Has Airbnb made a branding “balls-up”?

After the grave subject-matter of my previous post, I thought it would be fun to turn my attention to a lighter story. Lighter though it may be, it’s still a fascinating branding, marketing and PR case-study and a source of serious consideration, once you’ve stopped sniggering.

It concerns last week’s launch of Airbnb’s new branding. The popular holiday-apartment-rental website revealed a radical departure from its original light-blue and white script style logo, to a red and white livery with a new insignia. 

Airbnb’s old logo

Problem is, nobody seems to know what the logo stands for,. Techcrunch went as far as describing it as “a Rorschach test for everyone who saw it,” and this very lack of definition is giving rise to some rather mischievous suggestions.

Airbnb’s new logo

So, is it . . .

• An inverted heart?
• Peter Griffin’s (Family Guy) chin?
• A bum
• A pair of breasts?
• A pair of balls, or a vagina?

Amid much hilarity online, Gizmodo proved to be fond of the last suggestion, as was the Valleywag blog on Gawker . A Tumblr site rapidly appeared with a bunch of other recommendations, some more salacious than others.

The designers stressed the new logo’s simplicity to replicate and remember. They call it the Bélo and they’re keen for it to be as ubiquitious as the Wi-Fi symbol. Apparently, according to Airbnb, it combines elements of a person with their arms outstretched, preparing to hug you; a map location marker, a heart and the A from the Airbnb name. It’s supposed to indicate a sense of belonging, and this is to be enhanced with the logo’s ability to be customised by users, according to Airbnb. 

 

Another imaginative suggestion for what the new logo stands for.

So has the brand re-boot been a success, or, in rather apposite Cockney argot, a great big “balls-up”?

This is a difficult one to call, in my opinion. I don’t suppose that the good people at Airbnb anticipated becoming the butt of so many jokes. (I’m sorry, I just couldn’t resist a cheeky pun myself) and certainly they’ve been initially dismayed by the giggles to which they’ve given rise. In the UK, the Daily Mail reported a rather po-faced and peevish defence of the re-branding by Airbnb founder and CTO Nathan Blecharczyk, who said: “It’s just like: Go ahead, laugh all you want, guys. We wouldn’t want to design a logo that caters to the lowest common denominator.” The newspaper even suggested that Airbnb claims the new logo will become as recognizable as the Nike swoosh.

Top marks for ambition, Mr. Blecharczyk and team. Thing is, it would be all too easy to be dismissive of them except for a couple of important considerations. First, consumers are notoriously bad at handling change. We cling to the familiar. After all, isn’t it always that case that, “they don’t make things like they used to.” Nevertheless, once change happens, we are remarkably adaptable, and before long we’ll forget how things really used to be, unless we’re reminded of them. So the chances are the same thing will happen with this re-branding. 

Secondly, if the top brass at Airbnb play this situation correctly, they could really make it work in their favour. 

I’ve just Googled “new Airbnb logo”. In only 39 seconds, it says it has identified 13,400,000 web search results, and in 22 seconds, 25,900 news results. That’s a fantastic amount of noise for a story about a brand’s new logo and typeface. I hazard a guess that Airbnb would have been hard-pressed to generate this much discussion, PR coverage and brand recognition so rapidly.

This word-of-mouth is something on which Airbnb can build, providing they show a bit of humility and a big sense of humour. Globally, people are talking about Airbnb’s re-branding. Who’d have thunk it? They should embrace the amusement they’re providing, and use the laughs, and the fascination to explain their brand, and show that they’re a fun, transparent, “human” company.

There’s a lesson here. Things might look messy at the beginning, but with the right positioning and attitude, there’s often an opportunity, and a way to make things work. It remains to be seen whether it will in this case.

• What do you think of the logo and the re-branding?
• What does it remind you of?
• Can Airbnb can make it work? How?

I’d love to hear what you think.

Is this a terminal crisis for Malaysia Airlines?

It has been impossible to ignore this week’s dreadful news of the loss of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17.

A lot has already been written about the tragic circumstances behind the shooting down of the aircraft over the Ukraine with 298 people on board. Much more has yet to be discovered about why this terrible thing occurred.

What is doubly shocking is that such a massive tragedy has struck the same airline in quick succession, following the still unsolved disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in March, with 239 passengers on board.

Although it’s a minor consideration compared to the grief of the passengers’ families, another issue is what this means for Malaysia Airlines. How well has it responded to this terrible situation? Can the brand and the company survive this second tragedy, or is this a crisis too big and one too many? 

A question of scale

The first thing to consider is that no brand, certainly in the aviation industry, has suffered two such big tragedies in such quick succession. It’s unprecedented. And it’s already pretty certain that the loss of MH17 is not Malaysia Airlines’ fault. So arguably this affords the company sympathy, but one must wonder whether an intangible feeling of bad luck will now be attached to the brand, and how willing will passengers be to use the airline.

A question of response

The mysterious disappearance of MH370 led to a reaction from Malaysia Airlines that received considerable criticism. Unfortunately for Malaysia, it lacked information about what had happened in March, and this led to a confused response. It still remains unclear what happened and whether the airline bore any responsibility for MH370’s loss. Many people felt that what little information was available was poorly communicated to the families of the passengers, and this added to their distress.

This time, MH17 was shot down. This time, Malaysia Airlines is the victim, because the incident is so extreme. By the start of this week, Malaysia Airlines had already announced that as a mark of respect it would retire the route’s number. There will be no more MH17 flights. They are communicating more on Twitter and Facebook and getting out on the media. These may seem like small gestures, but they have been decisive, and consequently the airline’s immediate response seems to be more caring and consistent than before.

In crisis situations, decisive, clear and fast responses are important. They demonstrate that an organisation is open, transparent and responsible. This communicates a lot about their business and their competency, and can win or lose them sympathy depending on the quality of response. In this case, the airline has clearly learned a lesson from their indecision in March.

A question of best practice

However, a question mark exists over why Malaysia Airlines allowed MH17 to use the flight-path that put it at risk. It remains to be seen just how frequently it, and other airlines, take this route, and to what extent passengers have been put at risk since the escalation of hostilities in the Ukraine. It may be the case that Malaysia has unfortunately been the fall guy for an industry that hasn’t taken seriously enough the situation in the region. In which case, at least it can’t be singled out for having a particularly cavalier attitude to passenger safety.

A question of trust

Ultimately, Malaysia Airlines will survive or fold depending on how much trust passengers will continue to have in the company and the brand. Presently, this is difficult to gauge. In spite of the airline winning the Skytrax “World Best Cabin Crew” award as recently as 2012, and having won this title eight times since 2001, the loss of the two Malaysia planes and such a massive loss of life may be too much for the company to bear.

A lot may also depend upon how much trust its partners in the oneworld airline alliance have in the company. If partners such as American Airlines, British Airways, Qantas, Cathay Pacific and Japan Airlines feel that their association with Malaysia detrimentally affects their brands’ reputations, their actions could have serious consequences for the future of the brand.

The possibilities

It might be the case that the tragedies have made it impossible for Malaysia Airlines to continue in its current incarnation. Perhaps a re-organisation, a new leadership and even a re-branding will be necessary. These suggestions may sound like superficial solutions to grave problems, but they would send the message to consumers that Malaysia’s national airline is a different entity than that which suffered so much. It might represent a new start that could ultimately save the thousands of jobs that the airline currently supports. For these to be lost too would be an additional misfortune that I’m sure we would all be glad to avoid.