Originally Posted by
spin88
actually the logo/name/font is not a "brand" by itself, its what is generally called "trade dress." A brand is the attributes which are associated with the product/group/service. It is what you want people to think or see when the see the trade dress or hear the brand name. Think BMW vs. Yugo, names (and the looks of the cars) evoke very different response. This is the strength of the brand.
For the old UA "friendly skies" was designed to capture the essence of the brand, it evoked something. SQ has brand attributes in their SQ girls. COdbaUA's brand is currently "you're in!"
Honestly, then, all sarcasm aside, what is COdbaUA's brand, by this definition?
What I think of when I see the name now: cheap, hostile, unreliable, untrustworthy, uncomfortable, low class, greedy, condescending, patronizing, and short-sighted.
I guess what they want us to think of: route network, route network, route network, 787, 787, 787?
What's interesting is - what they want us to think about - these are all facts or features (well, the 787 was a fact until it got grounded) - but not feelings. UA executed on a feeling: friendly skies. And, it was powerful. CO, by contrast, says, we'll get you there safely and reliably, and we'll take you to lots of places, and maybe some of them on the 787 from time to time.
Even if that's what I thought of when I saw the logo, it's not very engaging. Anyone in first year business school could come up with a list of features like that. Uninspired.
Did they just fire all the branding people and decide it's not necessary to have a brand?