Great Placement?

I know many communicators will claim that there's no such thing as bad publicity, but check out the logo on the medic's sweatshirt. 

Context matters, doesn't it?

The branding racket tends to discount the idea, if it's recognized at all.  Brands, and all of the artifacts commensurate with their expression -- logos, slogans, value statements -- have an inherent, absolute quality; the possess meaning that exists a priori to the immediacy of experience, and instead influence and change those moments.  Lots of time and money are spent connecting those attributes to commercial products and services.  Logos on sports stadiums.  Slogans in ads.  Value statements framed on office walls.  The right colors and fonts.

Every imaginable tool can get used to propagate brands into the cosmos, because consumers not only value these associations, but should pay for them over the real functional attributes of a product or service.  We all live in this imaginary world populated by Platonic ideals of brands and branding.  Everything is a brand experience.

So what branding is the stretcher-bearer accomplishing for HP?

Granted, he wasn't photographed holding a gun, or was the subject of a news report that he'd done something bad or illegal.  But you really can't avoid recognizing the HP logo on his sweatshirt.  That means the HP brand was a part, however virtually, of that guy's entire day...the moment the pic was snapped, and every other moment during what must have been a horrendous experience.  Dozens, if not hundreds of people were exposed to the logo and catchphrase.  Even if he did nothing but acts of selfless goodness, the context of the HP brand engagement was lots of bloody bodies, screaming people, and general mayhem.

It's an egregious example of the same question we should ask of logos slapped on sports stadiums, airline napkins, or the multitude of corporate PR events that are presumed to say or attach immutable attributes to brands. 

Recognition is better than non-recognition, or so the canon goes, only it doesn't take into account context (staring at the corporate name on a stadium as I sit trapped in traffic is a harmless version of stretcher-guy's exposure).  What gets attached to brands has far more to do with what's going on around them, whether immutably or transitory.  And I'm not sure said attachment lasts far beyond the next contextual moment (flipping fMRI VU meters aside).

Our knowledge, opinions, and base recognition aren't static states, but rather ongoing, fluid products of experience.  Brands don't have things attached to them as much as things attach to brands depending on the context. 

So maybe those HP sweatshirts seemed like a smart idea at the developer conference or employee event for which they were created.  No problem.  But it's foolish to consider them, or any other artifact of branding, as being consistent or absolute outside of the moments in which they're used.  

P.S. Mark Hurd, HP's CEO, earned $34 million last year, it was reported yesterday, as he's credited with tripling the company’s profits.  Two thoughts for you:

1. He is responsible for slashing 40,000 jobs at HP, and
2. HP has spent millions on "The Computer is Personal Again" branding.

So...I wonder where the profits came from...and where they're getting spent?

P.S.S. The photo was by Suhaib Salem for Reuters

Comments

[peter spear]

it's an unfortunate pun, but this appears to be an example of collateral brand-ing (excuse the unfortunate pun). one simply cannot avoid the observation at the heart of this post:

"Our knowledge, opinions, and base recognition aren't static states, but rather ongoing, fluid products of experience. Brands don't have things attached to them as much as things attach to brands depending on the context."

the question is not whether the message that has been invested by branding teams into the visual identity is able to get through in this context.

the question is (and always has been) what does the brand in this context contribute? if it contributes nothing, then what is it doing there? irrelevance is the kiss of death, especially as context consistently proves itself capable of collapsing.

for instance, this may be a contextually relevant usage of the visual identity within the community to whom it is meant to be interacting. it could be a local football club, or even a familiar stadium where people are losing lives - in which case it contributes to an overall sense of a shared event.

which demands that if the brand is there, it better really be there - helping, contributing, participating alongside those they emblazon.

[Jonathan]

Great points all. I agree that the HP logo on the medic's shirt isn't necessarily a negative association, but more so that it's simply irrelevant. The idea of putting it on medical machinery is an interesting one, but I still come back to the challenge (or hope) that people would see, register, remember, prioritize, and then ultimately apply that branding moment to some other more business-critical event (like buying an HP product). The equation just doesn't work for me...

[BrandStrategy]

I just think it's a bit confusing. I don't associate HP with medical care, so it doesn't make sense to me that a medic would bear that logo.

Far more convincing for me would be to see HP branding on a medical device used by a paramedic or on hospital equipment. Since most things have computers as some element, that would make sense to me and suggest that HP is the brand of choice of life and death medical machines.

But this just looks like filling a bit of empty space on a uniform with a logo. It doesn't make me think better or worse of HP. If I passed that medic, I might think: "Hmm, their logo looks just like that HP logo..." but I probably wouldn't think it was the HP one because it makes no sense in that context.

I don't think that HP being associated with mayhem/bodies etc is in any way a threat to the company's brand identity. I just think that the message is lost.

[Dude in Calif.]

P.S. Whatever happened to the HP dalmation campaign? Or the "What if?" campaign, where some dork on vacation calls back to his office?

[Dude in Calif.]

Uh - perhaps he was branding a cow?

I think you're stretching here. It's like an applications software company pushing a logo on the boards at a hockey game. Do you think the logo makes a difference (to buyers) when the Dallas/Chicago goons drop their gloves and deposit BOTI? No.

And as far as brand ID, it's all about Trout & Reis' positioning. A brand (or position) occupies a ladder in your mind. It's hard to get -- in this case, HP -- a company off a rung and associate it with anything that's going on. It's like saying that a fatty wearing a Nike/Adidas/Reebok logo will associate the logo with fitness; when in fact, the person is associating him/herself with their lack of svelteness.

I think it's back to your book title. Nothing more.

[Marc]

I agree, "Recognition is better than non-recognition" overlooks the major impact that context can have. But I would argue that in this context HP's branding was saved by the fact that this guy, wearing their logo, was saving lives.

The hundreds of people who may have seen him and unconsciously registered the HP imprint among the chaos may very well remember "it was a horrible day, bodies were everywhere... but thank god for those heroes running around like that medic with the HP sweater risking his life to save others, I will never forget him." And thus a positive link between the consumer and HP was forged. It may very well be unconsciously associated with war but knowing that the human mind looks back on the past with a propensity to delete bad images in lieu of good ones, I'm betting that the positive association would win out.