Clinton suffers from the same affliction that haunts most corporations: branding experts deliver branding excellence, but there's no connection to whether or not it accomplishes anything. Her experts focused almost exclusively on media and 'messaging,' while Obama has focused on operations, face-to-face, etc. If Clinton loses, her gurus will somehow come out of it smelling like roses, with lots of money in their pockets, and then move on to 'help' the next candidate. I've written a bit about this at DIM BULB if you'd like to check it out: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/its-good-to-be.html

I think you've got it absolutely right...Ionic Breeze alone accounted for 1/4 of its sales at its high-point! As a brand marketer, I'm fascinated by how an otherwise intelligent management team could have been distracted from the real drivers of their business (i.e. 'need' for devices, supported by real financial results), and embrace instead all of the useless gizmos that otherwise cluttered up their stores (i.e. 'want' purchases). I've written a bit about it at DIM BULB if you'd like to check it out: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/sharper-image-i.html

I agree with you...the calculators are fun and informative. But I find the entire campaign a little confusing (aren't I 'being a pig' when I spend too much, yet I'm supposed to 'feed it?'), and the web site doesn't really give me a clear 'call to action.' Lots of info, for sure, but no real 'a hah' to drive action or prompt any follow-up. Nice try, though, and I love the spot where the pig slaps the would-be TV buyer on the hand. I've written a bit more about it at DIM BULB if you'd like to check it out: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/feed-the-pig.html

The overall concept that advertisers would elect to waste viewers' time (and insult their intelligence, not to mention their gender or race) with spots that tell us nothing relevant, useful, important, or memorable...is far more offensive to me than the particulars of any one commercial. Provocation is a viable ad tactic when the advertiser has nothing else to say about a product or service; I'd almost understand the Salesgenie approach if I thought it would prompt sales (it won't, of course). The funny circular argument is that by getting us to blather on about the spots, they've accomplished their goal of gaining attention. Right. Sales are the goal.

Anyway, I've written about this a bit on DIM BULB if you'd like to check it out: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2008/02/and-then-the-ba.html

I think the Kindle is Amazon's Newton...a cool idea regarding innovating how we interface with media that got realized in a really klunky and soon-to-be-forgotten sort of way. It's smart innovation and branding for Amazon, tho, as after Newton/because of the risk-taking came...well, you know the mantra. I've written about the marketing implications of Kindle at DIM BULB if you'd like to check it out: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/11/amazons-newton.html

I suspect all of that cuddly hippy crap was just the output of brand marketers who thought they were smarter than us (and their own compatriots in BP), promoting a brand image that had no connection to reality. I bet it spent far more on its new logos and signage than it invested in alternate energy. I say we don't need it to be green, or spiritually committed to restoring Gaia, but rather to simply conduct its business efficiently and effectively which, considering the price and supply variability of oil these days, must include research into alt energy. We consumers should have seen through the branding nonsense long ago, and demanded improvement in its actual business conduct. The Sierra Club and WWF may never select the new CEO as their philosopher of the year, but if he makes BP run better, he'll do more for their causes than his predecessor ever did. I've written about this a bit at DIM BULB, if you'd like to check it out: http://dimbulb.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/10/great-logo-terr.html

I think you're right, speaking as a fellow traveler. But as a branding person, I'm intrigued by the how and why of it all. There may well be something marketers in the West can learn from it...and it has to do with illustrating the differences between 'saying' things about brand, and 'doing' things for it. Anyway, I've written about it a bit today on DIM BULB, if you'd like to check it out. http://dimbulb.typepad.com

I'm shocked at the Collective Yawn that is greeting this product introduction. Icnoic, most successful phone model in history, and a sort-of make-or-break launch for Motorola, and all we get is lots of product specs and a hoity-toity web site that has lots of flipping images and spooky music? There's so much they could be doing to make this intro relevant to consumers, and I've pondered that point a bit at DIM BULB, http://dimbulb.typepad.com, if you want to check it out.

I think both entites are acting pretty foolishly. The Red Cross has no business licensing a logo to junky products to get retailed in stores, any more than J&J should be wasting its time trying to vindictively hurt a charitable organization...over a little red plus. This is branding nonsense. I've written more about it from a marketing perspective at DIM BULB, at http://dimbulb.typepad.com.

I agree with most of the conversation in this thread: AMD shouldn't let its lawyers decide and produce its branding and marketing. The full-pager in the Wall Street journal really sealed it for me...what a missed opportunity to communicate positive, meaningful actions for customers and consumers (instead of tisk-tisking Intel). I've written about this in some detail on DIM BULB, at http://dimbulb.typepad.com, if you'd like to check it out.