The idea: creative. The purpose: admirable. The name: underwhelming.

Pegasus Global Holdings has secured 20 square miles in New Mexico to serve as a mock town where they can study the environmental and global effects of specific technologies. “Innovators … (can) to test renewable energy innovations in real world conditions, such as how does a solar panel work on a shadier lot?”

With a plot of land ripe for experiments, a ‘ghost town’ heritage, a team targeting innovators and specialists in their respective industries, and a $200 million dollar budget, “The Center” is the name they chose? If executed correctly, Pegasus Holdings has a real opportunity to create some press and engagement around this initiative. With a name like “The Center”, they’ve missed the mark.

How about playing up the environmental aspect in the name? Or if that is too trite, what about the dichotomy of ghost town imagery with technological innovation? Have any ideas? Post them in the comments.

“Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes. The ones who see things differently. They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them. Because they change things. They push the human race forward.

And while some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.

Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

- Apple “Think Different” Campaign

Photo credit: AP Photo/Paul Sakuma

That iconic “swoosh” is easily recognized by millions of people around the world as the logo for Nike. Its influence reaches far and its endorsements are many, so it’s understandable that devout sports fans (and anyone that watches the news) remembers when Michael Vick lost his Nike endorsement after pleading guilty to dog fighting charges in 2007.

Just one month ago, Nike decided to renew its contract with Vick. The quarterback has had a moderately successful comeback since signing with the Philadelphia Eagles in 2009.

“Michael acknowledges his past mistakes,” Nike spokesman Derek Kent told CNBC. “We do not condone those actions, but we support the positive changes he has made to better himself off the field.”

Many are upset that Nike may appear to support criminal activity with Vick’s contract renewal. This has prompted me to wonder: does disassociating one’s brand from a scandal (like Nike did initially) help or hurt a brand?

I believe a brand that disassociates itself from a scandal will flourish or flounder based on how it has already branded itself in the past. If a company has established itself as a smart, successful enterprise, then the public will most likely reference that image and see the disassociation as a tactical move. However, if the company has defined itself as a continuously error-prone brand that dabbles in illicit activities, then the public will see the company as irresponsible for cutting its ties.

Take Disney World, for example. Several people have died on the park’s attractions, but is that what you think of when you ride “It’s a Small World?” Probably not. Disney is highly adept at branding itself as a provider of wholesome happiness, so it can quickly disregard an issue and move on without a hitch. The public knows that what the Disney brand can offer them outweighs any scandalous slights.

I think Nike ultimately made a wise decision to terminate Vick’s contract in 2007. There was a lot of bad blood associated with the controversy, and Nike probably would have received some flak for it. But, if Nike had ridden it out, I think it would not have suffered a devastating blow either. Nike’s brand — a profitable, dominant, and powerful sportswear provider — can afford to take a hit. And although many don’t agree with Nike’s decision to reinstate Vick, I think we can safely assume that the brand won’t be hurting for business anytime soon.

Contributed by Allison Meeks

What’s the first thing you think of when you hear the word “Broadway”? New York City, musicals, The Phantom of the Opera, theater, and Fred Astaire might come to mind. These associations most likely exist because of the way in which Broadway has traditionally been branded for years – as expensive, prestigious entertainment.

Lately, as seen at the Tony Awards last night, Broadway has been undergoing a branding transformation. Dramas and white-bread musical comedies make way for new shows that target children, minorities, and even those who enjoy raunchy religious mockery (look up The Book of Mormon, winner of Best Musical from the creators of South Park).

Even so, Broadway walks a thin line between experimental target audiences and the musical purists of days gone. Many newer consumers are often reluctant to see shows because of the limited availability and expense of tickets. That’s why revivals of classics, like South Pacific and Gypsy, do well the second time around as older audiences remain steadfast in their support.

This puts Broadway at a complicated branding juncture. How can shows attract younger audiences with smaller wallets while still maintaining a reputation that’s made them star attractions for years?

For one thing, the quality of shows remains relatively unchanged. Performers are still top-notch, often putting commercial pop-stars to shame (sorry, Justin Bieber). These actors, plus costume designers, technician crews, and so many others, go into the making of one high-quality product — much in the way that a designer handbag à la Gucci is created — instead of cheaply manufacturing several low-quality items at a time.

Instead, what seems to matter most in Broadway’s rebranding is making shows accessible to everyone. Productions want the college undergraduate student or working suburban mom to see the latest show on tour in their hometown, not be intimidated by it. Maybe that’s why newer shows are increasingly turning to audience interaction; The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee used audience members as spelling bee participants alongside cast members, and the revival of Hair invited audience members to dance onstage in a psychedelic encore of “Let the Sun Shine In.” These experiences catapult audience members into the grandeur of the theater world, but in a way that is both comfortable and accepting for the participants.

Broadway is making progress on the road to rebranding; shows in the vein of Shrek the Musical and Rain: A Tribute to the Beatles are becoming more common, and overall show grosses have increased in recent years. In fact, Broadway theaters earned a cumulative $943 million between 2008 and 2009, the most ever in a single season. However, there’s still a long way to go before seeing a show is as common as going to the movies.

Which leaves the question: could a rebranding of Broadway ever really make it accessible to broader audiences? And, more importantly, is that what’s best for Broadway?

Contributed by Allison Meeks