Fizz Buzz Pop!

This rebranding design for Mirinda is gob-smackingly good, in my view. Often global (as this is) means bland and lowest common denominator, but this pop-art pageant of funtime fruitiness hits the highest common factor in the unashamedly day-glo world of soda pop.

It's been a while since I've been in the market, I know (the price of a sweet tooth is catching up with me and I have to watch it). And, according to the marketing press, this new global platform ("Smile Please") is aimed at GenZ (sic) and their anemoia (nostalgia for a time you've never known) for the 80s, 90s and early 2000s before Smartphones took over everyone's lives. 

And yet, this speaks to me too. Even though I am as old as Mirinda itself:

Fizzy drinks have a proustian madeleine effect on me. The first one I remember drinking was this:

On the beach, from a glass bottle, with a straw. And, a couple of years later came Fanta. Another glass bottle, another straw. This time in a marvellous cafe in College Town (Sandhurst) with sausages and crinkle-cut chips. A treat indeed.

 

A childhood in 1960s and 70s England meant a rainbow-load of fizzy pop. The milkman used to deliver Corona, then there was Tizer and R. White's. I was quite fond of the cream soda - I can remember the taste like yesterday, but still don't know what on earth it was meant to taste like, apart from sweet. 

It's a wonder I have any of my own teeth left.

Holidays brought further fizzy delights. In Canada, root beer and Welch's Grape Soda. And the very sophisticated Canada Dry which my parents would drink with Canadian Whiskey. 

Mirinda, I expect, was something I came across on holiday at some point. It was launched in Spain, but bought up by PepsiCo and marketed worldwide, under various names, hence the focus in the re-design on visual rather than text elements.

The name Mirinda comes from Esperanto originally. But I think the rebrand has done something very clever.

Just as our 21st century Esperanto is Emojis, these design elements are surely the international visual language of fizzy pop.

 

 

I want to be alone? Or maybe not.

 

Nivea must have waited a long, long time to find its purposeful answer to Dove, the great grandmamma of all purpose campaigns. But here they are, and the societal issue they’re tackling is a biggie.

The global loneliness epidemic.

A new film, created by Publicis One Touch, spearheads the campaign. The central idea is “We are not alone in feeling alone” (thanks, Sting!). The film uses ET-style aliens to represent that feeling of “being from another planet” when you don’t feel included and part of things. But the melancholy aliens quickly metamorphose into humans with friendly words and kind gestures.

The film is part of a  long-term campaign package to fight social isolation, called NIVEA CONNECT.  

Now, I think the good people at Nivea and their agencies have their hearts in the right place, but there’s another connection that's missing for me.

Why Nivea? What has skin cream to do with loneliness? I can understand someone like Telekom picking up on human connection - or a food or drink brand that’s shared. In fact, Cadbury’s in the UK have had a campaign on the theme of kindness and generosity for years. 

And ... there’s Coca Cola. The Nivea film reminded me of an ad from 16 years ago:

The creative idea is related - but in my view much stronger.

What stays in my head from the Nivea film? A rather mawkish melancholic mood, depressing depictions of victimhood. 

And from Coca Cola? 16 years later it’s still bringing a smile to my face and I’ll be humming the song all day. 

Just. Slop. I mean Stop.

 

I’m not sure how many predictions reports I can bear to read this year, but I started with WFA as it seems mercifully short. 

Under the heading of “Back to Fundamentals. Again.” came this thought from a WFA member at a recent CMO forum in Toronto:

So many of us are looking at the same Gen AI tools that we’re all doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes.

Well, yes. Alongside using the same Growth Flywheel template, Customer Journey template and all the other formats, templates and other paint-by-numbers gubbins. 

The big brands started their “show and tell, we’ve been playing with AI” kick some time ago, but as a LinkedIn friend of mine pointed out no-one is interested any more. 

And now the butcher, baker and candlestick maker on the corner (and the local nail studio) will be getting in on the act. 

Welcome to the Slop-o-verse. The Multi-coloured Slop Shop.

Maybe for my own part, I should stop with the negative blog posts about this stuff and try and find something a touch more worthwhile.

If this is the future of advertising, I’m underwhelmed

 

This new commercial for Vodafone describes itself as “groundbreaking”. 

Was the YouTube description written by AI? Highly likely, as the film itself was completely produced by AI - text to picture, picture to video, video to video - with a little bit of human help sprinkled here and there by the director, client and creative teams involved.

As a film, it’s OK. AI is definitely capable of better quality film than it was a few months ago. There’s nothing too alarming or creepy about this ad - or, indeed, the Coca Cola Christmas ad this year.

But while there’s nothing too much wrong with it, there’s nothing too much right with it either, in my view. It’s yet another one of those diversity vignette films. The soundtrack, The Rhythm of the Night, is a dance hit from 1993.

And that’s what this ad feels like to me - 1993. Back then, in the agency, we’d often cobble together (well, that’s unfair, as it took a lot of time and skill in those days) “mood films”, sometimes in the form of a “manifesto.” The purpose was to bring the core of what the brand was about to life. It was more entertaining than a brand onion, and more likely to win you a place on a pitch shortlist.

What these things weren’t, however, is creative ideas. They were usually briefed in by a planner and their audience wasn’t Joe and Jane Public - it was the client, to flatter them a little about their wonderful brand.

And meanwhile, in the spirit of “Everybody’s Doing It”, the ghastly stock photos of people joining hands, staring excitedly at their laptops, putting pieces of fruit in front of their eyes or cradling a tender young shoot in the palm of their hands have been replaced with AI-generated monstrosities.

I’m working with a client in the energy sector at the moment, where the visions seem particularly nightmarish:

I do hope I see a little more originality next year!

Th' milk of human kindness

I've got a little prediction. Brand managers will notice that the poster girls of 'Purpose' - female empowerment, body positivity and gender stereotyping - are getting a little long-in-the-tooth and been there/done that, and will start casting around for replacements. Maybe something that's a little less MeMeMe?

A few strands of thought will coalesce. Reports about the divisions and fault lines in society. The movements against online bullying and trolling - #BeKind - and the debate surrounding this. The trend to "uplit" in the publishing world. The call for more empathy, even though people that work in advertising and marketing aren't as good at that one as they think. And, of course, brands that have already taken the first step.

Coca Cola has recently announced its refreshed purpose as "unite and uplift". To me this sounds rather like the opposite of the old Playtex Cross Your Heart line which was about lifting and separating. Brushing that aside, though, as Graham Booth states in the blog post, Coca Cola kind of has uniting in its DNA, although there's been some dilly-dallying around with other ideas in the last few years.

The launch commercial, "Could I be wrong?" has been out for a couple of weeks. We've yet to see if it joins the realms of classic Coca Cola ads such as "Hilltop".


And another variant on the "be nice to each other" theme is Cadbury's, whose brand moved (in 2018) from catalysing moments of joy (which are a little MeMeMe) to moments of kindness to others, specifically generosity, with the idea that "there's a glass and half in everyone."

I'm not sure what the best translation is for "kind" in German - there's "freundlich", which also has connotations of friendliness and approachability. Or "nett" which is simply "nice" with the same sort of connotations. And the words "gütig/gutmütig" which are to do with Goodness.

And this is the thing with kindness. I do think it's a valid area for a brand purpose, but it really isn't a one-size-fits-all thing. I'd hate to see the advertising world awash with "th' milk of human kindness" in the way it's been over-run with increasingly cliched babble about female empowerment.

You can ask children to play nicely if you're a nanny or or primary school teacher. But you can't tell adults to be kind. Kindness comes from within, from your values, and isn't just about some stunt involving random acts, or forcing people with extreme opposing views to drink a beer together.

What unique role does your brand play in kindness? Is it about bringing people together, sharing, helping, caring, understanding ...?

I do hope that the idea of kindness will be a rich seam for marketers.

Yet, advertising industry, do I fear thy nature when it comes to band wagons.

Time Lapse Tech Disruption

This wonderful little film that has been doing the rounds is one of the best demonstrations of the pace of change that I've seen.

I've blogged here and here about this subject, comparing the top brands from one decade to the next, but seeing 18 years in just over a minute before your very eyes really brings it to life.

Maybe the most extraordinary thing is that it's only really the last 10 years that have been so completely crazy - up to 2009 or so, things are relatively stable, until Google and Apple, followed by Amazon and Facebook push their way up.

At this rate, I wouldn't even like to guess at what will happen by 2020, let alone 2029!

Should advertising always be a mirror?

I read an excellent article this week by Graham Booth, entitled Why your advertising should be MAD. Graham presents a reel of 15 ads that he's helped to create during his 30 years' experience and comes to the conclusion that all of these - though very different  - have something in common: a genuine creative idea. The ads are well worth a look, and I'm sure even someone not employed in the ad industry could say, with confidence, what the idea in each is.

By contrast, we're surrounded these days by idea-free advertising, as I bemoaned a couple of posts ago. But, as Graham says, "every ad should aspire to be more than the strategy put on screen, or the brand purpose spoken over generic visuals, or some reflection of the 'real life' of the consumer." Looking at his 15 ads, he remarks that they all employ metaphor, or exaggeration, or contrast. None of them "tell it straight." Hence the title - Make Advertising Drastic (or Daft, Dangerous, Dada ...)

But Graham is just an account man turned researcher. What does a creative director say?

Here's a creative director getting a bit mad, too, but in another sense. I suppose you do get mad when you have someonething telling you that you don't exist. But I do wonder when and where all this "demanding to be reflected" business started. For someone creative, it seems to be taking things terribly literally. I am sure that Graham Booth had plenty of respondents in his group discussions saying they didn't like the ad because the woman on the storyboard had blonde hair, and they've got dark hair.

"Representing diversity" is not a creative idea.

How does this creative director know that the woman in the trainers/chocolate/car ad isn't lesbian? Is sexuality of any relevance whatsoever when you're selling floor cleaner, anyway? Shouldn't we be looking at finding universal human truths that unite us, instead of being divisive?

I vote for getting away from these real life ads (which all look like what we used to call "mood videos") and get creative, and MAD.

But if you're going to do real life, do it well. This ad from Coke is a terrific example and, I'd say, uses a slightly MAD mirror.

Boxing Day, Decade, Century?

Around this time of year, I like to get nostalgic and have a look at advertising and brand communications from days gone by. Now, forgive me if I get lazy for once, but I have found a fascinating write-up of some Christmas ads all the way from the 1980s by Mike Oughton, Creative Director of McCann, in Campaign.

Have a look - you can marvel and revel in the pre-digital masterpieces of Oxo, IBM and Coca-Cola. It was a different world. But the one that makes me most nostalgic, maybe because the brand has disappeared from the UK High Street, is Woolworth's. 'The Spectacular Woolworth's Christmas Show' to be exact. It's got everything - celebrities, sports stars, technology - and tapes. Piles and piles of them.

Tapes aside, I'm quite amazed at how much technology (if you can call it that) was on offer at Woolworth's at the time. And just how much is crammed into the ad - apart from the celebrities, there are brands upon brands, and prices, and music, all-singing, all-dancing.

Now compare that with the Amazon ad above. I think it's a great piece of branding and definitely watchable, but there's also something slightly sinister about it. It's all about the boxes, and the Amazon logo, and whatever is inside those boxes doesn't get a look in. It's certainly single-minded.

Contagious, in their report on the coming trends, talk about 'Amazonification' and describe Jeff Bezos as 'The Man in the Cardboard Castle' - a reference to world domination if ever there was one. Where will Amazon go next? Banking? Pharma? Who knows?

Bots, boxes and Mr Bezos - the future belongs to you?

A Snickers by any other name would taste as sweet

One of the best campaign insights of recent years is that from Snickers: You're Not You When You're Hungry. I know my family will certainly attest to the truth of this one, and it's a great idea that the brand have been using in their advertising for seven years now. So it definitely has legs. Or peanuts.

The latest incarnation of the campaign idea is individual named Snickers bars with a choice of 21 alter-hungry-egos from Stroppy to Grouchy to Moaner to Drama Mama to Faffer to Grumpster. Sounding vaguely like a re-imagining of the 7 dwarfs, the idea is either to buy one for yourself (as a warning to others) or, better still, for a chum or family member.

I know that this idea is adapted from the 'Share a Coke' thought, but I find it even better. Not only is the personalisation element there, but it ties in with a long-running campaign based on a super insight into human nature, which Snickers have made their own. In the US, where they've already run this idea, they got an impressive uplift in sales, and I'm not surprised.

I can almost, almost forgive the brand its own name change from Marathon right back in 1990.

Almost. But not when I'm hungry.

Hello, Piccadilly

The Piccadilly Lights have to be my all time favourite outdoor advertising site. As a teenager, the Claes Oldenburg picture above was one of my favourite art works, and possibly one influence that drew me into advertising as a career.

What I love about the Piccadilly Lights is the combination of tradition and innovation, and the way this advertising site reflects the changing social, cultural and technological landscape.

The first illuminated sign in the area appeared over a century ago - for Perrier, in 1908.

In the 1930s, neon technology took over, with signs for brands such as Bovril, Schweppes and the first appearance of the famous Guinness clock.

Coca Cola first appeared in 1954, and in the 1960s, brands such as BP, Skol, Players and Cinzano had their names in lights. Here's a picture from the early 70s.

By the 80s, tech brands had taken over largely from food and drink, although McDonald's first appeared in 1987. Here's a scene from 1985.

Not all these tech brands are still with us, and as their fortunes changed, so did technology itself. In the 1990s, the lights began to go digital, and in the new millennium,  LED displays came to the fore.

The Piccadilly Lights will relaunch in late 2017 as 'the largest single digital screen in Europe' aka 'The Curve.' Participating brands will include Coca Cola, Samsung and four more. The digital LED screen will be able to do all sorts of nifty stuff - real time, co-creation, social media and all the rest.

Any guesses for how it'll all look in 2117?

Where are they now?

It's that wonderful time of year again when Interbrand come out with their report on Best Global Brands. It's always fascinating to look back into the dim and distant past to see who the top dogs were then and now:

2006                                                                       2016

1. Coca Cola                                                         1. Apple
2. Microsoft                                                          2. Google
3. IBM                                                                  3. Coca Cola
4. GE                                                                    4. Microsoft
5. Intel                                                                  5. Toyota
6. Nokia                                                               6. IBM
7. Toyota                                                              7. Samsung
8. Disney                                                              8. amazon
9. McDonald's                                                      9. Mercedes-Benz
10. Mercedes-Benz                                              10. GE
11. Citi                                                                 11. BMW
12. Marlboro                                                        12. McDonald's
13. Hewlett-Packard                                            13. Disney
14. American Express                                          14. Intel
15. BMW                                                             15. Facebook

As is my wont, I've categorised these brands into the sign of four:

Winners - huge value and rank gain
It's GAFA! (Now that we don't have Brangelina any more there's a new compound noun ...)
Facebook, Apple, Google, Amazon

Staying Around - impressive growth, rank held/gain
Samsung, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Toyota

Slippers - lost rank, small/moderate growth
McDonald's, Disney, Microsoft, Intel, Coca Cola

Losers - lost value and rank
American Express, IBM, Hewlett-Packard, GE, Citi, Nokia, Marlboro

I'm pleased to see a couple of classic German brands holding their own in the tables. But where are the Brits? Uh-oh ...

On the cover of the Rolling Stone

A long time ago, in the last century, I travelled to Los Angeles with some colleagues on business. At the weekend, we took a trip to Universal Studios and had great amusement in a magazine cover-shooting booth, dressing up and becoming cover girls and boys for Cosmopolitan, Playgirl et al.

How quaint that seems now! Technology means that we can get our name or picture on just about anything these days, in a matter of seconds and at minimal cost. Brands have been picking up on this for a few years now. The 'Share a Coke' promotion was the biggy, and since then many brands have followed suit.

At Christmas, Oreo capitalised on the craze for colouring books with 'You make the wrap, we send the pack', a promotion whereby people could design a gift wrap online. This summer, Lay's have had a 'Lay's Summer Days' promotion partnering with Instagram. The first 200,000 to register online with a special code got to have their summer photo printed on a packet of crisps.

A marketing spokesperson for Frito-Lay commented: 'Engaging our consumers is really important to us, so we want to continue to give them a voice and a way to connect with our brand in a meaningful way ... during the summer Lay's plays an important role in their lives and in their moments.'

An aside: Marketing people - please imagine a 'patronisometer' whenever you speak to the press. You are not 'giving them a voice' - people who buy crisps are generally not bound and gagged with duct tape, imprisoned in some inhumane jail.

Moving on, closer to home. At my local dm I noticed the Sofortsticker service. In-store, in a matter of seconds, you can knock up a sticky label with a photo for your homemade jam or for a personalised gift - a bottle of mouthwash or tube of hair-removal cream, maybe?

Although Ms Frito-Lay thinks that a packet of crisps plays an important role in people's lives and 'moments' (come on, make up your mind!) I think that may be over-doing it. What are you going to do with a greasy, empty, crisp bag with a photo of your kids in the paddling pool? Chuck it out, most likely. It's a throwaway thing, just as that sort of personalisation is a throwaway idea. One of those ideas people have because they have heard 'individuality is a megatrend', and because they can - due to technology.

But there are instances where this idea is used in a thoughtful, imaginative and meaningful way. Who wouldn't want one of these?

The brand who saved the world?

Funny how fashions in marketing often go full circle.

Take 'Purpose'. For most of this decade so far, Purpose has been the marketing buzzword. I think a lot of it started with the popularity of Simon Sinek's 2009 book and talks - Start with Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to take Action. Purpose has even found its way to be included as the 5th, or 6th, or 101st 'P' of marketing.

And just last week, I received a trend report from Trendwatching, entitled 'Big Brand Redemption', all about how Big Brands can be the solution (not the problem) when it comes to a sustainable, ethical, brighter future for us all, citing examples such as Unilever's Lifebuoy.

But, but, but. To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, or whatever. For every brand with high falutin' ideas about saving the world, there's another who wants to come down to earth. One of the biggest brand repositioning stories in the last year is from Coke with the move from 'Open Happiness' to the more functional 'Taste the Feeling'. To quote Marco de Quinto, the Coke CMO: We are a simple pleasure, a product that refreshes. Not one that's going to save the world. If by refreshing, you save the world, fine. We are going back to this truth.

And then, in Millward Brown's BrandZ: Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands, this view is reflected:

pg 27: Brands may not need a purpose as high as saving humanity

Intro pg 5: Brands seem to be shifting from higher purpose (making the world better) to narrower purpose (making the customer's life better)

and

Brands do not need a higher purpose ... they need to be seen as improving the life of the consumer in some way

Hang on - isn't that what we used to call a benefit?

All together now

I'm a great fan of Coca Cola's marketing. I have blogged about how the old dog does indeed learn new tricks here . The ideas from Coke that stem from the bottles are a marketing masterstroke, from the original 'Share a Coke with ...' and the names, to the football teams, to the 'Coke through the decades' retro pack designs. These are ideas that are about togetherness and individuality, the collective and the personal simultaneously.

And this summer, Coke has done it again with 'Share a Coke and a Song.' The 'Big 4' Coke varieties will include song lyrics on the packaging, with a promised mix of 70 songs, encompassing old, new, borrowed and blue(s), I expect.

This feels so right for Coke and hopefully will be worth all the effort and expense taken to secure the lyrics. Music is, of course, an international language which unites people. Music is about emotion, memory and mood, which ties in perfectly with Coke's new 'Taste the Feeling' campaign.

In another smart marketing move by Coke, the company will be rolling out its 'One Brand' packaging in 2016 and 2017.

It makes sense to me to bring the variants closer together under one brand - rather like car brands such as Audi, it's the marque that is important emotionally, not the individual variant that suits your physical tastes or needs.

And, going back to the music, I wonder whether it is also one in the eye for Pepsi, who have always had close associations with music in the past.

Halfway to the future

I love looking at my collection of business books from yesteryear, especially those that have the word 'future' in the title. One such is The Future of Brands, edited by Rita Clifton and Esther Maughan, which was published in 2000 to celebrate Interbrand's 25th anniversary. It's a book that was maybe ahead of its time, as it was a collaborative, co-operative effort. Rather than the Interbrand staff pontificating about their view, the editors questioned 25 different people on their 'vision of brands in 25 years' time.'

The 25 people represented some major brands of the time, including Starbucks, BMW, P&G, Samsung, The Body Shop and Reebok. In addition, other personalities a little further away from marketing and branding were included, such as Spike Lee, Paul Smith and one Sepp Blatter.

How well has it held up? This book was conceived and written in the last century, pre 9-11, pre Web 2.0 and in the days when the Interbrand Brand Value Table was topped by Coca Cola, Microsoft, IBM, GE and Ford. Google and amazon were nowhere to be seen and Facebook hadn't been invented.

The answer is, unsurprisingly well. The brands people felt would remain classics and be successful in the future - meaning in 2025 - included Coca Cola, Disney, Ben & Jerry's, BMW, CNN and Adidas. OK, there was rather a lot of mention of Gillette, Yahoo! and Kodak, too - with maybe the strangest anomaly for a 21st century reader being the 15-year-old surfer raving about the brand Kodak - but by and large, over halfway to the future, those predictions are holding up.

What was maybe more difficult was to predict which successful brands of the late 20th century would not fare so well. The obvious answer of Marlboro has been proved right, but it was interesting to see several commentators wondering how McDonalds, Microsoft or Aldi/Lidl might fare. Looking at McDonalds' latest business results, it looks as if they certainly aren't going to go out without a fight. And those German discounters are definitely going from strength to strength.

Ten observations on Brand Futures are listed at the end of the book:

A brand with no clear vision has no clear future
Values-led marketing will create stronger brand relationships
Brand relationships are created for people, by people
The next journey for many companies is inside
It will be increasingly important to understand what makes a brand valuable
Stakeholder brands for a stakeholder society
Individual brands for an individual society 
Simplicity, simplicity
If you don't plan the future you want, you get the one that shows up
Brands have the power to change people's lives - and to change the world

Have these passed the test of time?

10/10.

Anthropomorphisation gone mad

IKEA products have had names since donkey's years, apparently because Ingvar Kamprad found them easier to remember than numbers. And articles of clothing and accessories from certain brands also carry names, increasingly it seems. But while many of these names are people's names (for example, IKEA gives chairs and stools Swedish male names and textiles Swedish names), quite often they'll be a place name (for example, Ben Sherman have 'Romford' polo shirts.) For IKEA, I think this touch adds personalisation, specialness and a friendly feel to what could simply be a mass-market, functional brand.

And, of course, we've had a couple of years now of named Coke bottles - and it's interesting to see these change as you travel through Europe, but the intention here is to share a Coke with someone of that name, rather than anthropomorphising the bottle itself.

Where anthropomorphisation has gone mad is very apparent each time I return to the UK, where there's a growing tendency for packets of food to describe themselves in the first person, rather like the odd potions that Alice encountered in Wonderland. From 'I'm fresh and naked' to 'Keep me in the fridge', it used to be a ploy for the likes of Innocent, to be a little quirky. But now they are all at it, even Own Label. There's a good article about this phenomenon here.

As many of the commentators on the article suggest, this isn't really a big issue, in the great scheme of things. I personally find it twee and slightly creepy and hope it doesn't start appearing here in Germany, although wooly hats did pop up on Innocent bottles last winter, so perhaps it's on its way. But the point is for marketers that it's simply lazy. It's understandable that you want your brand to have a clear tone of voice.

But.

Why does everyone in the UK food industry want the same tone of voice? A lickle cheeky, a lickle chummy, a lickle baby-wabyish?

And, to remind you of the absurdity of anthropomorphisation when it comes to your products, back to IKEA. The TV commercial is probably not such a runner in these days of sustainability, but it's still a classic.

A lost world

A discussion about football over the weekend prompted me to get out the only World Cup programme that I possess - from Mexico 1970. And, once the argument was resolved, as is my wont with printed ephemera, I starting glancing through the ads.

You have to bear in mind that the ads would have been bought to a target audience of young men, possibly with young families as a secondary audience, in those strange days 44 years ago. So there's lots of stuff about cars and automobile-related brands: British Leyland, Fiat, Esso and Mobil. And the odd 1970 hi-tech ad (such as the one for a company called Vines of Trafalgar Square, who made film projectors, in 16mm and 8mm.)

Children were catered for, with ads for Raleigh, Action Man (in his World Cup Kit) and Chelsea ("The girl with the groovy gear" "the up-to-date dress-up-dolly") - funny, she never featured in my childhood!

But the overwhelming impression is of ads for tobacco. B&H takes the back cover, Player's No. 6 proudly presents its prices and Wills Golden Virginia takes us into a pub scene. It's straight out of The Sweeney, with its dartboard and expanses of polished wood.

Given that such scenes will not be appearing in the programme for this year, I realised what was missing. No food and drink, especially of the fast variety. No McDonald's. No Pizza Hut. OK, they had not been introduced to the UK at this point. But no Coke. Not even beer.

Maybe the anti-obesity crusaders have got a point.

Life in the old dog yet

In a post a few weeks back, I noted how Coca Cola has been toppled off Interbrand's top spot by those relative new kids on the block, Apple and Google. Despite this, the brand is showing healthy growth and could even teach a few of the new boys a thing or two about marketing.

One of my very first memories of Coke advertising was a groovy, happy-clappy film of a crowd of young things on a summer hilltop singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke". You could run that film today - on other screens of course - because Coke is still about refreshment and happiness, all wrapped up in good-natured global togetherness. It's less about the strict consistency of corporate design manuals and more a feeling of being true to your self in your outward expression.

The "share a Coke with" named bottles this summer - and it was fascinating to see the names change as we travelled across Europe - was a stunning idea that I am sure will be talked about in years to come. And another innovation is Coke becoming a channel or medium. Instead of the usual corporate web page, Coke has launched CocaCola Journey, a digital magazine buzzing with stories from how to make a Coca Cola Cake to sending a Coke can into space, as well as plenty of the obligatory CGC.

It's a refreshing, happy online magazine, with something for everyone. The corporate facts and figures are still there, but not on the front page.

 A good example of how brands in the 21st century should behave, even if they are 127 years old.

What a difference a decade makes...

There are all manner of Brand Rankings these days - Havas have made a big noise about Meaningful Brands, while WPP are pushing Culturally Vibrant Brands. No, say Siegel & Gale, it's all about Simple Brands, while umpteen organisations have lists of Top Green or Sustainable Brands.

But we're still driven by money at the end of it all and the one list that is of interest to everyone is that from Interbrand - the Most Valuable Brands.

In the highest echelons of this list, you don't see huge changes from year to year, although I do think the toppling of Coca-Cola from the top spot is a major event. But what is fascinating is to look more long-term:

2013                                                                   2003
1. Apple                                                              1. Coca-Cola
2. Google                                                            2. Microsoft
3. Coca Cola                                                       3. IBM
4. IBM                                                                4. GE
5. Microsoft                                                        5. Intel
6. GE                                                                  6. Nokia
7. McDonald's                                                    7. Disney
8. Samsung                                                         8. McDonald's
9. Intel                                                                 9. Marlboro
10. Toyota                                                          10. Mercedes

The 2013 Top 10 really is dominated by technology, while the 2003 list actually included a tobacco brand: how quaint! And you can more-or-less divide these movers and shakers into a few categories. There are the real stars, with double-digit growth - in reverse order of achievement, Samsung, who have moved up from position 25 to position 9. Then the Number 1 Brand, Apple, which was only at position 50 in 2003. Finally, the phenomenon that is Google - this did not appear on the 2003 list, of course.

There are those stable giants, who are growing, albeit in single figures, but who have been pushed down the table to make room for the dynamic new kids. Loads of brands here, from the erstwhile king Coca-Cola, to IBM, GE, McDonald's, Microsoft and Disney, as well as Toyota and Mercedes.

The slipping giants are beginning to see erosion in their Brand Value as calculated by Interbrand - examples here are Intel and HP.

And finally, the losers, who have fallen from the dizzy heights. There's Nokia, now at position 57, and Marlboro, nowhere to be seen in the newest Top 100.

Anyone care to predict the Top Global Brands for 2023?

Kentish Crisps or Crisps of Kent?

The regional card is one that's been played by clever manufacturers for a few years now, tapping into all those feelings of local identity and anti-globalism. Who cares if the handmade crafting pushes the price way up over that of the big boys with their economies of scale?

Just back from holiday and I've seen two examples of doing it right, both of which play cleverly with local pride.

First exhibit is Kent Crisps, "from the Garden of England" whose flavours include Oyster & Vinegar and Roast Beef & Spitfire Ale. Just the thing for a lazy afternoon in the sunny garden of the local pub.

Crossing over the Channel, we discovered Breizh Cola, although it's been around for the last decade. This is what is apparently known as an "Altercola", rather like Afri Cola here in Germany. No personalised bottles, though...

Maybe one day, even these regional products won't be specific enough. Can we expect to see Kentish Crisps and Crisps of Kent one day? Or even Finistere and Morbihan Colas? Or whatever the equivalents are in Breizh?