CR Blog
It Was A Send-Up, But The Language Is Horribly Real
Posted by Patrick Burgoyne, 8 October 2008, 7:59 Permalink Comments (18)
Creative Review's "Bold new identity", as (most of) you realised, was a spoof but the convoluted terminology used to describe it was, largely, genuine...
The language used in the post was lifted from a variety of websites belonging to leading branding agencies. For example, Brand Union's online case study for its work for the Chinese OCT group states that "The compelling truth uncovered has been articulated in this short phrase: Imaginators for providing quality living. The word 'imaginators' is an invented one, stumbled upon in our own brainstorming sessions – when the client kept referring to their ability and desire to innovate with our realization that they were a very imaginative organization."
"Infonauts" (which is made up) was just substituted for "imaginators".
The terms "brand muscles", "premium cues", "ideators", "immersion expedition", "accents denoting excellence and quality" all appear on branding agency websites while the other terms are widespread in marketing communications. The giant-size ® was prompted by an encounter with a brand manager who insisted on us using the symbol at the end of his brand name and at the same x-height as its characters.
The work of branding agencies can have genuine importance and value. Advising organisations on their internal structure, the way they perceive themselves and the way they express that internally to staff and to the outside world can make a vital contribution to their success. Any corporation, charity or public sector organisation needs to know what its aims are, what it stands for and how it wants the world to see it. Branding agencies, design studios and their ilk make that happen.
So why describe the mechanics of and work produced by this useful service in such tortuous, painful language? Why talk bollocks when you can talk sense?
Branding does not have a monopoly on the abuse of the English language – you only have to hear a politician wittering on about "stakeholders", "cohorts" and "outcomes" to see that, or, indeed, read an architecture magazine. But the problem in branding is particularly acute. The press statements that accompany the launch of every new logo and corporate identity pass through layer upon layer of management and PR as the concept is justified internally and externally – the language employed is not entirely the fault of the designers. But it is doing their work an enormous disservice. How can we expect people to take an industry seriously if it insists in expressing itself in this absurd manner?
It smacks of a lack of confidence. If branding agencies were confident that their work was genuinely appreciated would they need to dress it up in such verbiage?
We have been accused of hypocrisy because we have quoted designers in the past who have employed such language in describing their work. That is to confuse straight reporting, which has a duty to be neutral and accurate, with comment. Just because we run a story on a project it doesn't mean that we endorse that project nor that we approve of what its creators say about it. Nonetheless, particularly on the blog, we have to recognise that many people equate any kind of coverage beyond the outright negative with approval. And if we quote people spouting nonsense, no-one comes out of it with credit.
We hope this piece will prompt debate over brand agencies' use of language in describing what they do. We will play our part by endeavouring not to let any future usage of the terminology cited here pass unnoticed.
Proper, intelligently applied branding work deserves to be taken seriously, but it won't be if it continues to be expressed and explained in such verbiose, overblown language. And can we please put away the marbles too?
18 Comments
Perhaps it is that branding agencies increasingly lack the confidence that they can express themselves sufficiently (and in a clear and concise manner) without resorting to this common linguistic nonsense. It may be that they have perfect confidence in their branding work, but less so in their grasp of the written word.
2008-10-08 08:42:58
Slightly stunned that so many folk thought your re-design was for real...
Branding jargon is ridiculous.
Evidently branding and identity 'experts' are out to prove that they are Really Very Clever, and that the work they do is akin to some sort of science.
And let's not forget, it's not just the folk at the agencies - their counterparts on the client side have eagerly absorbed and regurgitated this language...
It smacks of insecurity.
Designers are supposed to be good at distilling complex ideas down into simple solutions, be they logos, identities, or whatever. But it seems that we're afraid of presenting something as 'simple' in case it gets judged as 'simplistic'.
It's about time CR started to take a lead, to kick off real debate. Intelligent and reasoned criticism is good. More please.
2008-10-08 09:27:56
In terms of branding, I've long been a fan of the idea that if you have to explain it, it's not done its job.
2008-10-08 11:33:50
Keep It Simple Stupid...
If only people with grand titles, expensive cars and 'committee' fever (yes I'm talking to you Mr./Mrs. marketing executive/brand guardian) remembered that they still shit the same stink as the rest of us and people really, really don't want to get confused (sorry, I meant perplexed) over the obvious.
And don't forget that everyone loves a good kiss. Even ugly people.
2008-10-08 11:51:08
I knew this new logo had to be a joke.
I couldn't actually believe it when I read the article, especially after reading the 'An Ordinary World' article featured on the CR blog on the 30/09/08.
Nevertheless, really enjoyed the article and after emailing the URL round the office and to friends it prompted a debate which was great.
2008-10-08 11:57:33
Good work should be able to speak for itself - nuff said.
2008-10-08 17:06:14
is there a single colour version?
2008-10-08 20:09:22
I'm confident to say that no designer ever writes this stuff. Even the art directors in charge of identity and branding projects don't write it. It's written by account managers, PR people, client directors, brand directors, etc.
Not to create a civil war within our profession, but maybe if we broke down some of the walls and let designers actually communicate with clients and the world at large, we wouldn't have these problems.
Oh, and advertising folks, don't think your hands are clean. Instead of press releases, we get your crap thrown at us on tv 18 minutes out of every hour. And don't get me started on the corporate world in general!
2008-10-08 20:33:40
Re-branding, sans nonsense: http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html - I think there is only xerox rocking the marble of this bunch. :)
2008-10-08 23:21:55
For many years I've had huge respect for the Creative Review, as a provider of independent, well researched and well written media information. Unfortunately CR have lost a great deal of credibility by ignoring the basic principles they allegedly claim to support "straight reporting, which has a duty to be neutral and accurate". Blogs provide forums for debate and CR's blog should be no different; however CR have decided to become part of the news by ridiculing a newly launched identity. This is not creating debate, this is taking sides captiously and knowingly. What a shame.
2008-10-09 09:54:27
Creative Review certainly wouldn't be the first publication to 'take sides' in an arguement/discussion. Every newspaper in circulation has an agenda (some more than others, granted).
My opinion? It's a strange old world that we creatives live and work in. Companies (big and small) need to see value for money. They need to see and hear that real time and effort has gone into something as important as a new identity.
Not only that, but the way in which a new logo is 'released' to the world has a lot to do with things. It's not enough to simply introduce it on an updated letterhead these days - a new logo is a big event and needs some form of explanation. Often in the form of a blog-style press release. I do the same when ever I've finished a piece of work (though my vocab isn't quite as flamboyant, perhaps).
I guess really, we're just adding to the hot air anyway and are equally to blame. A good brand can take years to bed in and it's not until then that we can really judge a piece of work.
2008-10-09 12:18:38
I really wanted to reflect creatively and intelligently on what just happened. I really did. But really, I just wanted to flick that damn marble away.
2008-10-10 15:41:54
I thought CR had gone too far and the whole thing was just completely obvious as a spoof.
But looking at the posts underneath the original article the number of people that didn't get the joke is alarming. And supports the idea that this kind of nonsense is still common enough to be entirely believable.
Or maybe some people are just quite thick?
2008-10-10 17:46:54
This was a great way to bring attention to an issue without trying to preach of the opposite. Satire has consistently been a method used to spark debate. As much as I like bipartisan reportage, it's always refreshing to see some opinion put into something. It takes a certain amount of courage for a publication to put it's neck out and post something so bold that is sure to get someone riling about its 'credibility'. Great job! And definitely good timing.
In response to the actual issue at hand, it does seem that while blowing hot air into the design of a brand may indeed put the client at ease (it is understandable that a business may not understand the process or impact of a design without an explanation), doesn't it devalue the actual work? It seems like an easy out to keep clients happy without actually progressing the client-designer relationship.
2008-10-11 02:54:16
joke
2008-10-13 09:46:11
Well done to CR for actually tackling the cancer that eats away this, our crazy industry. Since this business was born, the many (those untalented people in sharp suits and coloured rimmed spectacles) who have milked the few (talented, qualified, creatives) at Board Room level to propagate the Gravy Train that exists for media executives who come to the party loaded with their diploma in Spanish and Tree Surgery. These clowns have, for a long time since become satirical parodies of themselves, yet still manage to thrive... and still talk Board Room Exec bollox to each other, simply because they are running scared of being found out, so aware of their own limitations. This spoof rational hits the nail right on the head. £500K well spent? For following a 1 hour, Photoshop tutorial! Basically, you can’t defend the indefensible without sounding ridiculous. Maybe are clients are, after all, as thick as we treat them. The 2012 logo debate comes to mind.
2008-10-13 12:31:07
It's about time...
2008-10-14 10:40:58
That is hilarious! Logos are fun, nearly as good as the magazine which isn't soft enough to be used as bog paper.
2008-10-28 16:21:10
Get the RSS Feed
Related subjects and keywords
Subject:
Keywords:
More like this
Articles:
2839
Most recently commented
| The Get Involved Poster Show (3) |
| MTV's brand new look (37) |
| D&AD Student Award winners (3) |
| Michael Owen, the brand (29) |
| Build's Get Involved poster, returned (7) |
Most read
| The Bible According To Google Earth |
| New Deal typeface |
| Rubik's Cube Type Stamp |
| The YouTube Dilemma |
| Low-Fi Sci-Fi |
Subjects
| Advertising | (522) | |
| Art | (136) | |
| Books | (111) | |
| Digital | (131) | |
| Graphic Design | (386) | |
| Illustration | (172) | |
| Magazine / Newspaper | (64) | |
| Moving Image | (421) | |
| Photography | (142) | |
| Type / Typography | (108) |
