Archive for the ‘Strategy’ Category

Myths about trademarks and the top 5 reasons to register your brand name and logo.

Monday, June 7th, 2010

trademark

Myth no. 1 – Once you register a trademark you own it forever and for everything

Myth no. 2 – Registering a domain name offers all sorts of legal protection

Myth no. 3 – You can save money if you conduct the search yourselves.

Trademark Tip – Top 5 Reasons to Register Your Brand Name or Logo.

There a myriad reasons to protect your trademark, brand name, logo or slogan through federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Here are just a few of the top reasons why you should seek federal protection for your mark:

1. Trademarks are a part of your company’s intellectual property portfolio. It could very well be one of your most valuable business assets, albeit an intangible one. Trademarks can be accorded a value separate and distinct from other assets in your company. To illustrate, the Coca-Cola® trademark alone is purportedly valued at $70 billion. This doesn’t include other assets such as trucks, manufacturing and bottling facilities, etc., just the Coke® brand. The value of a registered trademark may be listed as a line item asset for companies seeking to attract potential investors or obtain financing.

2. A federally registered trademark grants you nationwide priority claim of ownership to the mark. A registered trademark provides constructive notice to prospective users and potential infringers of your claim of ownership to the mark. In the event of  a dispute concerning rights to use a particular mark, the registered trademark owner will have the benefit of the doubt vis-à-vis a non-registered user of the same mark for similar or related products.

3. In the event of any unauthorized use or potential infringement of a registered trademark, the trademark owner is entitled to seek redress in federal court. The registered trademark owner can bring suit in federal court for trademark infringement and prohibit the alleged infringing mark from being used in commerce in a manner that causes confusion with the registered trademark. Moreover, trademark owners may seek three times their actual damages suffered as a result of the infringement (triple damages).

4. If you are interested in obtaining international trademark protection for your brand, you will need to first have a registered or pending application filed with the USPTO. A federally registered trademark is the basis for U.S. trademark owners to seek international trademark registration. Upon filing your application, the USPTO assigns your mark a serial number (or a registration number, once registered). This number is used to submit an international trademark application under the Madrid Protocol System for International Trademark Registration.

5. Registered trademarks may be filed with the U.S. Customs Service to prohibit the importation of infringing foreign goods that may bear your mark or something similar (“knock-offs”). Many illegal imports attempt to trade off the established brand value of famous or well-known marks. Trademark registrations may be placed on record with the Customs Service so infringing products entering the country may be flagged, seized and possibly destroyed.

So there you have it, the Top Five reasons to protect your brand name or logo through federal trademark registration. There are other reasons, of course, including protecting your brand value and hard earned marketing dollars. For more information concerning trademark law, the trademark registration process, or for questions concerning your particular mark or brand, please contact one of our FlatFee Trademark attorneys at 1.800.769.7790 or info@flatfeetrademark.com .


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

The BlackBand viral marketing campaign

Saturday, April 17th, 2010

Case study: Blackband project

Owner: Camacho Cigars, Authors: Dylan Austin, Gianni D’Alerta

Background/Introduction:

Before we started this project we planned and built the following two sites for Camacho cigars – www.camachocigars.com and www.socialcigar.com (at first we did not reveal that Camacho was behind this site). Through the two sites we built a subscriber list of 4,500 people in less than one year. Since then we have also built www.room101cigars.com, and we are currently working on a new revolutionary social networking platform and corporate site for Camacho Cigars/Davidorff.

Kickoff of the BlackBand project:

To start off, here is an excerpt from the press release, post project:

“The campaign objectives for Camacho included the creation of an engaging, opt-in viral marketing campaign, a successful permission-marketing opportunity as an outlet to sample yet to be released products. A four-part web-series was created without mention of Camacho until the final “reveal” episode. The viewers followed the satirical Independent Cigar Review Bureau, a fictional agency, whose sole purpose was to educate the world about cigar selection, as they used humorous, guerilla-style tactics to enlighten three characters that represented the most common cigar misconceptions”

Process:

  1. We launched the site with this page: http://www.blackbandproject.com/home-temp/
  2. We blasted Camacho’s mailing list of 1000 and the social network we created while I was at Propeller of 3500 people, not as Camacho but as the fictional company. The amazing thing was that the idea was so interesting that we had a very low spam report.  We also ran rich media banner ads that actually played a trailer of the project on the websites the banners resided.
  3. Once the person signed up they would get one episode a week that would build upon the myths and misconceptions of cigar smoking. The Buzz just keep mounting… people passing the links to their friends… it was huge… in the online cigar world.
  4. After they registered they immediately received their first “mission” http://www.blackbandproject.com/d57s-1/
  5. A week after that http://www.blackbandproject.com/6ku6-2/
  6. A week later http://www.blackbandproject.com/hr4s-3/
  7. And then the conclusion http://www.blackbandproject.com/b7x3-conclusion/

Results:

  1. We gained 15,500 new subscribers! With that permission to market to them anything in the future. They are already expecting more from Camacho, and we won’t disappoint them.
  2. Every cigar website was buzzing about the project, we even got more hits on our Black Band Project site in one month that Cigar Aficionado.
  3. After the last video was sent… a month later people got 3 cigars in the mail. So for a whole month, every week… the conversations where about the black band project. Then when the cigars shipped, another huge buzz.

Another Excerpt:

From day one, the campaign captivated the cigar industry and generated sweeping buzz across the country, with thousands of cigar enthusiasts discussing who was behind “The Black Band Project” on social media outlets, including Twitter, Facebook, and cigar-industry message boards and blogs.

End results:

  1. 15,000 leads
  2. 4,000 people got the cigars (people who watched all the videos)
  3. 15% overall sales increase after the launch of the new product.

Road America has signed a 12 month strategy, technology and marketing activations contract with Kompani Group

Sunday, March 21st, 2010

Road America

Road America is uniquely qualified to provide outstanding service to our clients and their valued customers.  This confidence is based upon the tremendous value we place on our relationship with clients, our comprehensive, specialized and rated service provider network, our long-standing and unparalleled experience providing 24-hour roadside assistance services, and our quality approach to servicing our clients and exceeding their business needs.

Corporate Strength

Road America is a wholly owned United States subsidiary of the MAPFRE Group (MAPFRE) the largest insurance group in Spain.   MAPFRE had revenues of over US $17.4 Billion in worldwide operations in 2006.  MAPFRE operates an extensive international assistance network through a specialized subsidiary, MAPFRE Asistencia, which is the direct parent company of Road America.

MAPFRE Asistencia is a leading international insurance conglomerate providing emergency roadside assistance, insurance, reinsurance and general assistance services worldwide throughout 52 countries and over 1000 corporate clients, including Renault, Infinity, Ford, General Motors, Harley-Davidson, Toyota, Peugeot, and Volvo.  MAPFRE services 120 million beneficiaries worldwide, providing assistance on more than 2.5 million occasions and is rated A+ (superior) by the North American rating agency AM Best.

International Expertise and Experience

Our confidence is also based upon the significant experience and strength of our parent company, MAPFRE, within the assistance services industry.  In the field of emergency roadside assistance, MAPFRE has developed and operates an extensive direct provider network in 39 countries.

MAPFRE has developed proprietary software, procedures and know-how in the field of roadside assistance, and it has comprehensive experience in developing worldwide provider networks and call centers to service international roadside assistance programs for insurance companies, automobile manufacturers, financial service companies and other international corporations.

Flexibility and Responsiveness

Road America’s programs have been and are marketed successfully through a variety of marketing channels in the following industries: motorcycle OEM, automotive, associations, telecommunications (wireless and wireline), financial services, insurance, original manufacturers, motor club and utilities.  This diversity in experience has allowed Road America to perfect and enhance our service offerings and capabilities.

Road America’s strengths include the size and flexibility to customize our service offerings and the responsiveness to meet or surpass each client’s exact or unique marketing, service needs and culture.

Comprehensive Service Offerings & Capabilities

In addition to a complete array of benefits, including automotive, travel, security, and medical related services, Road America can provide a full range of support services including marketing and promotional support, fulfillment services, inbound sales and enrollment, membership tracking and renewals, and program administration.  Road America’s extensive list of services, innovative approach, and commitment to complete client satisfaction makes our service offering the most meaningful and comprehensive in the industry.

Ethical Business Practices

The nature of the MAPFRE Group demands enforcing a policy of ethical treatment of employees, clients, business partners and customers; social responsibility; respect of the legal framework; and a culture of sound business and accounting practices.  The MAPFRE Group requires the same strong ethical business practices from all of its subsidiaries within the MAPFRE Group.

Tested. Proven. Trusted®:

With more than 120 North American corporate clients and more than seven motorcycle OEM clients, Road America has proven sales and service results.

Road America’s 24-hour roadside and membership programs have been proven to:

  • Increase Brand Loyalty
  • Increase Customer Service Ratings
  • Increase Customer Referrals
  • Increase Customer Retention
  • Increase Customer Awareness
  • Increase Overall Client Profitability


Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Launching a Driver sub-brand

Saturday, February 20th, 2010

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals. You face a classic strategic conundrum: Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term? Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back? Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition. 1) Launching a true fighter brand, 2) Launching an endorsed sub-brand, 3) Launching a co-driver sub-brand or, 4) Launching a driver sub-brand

Driver sub-brand

Definition:

  • The parent brand retains its primary influence as a driver, and the sub-brand can act as a descriptor-a word or phrase that tells end-users that the company is offering a slight variation on the same product or service they have come to know.

Note: Of the three types of relationships, a driver brand with a descriptor sub-brand is the most risky. The parent brand is vulnerable to cannibalization because very little distinguishes one brand from the other. The risk of cannibalization is greatest when a descriptor signifies merely a lower-quality offering. The risk is minimized when the descriptor signals a different application.

Examples:

  • Mercedes provides a good illustration of a driver brand that has successfully accessed a downscale market with a descriptor sub-brand. In the early 1980s, Mercedes introduced that is now it’s C Class, a small car to compete with the BMW 3 series, as well as with Acura and Lexus.
  • Now priced around $30,000, the line sells nearly 30,000 cars annually in the United States (around one-third of all Mercedes sales in the United States).
  • How could a brand that has historically been identified with prestige and that offers a car selling for more than $100,000 pull off this kind of downscale move?
  • First, Mercedes delivered a quality product.
  • Second, the C Class introduction was accompanied by an intensive effort to reposition the core brand’s message from prestige to performance.
  • Third, marketing for the C class aggressively targeted young buyers. The C Class name creates a distinction that allows the sub-brand to attract a slightly different consumer, but it does not drive that consumer’s decision to buy the car. The Mercedes brand retains that power.

Celeron – B to B (Intel) 1997

  • To combat AMD’s $260.00 K6 processor chip, and to avoid having to lower prices on its Pentium processor, Intel launched a sub-brand dubbed Celeron.
  • Despite a couple of early pricing mistakes and mishaps in expectations management, Intel succeed in combating and keeping AMD from creating a strong foothold in the low-end market. With a share of 80% of the overall processor market and their ability to roll out new processors frequently, Intel proved to be a testament to both the power of fighter brands to open up lower-tier market opportunities and their unequaled ability to keep competitors at bay.
  • Note: The EU have recently been successful in winning a ruling against Intel regarding antitrust issues and pricing manipulation resulting in a fine of $1.5 billion dollars. We wonder whether the costs of the now 5 year old lawsuit brought by AMD, the fine and the distractions for Intel’s senior management team, would justify the launch of another Celeron value sub-brand when you already have more than 80 percent of the total market share.

Launching a Co-driver sub brand

Sunday, February 14th, 2010

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals. You face a classic strategic conundrum: Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term? Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back? Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition. 1) Launching a true fighter brand, 2) Launching an endorsed sub-brand, 3) Launching a co-driver sub-brand or, 4) Launching a driver sub-brand

Co-driver

Definition:

  • The parent brand and the sub-brand act as co-drivers with roughly equal influence on consumers.

Examples:

United Express (United Airlines)

The United Airlines brand provides United Express, a commuter line, with the convenience of connections to United flights and a reputation for safety. There is no cannibalization because the flights do not compete. United Express is differentiated from its parent brand by its lower level of on-board service, its use of smaller planes, and its less formal personality.

Good News (Gillette)

Gillette Good News also illustrates a successful co-driver relationship. Gillette Good News disposable razors are a definite cut below ‘the best a man can get” that is the Gillette legacy in shaving. But disposable razors are qualitatively different from the upscale razors such as Sensor and Atra with which Gillette has long held a technological edge. Gillette could provide a rationale for a disposable brand by being the best in the disposable category. But the Good News user’s personality – younger and more carefree than the traditionally masculine and sophisticated Gillette persona – plays a key role in distinguishing the disposable brand from the rest of the line. Both brand names – Gillette and Good News – influence the customer’s decision to buy the product.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Why Most CEOs Are Bad at Strategy

Saturday, January 16th, 2010

Why most corporations lack a “big idea” for how to effectively communicate their brand and essence to their stakeholders.

This is a great article from Roger Martin from the Harvard Business Review. We think this explains why most corporations don’t have a “big idea” for how to communicate their brand and essence to their stakeholders. Enjoy. Well done Roger!

A good strategy is the product of the creative combination of two disparate logics — rather than a single linear analytical logic flow — but CEOs and “strategists” are seldom conditioned to become skilled at the requisite creative combination.

There is a lot of strategy in the world, produced by all types of CEOs, corporate heads of strategy, and strategy consultants. Yet very little of this strategy is any good. There are undoubtedly many possible explanations for why this is the case, but here is my own pet theory, which I offer up to elicit your reactions and surface alternatives:

A good strategy is the product of the creative combination of two disparate logics — rather than a single linear analytical logic flow — but CEOs and “strategists” are seldom conditioned to become skilled at the requisite creative combination.

The two most fundamental strategic choices are deciding where to play and how to win. These two decisions — in what areas will the company compete, and on what basis will it do so — are the critical one-two punch to generate strategic advantage. However, they can’t be considered independently or sequentially. In a great strategy, your where-to-play and how-to-win choices fit together and reinforce one another.

For example, operating only in your home country market may seem to be a perfectly fine where-to-play choice and winning on the basis of technological superiority a perfectly fine how-to-win choice, but their combination almost always produces a bad strategy — because of global economies of scale in R&D, some competitor will globalize and blow out the geographically narrow national player. These choices don’t fit or reinforce.

In contrast, Apple wins because its where-to-play choice — broad participation across a number of high-involvement consumer electronics categories (computers, music, phones) — is matched wonderfully with its how-to-win choice — competing on user experience design and eco-system orchestration. It leverages the winning capabilities it has built in these two areas across the domains in which it has chosen to play to produce its winning Macs, iPods, and iPhones.

The trouble is, CEOs don’t usually get to the top by integrating different logics in that way. More often they rise by pushing a single logic. They like to analyze a problem and come up with a single, sufficient answer, like how to globalize or get costs under control or introduce a new product, rather than trying to look for answers to two questions that fit together elegantly.

As a consequence, many of them come to think of strategy as either where-to-play or how-to-win. For example, in the global pharma industry today, it appears that most CEOs define their strategies as simply playing in the historically lucrative pharma industry and doing whatever the rest of their competitors do. This is silent on how-to-win and the resultant set of me-too strategies is one reason why performance in the industry is going downhill fast.

Or alternatively, for many high-tech CEOs, the dominant choice is to win with a proprietary technology. This is silent on where-to-play and that has led many technology companies astray because it really matters where exactly that technology is used — as we see with Nortel Networks, which is now in the bankruptcy court despite its treasure trove of technology patents.

Meanwhile, corporate strategists and strategy consultants get ahead by demonstrating mastery of all sorts of conceptual tools for analyzing where-to-play (five forces, profit maps, etc.) or how-to-win (experience curve, value chain, VIRO, etc.). However, there as yet is no analytical tool for combining a given where-to-play choice with a congenial how-to-win choice or vice versa. That takes creative insight. But the majority of people who seek to become corporate strategists or strategy consultants do so because they are much more comfortable with analysis than what they perceive as guesswork. So they tend to become expert at strategic analyses, not strategy.

That, I submit, is why CEOs and “strategists” so seldom produce good strategies. Strategy is a creative act and the way to produce good strategy is go beyond basic analysis to creatively integrate your choices concerning where you play and how you propose to win.

Roger Martin is the Dean of the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto in Canada and the author of The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage (Harvard Business Press, 2009).

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Launching an endorsed sub-brand 2/4

Saturday, January 9th, 2010

This is the second of 4 posts about how to combat manufactures and distributors of inferior products that are being reverse engineered and produced in China and sold at much lower prices to your existing clients. You are losing market share fast, and it is time to do something about it.

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals. You face a classic strategic conundrum: Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term? Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back? Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition. 1) Launching a true fighter brand, 2) Launching an endorsed sub-brand, 3) Launching a co-driver sub-brand or, 4) Launching a driver sub-brand

Option Two – Endorsed Sub-Brand

Definition:

  • A sub-brand is a brand with its own name that uses the name of its parent brand in some capacity to bolster equity.
  • In the case of downscale offerings, the role of sub-brands is to help managers differentiate new offerings from the parent brand while using the parent’s equity to influence consumers.
  • The idea is both to maintain the parent’s credibility and prestige regardless of how the sub-brand performs and to protect the original brand from cannibalization.

Endorser

  • Definition: The parent brand acts as the endorser of the sub-brand. In this case, the sub-brand is the more dominant of the two, and drives end-users’ decisions to purchase the product as well as their perceptions of the experience of using the product.
  • When a company offers an endorsed sub-brand, there are three brands at work. The parent brand itself is split into two: a product brand and an organizational brand. The product brand remains as it was, a premium brand delivering a certain image and associated benefits.
  • The endorser strategy provides an excellent chance to minimize damage and reduce the threat of cannibalization to the parent brand. Keep in mind that all three brands need to be managed actively.

Examples:

Sabre B to C (John Deere)

  • John Deere’s foray into value lawn tractors provides a good illustration of an endorser relationship. John Deere was well known for making a lawn tractor that sold for approximately $2,000 through full-service specialty dealers.
  • Although the manufacturer was still able to command that price in the specialty market, volume retailers such as Sears and Home Depot had begun to serve a growing portion (around 30%) of that market, selling products at half John Deere’s prices.
  • So the company introduced an endorsed sub-brand for the value retailers: a low-cost tractor, Sabre from John Deere, that featured an inexpensive design and a different color and feel that John Deere’s other products

Medalist B to B (Hobart)

  • The Hobart Company, which makes an industrial-grade mixer for use in bakeries and restaurants.
  • Managers decided to create an inexpensive mixer for us in commercial and industrial kitchens to compete with offshore entries without damaging its flagship “gold standard” Hobart mixer line.
  • In 1996 the company introduced Medalist from the Hobart Company. Medalist mixers were lighter than Hobart mixers.
  • In addition, they were made with less costly materials and construction processes; and they had a color and logo distinct from those of the flagship Hobart.
  • In this example, The Hobart Company, has become an organizational brand that endorses the sub-brand, Medalist. Medalist itself is a new product brand. Thus the parent brand, Hobart, is separated from the sub-brand, Medalist, by the organizational brand, The Hobart Company.

Launching a pure Fighter Brand, 1/4

Friday, January 1st, 2010

We are losing market share to our new competition. What can we do to reverse the trend?

This is the first of 4 posts about how to combat manufactures and distributors of inferior products that are being reverse engineered and produced in China and sold at much lower prices to your existing clients. You are losing market share fast, and it is time to do something about it.

The economic strains are causing your end-users to trade down, resulting in that the mid-tier and premium brands are losing share to low-price rivals. You face a classic strategic conundrum: Do you tackle the threat head-on by reducing prices, knowing that will destroy profits in the short term and brand equity in the long term? Or do you hold the line, hope for better times to return, and in the meantime lose customers who might never come back? Given how unpalatable both of those alternatives are, you now must make a decision of how to combat manufacturers and distributors of lower priced and inferior products, to avoid losing additional market share and eroding margins.

There are four ways to battle your competition. 1) Launching a true fighter brand, 2) Launching an endorse sub-brand, 3) Launching a co-driver sub-brand or, 4) Launching a driver sub-brand

1) Definition of a fighter brand

  • A fighter brand is designed to combat, and ideally eliminate, low-price competitors while protecting an organization’s premium-price offerings.
  • A fighter brand, however, is not easy to introduce. First creating a new brand-building awareness, establishing perceptions of identity and quality, developing distributions channels is expensive, often prohibitively so.
  • Concerns about launching fighter brands
    • Will it cannibalize our premium offering?
    • Will it fail to bury the competition?
    • Will it lose money?
    • Will it miss the mark with end-users?
    • Will it consume too much management attention?
  • Other strategic questions to consider before launching at fighter brand
    • Determine whether another brand is truly necessary
    • Run the numbers, including what it will cost to build and sustain a new brand
    • Listen to your clients and customers, early and often
    • Reinvest in your core business and consistently calibrate between the two brands.
    • Is the market you are entering still growing

Examples of fighter brands

Saturn – B to C (General Motors) 1982

  • To combat the growing threat from fuel-efficient and affordable cars being launched into America from Japan, GM decided to launch of an “a different kind of car company” dubbed Saturn.
  • Despite the fact that Saturn won accolades for being one of the strongest brands in the U.S, Saturn proved to be a financial disaster with losses in excess of 10 billion dollars. With no budgetary discipline and so much focus on differentiating Saturn from the other GM brands, completely defeated the purpose of launching the brand in the first place.

Jetstar – (Quantas) 2004

  • To combat low-fare entrant Virgin Blue, Quantas decided to launch their own low-fare airline in 2003.
  • Since Quantas only had one single brand, it did not want to create a new brand unless it had to.
  • Exhaustive strategic sessions confirmed, however, that the Quantas brand was simply not in a position to combat Virgin Blue’s explosive growth. A fighter brand was the only option.
  • Quantas’ detailed projections showed that by offering no frills, its new airline could achieve a 20% cost advantage over its rival; thus allowing it to undercut Virgin Blue’s prices while sustaining a profit.
  • Quantum spent considerable time on focus groups across Australia and listening to their customers to validate the planned initiatives.
  • In 2004 Jetstar was launched with 14 planes flying to 14 destinations. The speed at which Jetstar attacked took Virgin Blue by surprise and knocked it off balance.
  • Jetstar took over the tourist routes that Quantas had lost money on. Because Jetstar proved profitable on those routes, it cannibalized only revenues, not profits.
  • Thanks to Jetstar, Quantas was able to refocus on its more profitable business routes and increase the frequency of its flights on those legs.
  • The subsequent boost in profits, along with Jetstar’s growing contribution, were reinvested in overhauls of Quantas’s business lounges and business class cabins – strengthening the Quantas brand and the distinction between it and Jetstar.
  • Jetstar has stopped the growth of Virgin Blue, and Quantas is now using the brand to fight other competitors in Asia and New Zealand.

Ambra – B to professional (IBM) 1992

  • To combat the growing threat from direct marketers of personal computers like Dell and Gateway and other IBM models.
  • The Ambra was sourced in Asia and marketed between 1992 and 1994 by mail order in Europe and the United States.
  • Due to lack of brand equity and distribution barriers the Ambra was cancelled 2 years after its birth.

Miami Performing Arts Center

Thursday, January 1st, 2004



When the premiere performing arts venue in the nation needed to garner a little of the spotlight for itself, we knew it would mean bold dynamic imagery that would stop people in their tracks.

Bright hues of red and orange announced themselves with a flair that was distinctly Miami, while the membership campaign theme line “Ready for Impact” generated excitement and anticipation for the center’s 2006 opening. Special center projects and initiatives also received graphic makeovers so that each would be unforgettable and remembered as part of the cohesive brand messaging set forth in the membership drive.