With the “green” movement reaching full steam, I’ve been trying to change my behavior to better the environment.

So, I recycle.

And I’m now bringing my own bags to the grocery store so that I don’t get endless plastic bags.

The other day, I bought some detergent that was “organic” and better for the environment because when it goes into the pipes and out the other side, it’s not full of chemicals.

The detergent (which shall remain nameless- we’ll call it “unnamed” detergent) claimed to clean as well as the usual brands, only it used “lavender” and other “oils” to do the cleaning.

Fabulous!

Only not so much. After just two weeks of using said “unnamed” detergent, I had to go to the grocery store and buy, well, Tide.

Gasp!

Tide- the detergent with all those nasty CHEMICALS.

And what a relief it was. As soon as I did the first load and saw that the stains came out of my pants, a smile appeared on my face.

Make no mistake. The good for the environment “unnamed” detergent, wasn’t just bad- it was awful! It was as if I hadn’t washed the clothes at all. And we’re talking “normal” stains such as dropping a piece of buttered popcorn on your pants leg while you’re in the movie theater. This wasn’t even 2-year pudding on the front of the shirt or 5-year old grass stains on the jeans.

Did the “unnamed” detergent get that out?

Nope.

But Tide, of course, did.

Maybe I just underestimated how good Tide really is. Think about all of those years in the laboratory by scientists and then several decades of consumers using it and the company tinkering with it. From inventors.com

:

In the 1920s, Americans used soap flakes to clean their laundry. The flakes performed poorly in hard water, leaving a ring in the washing machine, dulling colors, and turning whites gray. Procter & Gamble began an ambitious mission to change the way Americans washed their clothes. Researchers discovered two-part molecules which they called synthetic surfactants. Each part of the “miracle molecules” executed a specific function–one pulled grease and dirt from the clothes, while the other suspended dirt until it could be rinsed away. In 1933, this discovery was introduced in a detergent called “Dreft,” but it could only handle lightly soiled jobs. The next goal was to create a detergent that could clean heavily soiled clothes. That detergent was Tide®.

Created in 1943, Tide detergent was the combination of synthetic surfactants and “builders.” The builders helped the synthetic surfactants penetrate the clothes more deeply to attack greasy, difficult stains. Tide was introduced to test markets in October 1946 as the world’s first heavy-duty detergent. Consumer response was immediate and intense. Tide detergent outsold every other brand within weeks. It became so popular that store owners were forced to limit the quantity purchased per customer.

Tide detergent was improved 22 times during its first 21 years on the market, and Procter & Gable still strives for perfection. Each year, researchers duplicate the mineral content of water from all parts of the United States and wash 50,000 loads of laundry to test Tide detergent’s consistency and performance.

So, maybe it’s not so easy to make a detergent after all? And especially one that works.

I know, I know. You’re all thinking that maybe I just didn’t use a “good” detergent that is good for the environment and that there are probably others I can try.

Frankly, the experience was so bad, I’m discouraged about even trying any of the others.

Sorry- I guess I won’t be helping the environment (at least in the detergent department.)

I’ll take my Tide- thanks.

A few weeks ago the Wall Street Journal had an article called “Selling Lauren Conrad” on how one of the The Hills reality show stars was trying to brand herself. For those of you who don’t watch MTV and aren’t in the all important 18 to 24 demographic, and that includes me, and are asking “Lauren who?” here is more info:

Lauren Conrad is famous for being on a reality show. But what she really wants is to run a merchandising empire.

Ms. Conrad, 22, is the star of “The Hills,” the reality show that was MTV’s highest-rated program last fall. For the past two years, cameras have captured her days as a fashion-magazine intern and nights as a club-hopper who flirts with guys and spars with friends. To translate her fame into a fashion career, she and her father have hired a team of Hollywood-industry advisers and signed several licensing and endorsement deals. The process isn’t always smooth. The network that made her famous won’t promote her enterprises on air. And Ms. Conrad, determined to assert her fashion vision, sometimes ignores the suggestions of her more seasoned advisers.

The money involved in branding a reality tv star is no laughing matter.

Mr. Stubblefield began fielding licensing and endorsement offers after the show’s debut. Since 2006, Ms. Conrad has signed up for deals with a toy company, a leather-goods maker and a cosmetics line. Ms. Conrad’s team says it has refused a number of other offers, including a jewelry-licensing deal with a home shopping network. A department store offered to pay a six-figure fee to put her name on a clothing line but wouldn’t give her any design input. “I wanted to have full creative power,” she says.

The key, for many of these people, is to become a celebrity simply by being a celebrity. No talent required.

But what about the rest of us who aren’t on reality television?

The key is still in your brand.

Two of the most successful branding campaigns in recent memory were in the news in the last few days.

The first: Jim Cramer.

He is the biggest brand in finance- outside of Suze Orman. He was a successful hedge fund manager who has turned himself into a writer and stock picking guru by throwing chairs and other items on a television show and writing straight-forward easy to understand books.

He was also one of the original founders of the financial website TheStreet.com back during the dot-com boom in the 1990s.

Mr. Cramer recently signed a new contract with TheStreet.com. From Businessweek:

TheStreet.com Inc. said Wednesday it agreed to a new three-year contract with co-founder, director and columnist Jim Cramer.

Cramer will receive between $1.3 million and $1.9 million each of the three years. Cramer will get a signing bonus of $100,000 and is eligible for annual bonuses worth up to 75 percent of his salary based on the company’s financial results.

Cramer will also receive restricted stock units that can convert to up to 300,000 shares of common stock over the next five years. Based on Tuesday’s closing price of $9.32, the shares are worth about $2.8 million.

You read that right. Mr. Cramer is getting paid over a million bucks to write a column for a website.

He’s just a COLUMNIST!

What makes him so valuable? His brand.

Having Jim Cramer on the site clearly brings in readers. Readers bring in revenue through advertising and the selling of other products on the site.

Jim Cramer has parlayed his brand into big bucks. On top of the TheStreet.com, it’s said he makes just over a million dollars a year on CNBC.

Where, of course, he expands his brand.

The Biggest of the Bloggers: Perez Hilton

Three years ago Mario Lavandeira, aka Perez Hilton, was sitting in a coffee shop in Hollywood nearly broke and blogging about celebrities on a two-bit website. Originally, his site was called SixSixSix but Page Six, the gossip column in the New York Post, took offense to the name similarity and sued him.

It was the best thing that ever happened to him (how many people who are sued can say that?)

Literally, overnight, the blog went from nothing to something.

Lavandeira agreed to change the blog name and adopted PerezHilton.com, after his favorite Hollywood party girl, Paris Hilton, and the name took off.

Within a year, Perez was getting over a million hits a day to his site filled with celebrity gossip and pictures. He was also making mucho money- off just the ad revenue alone.

But the lawsuits mounted (including one over copyright infringement for the use of celebrity pictures.)

Perez slowly became a celebrity in his own right- attending movie premieres and award shows. He parlayed that into guest appearances on Entertainment Tonight and Access Hollywood. Then he became more “legit” by appearing on The View, with none other than Barbara Walters, to talk celebrity gossip.

No longer just a blogger, Perez Hilton had become a brand.

And now he’s moving onto other venues. Just yesterday, it was announced that he was getting his own radio pieces that will air nationwide. From the Associated Press:

Gossip maven Perez Hilton will soon be dishing it up on the airwaves as well as in the blogosphere.

The celebrity blogger, whose real name is Mario Lavandeira, will be the star of twice-daily radio minishows that begins broadcasting on May 5, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday on its Web site.

“It will hopefully introduce me, potentially, to a whole new audience,” Hilton said.

The three-minute-long radio shows will air during morning and evening drive times in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago and other big cities, with more markets planned for the next few months, the paper reported.

The show, “Radio Perez,” represents another step toward media ubiquity for the blogger, whose Web site routinely posts salacious details about gossip targets such as Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan.

The whole point of a “brand” is to expand it. But just what IS the Perez Hilton brand anyway? He’s known as a gossip columnist. Would you buy clothes designed by him? Perfume promoted by him?

He’s known as having a talent for picking and promoting talented musicians on his website. Maybe he will tie his brand more to music than celebrity gossip?

Others are asking the same questions. From Reuters:

Henry Copeland, CEO of BlogAds, the advertising network that handles PerezHilton.com, isn’t about to spill the beans on Hilton’s next move. But he believes his client has just begun tapping his potential in the media marketplace. “When you’ve got this incredibly loyal core audience, of course you’re asking yourself, ‘How do you extend the brand?’”

Out of nearly all the popular bloggers, he’s the first to try and extend his reach beyond his own website.

All of these people have one thing in common. They’re commoditizing themselves. They’re putting value on their names.

Learn to brand yourself.

JCrew has had quite a turnaround in its business over the last few years. Hot in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the company went through a rough patch and now has emerged hot again.

The clothing isn’t cheap. It’s the Gap times two. But somehow they’re able to dress both college kids, 20-somethings and 30-somethings all at the same time- as long as those customers have the budget for it.

Betting that moms want their kids to be just as fashionable, the company started a child’s clothing line only a few years ago called “Crew Cuts.”

It will be interesting to see if JCrew can make it work because Talbots just announced it was discontinuing both its kids line and its men’s line. Talbots has had the kids line for quite sometime- much longer than JCrew has been trying it. From DMNews:

“This is a very important strategic move that will greatly contribute to our ability to focus and reinvigorate our core brands and provide sustainable long-term shareholder value,” said Trudy F. Sullivan, president/CEO of Talbots, in a statement. “By exiting these concepts, we can focus exclusively on our company’s core strength — the age 35-plus female market, where we believe there is significant opportunity for profitable growth in both our Talbots and J. Jill brands.”

The company will close approximately 78 stores throughout the US as a result of this decision, including 66 Talbots Kids and 12 Talbots Mens stores.

I really noticed the Crew Cuts line in this Spring’s catalog. Before, it was just a few pages, but this time it was 10 or more pages.

And I noticed something interesting that I hadn’t picked up on before. The girl’s line is nearly identical to the women’s line. Maybe this is how they’ll keep it profitable. Make the same exact clothing, only in smaller sizes. That way, you won’t need two different design teams.

Brilliant!

Think I’m kidding?

Check out these examples.

Here are some lovely silver and gold ballet shoes. (Ballet flats are really in for women again this year.)

Only these are from the girl’s catalog. Price? $128.

Yes, I routinely buy 7-year olds $128 shoes.

Want something cheaper? How about these Clea ballet flats with cotton and leather uppers. Made in Italy.

They’re “only” $84.

Do they look any different from the women’s ballet flats? These are also made in Italy.

Price for the women’s flats are $118.

Shoes are one thing. Because both 35-year old women and 8-year old girls might wear ballet flats.

Let’s say you want to wear the exact same mini-skirt as your 8-year old. You can!

Here’s the Coppelle Paisley Mini Skirt for girls:

This is $54. And every girl under 10-years old MUST have the paisley. It’s so “in” this season.

Mom can have the same skirt.

Mom’s version costs $75.

Am I the only one who is disturbed by this?

Customers can literally buy the same outfits for their 8-year olds as they are wearing themselves (same sweaters, same skirts, in some cases similar dresses.)

I was initally disturbed by the cost of these products (who buys their kid a $54 skirt?) but upon closer examination, the fact that they are identical products, just “mini-me”, is creepier.

The Crew Cuts line is aimed at kids aged 2 to 10.

I didn’t even get into the JCrew Cashmere line for girls. Cashmere shell is $82. Cashmere cardigan is $118.

Who is buying cashmere for a 5 year old?

I know, I know. There is a certain segment of the population that pays these prices. There is, after all, a reason that Neiman Marcus exists. But JCrew isn’t Neiman Marcus. Yes, it’s slightly higher end. I’m not saying its Old Navy.

What do you think the odds are of the kid’s line being a success?

Maybe I’m missing something…

Check it out here at JCrew.com.

There is no doubt that Target is “hot” among a certain segment of affluent shoppers who buy Isaac Mizrahi pants and other “designer” merchandise.

Target’s target audience is the $55,000 to $75,000 income range.

Two years ago, Target started moving in on the organic food market with its Archer Food line, which included whole-grain pizzas and pastas, among other items.

All of Target’s SuperTarget produce departments are now organic.

I recently read an interview with a big investment manager where he said that Target was now a threat to Whole Foods because the rich would simply shop for their organic items in Target.

Where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah- when Safeway was a “threat”.

How about Supervalu and its Sunflower Markets- which the company just shut down?

And remember, Wild Oats? Whole Foods finally bought them last year after kicking their behind for years.

Yes, Whole Foods is pricey (people don’t call it “Whole Paycheck” for nothing.) But what they do, they do right.

They offer tremendous selection and those products are always in great condition.

Whole Foods is an “experience.” Shopping at a massive SuperTarget? Not so much.

I’m not saying Whole Foods isn’t without any chinks in its armour. The company has seen its growth slow in recent months. But it is mainly still an American grocer. The company has only six stores in Canada and six in the UK.

That leaves a large chunk of the world available for expansion. Like Starbucks, don’t count out Whole Foods.