How true!  Unless you knew the David and Goliath story in the early years, the symbolism wouldn’t have made sense (Apple being David and Microsoft being the monolithic Goliath).  Further, what we now take as a hallmark of simplistic design is really more than that:  the logo reinforces the approach Apple has taken with all its usability, design, and marketing efforts.  We wouldn’t need to see a logo to know something is Apple’s – that’s how well all of its parts are integrated.  Beyond this, in my view, because of its consistency and discipline in what it produces (products, ads, stores, service), Apple is the rare brand which is much more than the “sum of its parts.”

This conversation with Adam comes right on the heels of watching TED Talk’s “Julian Baggini: Is there a real you?”  where Julian put forward a rather “gestalt” notion of “self.”   He asked:

• Are “You” a thing which has all the experiences (beliefs, desires, sensations, etc.) of life OR
• Are “You” a collection of those experiences?

He gave two examples to support the latter point:

• Water cannot be water without its parts (hydrogen and oxygen).
• A wristwatch is created by its parts, but there is no thing which exists on its own called a watch.

Taking his philosophy to the extreme, there may be nothing but the unknown – parts to the N^th degree.   (What are the parts of hydrogen?  And the parts of hydrogen’s parts?  At some point, we simply don’t have all the answers.)

Nevertheless, this idea really is at the core of how brands are built.  A brand clearly isn’t a person with desires and sensations.  Yet, everything a brand does, says and shows helps to create the brand and its corporate culture – whether they transcend beyond mere branding as Apple has done.

In the interest of “self-awareness,” when was the last time your company did a image/concept board audit showcasing all your “parts”?  Are they working together?  Anything need to be refined?  Anything which can be leveraged to new marketing practices or products that reinforce consumers’ view of your?  My take:  this audit is just as important as a financial audit; however, they often get overlooked.

Back to Julian:  I do think the human “You” is more than a collection of our experience – which was his argument.  Until there are brain transplants, my brain is unique to me and can’t be used to reassemble another homo sapien.  So on that, I disagree with him.  But my brand?  Time for my own self-audit!

Client interest in this subject got me thinking:  Has innovation become a component in the consumer value equation?  Is this why brands are so interested in owning this association?

The value equation has evolved over the years.  At its core remains three components:  quality, time and price.  But if innovation is an element which is becoming more central to consumer-perceived value, what is it exactly?

Here are my thoughts.  Innovation requires three things:

1. Initially, its “newness” must be tangible or something understood.  (If something’s too esoteric, consumers may have trouble connecting with the product or service.)
2. It needs to be something used (frequently) or easily integrated into a consumer’s life/lifestyle.  (Interaction is key to believing there’s added value; a consumer needs to notice their life is better/different day-to-day.)
3. It needs to be available or accessible to the market it’s targeting.  However, for a brand to get high marks for innovation, it needs to get there first.

Does a brand need to “invent” in order to “innovate”?  No.  Apple is the classic case history for this.  It didn’t invent the MP3 player or the cell phone or the tablet computer.  But clearly, Apple innovated technologies based on a belief that it could create a better user experience coupled with its “rebel with a cause,” anti-establishment attitude.

Google has been an innovator (and some might say inventor) from the start.  But lately I’m hearing the most about Google Apps and the new Google Droid cell phones – innovation not invention.  Along the way, it has become a more mainstream consumer brand (vs. a mere verb for finding things on the Web).

Nike has a history of “inventing” new technologies, borrowed heavily from other industry applications, and building them into its shoes and other gear.  Between its sports endorsements (don’t celebrities always want to wear the latest and greatest?) and selling at somewhat of a higher price for the newer models, it is most often viewed as the most innovative in its category.

Dell had an innovative selling model at the beginning:  they built each computer to order using high-quality components.  At one time, that innovation had value; a computer was a significant purchase.  As computer costs came down, and more known/mainstream/trusted players entered the market, the uniqueness of its selling model became something of an impediment.  So Dell took its products to retail.  An established name, but a brand I no longer consider an innovator in its field.  (They are doing a good job leveraging social media as a selling tool, however.)

While innovation may be playing a larger role in the consumer value equation, my caution is this:  innovation without brand loyalty is meaningless.  What a brand doesn’t want is to  have the cool, hot, innovative product or service of the moment, only to have early adopters flock to another brand who offers the next level in innovation.  How far a brand pushes with innovation should be consistent with its branding, its place in the competitive marketplace, and the short- and long-term dividends that innovations will pay – both to the bottom line and with consumers.

We have monthly phone plans, unlimited data plans, and pre-paid phones, but what about a service that says if you agree to view two ads a day on your mobile, you’ll get X off your monthly carrier changes, and five ads a day you’ll get Y off your charges?  Or extra minutes?  Or free text credits?

Certainly, marketers love the platform because people are literally attached to their phones at the hip.  And, if like TV programming viewed on the Web, a person couldn’t get their messages unless they saw the 10-15-second ad first, theoretically, they would be more attentive to the ad.  At least this form of mobile advertising is more opt-in than any other.  The consumer makes an agreement with their cell phone provider and by extension the ad network:  I’ll agree to watch you ads if you lower my bill.

Are we so entrenched in the cable TV model that we’re not thinking outside the box?  I think there could be an opportunity here.  What do you think?

Over the last year, “apps” and “social media” have gotten a lot of attention.  “Apps” are making smartphones more indispensible – “stickier”to use a word from Web 1.0.

And social media (Web 2.0′s driver)?  While there’s a lot of hype, we’re beginning to hear that interest among some segments is waning.  Dunbar’s Number has been trotted back out as rationalization for the slowed growth.  (How many “friends” can you really follow?)

So, can social media be made more engaging and relevant with “stickiness”?

There are lots of folks out there trying, but the one concept that’s caught my eye for its potential “marketing legs” is location-based mobile services – such as Foursquare, Yelp, and Gowalla.  Foursquare seems to be the one to watch and it’s doing some interesting things.  Its site says:

foursquare is a cross between a friend-finder, a social city-guide and a game that rewards you for doing interesting things.  We aim to build things to not only help you keep up with the places your friends go, but that encourage you to discover new places and challenge you to explore your neighborhood in new ways.

Consider customer loyalty programs.  You login and say you’re at a restaurant.  That restaurant knows you’ve been there 10 times before and could reward you with a free dessert.  No cards to keep track of and you are engaged with the brand as you know your actions get you bonuses sooner.

A brand can promote its involvement via Twitter, at checkout, or wherever it makes sense.

Part of the social aspect comes from Foursquare’s “mayor” concept.  If you’re the most frequent visitor to a location, you’re crowned mayor.  A bit of a game or contest that could bring people in again and again.

What about brands without a retail presence?  Pepsi sponsored a NY charity event for CampInteractive:  every time New Yorkers checked in from any location with Foursquare, points were tallied and Pepsi gave money.  In this case, social engagement with a purpose.

Even without charitable involvement or the “mayor” concept, this is a newer form of social media that provides something tangible to the user.  Consequently, in my view, a highly “sticky” idea.

But this idea is different.  Their permanent storefront is always turning over new tenants.  Have a new car you want to showcase?  Rent the mall store for a few weeks.  Have a new product line you’re launching?  Rent the space.  No long-term commitment.  Create some buzz (driving traffic to the mall); reach a wider audience at the mall (and have them seek out more product info through other channels, which will hopefully lead to sales).  Sounds promising.

In Glasgow, they’re trying something similar.  Due to open this year at the Glasgow airport is “planeshop.”  The company website describes planeshop as “a permanent shop with a flexible concept. Brands takeover planeshop for a limited time, so there will always be something exciting to see.”

Last week’s Los Angeles Business Journal highlighted a variation on this theme.  The Glendale Galleria, a very popular shopping mall north of LA, between Pasadena and Burbank, is showcasing local talent.  Called “Local Collection,” it’s a consignment shop for local designers who otherwise might not have any retail presence; the focus is on jewelry, apparel, and housewares.  The hope is that if a designer does well, they might open a small shop in the mall (openings are readily available).  Thirty designers were picked by mall management from among the 100+ applicants.  The designers don’t pay rent, but split sales 50-50% with the mall.  It turns out that the mall is earning very close to what it would have from a full-time tenant.  In my view, it’s Etsy.com come to life.

These trends tap into a resurgence of interest in “local” – local designers, locally-grown produce, local places to meet friends and socialize.  What’s your take on this?  Do you see this as a trend that will last and will complement online retailing?