What’s in a name?
Associate editor (features) Ruth Mortimer wrote a column last week on Pizza Hut’s recent rebranding exercises. You said:
I do care about the name of the brand and don’t want it to be called “Pasta Hut” or “The Hut”. That was one of the silliest campaigns I’ve ever heard of from a well-known brand. Can’t they stop messing around?
Here in the US, the “Pasta Hut” thing was strictly an April Fool’s joke. We recently ordered some Pizza Hut pizzas, which came in the new boxes with the bold “The Hut” graphics – finally they’ve dumped the milquetoast, recycled image and done something interesting. I say bravo!
Who cares about the name of a pizza chain restaurant? As long as the pizza is still made the same way, I couldn’t care less.
I’m not sure what short bus their marketing department just stepped off, but I wouldn’t want to eat at a place that conjures up this image: www.youtube.com/watch?v=nqQh60V48WI
Dixons got it right
Andrew Harrison wrote last week’s cover feature – his take on how clusters of super-marketers have emerged at various brands to form the next generation of UK business chiefs. You said:
As a former Dixonian, I agree with your analysis, but there was something more than the “sink or swim” culture there. From the late Nineties, it was a business that thrived on its preparedness to support courageous hunches. Not every initiative succeeded, but those that did worked because Dixons was prepared to take a punt on the new. I can’t think of a business of the same size that is or was prepared to support decisions based on retail instinct in quite the same way. That made it a brilliant training ground for executives.