.  Since the song feels more like a lost track off Recovery, it would be fitting to bridge these two Aftermath releases in video form.  Forget the O.R., have this one all outside.

Skylar Grey should be draped in similar garments as she is in the real video, but doing her dance on a beach, walking along the coastline. Eminem should be continuing his "road to recovery" as is depicted on his album cover, reminiscing about meeting Dre and the bond they have forged over the years.  In doing so there would be a large projection screen behind him at times showing old footage of him and the good doctor.  Likewise, Dre himself would be walking alone, gathering his thoughts until he and Em meet up at the end.  Let the video then leave audiences salivate with foreshadows of the upcoming Detox release via the projection screen.

Don't Dumb-Down the Oscars

Last Sunday's Oscars telecast had one of the most illuminating stage designs and technical setups in its history.  The combination of giant arching projection screens with live entertainment made for breathtaking moments.  Despite what other bloggers and critics may say, (ahem, Roger Ebert), the 83rd Annual Academy Awards was a triumph, even in the lieu of an odd-pairing of hosts.

The trend of award shows, not to mention just about every other major event as of late, is to attract a younger audience to boost ratings and therefore increase ad space prices.  Thus, the decision for the Oscars to have two hosts that happen to be Hollywood's ambassadors to young fledgeling talent made sense, right?  Wrong.  Though the overall hosting wasn't terrible, there was a memorable moment when James Franco dressed in drag and made an oh-too-easy jab at Charlie Sheen, it wasn't at all necessary for their to be two hosts.  Anne Hathaway stole the show in the end with her singing, "dancing", and overall knack for comedy.  However, the lesson here is: if you are up for an award as prestigious as an Oscar, don't host or present during the award show.  Not that James Franco ever had a chance nor should he have been nominated for that matter.


(Courtesy of ABC via The Hollywood Reporter)

But why are major brands and events trying desperately to attract a larger younger demographic?  If the economic times have taught us anything it's that the youth especially don't have any disposable income to part ways with considering they can't get well-paying jobs, if any at all.  Instead they should focus on their tradition of greatness and prestige, which they have built into their brand for the last several decades.  The youth will always need role models and guides to show them how to act and appreciate their accomplishments, not to mention why they are working so hard for the recognition in the first place.

The Oscars have never been about pleasing teenagers, yet everyday there are thousands of them dreaming about going to Hollywood and thousands more moving there for a shot at stardom.  If they really cared about attracting the younger demo more, then they should have awarded The Social Network with the Best Picture Oscar over The King's Speech as should have been the case, but that's another post.  That way any youth audience they were able to attract would be validated for participating in the telecast and definitely be back next year.

The Oscars should just continue its legacy of providing the filmmaking world with a high quality award show to celebrate the achievements of the past year at the movies.  They can't get every demographic and quite frankly they don't need to. The Oscar s a brand worth fighting for and every aspiring filmmaker will agree.  They dream about it when they are kids; study for it when they are teens, vie for the roles and risk everything when they are in their twenties; then finally get validated with a nom and/or award by the time they are middle-aged if they are lucky.

So Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences, stick to your guns and don't try to dumb-down for your audience.  And while we are on the subject, switch the Best Picture category back to 5 nominations or at the very most 6.  Half of the past two years' nominations didn't deserve it, but that's another post.