CR Blog
On the future of brands
Posted by Creative Review, 26 May 2011, 16:29 Permalink Comments (13)
Creative Review was at the Brand Perfect Tour yesterday in London. Presentations from the likes of Wolff Olins, Wieden + Kennedy and SomeOne provided plenty of food for thought
The Idea of the Brand Perfect Tour, which is the branchild of Monotype Imaging, is to encourage debate around the future of branding and specifically to look at the problems of communicating via the enormous number of different platforms that exist today.
One of the main themes that came out of the day was the impossibility of visual consistency across all these platforms, particularly when so much communication and discussion about products and services now takes place in areas where brands have no control eg Twitter and Facebook. As Wolff Olins' Marina Willer said "Your brand is not what you say it is, it's what Google says it is".
Where consistency can be achieved is in tone of voice, the way an organisation behaves and the authenticity of what it has to offer the world. So consistency becomes less a matter of referring to the Corporate Identity Manual and more one of making sure the organisation knows what it stands for and is clear about it. Less a visual thing and more a behavioural one.
SomeOne's Simon Manchipp gave what most Tweeters seemed to agree was the most stimulating presentation. Manchipp, as well as reiterating his now familiar 'The logo is dead' viewpoint, argued that what brands must now concentrate on is not consistency, which he dismissed as being dull and uninteresting, but cohesion.
As usual, we were left with as many questions as answers. Here's a few to ponder:
If the logo is dead, why do people love and care about them so much?
Do an organisation's customers really own the brand as the new orthodoxy has it, or should a brand have the courage to tell the Tweeters and Facebook groups 'no, you're wrong, we're right'? And what about all those customers who don't Tweet or use Facebook? Who is listening to them?
The new thinking has it that companies or organisations with bad products will no longer be able to exist because the power of social networking will destroy their reputation. Reality or wishful thinking?
Should your brand look the same in every situation in which it operates?
Is the app business the same as the web was 15 years ago, ie everyone rushing to release an app just because their competitors have one without really having a good reason to do so and a whole lot of unscrupulous design firms charging whatever they like to create products they know have no use?
The next Brand Perfect event is in Hamburg on June 14. Details here
CR in Print
Thanks for reading the CR Blog but if you're not also reading Creative Review in print, you're missing out.
The June issue of CR features a major retrospective on BBH and a profile piece on the agency's founder, Sir John Hegarty. Plus, we have a beautiful photographic project from Jenny van Sommers, a discussion on how illustrators can maintain a long-term career, all the usual discussion and debate in Crit plus our Graduate Guide packed with advice for this year's college leavers.
If you would like to buy this issue and are based in the UK, you can search for your nearest stockist here. Based outside the UK? Simply call +44(0)207 292 3703 to find your nearest stockist. Better yet, subscribe to CR for a year here and save yourself almost 30%.
13 Comments
Do you know if the presentations were recorded for future sharing? I'd love to watch.
2011-05-26 18:00:06
The logo is dead! Very controversial topic, should make for an interesting read though,
2011-05-26 22:10:53
"If the logo is dead, why do people love and care about them so much?"
I don't think people really care about the logos, they care about what the logo represents. The way in which they might communicate that is by using the logo as a focus point.
"Do an organisation's customers really own the brand as the new orthodoxy has it, or should a brand have the courage to tell the Tweeters and Facebook groups 'no, you're wrong, we're right'?"
Both! I really think the days of brands dictating to consumers are over. A brand must be genuinely authentic and create a balance of control and transparency. They must create a platform through which consumers can interact not just with the brand but with each other. They have to be flexible and responsive to people’s needs, brands must listen not just consumers but employees and other stakeholders too. It’s more than a two-way conversation now.
...just my thoughts
2011-05-27 08:15:10
Sorry but Manchipp is completely off base with his "the logo is dead" viewpoint. Regardless of how much affect the external media (twitter, facebook, google, etc) has on brands still all advertising and marketing media would be pointless without a visual identity. Logos will never be dead, never- they will just have to become more versatile for all the new forms of media to use the logos in.
If you think this is incorrect, I challenge any Fortune 500 company to remove their logo from tv ads and media and see if some of these ad agency "copycat" advertisements don't start looking the same. However that would be a very interesting test. The question is which ones are willing to spend billions to see if this is right or wrong?
Other than that banter, I believe Wolff Olins' belief in your brand is not who you say it is, but what others say it is. It's interesting watching what's going on with twitter, facebook and how the power of connection people have on brands. Everything is wide open, transparent and companies have to be on their toes at all times.
I can already see how this has had a positive effect on customer service skills, better quality products and services. What's astonishing is if someone has a product or service now that will change the world we live it it's now possible to spread the word faster that anything they can do in a marketing campaign (not to mention the amount of dough it will save on ad campaigns). So now more time should be invested in inventing products and services that are not only sustainable, but truly revolutionary and the rest is history.
2011-05-27 08:48:57
Logo's really matter when it comes to brand identity. It is really a battle to remain on track and be flexible to all the trends of today. I guess the best way to engrave a mark is to prove to customer's that ours is really of quality through the kind of products and service offered.
2011-05-27 10:03:32
I total disagree. The logo is alive and well. The logo represents a raw emotion in people. For instance the apple logo recently was studied and found that it triggers the same emotional response as religion! That is amazing. The logo represents a state of mind and its power can not be denied.
2011-05-27 10:31:42
Logos have been in existence for thousands of years, and I'm sure will still be around long after Simon Manchipp.
If there were no need for them, they would not have been so enduring.
Anyone who thinks that the logo has no place in a contemporary perspective either does not understand what a logo is and how it should be used; or is completely delusional.
2011-05-27 11:19:16
Aren't logos the equivalent of clothing? Aren't they chosen images designed to send a message about who we are, what we are like, what we believe, etc? We can choose our clothes, our hairstyle, and the like -- and in the end, they either align with our actions or they don't. We can look hip but not be. We can look beautiful and act ugly. We can look plain and be charismatic. Or, of course, our image can align with our personality. In the end, our logo just winds up being part of (not all of) the outside world's impression of us. People react to the apple logo as they do not because the image is cool, but because of its symbolism with the apple experience, whether directly experienced (shopping for and buying apple products) or passively experienced (walking by an apple store, talking to someone who owns an apple, etc.). People will always search for an instant visual representation of a personality. It's what we are genetically programmed to do. So, I would say that the old concept of a logo is indeed dead. People will judge companies by what they do not just what they wear. But visual representations will live forever.
2011-05-27 12:26:40
Very good insights about the subject of branding and how much the visual logo has to do with the brand. An observation that I picked up from this is a kind of ironic potential for a bit of a full circle effect. Finding that what has happened with technology is that it has perpetuated an element of isolationism and yet if I read this correctly it is now saying that it is more about our behaviour, which infers interaction, and how that is going to carry our brands. I would also hope that this would also bring us to the place where we would give thought to our posts instead of just throwing out what we feel at the moment. All this to say that hopfully we will recognize that we need each other as human beings and are made for interaction with each other.
Jacob
2011-05-27 14:12:26
Apple, orange, apricot, pineapple, blackberry. Without a logo they are just a fruit salad. The logo will never die. What has had the final nail is the power the mega-brands wielded over us. I agree with Chris Omior on the new power people have to influence brands through social networks. if it promotes transparency, improves quality and service and keeps companies on their toes, it can only be a good thing?
2011-05-30 21:59:23
If Manchipp believes that the logo is dead, then did the Eurostar work get rushed through on his summer holiday? Isn't that effectively a logo that has been (not so subtly) applied to a range of literature in various treatments.
"Just so we are all clear, when I say logo, I mean the squiggles, animals, lines and swishy bits designers like to revel in." Simon Manchipp
Well, you don't get much more 'squiggly' and 'swishy' than that re-brand. Practice and preaching springs to mind.
2011-05-31 14:06:38
The logo isn't dead. Just the 2D, old fashioned way of using your logo is dying. Logos and brands need to be more flexible in todays world, more interactive and accessible to the consumer. I saw Simon Manchipp talk recently and although I found his views interesting, I couldn't help feel he was trying to be controversial for the sake of it. To say that consistency is dead I think is naive, a brand no matter how flexible needs some degree of consistency.
I think the logo still has a place in our future, it (and we) need to learn to adjust.
In my opinion of course.
2011-06-03 15:54:21
If anyone is remotely interested — the film of this lecture is now up online here:
http://www.someoneinlondon.com/blog/how-can-brands-be-consistent-across-transmedia-forget-about-being-consistent
Perhaps this will help explain my apparently outrageous point of view...
2011-09-13 23:19:51
Get the RSS Feed
Most recently commented
| Pretty Ugly or plain ugly? (30) |
| Olympics ticket designs revealed (26) |
| The story of Pentagram (21) |
| Brand New Debris Quilt (2) |
| CR June 2012 issue (8) |
Most read
| Olympics ticket designs revealed |
| Freehand: the software that wouldn't die |
| Lance Wyman in Norwich |
| The story of Pentagram |
| FF Chartwell: a graph-making font |
Subjects
| Advertising | (1082) | |
| Art | (420) | |
| Books | (268) | |
| Digital | (437) | |
| Graphic Design | (1225) | |
| Illustration | (676) | |
| Magazine / Newspaper | (215) | |
| Music Video / Film | (742) | |
| Photography | (368) | |
| Type / Typography | (268) |
