SHOOT FROM THE HIP

If you’ve been following the Swedish furniture giant, IKEA, lately – whether via its newest catalogue, Twitter or Time Magazine – you have probably discovered that the company recently underwent a transformation which caused shock waves and outrage to ripple through the Social Media universe. The transformation was a change in the style of font used for IKEA catalogues and print advertising, beginning with the recently-mailed 2010 catalogue. The ensuing consumer response to this change illustrates three notable phenomena: 1) the passion of brand enthusiasts, 2) the crucial need to listen to, and engage with, customers before making changes that affect those customers’ perceptions of one’s brand, and 3) the vital force of Twitter. That is why I love this story.

The switch IKEA made was from a customized version of Futura to a standardized version of Microsoft’s open-source Verdana. Now, before you roll your eyes, let me assure you that this was a strategic decision. IKEA wanted to cut costs and be able to use the same font across the globe. As IKEA spokeswoman, Monika Gocic, put it, Verdana is “more efficient and cost-effective.” The ultimate result of IKEA’s decision, however, may turn out to be anything but cost-effective, and ultimately damaging to its brand identity.

IKEA failed to consider the level of passionate attachment IKEA enthusiasts have for the brand, and its visual representation. According to statements made on Twitter and in interviews, many IKEA enthusiasts saw the company’s shift to a more ubiquitous, simplified font as potentially emblematic of a shift in IKEA’s larger brand and design philosophy. And they were vocal in their upset.

This was both a blessing and a curse. The fact that enthusiasts are so invested in the IKEA brand that they felt compelled to articulate their dismay is impressive, on one hand. It indicates how much they identify, and personalize their relationship, with the brand. Companies live for this kind of loyalty. However, these enthusiasts had interpreted the company’s actions as negatively influencing the overall brand image and value.

No company known amongst its loyalists as a design innovator wants to suddenly be associated with dumbed-down, common-place design. But that is exactly the leap that was made. IKEA did not expect this reaction. In addition, it did not formulate a response to, or open up dialogue with, its enthusiasts.

This may have been a critical misstep.

In less than a day, IKEA’s new font was as active a topic in the Twitterverse as Senator Edward Kennedy’s death. And the conversation was global. Days later, the discussion continues. It is fed by the interactive energy of Twitter, and carried forward by mainstream media, blogs and word-of-mouth. It involves both IKEA enthusiasts and those originally only marginally interested in the subject. But a voice from IKEA has yet to join in.

It is too soon to tell whether enthusiasts’ negative sentiments will mushroom into a revolt, as happened for Coke when it made a little change back in 1985, or will disappear from the Twitterstream without affecting IKEA’s bottom line. It would be a shame, however, if nothing is learned from this “surprise” development.

I hope that IKEA eventually does fashion a response to their enthusiasts, addresses the misunderstanding, and adjusts their strategy following this episode. If nothing else, perhaps they now will remember the following:

a) Never underestimate the power of your brand enthusiasts. They will carry you far, maintain inspiring loyalty and spread the message of your brilliance… as long as you hold up your end of the bargain. Simply put:

* Listen to your enthusiasts;

* Respect their opinions; and

* Create dialogue to communicate your intentions.

b) Do not dismiss the force of Twitter. It is now, dare I say it, as powerful as the blog.

In the interest of full disclosure, let me clarify that A SQUARED GROUP has no present or past association with IKEA, though I’d put money down that most of the team, at one point or another, has owned a piece or two of IKEA’s assembly-required furniture.

Having just returned from an invigorating four days in Chicago for BlogHer, I am still mulling over all the conversations I had with other bloggers in attendance, and the information shared during the conference sessions. One issue, in particular, is at the forefront of my mind and, based upon the blogosphere chatter, on other attendees minds as well… SWAG. Was it an effective way for Brands to reach their target audiences, or did it do more harm than good?

As Jack Neff discussed in his article for AdAge, and I can attest, there was an abundance of swag at BlogHer – at sign in, at most sponsor booths and at almost every party. Obviously, there were a variety of reasons why over 1200 women (and men) attended BlogHer. The expectation of swag was clearly one of them. In fact, some bloggers brought extra, empty suitcases in which to cart home their loot. With so much stuff, Brands struggled to get noticed in the midst of a lot of clutter.

Based upon my experience, and numerous conversations with women throughout the conference, here’s how it looked from the ground…

The acquisition of swag took on a life of its own. At the SocialLuxe event, which, by most accounts, had the best swag bag, some bloggers did indeed morph into coyote scavengers, taking bags that were designated for others and/or more than one bag. This party took place on the night before the main conference started. The frenzy to take stuff only grew from there. It wasn’t about brand awareness or brand loyalty. It was about possession.

Some attendees approached representatives at booths and in suites with queries about free stuff in lieu of a more commonplace greeting, like “hello.” Quantity usurped quality. Collecting overrode conversing. At the ShutterSisters event, on the final evening of the conference, the hostesses made a radical decision to hold back the promised swag bags, opting to send them to RSVP’d guests after the fact, simply in an attempt to return a level of civility and purity to the proceedings.

What happened to all the stuff?

As a result of all the frenzy, what happened to much of the branded material was… NOTHING. Coupons were abandoned on lunch tables. Multiple branded thumb drives and Mrs. Potato Heads were left for hotel housekeeping. Tote bags were recycled. As Mr. Neff attested, “…maybe even check out one of (Chicago’s) pawn shops this week” to discover where all the stuff went.

Is this what Brands want?

It can sound very impressive to say a Brand has reached every influential female blogger – 1200 targeted consumers – in attendance at BlogHer. Every company that had a coupon or gift in the BlogHer registration bag can make that claim. It is a hollow claim, however, if the brand impression is fleeting, or makes more of an impact on the Sheraton cleaning staff or pawn shop clerk than The Bloggess.

If Brands want to establish lasting relationships with their consumers, motivating long-term loyalty and genuine word-of-mouth enthusiasm, the “bury them in swag” approach does not appear to be the most effective vehicle for communication. Instead, Brands should concentrate on nurturing one-on-one dialogues and memorable brand experiences to foster a level of engagement that doesn’t dissolve upon check-out. Bellhops may have less luggage to wrangle, but bloggers and Brands will ultimately be better served.

Thank you, the academy, method, mom...

We attended the Pro Awards at the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago last night.  Both Melissa and Amy served as judges for this year’s competition, so we were dying to find out which programs would come out on top!  We were also ecstatic to be finalists in three categories for our method Detox Seattle program; Best Use of Event Marketing (five or less venues), Best Campaign Targeting a Micro Audience, and Best