Change in Branding

Re-inventing the wheel seems to be the American dream these days. From GE who has completely revamped its image to IBM, who is leading the way with its "A Smarter Planet" commercials, companies across the country are looking to poise themselves in a renewed marketplace. With the failure of many get-rich-quick schemes of the '90s internet boom to the major shortfalls now seen in Wall Street short-trading, it seems that the once-imagined idea of using shortcuts to make it rich has crumpled. And so, accordingly, many corporations and companies have sought new ways to brand themselves and are even seeking new opportunities in the marketplace that might not lead to quick sales, but could very well result in major long-term gains.

In the midst of a changing marketplace, these companies are suggesting that cutting edge equates with products and services that are niche, sustainable, and innovative. Whether true or imagined, these concepts are popping up all over the marketplace. Take, for just one example, Cadillac's commercial for its 2010 SRX: "Re-envisioned. Reorganized. Reactivated. All designed to reignite the soul..."

Sure, that song by Phoenix is catchy. But, my question as we run across these images of "re-imagined" commodities is whether or not the end product has actually changed. Is Cadillac's 2010 model really any better than the 2009? Do Americans, even the rich and privileged few, really need a Crossover Cadillac when their stocks are still tanking and the unemployment rate is still soaring?

For the past week, i've been reading Yvon Chouinard's (yes, I just posted about him) book Let My People Go Surfing. On page 94, in the midst of a discussion on simplicity, Chouinard says:

Complexity is often a sure sign that the functional needs have not been solved. Take the difference between the Ferrari and the Cadillac of the 1960s. The Ferrari's clean lines suited its high performance aims. The Cadillac really didn't have functional aims. It didn't have the steering, suspension, torque, aerodynamics, or brakes appropriate to its immense horsepower. But then nothing about its design really had to work. All it had to do was convey the idea of power, creature comfort, of a living room floating down the highway to the golf course. So, to a basically ugly shape were added all manner of useless chrome gingerbread: fins at the back, breasts at the front. Once you lose the discipline of functionality as a design guidepost, the imagination goes amok. Once you design a monster, it tends to look like one too."

What do Chouinard's thoughts mean for the "Cadillacs" of 2010? Now, i'm not here to cast blame on any particular company or brand, rather i'm here to ask a few questions, challenging the status quo. At first the idea of re-inventing and re-thinking seemed intriguing and novel. But what happens when everyone seems to be doing it? Whose marketing schemes add up to more than mere puffs of smoke? Is what we really need a new kind of car, or something different altogether?