"The best complaint letter ever?"

Submitted by Candace DeMeare

Hi guys,
I know this is old news, but I just had to pass it along. I laughed so hard I nearly wet myself: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/blog/editors_corner/article/11975/

The Brand for Branding

By Errol Saldanha - brandingbranding.com

"With everyone tossing around the term ‘branding,’ it’s time for us to work together on a brand for branding, to define exactly what this is, to establish sound business practices and effectively promote the discipline.

As a service industry, we have been so busy defining our clients’ brands that we forgot about a more important one: our own. Ironically, the entire communications industry is in a state of self-inflicted confusion: marketing, advertising, graphic design, visual identity, Web design, new media, multimedia, interactive, packaging and, of course, branding. Of all of these, branding may be the most misconstrued.

While positioning branding as some new phenomenon has sold many books and filled many seminars, it has certainly made the topic less credible. Those of us who have been in the industry for many years understand that branding is not a revolution only the evolution (and perhaps renaming) of an existing practice.

Brands have existed in some form for hundreds of years, so the process of developing them is hardly new. The word ‘brand’ originates from the old Norse brandr, meaning ‘to burn.’ While branding’s past brings to mind many negative impressions, the most common is the marking of cattle. Less known is the fact that many other occupations utilized brandmarks throughout history – potters, to authenticate their style of bowls, and stonemasons, to distinguish the quality of their work. The need to establish ownership/origin has existed ever since humans have traded goods and services. Brands evolved out of necessity and so must branding.

Commercially, brands came from the product world and have encompassed the organization. Branding is no longer for cattle owners or just big corporations. Today, sole proprietors, non-profits and even nations are viewing themselves as brands. Now it is time for branding itself to be viewed as a brand.

Branding Hype
Hyped by so many, branding is in real danger of becoming meaningless. Ask the ‘experts’ to define it and too often they have their own complex explanations. No wonder clients don't get it branding is over-branded: digital branding, employment branding, environmental branding, nation branding and even kids branding.

Ever-expanding brand glossaries are only adding to the confusion: brand architecture, brand equity, brand extension, brand personality, brand platform, brand promise, etc. Since few can agree on what brand means, it is unrealistic to expect anyone to comprehend such an extensive glossary, which has actually diluted the meaning of branding.

Part of the reason for this brand-mania is that brand developers have all created their own elaborate brand stories. This is understandable after all, when your job is to uniquely position your client’s industry, it is a given that you will try to position your own.

Dramatic phrases such as “a brand is a promise” and “the customer owns the brand” emerged. While some are valid claims, they speak more to an individual approach or promotion. Like taglines, some are clever and others promote thought, but they do not succeed in defining the concept. Brands are about clarity and yet many consultants (who claim to help clients find ‘brand essence’) strive to make branding more complex by repackaging it to sell more books, seminars and workshops. It seems that creating confusion and then clarifying it justifies their existence. It is up to the qualified branding practitioners to tame an industry that is out of control with ‘brand-speak’ – or risk losing not just a valid term, but also credibility.

Simplification
Marketing academics have tried to turn branding into a complex science. But at its core, branding is a very basic concept based primarily on common sense. Branding is all about simplicity getting to the essence of an organization, product or service. If the most successful brands are straightforward, shouldn’t the practice of developing them be the same?

Still, even the largest branding agencies have very different and complex definitions of branding, demonstrating the need for a shared definition to unite our industry. We have already made the mistake of individually trying to interpret branding; now we must come together to define it. An industry-wide agreement of what branding really means is a step toward public understanding. Perhaps the easiest way to define branding is to make it synonymous with brand development with this simple equation: Branding = Brand Development. Just as advertising is defined as “the business of producing advertisements,” the definition of branding could be as simple as “the development of brands.” Imagine if the answer to the most frequently asked question (what is branding anyway?) could be this short.

Regardless of our opposing views, branding must be defined simply and precisely. Claiming that “branding is everything” will define it as nothing.

Terminology
If we drop the word ‘branding,’ what single term do we replace it with? After spending countless hours searching for an alternative, I could not find anything better. Branding works because it relates directly back to brands, whereas vague terms such as ‘identity’ could relate to anything. Branding is specific, yet broad enough to cover many aspects of brand development, from the verbal (naming/tagline) to the visual (logo/colour). Branding also works in many languages, whereas compound terms, such as ‘brand development,’ must be translated.

We must agree on a common terminology and list of related terms that we use to position ourselves. Currently, there are too many identifiers: Branding, Branding and Identity, Branding and Corporate Identity, Branding and Communication, Branding and Design, Brand Consultants, Brand Strategy and Design, Brand Design, Identity, Identity Consultants, Identity Design Firm, Identity and Image Consultants. And we must identify and correct the inaccurate and confusing consultancy descriptors:

• Branding and Identity (identity is part of branding)
• Branding and Communication (branding is a form of communication)
• Branding and Design (design is part of branding)
• Branding and Naming (naming is part of branding)

How can we build an industry with so many contradicting and overlapping names? If we are all using different terms, with different meanings, then we are diluting our own brand. Some people in our industry are still using ‘identity’ a term that is too vague to represent a specialized expertise. Most of the pioneers of the corporate identity business have made the switch to ‘branding.’ As the industry evolves, so must the terminology.

Industry Changes
Changes in our industry will follow what is taking place internally at our clients’ businesses. Today, the brand is the organizing concept that drives the entire organization. Branding is a holistic, cultural activity. It is less about protecting the brand and more about sharing it with the whole organization and the community. Less about “targeting consumers” to create “shareholder value” and more about creating value for all stakeholders of the organization.

A brand must be realized from the highest levels of management down, because it affects more than just sales, it shapes the internal culture of an organization. A properly defined brand will have a positive impact on every department within an organization.

This is why a brand can no longer belong to the domain of the marketing department or the advertising agency or design studio. Branding is not a marketing event, but an ongoing management process.

We, as ‘brand servers,’ have to embrace change. Print isn’t dead, but digital is more alive. Media bias should be a thing of the past. In wired environments, where information can be disseminated in seconds, brand identification and content is more important than ever.

The Web is causing even the biggest of agencies to rethink their business models. The future will be less about agencies fighting to win accounts and awards and more about each specialist’s role in development of a unified brand.

Unfortunately, too many clients and practitioners are still using an old formula where branding becomes a marketing/advertising campaign or graphic design project. They are quite content to fall back on the “ad agency + graphic design firm + Web firm = brand” equation.

The ultimate goal of any organization is to deliver a unified verbal and visual message that is understood and identified by all of its stakeholders, using their brand as a leadership tool. Yet the above equation undermines that goal. As each creative agency strives to reinvent the wheel expressing the brand in its own way and in its own medium cohesiveness is lost, ultimately diluting the message.

Everyone does Branding
An Internet search for ‘branding services’ yields almost every type of business you can imagine: advertising agencies, design firms, marketing consultants, interactive shops, management consultants, communications consultants and even public-relations firms. Ironically, successful brands focus on what they are good at. For too long, branding has been lost in the communications mix a sub-brand of other areas such as advertising and design.

Advertising and branding are two very different ventures with very different expiry dates. To really take, brand identity must be consistent over many years, but advertising or marketing campaigns should change regularly, or else their audiences will tune out. Too often people confuse brand identity with brand campaign.

Graphic design is a discipline that contributes to the development of a brand, in the same way it contributes to advertising or architecture. However, “graphics” are only part of the equation. Many designers make the mistake of viewing branding as only a "look-and-feel" exercise when it involves many other tasks, such as naming, positioning and legal work, including searching and securing trademarks.

Specialized Expertise
Developing a brand requires skills that a “jack-of-all-communications” just cannot master. Branding may be on the clich service list of every full-service shop around, but who can honestly claim that they specialize in marketing, advertising, investor relations, Web/interactive, packaging, environmental design... and branding?

Branding is a specialized area of expertise. It takes many years of experience working through various brand scenarios to be a true brand ‘guru.' Like any discipline, branding requires total dedication and focus to achieve professional status.

Brand development is a balance of both strategic and creative ability. Currently, most practices are either strong on the strategic (business) side of branding or the creative (design) side. Too much strategy yields elaborate rationales with no tangible result and too much creative turns brand development into a beauty contest.

Today’s practitioner must combine both skill and talent. Not only must he or she be a strategic thinker, but must also possess the creativity needed to come up with the big idea. No longer can consultants declare themselves ‘brand strategists’ and farm out the creative thinking. On the other hand, ‘artists’ who are looking to express themselves using someone else’s brand should find another canvas. A brand and especially a brand consultant must demonstrate, not just promise.

Branding as a Brand
The development of branding as a specialization has been delayed by the lack of a proper definition of the term, and its continued use as a catchall phrase for general communications. As a result, branding has not received the professional distinction it deserves.

Adding to its already poor brand image, branding became the scapegoat for the unethical business practices of multi-national corporations. Branding was seen as a manipulation technique because it was often confused with tactless marketing and ad campaigns.

As an industry, we must come together to address the problem of branding being perceived as a fuzzy and deceptive labeling exercise by proactively repositioning it. After all, branding provides a very useful and necessary service: It helps people consistently distinguish an organization, its property, products, services and communications. The good news is that the hype has subsided. Branding's own brand is well under development and, when launched, it will dramatically change the way the communications industry is structured. My prediction is that branding will eventually rise to the top level of the communications chain above advertising. My own industry research led me to question why no professional branding associations existed. There are hundreds of books, articles, blogs, seminars, workshops and conferences on the topic of branding, but no organized professional group. Perhaps the primary reason that we have not reached 'brand consensus' is the lack of a centralized forum. Advertising professionals have clearly benefited from the solidarity of their community. Imagine if those of us who were passionate about brands and branding could also gather in one place. If we could jointly work to make the concept of branding so crystal clear that it would eliminate the need to pitch it at every client meeting.

I decided to launch the International Branding Association the first group of its kind. Why a branding association? Many of us practising within the vast communications field are drawn to the specialized expertise of branding. Understandably, we are not adequately represented by business, marketing, advertising or design associations, which must deal with multiple categories.

The Future
Can the bad reputation of branding actually be rescued? I believe it can. But the situation is not going to change if we just talk amongst ourselves. We must properly package and then promote branding to businesses, to schools, to governments. For this area of expertise to progress, it must be more than a trendy concept that generates money for consultants and corporations. It must become a holistic practice that has a positive impact socially and culturally. The brand-passionate need to be at the forefront of this mission.

Of course, there is no way to certify brand work. I am not suggesting that branding be an exclusive or registered profession. We launched a professional association to gather like minds and distinguish a valid expertise. Unless an industry defines itself, sets standards for practice and education, it will never evolve and it is up to the qualified branding practitioners to elevate their own practice. Like all associations, we will try to weed out the fakes and raise the bar for the remaining professionals.

Just as a successful brand requires the collaboration of many, so does the launch of an association. If you are passionate about branding, we need your help to further our cause.

Is branding a brand? With its own association, it is certainly on its way to becoming one."

Love or Worship?

By Jeffrey Hamilton Smith
ABA - Managing Director

Is it possible to actually love brands? Or is it just wishful thinking on the part of a company? We covered this topic at UC Berkeley some years ago when our team was tossed a bone (grant) to research cult behavior. Firstly, if we are to discuss this in all seriousness, then the term "love" should be thrown out altogether. It's cliché at best having nothing whatsoever to do with the definitive term, love. And except by those who are not branders, it is wholly inaccurate and a misrepresentation of socio-psychological truths.

Branding has more to do with the exploitation of Human behavior than the control, or manipulation of it. How you choose to exploit can be either positive or destructive. As we age, our minds' inability to accept change creates predisposed habits surrounding the innate instinct to survive. We hold onto things (brands) that we grew up with whether or not the product or service was quantitatively better simply because we've attached experiences outside of the immediate interaction to said product or service. We grow attachments much like followers of a theology, politic or any other belief system and pass our beliefs to our offspring. Effective branding means providing a given demographic an excuse for believing; and based on a group's early environment (upbringing), using covert messages in the hopes of forming triggers which will ultimately convert prospective users.

As much as corporations try to control their brand(s), it is almost impossible. One would need an army of sociologists, psychologists and pathologists just to keep tabs on trend movement and development. Think U.S. Army PsyOps times a thousand.

Metaphorically speaking, what consumers purchase is much patterned after what meat our ancestors brought back to campfires thousands of years ago. Big game like Bear posed a larger place in a tribe's proliferation than say a small bird or rabbit. Move ahead 6,000 years, and that bear is now symbolized by Rolex, Mercedes, house, or etc. -Items perceived to bring more worth to the table of fiscal survival (and sexual attraction) than say a Hyundai or Timex. In a free market Money = Survival. Luxury brands represent worth; which in turn represents a higher rate of survival. It is the combined fear of mal-worth within one's immediate tribe, that the exploitation of Human instinct is to be used within socio-economic environments. What's one man's Walmart is another man's Neiman Marcus. It is consumerism and material worship. Branding is the art (or science) of attempting to corral Humankind's survival instinct, and deflecting it towards mass consumption. For this reason, branders prefer to use the term 'Brand Empathy'.

During the past decade, the instinct to survive has fueled the rekindling of old markets such as sustainable products, green energies, and organic foods. What it all comes down to is a healthy proliferation of species (that's "sex" for you designers). Everything has to do with sex. Not love. And like good sex, attributes of a successful interlude are: accessibility, passion, excitement, durability, and consistency.

Raising Brand America.

By Jeffrey Hamilton Smith
ABA - Managing Director

Yesterday morning, it became quite clear that Obama's crew had made progress in gaining back some of the respect for "Brand America". A reputation that had been radically squandered over the past eight years. Part of this was the fact that Mr. Obama had been elected on proposed policies which mirrored the long-awaited Humanitarian desire for rational thought. But mostly, America wanted someone, anyone better than Bush or a Bush sympathizer. Not that hard to do considering the United States has never had as bad a global rating as it did at the end of 2008. Rabid globalization, Gitmo, Iraq, anti-science, Human rights abuses, theocratic pandering, war profiteering, wire-tapping, Hurricane Katrina, mutilation of the U.S. Constitution, complete absence of foreign diplomatic savvy -the list of ills go on and on. But what America will be remembered for during these past 8 years, is none of the aforementioned, not even an illegal war, but the Typhoid Mary of world economy, Roland Arnall. Remember Roland? Bush's friend, billionaire sub-prime lending leader and founder of AmeriQuest Mortgage Co., who loaned cash to anyone with a pulse. After Bush whisked him off as ambassador to the Netherlands in order to avoid being questioned, he conveniently died shortly after returning home. While such high Machs activities might be praised in Right Wing circles, when applied to branding, it fails miserably. Simply because it's the antithesis of the #1 rule of brand empathy: Don't abuse your customers. What empathy the U.S. did experience post 9/11, was purposely thrown in the dumpster.

Even though the Bush administration spent $800 million a year attempting to fix Brand America overseas, promoting the country's reputation turned out to be a complete waste of time and resources -a hoax. You can only throw so much funding at a bad product, or in this case, one which caused suffering, pain and death until it's recalled pending a civil suit. Like an alcoholic, abusive spouse, foreign markets never know what Brand America is going to be like from administration to administration. The World is left wondering when will the passive aggressive behavior and life-threatening beatings begin, and more importantly, when will they stop? How many times have they heard new U.S. administrations say, "I'm sorry honey, I had no control. It won't happen again."

The most important attributes a brand can convey is consistency, integrity and trust. If any of these are broken, mix-messaged, or abused, the brand is immediately corrupted; becoming loathed at some point. In the business world, a company like that would eventually lose its customer base and go under. In effect, the U.S. is a business, and that is exactly what has been happening.

Governments are rarely a true or adequate representation of its people. But like a bus, a country is only as good as its driver. The passengers are never responsible for the bus hitting a group of nuns. And it's almost as dangerous getting off a speeding bus, as it is standing in front of one -unless it's forced to stop. Thanks only to American voters.

Back in 2001, Charlotte Beers (the purported ad agency guru appointed with the task of managing brand America), stated in a BusinessWeek interview: '"The whole idea of building a brand is to create a relationship between the product and its user,' she explains during an interview in her modest Foggy Bottom office. 'We're going to have to communicate the intangible assets of the United States--things like our belief system and our values.' And, she adds, skills she honed during four decades in advertising have prepared her for the task."' One can't help but wonder if she mistook the call to action 'theocratic agenda for personal fiscal gain' as "values".

Karen Hughes (the person Bush appointed to help brand America after Charlotte Beers quit) stated, "I recognize that many people across the world disagree with the president's decision to go to Iraq. But that doesn't mean they can't agree with us that we have common interests in education, our young people, health care, planet change or improving the environment."
Again, Ms. Hughes and the Bush administration proved again and again it was wholly uninterested in pursuing any of these "interests." It was nothing more than cheap marketing hype, and the hand of death where any effective brand empathy is concerned.

Not all is lost however. Apparently the Iraqis have erected a modest monument dedicated to Bush's brand successes.

If businesses have learned anything from this dark period in American history, it would be that it is crucial to provide an honest product or service first, before concentrating on PR, rebrand strategies, or new design as an attempt to cover intrinsic flaws or falsehoods. Be responsible, accountable and issue to your market the same respect you yourself expect from brands whom you trust. Where branding is concerned, you can't fake your way through. And you certainly cannot go on making promises you have no intention of keeping.

Auto Companies Suing States for Being Green.

By Jeffrey Hamilton Smith
ABA - Managing Director

To: Jim McDermott (D), Patty Murray (D), Maria Cantwell (D)

Dear Sir/Ma'am,

The American Branding Association, has for years, consulted to numerous manufacturers on the grave importance of being sustainable and environmentally responsible. As a result, our clients have chosen to go to great expense in maintaining and surpassing in-place environmental restrictions. As an integral part of history in our nation's branding efforts, it is high time Detroit be held to the same accountability as those who have gone such lengths to ensure a healthier environment for Humankind. In short, Detroit has become a hindrance to the healthy proliferation of brand America.

With this in mind, we have very serious concerns about Congress passing a bail-out of Detroit car manufacturers especially while Detroit continues to push lawsuits against States (like Washington) that are trying to strike down state greenhouse gas laws.

In addition:

• We only want a YES vote if the legislation includes a provision making clear that the federal fuel economy law does not preempt the states’ greenhouse gas laws. If the legislation does not contain such a provision, then we demand a NO vote.

• Washington State passed the Clean Cars program which will ensure cleaner, more fuel efficient cars are sold in Washington starting next year. Washington, along with 13 other states have made a serious commitment to cleaning up our air and fighting global warming by mandating cleaner cars. Meanwhile the auto industry has been suing to prevent states from selling these cleaner cars.

• The money for the bailout of the “big three” is already coming from a fund that was designed to help the American auto industry transition to making cleaner more environmentally friendly cars.

• Chrysler is still making a major sales push for vehicles like the 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8 that gets 11 miles to the gallon in the city, while Hyundai plans on exceeding the 35 mpg fleet goal by 2015.

• Technology already exists to create zero emission cars like the ill-fated GM-EV1 and now the Chevy Volt but the industry is still suing and lobbying to stop cleaner cars.

We demand that no bailout money be given unless the industry stops suing states over our clean car programs. Detroit should spend more time building cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles, and less time suing the American public.

Our position is simple: NO BAILOUT MONEY UNLESS THE LEGISLATION ENDS DETROIT'S LAWSUITS AGAINST THE CLEAN CARS PROGRAM!

Response: Note, this was sent to us two and a half months later (02/17/09):

Dear Jeffrey H.:

Thank you for your recent communication regarding the American Branding Association. I appreciate you letting me know your views on this matter, and I will keep your comments in mind.

If you are interested in following a particular piece of legislation through the legislative process, the website hosted by the Library of Congress at http://thomas.loc.gov is extremely helpful. It provides a wealth of information about legislation under consideration in the current Congress as well as bills introduced in earlier sessions. The site is called Thomas to honor President Thomas Jefferson and his belief in public access to the workings of government.

Again, thank you for contacting me. I welcome your views, and look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,

Jim McDermott
Member of Congress

Expanding Brand Bandwidth

By Kelly Pensell
Guest Columnist

Many businesses and corporations have a team of in-house designers that are an integral component of their marketing team. Their designers are able to create great work, but they often get stretched thin with daily projects and tactical emergencies. Ongoing work with a compatible, outside agency provides extra bandwidth for longer term and larger scale projects, as well as valuable outside perspective on new products and campaigns.

Done the wrong way, relationships between agencies and in-house design teams can be poisoned by fights over control, hurt feelings and resentment. But with a little sensitivity and forethought, teams can work together successfully to keep company messaging fresh and completion rates high for both daily and long-term initiatives.

When to bring in an agency

Being focused on one company and one industry all the time, even the most creative in-house team sometimes loses perspective. If your brand starts to feel a little stale, an agency can deliver new ideas for pushing the envelope within existing brand standards. If you’re looking to refresh or completely reinvent your brand identity, the neutral outside perspective of an agency is even more beneficial.

Agencies are a great option for product launches and other large stand-alone projects that require multiple components across several disciplines. In-house designers may not have the time or mind-space to devote to such projects – or they may simply lack the necessary skill sets.

Agencies can also be called on to develop tools that streamline work for busy in-house designers – such as collateral templates.

How to get great work out of your agency

The key to building a strong ongoing relationship is to get everyone in the room up front and encourage a dialogue, while also making sure that there’s a designated decision maker going forward. This delicate balance ensures that all creative perspectives are heard, but avoids dilution of work to the lowest common denominator.

Work under development both in-house and out of house should be shown and shared to keep thinking current and inspire results. This also encourages ongoing dialogue. The agency needs to stay up to speed on current events in the company – what’s working and what’s not – and the in-house team needs to see how agency projects are progressing. Each side should push the other to excel.

When it comes time to present work, the agency should meet directly with the internal client. Face-to-face communication helps the agency understand internal client personalities and possible political motivations. In addition, outside consultants often have more impact and a better chance of getting buy-off on innovative ideas.

It’s all about respect

No matter how much creative firepower an agency brings in, respecting the knowledge of the in-house team is critical. They are the experts on the service or product. They are also the ones that can help an outside agency work through the internal system and rally new ideas. They use the brand tools every day, so they provide the ultimate feedback on what’s working and what can be improved.


Kelly Pensell is the founder of Graphiti, a design studio located in the Fremont neighborhood. She can be contacted at kelly@graphiti.com or 206-770-5726.

Branding Seattle Cocktails: Ignorance or Arrogance?

By Jeffrey Hamilton Smith ABA - Managing Director

My wife (a brand designer) and one of her coworkers visited upscale Vessel bar friday night after work. Upon her return home, she shared a few surprising factoids about their new drink menu. Firstly, let me point out that Western Washington state, especially Seattle proper, has been a hub for political progressives for like 150 years. Now like most large cities in the U.S. with the exception of maybe, Dallas, this group is made up of mostly Democrats. Who are much more apt to patronize downtown establishments because of their numbers and lifestyle choices. So regardless of how Vessel's owner(s) vote, the idea that they would choose to self-destruct their brand by naming two drinks on the same page: "The Maverick", and "Obama Nation" -meant when iterated to hear, 'abomination' is truly inexplicable. There are many excellent high-end bars in Seattle to choose from, so during a looming and unavoidable recession, why any purportedly upscale branded establishment would outright choose to alienate Obama supporters is just unfathomable. It almost goes without saying that none of my wife's progressive coworkers at the multi-million dollar, trendy, start up corporation located just 1 block from Vessel will be frequenting this place again. A drink which is orated as abomination is not only a shining beacon for ignorance, for many here it wreaks of racism and intolerance; reflecting exactly how Empress Palin and her worshippers are seen by most Seattleites. Do Vessel's owners/investors really see their prospective customers in this demographic? It's one thing to follow basic branding principles and do the exact opposite of your competition, but it's another when one imagines Palinites visiting from various conservative agrarian communities all across the U.S. and how their presence might highlight Vessel's precious decor. For it to work, they'd have to hang a moose head over the bar and put up a neon "Bud" sign in order to satisfy this new crowd. After getting liquored up on new drink names like: Science Book Bonfires, Drill Baby Drill Blasters, and No Civil Rights daiquiris, they could head over to Discovery Park and shoot a few out-of-season rabbits, before driving on over to Mars Hill to pray that homosexuals get "cured." Most hardline Republicans in Seattle proper I know, have voiced that Sarah Palin would not be anywhere close to the top of their VP list; adding "...I don't think she's in the best interest of our party, nor in the best interest of America's current economic or diplomatic struggle." But they admit to reluctantly "...staying aboard because of party loyalty and past party views." Also worth noting, when I asked if they would consider going to Vessel for a cocktail, each one responded, "No. Not my kinda scene." I checked out who art directed Vessel's web site. Right-wing bent? You tell me.

When a business owner, or their "brander" puts their personal political agenda on the forefront of their business strategy, in a region that strongly opposes their views, they shouldn't be surprised when they fail. Maybe there's a reason for this. Maybe those god-fearing neo-cons from the agrarian hinterlands just can't afford $14.00 martinis like progressives here in Seattle. Vessel. Talk about putting lipstick on a brand.