October 31, 2006
Branding: One more time for those of you in the cheap seats
Branding.Oh boy, I hear you saying. Here we go again. It's another one of his rants on branding. Another semantic argument.
Yes. It is. I'm still tired of it.
"Tired of what?" asks the newly anointed reader.
Branding is an emotional (and ideally, visceral) reaction that occurs within an individual's mind.
Tired of the claim that everyone does "branding." Apparently anyone who has ever walked by the front door of any agency of any kind does branding. All of them. Every last one.
But you know who does the most branding? Well, let me tell you. I've just spent a good deal of time sifting through any number of "branding" agencies. Know what 99.9% of them were? Graphic designers. Graphic designers.
Argh.
Now, don't get me wrong. I love the graphic designers. You wouldn't know it from looking at hypocritical, but I'm all about the pretty. And the well designed.
And how do I show that appreciation? First and foremost by stating the following: I am not a graphic designer. I have a distinct respect for what graphic designers are able to accomplish. I can't do what they do, so I don't try. I respect their territory. And I respect their talents.
But, as much as I adore them, they are all perpetuating this branding problem.
Graphic design is not brand. Graphic design is about identity systems. It is about brand identity. It is about the application of a visual vocabulary that evokes a memory of an organization or object. It is not, however, branding.
It is no more branding than copywriting is branding. (Copywriters will claim they do branding, as well. They'll just be a tad more eloquent when they do it.)
So what's the problem? The problem is that you can't do branding. It is beyond your control. It is beyond my control. You can hope to influence branding. But can't do branding. It's impossible.
"Why?" you ask.
Branding is an emotional (and ideally, visceral) reaction that occurs within an individual's mind.
Example?
Okay. Take this little association quiz.
- I love/hate Nike.
- I love/hate Starbucks.
- I love/hate Google.
- I love/hate Apple.
Okay. Done?
Great. Let's take them one at a time.
- Was your response based on the fact that Nike's brand identity system is predicated on the application of an iconic Swoosh or the fact that you had an opinion on the company, its products, and the athletes who wear them?
- Was your response driven more by your understanding of the history of the green siren or your last interaction you had with a Starbucks barista and the coffee s/he brewed for you?
- Was your response driven by a distinct appreciation for a rainbow-colored Times New Roman trademark or the fact that Google almost always helps you find what you're looking for?
- Was your response driven by your enigmatic fascination with a bitten apple or an appreciation for an overriding aesthetic coupled with ease of use and a cool factor?
I'm willing to bet that, for the majority of you, your response was based on the latter much more than the former. Why? Because the former is graphic design and the latter is brand.
Graphic design is part of what represents the brand. Part of what evokes that visceral reaction. But it is not the brand. And it's not branding.
Let's be honest, if it were, would Google really be one of the most powerful brands in existence today? I think not. I could have designed that mark, and as I've mentioned, I'm no designer.
Branding: One more time for those of you in the cheap seats
| | Subscribe:
RSS, Bloglines
