Tag Archives: McDonald’s

Your Brand Isn’t the Problem

Your Brand Isn't the Problem

GUEST POST from Mike Shipulski

Cigarette companies rebranded themselves because their products caused cancer and they wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their products. Their name and logo (which stand for their brand) were mapped to bad things (cancer) so they changed their name and logo. The bad things still happened, but the company was one step removed. There was always the option to stop causing cancer and to leave the name and logo as-is, but that would have required a real change, difficult change, a fundamental change. Instead of stopping the harm, cigarette companies ran away from their heritage and rebranded.

Facebook rebranded itself because its offering caused cancer of a different sort. And they, too, wanted to separate themselves from how their customers experienced their offering. The world mapped the Facebook brand to bullying, harming children, and misinformation that destroyed institutions. Sure, Facebook had the option to keep the name and logo and stop doing harm, but they chose to keep the harm and change the name and logo. Like the cigarette companies, they chose to keep the unskillful behavior and change their brand to try to sidestep their damaging ways. Yes, they could have changed their behavior and kept their logo, but they chose to change their logo and double down on their unhealthy heritage.

The cigarette companies and Facebook didn’t rebrand themselves to move toward something better, they rebranded to run away from the very thing they created, the very experience they delivered to their customers. In that way, they tried to distance themselves from their offering because their offering was harmful. And in that way, rebranding is most often about moving away from the experience that customers experience. And in that way, rebranding is hardly ever about moving toward something better.

One exception I can think of is a special type of rebranding that is a distillation of the brand, where the brand name gets shorter. Several made-up examples: Nike Shoes to Nike; McDonald’s Hamburgers to McDonald’s; and Netflix Streaming Services to Netflix. In all three cases, the offering hasn’t changed and customers still recognize the brand. Everyone still knows it’s all about cool footwear, a repeatable fast-food experience, and top-notch entertainment content. If anything, the connection with the heritage is concentrated and strengthened and the appeal is broader. If your rebranding makes the name longer or the message more nuanced, you get some credit for confusing your customers, but you don’t qualify for this special exception.

If you want to move toward something better, it’s likely better to keep the name and logo and change the offering to something better. Your brand has history and your customers have mapped the goodness you provide to your name and logo. Why not use that to your advantage? Why not build on what you’ve built and morph it slowly into something better? Why not keep the brand and improve the offering? Why not remap your good brand to an improved offering so that your brand improves slowly over time? Isn’t it more effective to use your brand recognition as the mechanism to attract attention to your improved offering?

In almost all cases, rebranding is a sign that something’s wrong. It’s expensive, it consumes a huge amount of company resources, and there’s little to no direct benefit to customers. When you feel the urge to rebrand, I strongly urge you to keep the brand and improve your offering. That way your customers will benefit and your brand will improve.

Image credit: Pixabay

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Re-imagining Drive Thru Restaurants – Innovation or Not

Food Locker Pickup Pizza Hut

Coronavirus (COVID-19) has changed our world with the subtlety of a sledgehammer and now billions of people around the world are under ‘stay at home’ orders. In many communities restaurants and bars are closed or only allowed to deliver meals or make them available as ‘to-go’ or takeaway orders.

But, even with the plethora of food delivery services in the United States and elsewhere, people still prefer drive-thru to food delivery when they choose not to dine in. But what are you to do when your restaurant isn’t configured with a drive-thru window?

One answer would be to re-imagine the drive thru and takeaway by learning from the automats of the 1930’s and 1940’s (the last one in New York City closed in 1991) and Amazon Lockers.

Food Locker Automat 1936

You can create lockers for warm food and lockers for cold food. Before the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic began spreading across the globe some companies were experimenting with food lockers combined with mobile ordering at ballparks:

Food Lockers with Mobile Ordering at Ballparks

And, Pizza Hut was experimenting in Hollywood with Pizza Lockers to eliminate interactions with employees (picture top of article).

One could imagine that as Coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdowns stretch from weeks from months, and the virus lingers for the next 12-24 months, and fears of individuals linger potentially even longer, restaurants may want to re-imagine how they configure and leverage their physical space.

Is it worth redeploying an external wall of the restaurant to optimize to go or takeaway orders?

The idea isn’t that difficult for an individual restaurant to adopt as there are companies manufacturing food lockers already, and they can be combined with PIN’s to unlock them that can be delivered by email or mobile platforms and reset after each use.

During a virus outbreak (or on an ongoing basis) sanitizing wipes could be provided or if the lockers are on the street, then one employee could be staffed for delivering food from the kitchen to the lockers and then sanitizing the lockers on the outside of the restaurant.

Have you seen this type of solution growing in your part of the world?

Innovation or not?

Accelerate your change and transformation success

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.

Growing Demand for a Third Place

Growing Demand for a Third PlaceI’ve been meaning to write this post for some time, and am finally getting around to it, so hear goes…

As I look around the economic landscape in the United States and see a climate where not only home prices but also rents are falling in many geographies, especially as the results of an all-advised rental property construction boom become available. I find myself thinking that we are in the middle of a profound shift in the American reality.

I think we are in the middle of an unexpected regression back to more multi-generational housing and a return to increasing levels of co-habitation amongst the young. Now when I speak about co-habitation here, I’m not talking about couples living out of wedlock, but instead I’m talking about more people living with roommates – and not just the young. In the future I believer we’ll see not just the young co-habitating, but older people too.

So, two housing demand destroying events coming together at the same time. But besides a decline in home prices and rents, there is another important impact of this changing American reality that I don’t see being addressed…

As more people live with roommates or in multi-generational housing situations and seek to get to get out more for some thinking and breathing room, there is going to be an increasing demand for more third places.

Starbucks and the Third PlaceFor those of you not familiar with the third place concept, coffee shops like Starbucks are one of the most famous examples, but there are other third places in the United States. There is the shopping mall (you know it’s true), the convenience store (see Bill & Ted’s Excellence Adventure), the YMCA, the Boys and Girls Clubs, and the Public Library. It seems like the latchkey kid phenomenon has become the library kid phenomenon. Kids leave school and go to the library and hang out there until their parents get off work and come by to pick them up.

Some shopping malls have installed free wifi, giant chess boards, and tables for people to use laptops or play games. Cities and YMCA’s have created teen centers. But one thing I have yet to see that I am waiting to see is a transformation in the mindset of the companies that run fast food chains like McDonald’s, Burger King, Taco Bell and others. When you go into a Starbucks it is very inviting and it is a happening place with old friends meeting up, kids sitting around doing homework, small business people working, and job interviews taking place. But when you go into a McDonald’s or other fast food chain, most of the time they are empty places designed purposely with uncomfortable seating, harsh lighting and other touches to make people get in and out as fast as possible. Most fast food chains do a booming drive-thru and carryout business, but not a lot of people stay and sit down. Nobody wants to hang out in an uncomfortable place.

But what would happen if McDonald’s or some other fast food retailer changed their thinking to create a third place environment to fill their empty seats?

How many more customers would they attract and engage?

How much more loyalty would they build?

How much more of their customers’ fast food spend would they achieve?

In my mind these are questions worth asking, and the biggest one is which major chain will move first?

Build a Common Language of Innovation

Subscribe to Human-Centered Change & Innovation WeeklySign up here to get Human-Centered Change & Innovation Weekly delivered to your inbox every week.