6: Looking Like Your Brand
View the warning on the contents page regarding "facts" presented by this author.
It's been mentioned that the visual sense already gets a great deal of attention, often to the neglect of the other senses. And as such, the problem is not lack of visual stimulation, but the abundance of it: the consumer is overwhelmed by the clutter.
The ultimate example is Times Square, where the advertising clutter is a chaos of colors. But the same is true of many commercial areas, and especially true of any public gathering such as a sporting event. Magazines often contain more advertising than editorial content and popular Web sites are a pastiche of banners and buttons competing for attention.
Businesses are aware that an individual advertisement has little chance of standing out from the clutter, to the point that advertising isn't done to get an immediate reaction, merely to create an exposure - a single ad seen once may not be remembered or even noticed, but the same ad that has appeared dozens or hundreds of times may become familiar to a person, even if they do not feel they have paid attention to it.
As such, frequency and consistency of exposures, rather than the intensity of a single exposure, is what makes advertising effective in making customers feel a brand is familiar to them.
The author refers to optical illusion: the use of black dots on a white field that do not actually present a shape, but the mind of the viewer causes them to see a shape, in the pattern of the dots and the negative space among them. Think of branding in the same sense: your brand exposures are the "dots" from which the user's mind creates a pattern.
As such, what matters more than the color, shape, size, typography, or other elements of a single advert is that these elements remain consistent across multiple exposures: the "design" of a single dot is far less important that the impression that the user takes from all the dots, collectively.
(EN: The analogy seems oblique and ill-suited, but I think the point behind it holds validity nonetheless, that people do not form an impression from a single commercial message so much as they create an impression from the sum of all messaging they have received - though what this omits is that the "messages" include not only the company's adverts, but any other information they get from other sources. And that's where the analogy breaks - optical illusions are carefully controlled to create an effect, whereas with brand messages, the business does not control even the dots - other people are adding their own dots to the picture, foiling the illusion.)
The author pauses for a moment to recommend having a visual identity manual - something common with larger firms but that smaller ones often overlook. This manual is used to ensure that the brand is always presented in a consistent manner - the precise details of the logo, the typeface to be used in ads, a template for presentations, and the like. It's essential to have such a resource to ensure consistency and prevent randomness, as consistency ensures that the collateral you put out supports the pattern of your brand.
The "Science" of Design
The author suggests that visual identity is highly subjective. While there has been some research into associations between visual stimuli and the ideas or emotions they convey, the results have been inconsistent.
Take color, for example: there have been numerous studies into what colors convey to a person who sees them, and many of them suggest, with a tone of utter certainty, that the color red means one thing and the color yellow means another. Even within such studies and there is little agreement between them: if the color "orange" really does evoke feelings of empowerment, wouldn't every color study indicate the same conclusion?
(EN: One of my marketing professors had the same low opinion of color psychology, and had managed to get his hands on actual data from one such study. The study's assertion that a color "means" something is based on the evidence that as few as 6% of respondents said the same word when shown a color. In fairness, the correlation was much higher in some instances - I recall "red equals stop" being in the 80-90% range - but this was the only association that were backed by that level of consistency. Most associations to color were well under 40%, as I recall, yet the study stated its conclusions with equal confidence.)
The author rattles on about this for a while, citing some real-world examples that contradict what the "scientists" of color theory claim to have proven. If red symbolizes danger, why do people not shy away from airlines who use that color in their logos and branding (as several do). If red and yellow mean danger and cowardice, how is it that McDonalds is such a popular restaurant chain?
The same is true of many studies pertaining to the various elements of visual design - colors, shapes, symbols, etc. - the conclusions are based on a very low level of consensus, are different between similar studies, and even come out differently when the exact same study is repeated. The notion that there is anything certain or scientific about such assertions is false to the point of being entirely absurd.
However, there is some scrap of value to be taken: that while it is clear that there is no "natural" connection between a color and an idea, the studies do present evidence that people learn to make such associations. This is evident in some of the pronounced differences among the results of color studies conducted in different countries: whereas some cultures associate the color red with danger, others associate red with happiness; whereas the color of mourning is black in the west, it is white in Asia, etc.
Clearly, the association of color to idea is not the result of a natural connection, but a learned association. Customers can be taught, and have been taught, that red and yellow mean "hamburgers" instead of "danger and cowardice" by their consistent use in corporate branding.
This can be leveraged by a company that intends to create a new brand: there is the ability to leverage the associations, however tenuous, that a given target demographic already has made to a given color, but also the possibility of teaching the same market that a given color, regardless of what it means today, should be associated to and evoke memories of your own brand.
"Good" design
Consistency of use is far more important than the aesthetic appeal of a logo. The author goes so far as to suggest that a company could use a featureless black square for a logo and people would come to associate that logo with the name of the company provided it is presented with sufficient frequency and consistency.
Desktop publishing software has exacerbated the problem of consistency: by experimenting with the wide variety of fonts and colors at their disposal, a person can create chaos by composing advertisements, brochures, business cards, uniforms, letterhead, and other materials that have no consistency whatsoever. It's not a matter of having design talent so much as having the discipline to be consistent.
While there is no consensus of what constitutes "good" design, there does seem to be some consensus on "bad" design. Where a business owner chooses based on his own personal preferences, bad things happen: the signage at Euro-Disney that was in the general manager's favorite shade of purple was not well received by the park's visitors, the disastrous logo proposed for the 2012 Olympics drew much public consternation and even threats by countries to boycott if it was not changed.
The author punts on the issue, suggesting that the best way to create a good visual experience is to hire a firm to do it for you. For a small firm that can't afford to hire a major agency, there are small firms in most local markets or "even a student" who can help get it right.
The gives the example of the Nike logo, considered to be worth "billions" today as one of the most widely recognized logos, which was designed in 1971 by an art student at a cost of $35 (though she was later given a "thank you" package rumored to be quite significant).
Again, consistency is more important than artistry - it's a particularly bad idea to hire different designers for different items or channels because each wants to place his own stamp of individuality on it - and as such the firm ends up with a logo, Web site, letterhead, brochure, signage, and other materials that are each well-executed in and of themselves, but have no consistency across the board.
The author also suggests maintaining control over the process rather than merely abandoning it. If you let designers run rampant, they certainly will, and it's often best to provide them with detailed information about what you are looking for rather than to leave them to come up with something on their own.
The result of this should be a style book that provides details about the logo, fonts, colors, and images that are to be used in all communications. Consistency is more important than variety: if you can use the same picture in multiple places, it creates a stronger brand association than constantly trying to do something "different" or "fresh."
He also mentions the degree to which some brands go in terms of preserving consistency: the exact size of the font, the precise difference down to a fraction of a millimeter between the bottom of the logo and the top of the text. (EN: His tone here seems to imply, but does not directly state, that this is taking things too far.)
Once a style is established, external designers should be provided with the detailed information and made to play by the existing rules rather than pulling the company in a different direction for their specific project.
Also, keep the brand guidelines in mind when the company engages in any activity that yields a visual output: it's easy enough to remember the brand book when designing an advertisement or a customer statement, but it's often forgotten when decisions are made on seemingly things such as employee name badges or trinkets that will be handed out at a conference.
What's in a name?
Coming up with the name of a business or a brand is similarly surrounded by "an awful lot of nonsense" from "so-called brand experts" who delve into the fringes of linguistics and psychology for scraps of evidence that one name will make a brand or more successful than another.
(EN: There is some argument over whether the name by which a brand is called derives its value from its visual appearance in text of its aural quality when spoken aloud, but I expect that both are significant to some degree, depending on channels used to advertise and interact with customers.)
It's equally ludicrous to the discussion visual design of logos, and is based on equally specious logic. But as with logo design, "good" is less important than consistent.
Naturally, there are a few basic points that seem to make sense: you must ensure that the name is available, in that it is not the trademark of another firm, and in instances where a brand is to be used globally, to ensure it doesn't mean something silly or appropriate in another language - but beyond that, there's little evidence that the name of a product has a significant impact: like the name of a person, the name of a brand is just a mnemonic device.
The author gives the example of a best-selling cleaning product in the UK market, "Cillit Bang," which is also sold in the US as "Easy Off Bam." The first bit (Cilit/Easy Off) is a a "family" brand for a line of products, the second (Bang/Bam) a specific product in that family. The author indicates that this likely wasn't based on psychology or even market research with focus groups, but a bit of executive whimsy to call a product "Bam."
(EN: Some of the most ludicrous examples can be found in the online channel, where domain name squatters have horded many web site names that make sense in terms of actual language, and new online businesses who can't afford to ransom a sensible name end up choosing some bizarre, made-up, and barely pronounceable jumble of letters for their brand name.)
Your Premises
The visual associations made to a brand are not merely limited to the presentation made to customers via advertisements, but also to the physical property of a business. The latter is even more influential, because it is concrete and "real" to anyone who calls upon a business.
Parts of the businesses where customers are served - the showroom, store, etc. - are generally given a great deal of attention, but other parts of the business are not. One example is the reception area, the customer's first experience of a business's physical presence. (EN: arguably, it starts earlier, as a person walks through a parking lot and sees the facade of the building before getting to reception, but I can accept that some may consider the reception area to be the first space that is "inside" the operation.)
Having visited on a number of businesses, the author can recount from first-hand experience the number of reception areas that were shabby or dirty, used as a storage space, lacked basic amenities such as chairs or a coat rack, had poor or nonexistent signage, etc. This creates a "brand experience" that demonstrates a firm is careless and sloppy, or that has no respect whatsoever for visitors to the offices. More examples follow of careless and egregious mistakes made by neglect of the reception area.
And what of the offices themselves? Aside from being an unpleasant environment for a client to visit, consider the impact on employee morale of working in "less than desirable surroundings." He refers to "studies" that have shown that a pleasant working environment is a boost to employee morale and productivity that have a direct impact on the quality of service they provide to customers.
This is not to say that a business must undertake considerable expense to create a lavish environment for employees and visitors- especially if the customer rarely sees these spaces, the return on investment is simply not there - but a reasonable investment can avoid a negative impression, either directly on the customer who happens to visit, or indirectly through a customer's contact and interactions with others who have visited your offices.
It's been mentioned that things such as letterhead, business cards, and give-away trinkets are often neglected by the visual identity manual - and it is even more so of real estate.
Design by Committee
A loose word of caution: do not make the visual identity manual a committee project. When this happens, your brand identity becomes subjected to unqualified personal opinions and the whim of whomever has nothing better to do with their time and wants to gain esteem in an organization by contributing.
The opinions of laymen on the topic of design are ill-informed, and any attempt to accommodate and please the momentary whims of everyone who claims to be a stakeholder will result in a very bad product, and one that is constantly changing as others come along and want to contribute to the effort by rethinking decisions.
The author also takes a dim view of customer research into aesthetics. This approach does more harm than good, as customers are no more qualified than any other non-designer to express an opinion on the topic of design. Doing customer research to develop brand identity does not make it objective or scientific, nor is there any evidence that it achieves better results in terms of brand identity or brand associations, and is merely the attempt of the company to escape the blame for bad design decisions.
(EN: I'd offer one objection: customer research can help you recognize if the design elements are silly or offensive in a way that you may not have considered. But when research crosses the line between "is there anything wrong what we going to do?" and gets into "what do you think we ought to do instead?", then things go horribly wrong.)
The solution: spend some time gathering your thoughts about what visual impact you want to have, get a qualified professional to make design decisions that support the concepts, and then leave it alone. Going back to what was previously stated, the consistent use of an ugly logo is more effective than constant attempts to "improve" the logo that result in constant changes, to the point there is no consistency.
Chapter conclusion
Modern technology has given virtually anyone the ability to do the work of a designer. There are easy-to-use software programs to design letterhead, brochures, web sites, and slide shows. Add to that hardware such as digital cameras and camcorders and virtually anyone has the ability to do the work of a photographer or video production crew.
It is a simultaneous advantage and disadvantage that technology provides these capabilities - and at a very cheap price - because they provide many with the ability to do something that they do not have sufficient skill to do well and often, in attempting to work above their level of skill, they do it very poorly.
However, it is not necessary to go to the opposite extreme of engaging a team of highly-qualified professionals and ceding to them autocratic control over your visual identity manual. So long as you follow some very basic principles that even a layman can understand (aligned to the brand, used consistently), you can present a visual that establishes and supports a strong brand.