As someone who keeps his finger on the pulse of the QSR industry, I feel like the “breaking news” of McDonalds spending US $1 billion dollars to renovate its restaurants is so “2000-and -late!” Design and experience is something McDonald’s has been paying close attention to for some time. Way back in 2008, while doing global tours of QSR concepts, it was clear that McDonald’s had discovered that investing in the brand experience would pay off.

A visit to its freestanding prototype in Munich proved to engage customers of all ages with an innovative and comprehensive collection of experiences under one roof. The MacCafé space had a modern but friendly vibe with comfy seating, dramatic lighting, and even highly productive working space for those Wi-Fi squatters. A kids zone, with its whimsical décor and private party rooms created a place just for youngsters. Finally, the over-the-top play area appealed to kids and teens with a climbing structure, basketball hoop, and rideable video games.

In fairness to all the “other guys” McDonald’s has triple the locations of the number two burger chain and boatloads of cash. And these Taj Mahals are lab restaurants where many of the innovations will not be rolled out. What is impressive to me is that for an industry where speed of service and operations are such a laser focus, it is still willing to think creatively about the “front of the house” – in other words, what matters to the customer. Over the years it has been methodically exploring through prototype after prototype: What will make customers pass up Panera and the other fast growing fast casual players, in favor of a burger joint. Well, in case you haven’t noticed, McDonald’s is not a burger joint any more.

Great consumer insights, experience design, product innovation, brilliant marketing, all continue to evolve the McDonald’s brand. This is what keeps it on the right path and my guess is that it will pay for itself faster than the Wall Street pundits think.

Today I met a new client client for the first time, and it’s an encounter that I doubt I’ll soon forget. I looked across the table and saw unbridled courage looking right back. Not long into our meeting, the CEO stood proudly on his soapbox and proclaimed that “Wowing the customer is a moving target,” and then proceeded to give us complete freedom to explore what his brand could be, not what it should be. No implementation parameters. No site conditions. No “handcuffs” as he put it. What a terrific feeling, what a terrific opportunity for our company, but more importantly, what a terrific opportunity for his brand.

When I thought about it, it took great courage to hand over the very successful brand he has built by years of hard work and determination. He explained that it didn’t matter if he liked it at all, the only thing that mattered was that the customers whose hearts he had won over in the past would be reinvigorated and that he would attract new customers by giving them something worthy of their attention. The people, the bullet-proof operations, the care that had been baked into the brand would take it from there. Unbridled courage, coupled with the faith of doing things right and for the right reasons. Wow.

As a creative with a background in graphic design, I notice the aesthetic details of corporate brand work. I notice when a logo color looks terrible in a commercial. I notice when a brand identity is terribly misused or when a font is substituted with something “close enough.” And don’t get me started on all those amateurs using inch marks for quotations. So of course, I was well aware that Starbucks had a twin-tailed siren, or as I like to call her, a mermaid in the center of their circular brand mark. But we designers are a mere fraction of the audience for this logo.

Coincidentally, not long ago I asked my wife (a nurse by training) about the mermaid inside the Starbucks logo. Her response was, and I quote: That’s a mermaid? I never really looked at that before. Unquote. This, I will argue, is the real crux of the logo redesign. People knew something was in that circle, but I contend that clear knowledge of it was nowhere near common—let alone the story behind it.

Some might say that because the mermaid was more of a texture that lacked equity, it should not be over-leveraged. But I assert that she is the only element, albeit underplayed until now, that could evolve into a shorthand for the brand.

Aesthetics aside…My gut thought is that this is a very strategic move akin to what Apple did a couple years ago when they removed the word “computers” from their name, wanting to be more broadly know as a tech brand and not just a computer company. With Starbucks offering more and more food options, a new wine and cheese concept and trying to get more of our different day-part bucks, I think the logo move is a smart one. They already have awareness of their mark (green circular object on a white field) and also the white cup with a brown holder around it…so why not take a page from Apple’s book but go one step further.

I suspect this will have very little affect on the coffee chugging public, as long as they get their iconic white cup with a brown holder (that’s Starbucks REAL identity if you ask me).

I love a good logo. There is nothing quite like the elegance of a brand boiled down to its core values and essence and then visualized in a single symbol or signature. Great logos or brand identities are simple, iconic, and powerful.

Simple means the identity doesn’t have to literally represent every single aspect of the brand, but it does have to be able to encompass everything the brand delivers, and that is no small task.

To be iconic a brand has to be aware of its industry, and look for white space or opportunities to differentiate, As well a be aware of general trends, and the overall cultural and human experience that is delivered by its symbol or signature. Of course, always being sensitive to building or leveraging its heritage where appropriate, which is really a key point—the idea that great brands always evolve their identity to be relevant to the era, brand, and most importantly the customer. Coke, AT&T and Apple are great examples of brands that understand that their identities or logos are living breathing assets that must be tended to like a garden from time to time in order to keep them fresh.

When is an identity powerful? I think there a several measures to consider. First and foremost, do your customers think it signals the right kind of emotions? Next, it’s important to understand the uniqueness of the mark. Is it different, disruptive, eye-catching, attractive, aspirational, really is it special? Does it have badge factor? Do you want to wear it? When the brand can answer yes to these questions there is a good chance the mark is powerful.

In a hugely surprising move last week, Gap unveiled a new logo. My first emotion, before even seeing it, was one of excitement (with a side of: why would they mess with such an iconic identity?)

I was disgusted, like everyone else, to see what Gap considered worthy enough to be the new face of their brand. I am all for refreshing your brand, but be respectful. A company like Gap or Coca-Cola or McDonald’s should realize that they aren’t just brands, they are huge parts of our culture and have very significant emotional meanings to people all over the world. It’s because of this that such a lashing out has occurred.

For what many people consider to be the “leader in fashion trends” (actually, I would argue against that) to put such a heinous face on their brand throws their fashion credibility into serious question!

I love cars. I love old cars, I love new cars and I especially love those wacky concept cars that stretch your imagination and predict what could be. I love the Batmobile and Herbie the Love bug. I have loved working with many of the automotive brands, exploiting the branded traits and individual personalities that make them distinctive. I have recently enjoyed watching both Hyundai and Kia rise from their former selves to become the darlings of the automobile industry.

I don’t know about your neighborhood, but in our market, the new Hyundai Sonata is selling like the proverbial hotcake. The factory is at capacity and Hyundai is asking for more, according to Automotive News. Maybe a little more design forward than the other guys, doesn’t look like anything else, lots of models to choose from…all adding up to an attractive package.

Kia also seems to be on a bit of a winning streak, with aggressive new product that has a distinctive, sporty flair. It seems like they have something new and notable out every few months or so. Their new “tiger” inspired front styling is both modern and different and works well against their portfolio of product thus far.

Perhaps the most notable aspect of the Korean emergence is in the saturation of advertising across a variety of touch points. Using upbeat music in a car ad is nothing new, but putting a sock monkey or a hamster at the wheel certainly is. I love the quirky attitude that the brand is displaying, the ads are very memorable. Likewise, Hyundai’s use of Jeff Bridges as their spokesperson is also refreshing. The ads come across as honest and down to earth and his voice has a casual, intriguing quality.

Having read the article about the half-mile-long beaver dam in Alberta, Canada, it occurred to me that those beavers exemplify something frequently overlooked in the retail design business, the idea that it’s okay to fail.

You would have to imagine that over the reported 2800 linear feet of dam in what is basically a flat terrain, there’s the likelihood that sometimes it just doesn’t work the way they intended. The colony has to react quickly to failure to ensure the safety of their habitat. If any of you beavers are reading this post and would like to broaden your portfolio, by all means, give us a call. Failure is an option in design as long as it’s smart failure and failing for the right reason. If it helps the idea move forward, then it might just net out the absolute best result.

In today’s market, retail brands developing a new design concept rarely have the luxury of time. Business pressure demands short design-and-build timeframes, followed by testing and refining.

There wasn’t an Evolutionary War for a reason. In the pre-dawn of U.S. history, the new settlers wanted more than to just evolve the British rule, it had to be overthrown. A new start, a clean slate. Imagine the pressure that those founding fathers must have felt when deciding that enough was enough, let’s try something new. Today, many brands find themselves in the same place. The status quo isn’t working. It’s time to differentiate. But I wonder if the ideas of “revolution” and “evolution” aren’t being confused.

As I was finishing up payment at the pharmacy, a young male employee strolled into the area and struck up a conversation with the staff by saying, “That new Kotex packaging is sharp!” Silence. Then, apparently mistaking the silence as a request for clarification, he continued, “You know, the black packages? They are really cool looking!” More silence. Based on a quick survey of their expressions, everyone seemed to be thinking the same thing, What is an 18 year old guy doing talking about feminine hygiene products?!

Even as I grabbed my purchase and escaped the awkwardness, I began to contemplate what transpired. Given that I spend my days knee-deep in shopper sciences, I found the situation quite compelling. Good packaging should be, in part, disruptive, and the new U by Kotex packaging is definitely that. The sub-brand is unique in the category, both in shelf presentation and in the “get real” tone of the advertising. A+ on disruption.

Businesses in search of competitive advantage are much more comfortable asking design consultants for “innovation” when they should be asking for “creativity,” the birthplace of new ideas. But creativity, with its faint air of mystery and associations with renegade, non-corporate types, doesn’t seem at home in the world of commerce, where goals are achieved through “procedure” and “knowledge.”

Interbrand Design Forum has seen an increase in the number of retail brands deciding to bring creativity to the table, but a negative tendency to have their procurement officers treat it like a commodity—buying it by the pound. That’s a mistake. Few agencies know how to bring about the environment, the chemistry and the provocation that net the great, disruptive ideas that are actionable in terms of the brand experience. The kind that can move your business to a new place.

Interbrand Design Forum Ranks the Most Valuable U.S. Retail Brands; Walmart Remains the Top Retailer, Target Leaps to Second Report shows that the strong brands got stronger, while the bottom 25 fell.

Interbrand Design Forum redesigns all 400,000 square feet of the space to create a state-of-the art destination store