Logo math
10.31
So, we’re all in agreement: mission statements are lame
posted by Rob on 2009.10.15, under Brand Strategy
10.15
I was happy to see a recent post by Siegel+Gale’s David Srere entitled “It’s Time to Bury Mission and Vision.” I agree with his initial points—vision and mission statements are almost always convoluted and trite, and are largely unknown to the employees they’re supposed to inspire or direct. I love Srere’s word, “bloated.” And I dare you to explain the difference between a vision statement and a mission statement and then support your assertion with real examples. Go ahead. Try it.
But I’m worried that his post doesn’t go far enough in explaining his proposed solution—the so-called “Purpose” (why is it capitalized?). Unlike a mission statement,
continue reading…
Thinking out loud about brand strategy
posted by Rob on 2009.09.18, under Brand Strategy
09.18
I’ve had the pleasure of representing the firm I work for at a couple of conferences and networking events lately, and explaining who we are and what we do. Because I’ve been one of the few branding/marketing/communications people at these events, that’s often meant explaining what brand strategy is. As much as the average professional claims to have a grasp of brand strategy concepts, there’s still a tendency to assume all we do is come up with pretty logos and snappy taglines.
There’ll never be a lack of ways to explain branding and brand strategy (as evidenced by all the books on the topic, for example), but I do think it’s a good exercise to think about the best way to communicate its value and relevance to different audiences in different circumstances. So here’s more or less the story I’ve been telling over the past few days. I like that it’s pretty succinct (at least compared to my typical verbosity), avoids branding jargon, and gets away from specific tactics. Curious what you think about it.
continue reading…
The authenticity of 9/11
08.31
I just read Landor’s press release about the identity they created for the National September 11 Memorial & Museum. This is one of the more somber identity assignments imaginable, and I think they’ve done a nice job.
And, for the most part, the press release does a good job of explaining the rationale behind the design (although I was surprised it didn’t mention the blue 11’s similarity to a ‘pause’ icon, which is a potentially interesting message). But one word in the press release rubbed me the wrong way. Here’s the line:
continue reading…
Is there no objectivity in logo design?
08.20
My first reaction to the six logos laid out in an August Orange Coast article, “Logos We ♥,” was that these logos are terrible. But of course it’s just my opinion that these logos suck. I wondered whether there was some objective measure by which I could support my point.
In search of an answer, I first visited a hilarious site, YourLogoMakesMeBarf.com. Appearing on this site doesn’t prove that a logo is bad, but it seems like pretty strong evidence. Looking at the categories on the right-hand side of the page, notice how the barf-worthy logos have started to sort themselves into groups of awfulness. Maybe some of these categories could be considered “do not do’s” for logo design. The easiest to objectively identify are:
continue reading…
Think twice before “evolving” your logo
06.05
[Originally published on The B2B Brand Debate]
Bill Marsh’s article in The New York Times a few days ago pointed out that a number of companies have recently redesigned their corporate logos, replacing “emblems of distant behemoths” with updates that are “non-threatening, reassuring, playful, even child-like.” The article includes a nice Flash click-through showing before and after logos. Marsh’s assessment is that these redesigns are aimed at addressing “the economy, environment, image repair,” and that while logos are meant to be differentiating, “there are striking similarities among recent redesigns.”
He’s right to point out the similarities, but the trend he’s seeing—which includes lowercase lettering, “softer” fonts, and lightened colors—began well before the recession. I first noticed it in 2005, while at Interbrand during the design of the new AT&T logo. Shortly after it launched, it seemed, Chevron and Allstate made very similar changes to their logos, incorporating lighter colors, rounder type, and highlights and shading that give the logos a 3D feel.
So while not all of these changes are reactions to the current economy, they do raise some awkward questions about logo design. I turned to Michael Dula, RiechesBaird’s resident logo guru, for some answers.
Should companies change their logos as a reaction to current events—changes in the economy, an increase in popular environmentalism, or even their own PR blunders?
Dula:
continue reading…
