One of the communications and design magazines that we subscribe to recently ran an informal survey entitled ‘Hall of Shame: corporate identity’ that I was asked to contribute to. 

It contained many of the usual suspects: the 2012 Olympics logo (which I actually like), Pepsi’s rebrand and BP’s ‘greenwash’.  I could have added Accenture’s Tiger campaigns, MetroBank and many others. But what the article didn’t do was look at our least favourite brand identities in detail, and explore what we can learn from them.

My own nomination for the hall of shame was FCUK. FCUK would have probably been a great, if targeted, advertising campaign – cheeky, punchy and rude. But ad campaigns are short lived, whereas brands are supposed to be built to last, and as a brand FCUK has gone from initial success to commercial liability.

Many US citizens took such offence to the name that they wouldn’t allow the stores to open in their cities – effectively cutting off expansion plans at the knees.

Not only did the ‘gag’ get tired and boring pretty quickly (destroying the brand’s appeal to a huge swath of the population) but its edginess wasn’t reflected in the brand’s clothing, which were fairly conservative.

But whenever I see FCUK the same questions always run through my head: who was it aimed at; what was the brand strategy; what testing took place before it was rolled out; and how did this happen?

Audience
If brands are to create something meaningful they need to stand in the shoes of their customers and ask: ”What’s in it for me?” And after the initial rebellious buzz of wearing an FCUK T-shirt, surely no intelligent adult over 25 thought it was clever to walk around with an expletive written across their chest?

The teenage rebels who’d presumably think it’s funny to wear ‘sweary’ clothes quickly lost interest in FCUK’s relatively expensive apparel, so was the audience properly defined or mapped before the work was carried out?

Brand strategy
While raising French Connection’s profile was obviously part of the initial drive behind the name and identity change, it is reasonable to ask questions about the brand strategy beyond that initial ‘shock tactic’ publicity.

With stylish and classic clothes synonymous with quality and with an average price point much higher than, say, Old Navy, Gap or Zara, the brand needed to carve out a niche in a more premium space, somewhere similar to that now occupied by Banana Republic or Boden. How they hoped to achieve this with the appellation FCUK clearly visible on the labels of almost all their clothes is anyone’s guess – you can’t wear that to work!

Testing
I’m pretty cynical about testing. It’s not normally done very well and I’ve seen too many great design and brand solutions go through testing only to come out as dumbed down versions of their former selves. But having said that, testing does have a role as a disaster check, especially when a company is looking to expand into new markets. Did French Connection ask anyone’s opinion before leaping headlong off the cliff?

How did this happen?
This is one of the most interesting aspects of the story, and tells us a lot about the differences between branding consultancies and advertising agencies (both of whom think they can do the other’s job better).

Put very crudely, advertising agencies need to help to attract attention to brands in a noisy world. The biggest risk in advertising is not being seen. Branding agencies, on the other hand, have to identify the strategy and positioning of a brand, and then provide the tools to help deliver many different messages. So, it comes as no surprise that the move from French Connection to FCUK was the brainchild of an advertising agency (TBWA).

FCUK undoubtedly had huge impact and differentiation at the time; therefore advertising worked to some degree. But what it didn’t achieve was clear positioning, relevance to the audience, longevity, distinctive design style, or a positive brand message.

If the move from French Connection to FCUK was a poor long term branding decision that has adversely affected the bottom line and opened the door for other brands, it is fair to argue that a strong and relevant brand could have pushed profits in the opposite direction. Branding (good or bad) undoubtedly affects business significantly, be it retail, professional or financial services - something many people still doubt.

Anyone thinking of embarking on a rebrand, brand review, or brand rationalisation should think carefully about the agency they appoint. You wouldn’t use a decorator to re-point a house.

Simon Case

simon.case@greentarget.net