Ack, that is just awful, awful, awful. I'm more familiar with the RCA association than HMV, but that's probably just an American thing. The painting and "live action" version of Nipper are well-familiar.

That CGI thing it horrid, though, and utterly unneccesary. While a case can be made for the painted version looking outdated (a stance I'd disagree with, but the case CAN be made), the live-action (read: real) dog cannot be outdated. I mean...it can't. Period. Unless Jack Russell terriers have gone extinct.

The transition from portrait to live-action is just the transition from representation to reality, a transition RCA (or HMV as the case may be) was right to associate themselves with. After all, what has greater clarity than reality?

But the transition from live-action to CGI is a backstep, because you're moving from reality to representation, nullifying the familiarity of your mascot in the process. There's absolutely no reason to do such a thing because, symbolically, all you're saying is that your company has already peaked, and now it's beginning to backslide.

Who the hell decided real dogs weren't cute enough anymore?

I have to say, I'm not sure I understand the enthusiasm for a corporate mascot. Whatever the use of "Nipper" originally represented to the company, whether heritage, familiarity or tradition, has long since been replaced by pure capitalist greed. It's no different to when McDonalds replaced the familiar Ronald McDonald graphic with the manga-influence skateboarding version.

HMV evidently don't care about their history, why should we be any different? I severely doubt that this will have any negative effect in the long term. Even if it does cause any kind of uproar, the most that'll happen is a shitload of free advertising for HMV and a surge of goodwill when they bring back to the old icon. The only people who should have any investment in this matter at all are the shareholders.

I'm actually just approaching it from a symbolic standpoint, which is symptomatic of the fact that I've spent a solid two months now in novels. But I still think my argument holds...

What effect this will have commercially--I have no idea. And I really wouldn't be all that interested to know. But symbolically, it's a very strange move to make. From representation to reality and back to representation...but a representation without the familiarity and history of the original.

Somebody write a novel about this because I'm dying to write an essay.

*agrees entirely with James H on this matter*

Hm. I don't deny that HMV represent TEH MAN, but when would any company listed on the stock exchange have been different? I'm not really talking about some tree-hugging hippy philosophy, I'm talking about the effect good branding has on a company's image. HMV should be worried that I'm now put off from walking into their stores because they've fucked up their branding, surely? I'm not suggesting that companies have a duty to respect their history, because most branding is about getting people to buy stuff, but what I'm saying is that it's stupid from a business point of view to make what was very visually appealling branding just ugly.

HMV were already losing out to Music Zone in terms of price, and now they've taken away the one reason I would wander in. I can't see how this would be a smart business move, and I care about the branding history of HMV because I care about good design. There's a very good reason why Coca-Cola don't fuck about with their branding, and HMV seem to have forgotten this.

Good branding makes for a more beautiful capitalism, which makes more money for companies because humans love pretty things. This is why companies ignore branding history at their own risk; my employer Reuters spends an awful lot of money on rebrands because their image is such an important selling point, and they don't fuck about with their logo. By the time HMV realise they've fucked up, it may be too late...

Actually, I should clarify my rant a bit. The reason why I think branding is important for people other than shareholders (who will be concerned with anything affecting a company's performance) is that it's the main way companies communicate with customers. That image and relationship can be crucial in a market where consumers have a huge amount of choice.

HMV clearly care about Nipper, because they haven't dumped him, but instead of creating something as good as the preceding image (it's not image/logo change per se that I'm against, it's BAD image/logo change), they've listened to some idiot who told them that bad CGI was better then what they had. The problem HMV have is that they've grown so large that they're in danger of losing focus on what generates revenue; something the new Nipper seems to signify quite neatly. It really won't take very long for consumers to vote with their feet, and by the time HMV decide to try and repair the damage, the UK market may well have moved on and left them behind. HMV don't have that much to recommend themselves against rivals currently; Nipper is the only thing that consumers are likely to remember and be affectionate towards, and bad CGI is no substitute for the real thing.

A classic example of branding 'gone bad' is Consignia, which destroyed the long history of the Royal Mail. Public outcry forced a change back, but the Royal Mail are still struggling, with the break in branding possibly playing a role in this, as all the rebranding really did was remind people in the UK that they now have a choice in mail services (up to a point).

There's a very good reason why a beleagued company will change branding, right up to changing name, as humans are visual creatures. I won't remember the quality of Fine Fare foods, for example, but I'll certainly remember the logo. Arthur Anderson are dead in the public's eyes, even though Accenture is simply a new name (with the consulting bit separated off).

But anyway; there's an article in this. Why don't I write it?

Incidentally, anyone interested in the history of RCA/Victor/HMV could do worse than buy 'Where Have All the Good Times Gone?' by my good friend Louis Barfe, who possibly knows more about the history of the record industry than anyone else: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Where-Have-Good-Times-Gone/dp/1843540673/sr=8-1/qid=1164615796/ref=sr_1_1/026-9956033-2959660?ie=UTF8&s=books

Correct me if I'm wrong - but isn't this CGI thing just part of the Christmas campaign? The logo on the website hasn't changed.

Or am I missing something?

If the former is correct then, pah, no biggie. At least the Chrstmas ads are trying to incororate the iconography of the logo. And what's wrong with CGI like that? It's stylised, kinda Nightmare Before Christmas-looking. Hackneyed, maybe, but it's not doing harm to the brand.

Not that we're a generation that's much with brand loyalty anyway. We're in the "I can get it a quid cheaper elsewhere" age...

I dunno, I mean, I'm well aware of how branding works, but that just makes me feel more able to look past it. I doubt most people will have even noticed the change, mainly because they didn't put out a press release saying "hay guys, we've dumped the dog!" and the tabloids didn't care enough to pick it up. In fact, they haven't even got rid of it, the CGI version is more of an accessory to that. Predictions of doom for HMV, however welcome, are almost certainly wishful thinking - as has been acknowledged, it's even not the first time they've changed their logo from one depiction of a dog to another.

The Royal Mail example, while correct, is more of a special case - after all, the Royal Mail was a formerly nationalised organisation making the jump to a modern corporate structure. People genuinely did feel as though a British institution was being messed with - people don't have that kind of attachment to the place they buy their records. Companies don't enter into a full rebrand lightly, so it's incredibly rare that they turn out to be a bad thing, such that when it is a disaster, it becomes a huge deal. This isn't even a rebrand, it's a reinterpretation to supplement the existing brand at most. When high street sales are being eroded every day by online ones, and the formats HMV traditionally deal in are being rendered obselete, which of several cartoon dogs they choose they slap on their adverts is the least of HMV's worries, and certainly, as a customer, the least of mine.

Not that we're a generation that's much with brand loyalty anyway. We're in the "I can get it a quid cheaper elsewhere" age...

As an aside, I don't think this is actually the case when brands mean something to a customer. HMV's brand and image doesn't mean a thing to customers because the quality of service you get from them is so basic. For things like computer components or electronics goods, people will pay plenty for a name that means a good quality product even if a generic Korean manufacturer offers the same product at a quarter the price.

> As an aside, I don't think this is actually the case when brands mean something to a customer.

Oh, yes, very true, absolutely. Store loyalty rather than brand loyalty.

I don't get what this is all about. In the pink circle to the left of the HMV logo... the dog is still there on its record player. How in any way has the logo changed?

HAYA WHY ARE PEOPLE DIDIN MA DOG NIPPER

Find a bar of soap and clean your hands and mouth.

"Nipper", not "nigger", you cock.

Gromit, there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6516235.stm

Looks like an April Fool's gag... but it ain't.

Gromit is brill.