October 14, 2011 In branding, business, communication, creativity, graphic design, presentation By Patricia Saxton

To Logo or Not to Logo…

A client posed the following question: “What’s your perception of logos and are they a cost-effective investment?”

I love this question. It’s not new, nor is the discussion. But considering the unstable climate of our financial times, one worth a revisit. Everyone’s trying to be more careful and make more intelligent decisions about where their dollars go. So, I felt inspired to share my answer:

A logo is the hub of your brand identity. The grand central station. It’s the singular consistent visual that appears everywhere, on everything, carrying your identity into livingrooms and faraway lands and back.

It’s what you put on the packages you send out that says “we’re a real company”. It’s your signature, your great “identifier” ~ so that when people repeatedly see a certain shape or combination of shapes, colors and letters it prompts a psychological association with a company, a person, a quality. You get the idea.

It’s recognition by repetition. And that’s a good thing, because you want to be noticed. And you want it to be strong at-a-glance; something that’s, if not remarkable, at least memorable. Like these classics:

That all said (and I kind of hate to say this since logos are something I do) … you can have a “look and feel” without a logo per se. You can create an “identity” with colors and fonts and use of space.

Case in point: another client wants to establish herself as a voice in the fashion world via writing, and her cash flow is tight. She was convinced she needed a logo and a whole brand identity scheme (all of which can add up to a pretty penny) ~ when in truth, for her needs, she doesn’t “have to have” a logo. What she does have to have is great content and great imagery.

Sure I would have preferred that she need a logo and could pay me to create it, but this is how I advised her because in her case it makes sense ~ not only from a monetary perspective but in terms of creating an online presence that can grow as her own voice grows.

A logo can appear very simple. A simple type treatment, or one with a clever twist, or a symbol as its core. The value, aside from it being “just yours”, is in its consistent use across the board, applied to all things “Business X” and serving as a steady, stable ambassador. And that is no small thing.

But a logo is not, as I’ve said in previous conversations, in and of itself, The Brand Identity. It’s a big part of the whole (and not to be fooled with or “just anything” tossed up). There are many factors that make up that whole, and sometimes it’s both necessary and okay to approach it from a different perspective. Worth pondering before jumping in. And if you do jump, understand its value.

0
0
June 14, 2011 In branding, business, intelligence, marketing, philosophy, presentation By Patricia Saxton

What’s the Big Deal About Branding? (part two)

Branding. No, not the hot iron kind on an animal’s behind (ouch! ~ do they still do that?), but marketing’s buzz-word of buzz-words.

As with many notions that take the spotlight ~ often becoming overused, diffused and diluted ~ one has to question it at some point. It’s never wise to take popular culture at face value, or hear a fancy phrase and automatically buy in. To borrow from the now old-fashioned new-age-speak, first it has to “resonate”. If it resonates, I’ll pay attention.

So, what IS the big deal about branding?

First of all, your brand is what I like to call your visual voice. It’s what you bring to market over and over and over. It’s how you’re identified, and yes, judged. It can, in effect, be the life or death of your business.

Egyptian Scales of Judgment

If you read “What’s the Big Deal About Branding? (part one)”, you got some of my thoughts on why it’s important. Namely, the pull and power of consistency and integrity ~ two key qualities that provide a valuable backdrop, a kind of moral yardstick for your business, while serving as a clear window for your audience to understand what you’re about.

Take a red target image for example. “Target” stores easily come to mind. It’s a consistent, steady symbol – exhibiting visual integrity. And that’s very good.

But take it a step further. If your experience at Target is repeatedly a good one, they’ve just about buttoned up the integrity piece, because you, the customer, feels confident, “safe and secure”. Trust has been earned; integrity deepens.

There are hundreds of similar examples. Like Mercedes, Nike, The Morton’s Salt girl. They’re consistent, identifiable, they stand for something, and the customer knows what that something is … and … there is trust.

So here’s the thing: imagery and words alone do not make a brand “work” … Three fundamental things feed into your success: your product, your service and your brand. One without the other will leave things flat (or send them spinning out of control) ~ but in tandem, goals are attainable. Basically:

  • If you’ve got a great product, but poor service, expect trouble.
  • With great service, but a bad product, good intentions won’t matter.
  • If you’ve got a great branding scheme, but a poor product or poor service, people are going to catch on – and move on.
  • A great product and great service, but a mixed-up brand message, creates confusion. Confusion is loss.

But when all three elements come together, singing the same song, in harmony, you’ve got strong branding and a heck of a better chance at success.

The wrapping on the package is that all three ~ product, service and “brand”  (your visual voice) ~ are your branding, and any business, marketer or designer worth their weight should consider all three in brand development. Ask the questions to find the commonality. Keep those 3 elements consistent, and integrity follows. And where integrity lives, people want to hang around.

© Patricia Saxton

Next up: Authenticity. Stay tuned.

2
0
October 17, 2010 In advertising, branding, business, communication, graphic design, presentation By Patricia Saxton

When It's Wrong to Redesign a Brand

Much time, and probably a lot more money, was spent making recent logo changes on some big company re-branding efforts.

EXHIBIT A:  Tetley Tea.  Tom’s of Maine.  The GAP. (old on left, new on right)

The question I ask: “Why”? Have sales been down? Was company morale low? Were they experiencing a scandalous attack? Were decision-making-someones simply bored?

Now, don’t get me wrong ~ I’m all about  presentation and the power of “look and feel”, and if any one of these companies had asked me to give them a redesign, I would have gladly obliged. But – not to sound immodest, as I believe most designers given the opportunity would say the same thing– I would have handled it quite differently, and I’d like to think, more effectively.

One lesson I would apply: “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. This is the part of “Branding 101” known as consumer recognition.

Brand Connections …

Big Brands elicit a kind of personal connection – for better or worse, we make mental, even emotional, associations with how they look. And that association comes from recognition, which stems from the basic concept of consistency.

For high-profile brands, the success derived from established logo/packaging recognition can seriously outweigh whether or not a look is amazing.

As shown in “Exhibit A”, Tetley’s old package was far from hip or upscale ~ but, as a tea drinker who personally loves the smooth, full-bodied flavor of Tetley’s British Blend, I can vouch that the old package says “rich flavor” much more than the new package, which (I truly hate to say) looks more like packaging for a feminine product.

Tom’s, another brand I enjoy, previously used friendly, round shaped bottles and a graphic treatment that worked well with its natural product, whereas the new look reminds me of a bad Web 2.0 design in an oddly shaped container.

As for GAP, the logo may not have been exciting, but it was solid with really nothing wrong.

Doing it right….

For companies/products with already high recognition, rather than reinvent the wheel, redesigns would best be served by tweaking and updating.

EXHIBIT B:  Morton Salt.  Ronzoni.

Morton and Ronzoni made changes with the times, without shocking overhauls. They’ve retained their original intent and managed to successfully alter their look by doing it gradually, with key elements maintained and integrity in tact.

The message being, don’t send your customers on a wild goose chase trying to find your *new and improved* packaging, OR throw them into a tizzy because their familiar, trusted product got a makeover and a new doo, like a friend who’s trying to be, or is turning into, someone else.

Beyond the fact that many people don’t like change, there’s something to be said for the comfort of familiarity in a world that moves too fast and holds many a slick deal.

On the other hand, improvements can be refreshing. Kind of like when you’re loathe to part with an old, favorite shetland sweater ~ but that nice new cashmere in a similar style and color might be hard to resist.

Refreshing is good. But different and unfamiliar is not a smart promotional move. Why discombobulate, and possibly alienate, your audience? For what purpose?

To redesign or not to redesign?

Okay, so maybe the Tetley, Tom’s and GAP folks had good reason for the change. Let’s go ahead and assume the most practical reason: lagging sales or market competition.

But let’s also put it out there that the cause of lagging sales or struggle with market competition just might have more to do with things much less glamorous than a logo or fancy packaging ~ things like business plans and marketing structure, advertising strategies or customer awareness issues.

So that usually, and particularly in the case of well-known companies/products, changing the logo is not the remedy.

(Worth noting at this point … if you’re a start-up company, or your business has been around but floundering in a sea of mediocrity, by all means, run to a great designer. Boosting the look of your branding may be just what’s needed to boost momentum and shift the energy.)

Well, what’s done is done (except in the case of the GAP, who apparently quickly reverted to their original logo after public outcry! ) … but the questions remain:

1. Is it worth the shake-up to completely re-brand a good thing? (I think not.)

2. Will re-branding a good thing turn the consumer away? (Again, I think not… although you may whine, as I have. But if you love Tetley tea, you won’t stop buying it because you don’t like the new package.)

3. In the end, was it worth the time and money to do all that dramatic re-doing?  (Right … I think not.)

4. Could that time and money have been more wisely used? (Most definitely, yes.)

Conclusion: Sometimes it’s wrong to redeisgn a brand. I rest my case.

1
0