There is so much talk about logo design being such a big deal. Talk of a logo symbolizing the brand and all. You should see designers go on and on about how the yellow in the lettering symbolizes this and that, the arrow indicating that and this…the truth is a logo which has to come with an instruction manual has had its purpose defeated. After all shouldn’t a logo say it all?
The design of the logo should not begin from the standpoint of the designer but that of the audience. Therefore it would be a good idea to ask: how does the psyche truly respond to symbols and colours?
If we understand the templates of the unconscious, the notion of the preconceived notion; then
aesthetics wins over design for designs sake.
People naturally perceive things as a whole first before they begin to deconstruct it. The Gestalt principles of perceptual organization grants useful insight into how we perceive logos.
The key is to get to better understand the language of the human mind. As a whole a logo might give us certain impression (different symbols interacting with each other in the context of colours, fonts etc) breaking it down into separate symbols, colours and fonts will obviously elicit another interpretation. Yet isn’t it possible that we look at it as a whole first before deconstructing it; perhaps bringing to our interpretation of the component parts, insight from of perception of the whole? Any way it is possible that a striking individual component might first catch ones attention when we interact with the logo but then a single actor doesn’t make up the entire story now does he?
Design is the frontier at which art meets functionality. Thus any creative license must be peppered with the empiricist’s eye. A logo might be corporate art but like a fork or stapler it is used. It is imperative we come to develop better understanding of how consumers perceive logos. It would certainly make for better design.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
The customer owns the brand.
Therefore to articulate the brand one must go to the customer.
A Brand is not totally you". It may be an aspect though. it is a perspective of you which focuses on certain
Distinct qualities (thus other qualities are relegated to the background or blurred)
Characters in stories are brands and we find them interesting cause we have come to associate
Certain distinct qualities with them. They are strong brands extreme is employing allegory as a genre). That is why these characters are often 2 dimensional because we only see them in relation to specific people in certain contexts to get the story going e.g. Bourne identity
Same goes for celebrities...
Perhaps every business relationship is an interaction based on values; in the face of which other business stuff is less primal
e.g. my business with my bank involves the exchange of the values of trust, customer service, excellence...the product/service
I use are merely vehicles through which these values are delivered. Essentially, a brand trades in the currency of values
For a brand to seek an infinite number of perspective (in other words to be all things to all people)
; it would fail to articulate the few qualities it possesses. In a manner of speaking it would become a commodity, it would self destruct
if branding is about relationships and relationships are sustained through communication/interraction, then you communicate what? Value!
A brand is ultimately determined by the consumer. Like a piece of painting or poetry, there are at least 3 stages in the development of a brand: conceptualization (by consultant or business owner), medium (product or service or company) and the interpretation (by the consumer or brand audience). A brand only takes a life of its own within the members of the audience. Therefore, neither the brand animal nor the medium is the star of the show but like a piece of art being subject to diverse interpretation (independent of what the artist might have intended), it’s the consumer and what he makes of the brand that matter. Now each consumer is different. Thus a specific brand (e.g. coca cola) has a unique meaning to every person who interacts with it.
About MTN - their campaign "go start something" connects to the ongoing trend of entrepreneurship and optimism in Nijar (it further cements their position of essentially marketing two product - an aspirational philosophy and telecoms service at par with the competition)
it is in sync with the Nigerian spirit and captures the secret trappings of a Nigerian dream (?). Their move of inviting Chris Gardner to Nigeria as a speaker at an inspirational seminar is testament not just to his iconic status as the poster child of the rise
Form "rags to riches" (immortalized on the big screen in the movie "the pursuit of happiness" starring Will Smith) but the will and spirit of the Nigerian to remain unbroken. Simply put the "go start something" campaign is consistent and spot on trend
A Brand is not totally you". It may be an aspect though. it is a perspective of you which focuses on certain
Distinct qualities (thus other qualities are relegated to the background or blurred)
Characters in stories are brands and we find them interesting cause we have come to associate
Certain distinct qualities with them. They are strong brands extreme is employing allegory as a genre). That is why these characters are often 2 dimensional because we only see them in relation to specific people in certain contexts to get the story going e.g. Bourne identity
Same goes for celebrities...
Perhaps every business relationship is an interaction based on values; in the face of which other business stuff is less primal
e.g. my business with my bank involves the exchange of the values of trust, customer service, excellence...the product/service
I use are merely vehicles through which these values are delivered. Essentially, a brand trades in the currency of values
For a brand to seek an infinite number of perspective (in other words to be all things to all people)
; it would fail to articulate the few qualities it possesses. In a manner of speaking it would become a commodity, it would self destruct
if branding is about relationships and relationships are sustained through communication/interraction, then you communicate what? Value!
A brand is ultimately determined by the consumer. Like a piece of painting or poetry, there are at least 3 stages in the development of a brand: conceptualization (by consultant or business owner), medium (product or service or company) and the interpretation (by the consumer or brand audience). A brand only takes a life of its own within the members of the audience. Therefore, neither the brand animal nor the medium is the star of the show but like a piece of art being subject to diverse interpretation (independent of what the artist might have intended), it’s the consumer and what he makes of the brand that matter. Now each consumer is different. Thus a specific brand (e.g. coca cola) has a unique meaning to every person who interacts with it.
About MTN - their campaign "go start something" connects to the ongoing trend of entrepreneurship and optimism in Nijar (it further cements their position of essentially marketing two product - an aspirational philosophy and telecoms service at par with the competition)
it is in sync with the Nigerian spirit and captures the secret trappings of a Nigerian dream (?). Their move of inviting Chris Gardner to Nigeria as a speaker at an inspirational seminar is testament not just to his iconic status as the poster child of the rise
Form "rags to riches" (immortalized on the big screen in the movie "the pursuit of happiness" starring Will Smith) but the will and spirit of the Nigerian to remain unbroken. Simply put the "go start something" campaign is consistent and spot on trend
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
