Featured cases
- AkzoNobel 2008
- Alcatel-Lucent 2006
- Alliance Boots 2006
- Apple 2007
- Aramark 1994
- ArcelorMittal 2007
- Assurant 2004
- Bausch & Lomb 2004
- Belgacom 2003
- Boise Cascade 2002
- BP 2000
- Broadview Security 2009
- Brocade 2007
- CA 2005
- Cardinal Health 2003
- CEC Bank 2008
- Chemtura 2005
- Cisco Systems 2006
- Cision 2007
- Computer Associates 2001
- Covidien 2007
- Credit Suisse 2006
- CSC 2008
- Daimler 2007
- Delta Air Lines 2007
- Devon Energy 2007
- Eastman Kodak 2006
- EDF 2005
- Experian 2007
- Federal Express 1994
- FedEx Corporation 2000
- FICO 2009
- Fiserv Inc. 2009
- Fortis 2006
- Fortis 1998
- Fortis 1991
- Genworth 2004
- Gillette 1993
- Grant Thornton 2008
- Harcourt General 1993
- Harlan Laboratories 2008
- Hyperion 2006
- Ingersoll Rand 2005
- Intel 2006
- Invista 2003
- Johnson Controls 2007
- Lucent Technologies 1996
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 2003
- McGladrey 2010
- Meredith Corporation 2009
- Morgan Stanley 2006
- Nielsen 2007
- Nokia Siemens Networks 2007
- Novartis 1997
- NXP Semiconductors 2006
- Outward Bound USA 2005
- Princeton University Press 2007
- Reliance ADAG 2006
- Rockwell Collins 2006
- Samsung 1993
- Sensata Technologies 2006
- Sistema Telecom 2006
- Smith & Nephew 2003
- Sprint (Sprint Nextel) 2005
- Tenneco 1995
- The Joint Commission 2007
- The Paley Center for Media 2007
- The Phoenix Companies 2006
- Thomson Reuters 2008
- Tyco Electronics 2007
- Umicore 2001
- Unilever 2004
- Unum Group 2007
- Vale 2007
- Velfina 2004
- Wolters Kluwer 2005
- Wyeth Pharmaceuticals 2002
- Xerox 2008
Case: Bausch & Lomb 2004
  In 2002, Ron Zarrella (General Motors' top marketing officer then North Americas head) arrived to lead B&L. Facing a confusing portfolio of vision care brands, home-grown and acquired, he quickly ordered a broad branding review focused on "What is our business direction?" With FutureBrand's help under Denis Riney, Zarrella's team narrowed the portfolio from 'hundreds' to perhaps twenty sub-brands, each representing a technology platform. Each would be more strongly associated with the corporate brand, thus adding their strengths (including pharmacological and surgical associations) to its vision care base (essentially contact lenses) to command a bigger positioning tag, "The Eye Health Company." CREDITS FutureBrand CASE INFO Submitted by: Tony Spaeth, 6/01/2007 |
MATRIX DATA
DRIVERS | TOOLS | ||
| Strategic driver: 95% | |||
|
Narrow the scope Express a more specific focus | 25% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
| x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Tag lines | ||
| x | Situation facts: Corporate level facts: Industry definition | ||
| x | Situation facts: Subcorporate facts: Brands & products | ||
| x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||
|
Change internal culture Enhance pride & confidence | 15% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
| x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||
|
Change internal culture Transfer affiliation from unit to parent | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
| x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Visual endorsement | ||
|
Change expressed personality Renew/refresh public image | 35% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
| x | Identity system elements: Verbal elements: Tag lines | ||
| x | Change event : High visibility: Campaign | ||
|
Change perceived composition Modify parental 'umbrella' presence | 10% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |
| x | Identity system elements: Unit signature system: Visual endorsement | ||
| Functional driver: 5% | |||
|
Design weakness Increase visual strength/quality | 5% | x | Identifier tactics: Logo change: Wordmark-dominant |