We all do it. We focus our attention on logos, those shiny iconic rock stars of identity. The badges that brand famous and infamous entities. The pictures worth a thousand words. The proof in our portfolios that “we were there.”
Most identity forums revolve around discussions on logos. But what about the substance behind these refined forms? What is the truth that really defines the meanings we project onto these icons? What of the corporate cultures that drive the behaviors that shape corporate reputations (yes, including behaviors that had the power to pervert Paul Rand’s penultimate trademark into a “crooked E”)? Where is the discussion of the ideas that truly define businesses and their brands? It’s not surprising that so little talk of brand definition and strategy hits the blogs, or the headline news. Actual branding strategy is often highly confidential and “declassified” information can take years, even decades to become public. The 3D update of AT&T “Deathstar” was an immediate front-page USA Today story (a logo story), while the recast global brand strategy for Caterpillar took twelve years to wind its way into the Harvard Business Review. Logos are often the public manifestation of a much deeper, slower, and secretive process.
Despite the public glamour of logo creation and updates, I’ve always found the most substance in behind-the-scenes definitions of corporate brands - particularly for iconic brands like Bank of America, National Semiconductor, EDS, 3M, Caterpillar, and Harley-Davidson. Iconic leaders must sustain the ideas and ideals that made them great, while evolving their brands to reflect changes in leadership, culture, markets, competitors, as well as products and services.
Evolving an established brand, or launching a new one, requires the engagement of the internal culture before attempting to move external markets. These insider audiences are keenly attuned to corporate doubletalk and platitudes. They only way to gain their (genuine) support is to tap into what is unique and true about the organization - to ignite their passion for the company and what it can do like no other. (A startup presents a much simpler task than a venerable organization.)
While “truth” is not a term often associated with brands, it is the cornerstone of enduring ones. Getting to the truth requires challenging assumptions, exorcising ghosts of the past, and sparking transformational insights.
For client National Semiconductor, we had to redefine the way that analysts categorized semiconductor technologies. Caterpillar and Harley-Davidson needed to extend the meaning of their brands beyond legendary machines. For Caterpillar that meant redefining themselves as “an enabler of builders and planners,” for Harley, becoming the champion of “individualism and adventure.” EDS could not evolve its client relationships until it tempered the militaristic influence of its departed founder, Ross Perot. (EDS people quipped that even ten years after Perot left, the brand still had “big ears.”) For 3M, a new era was sparked by the insight that theirs was really a business of “practical innovation,” not just the creation of tens of thousands of gritty and sticky products - something its classic, simple logo could not accomplish on its own.
Sometimes the clear definition of a brand truth morphs a company into something entirely new. Hugh McColl, CEO of NCNB, a North Carolina regional bank, had a vision of creating the first true national bank. That vision defined a brand strategy that spurred the creation of NationsBank, and eventually its acquisition of, and rebranding as, Bank of America.
A true idea galvanizes employees. A compelling and true idea, well expressed, is a powerful engine of change both inside and outside an organization, and a benchmark for all expressions of its brand-including shiny, shiny logos.
The challenge for this identity forum, among others, is how to focus attention on areas beyond logos - how to communicate the lessons and drama in the stories behind great branding. I suspect that the web logs of Identityworks.com would reveal an overwhelming percentage of traffic headed for its logo headlines, rather than for the “Corporate Brand Matrix” and Tony’s other strategic content.
I’m interested in how this forum’s panel, and its larger community, might shift that balance. Ideas?
By David Airey
02 JUL 2009, 1:04 GMT
Hello Scott,
Certainly the logo headlines will inevitably draw more traffic, but from a personal viewpoint, I don’t think it’ll be as difficult as it may seem to “shift that balance”. In fact, crafting a suitable headline for the blog post can sometimes be all it takes.
For instance, I enjoyed reading what you had to say here, even though there’s no illustrative examples of “shiny, shiny logos”. The headline drew me in with my disdain for the “web 2.0″ trend, and through my own blogs I’m learning the importance of attracting that initial click and presenting a strong opening statement.
“Corporate Brand Matrix” as a headline is less likely to pull traffic, no matter how excellent the content. It’s, well, a bit corporate. I think there’s a strong desire from the online design community in general to read what contributors here will have to say.
On a side-note, great to see the “subscribe to comments” plugin installed.
By Andrew Pourtov
02 JUL 2009, 1:18 GMT
Thank you Scott. Very good and deep article. I will be disappointed too if here will speak only about logos. But about logos too it is possible to talk seriously and deeply. I am assured that their importance in identity systems decreases. Today places of constants occupy variables. Only so it is possible to construct live and dynamical design systems. A logo never considered as a variable. Similar this approach should be reconsidered. An example: Expo 2000 (logo by QWER). It has been created in 1995 but till now is looked as revelation. The logo should reflect a brand values . Values of a brand should coincide (or to be crossed) with values of an target audiences. But values of an audiences can vary, the audiences can vary and can be very diverse. The static logo here will not help, it will hold down only a brand in its communications. Certainly, still for a long time in the market there will be clients which perceive a logo only as a brand on a cow. For them the logo only designates an accessory, but is not the tool of communications with a varying audience. And the more so not the leadership tool. Certainly, it is possible to make in due course rebranding, but every year it is all becomes more expensive. After crisis brands should think of how it is possible to change without changing a logo. The best way - to have flexible identity system.Let’s recollect, that identity = design + communications + behaviour. To change design it is the most easier, therefore the majority of projects turn to drawing of beautiful pictures. It is more difficult to change behaviour of people and to involve them. Can logos help with it? Yes. In present conditions it is possible to forget about long-term strategy (which often were required to be visualised in logos). Nobody knows even that will be with dollar in a year. Therefore value of a logo (and all system of identity) as visualisation of strategic targets decreases almost to zero. I consider, that the unique reason why good money will continue to pay for logos is possibility of logos to inspire people. Only it is important. Following to tendencies in logos very harmfully because to tendencies get used. And the logo from the future should inspire and carry away from year to year. I think what here insufficiently to find the ingenious form. It should vary keeping recognition. As logo for Expo 2000 Hannover. It was accepted as the by people of all countries and all trades. To achieve such effect with a static logo it is impossible. The logo should inspire, as a flag of this forum. And let this flag will inspire us on deep and useful discussions. Thanks for your attention.
By Dan Dimmock
04 JUL 2009, 13:27 GMT
Thanks Scott, I really enjoyed reading your article - there is a lot to consider. However, the repositioning of Castrol (Oil) sprang to mind:
David, you made a good point re. simple and effective ‘crowd pulling’ headers - or, in the context of things, an effective ‘customer proposition’, if you will. Of course, as you identified, that will work well with the Forum more than the Matrix.
However, personally, I think that the very academic nature, and complexities that exist within our profession, and an identified need for the Corporate Brand Matrix platform to exist, may not be so easy to sum up in a ‘crafted’ 160 character headline.
Like many other target specific sites, with the Matrix you know exactly what you are getting, and that will surely appeal and show up in search results to those searching for such information (directly or indirectly). The Forum casts a slightly wider net.
By David Airey
06 JUL 2009, 12:38 GMT
Thanks for offering your take on my comment, Dan. I make no bones of the fact that I’m inexperienced in our profession, and I hope I didn’t “over-simplify” the subject with my remarks. I’m keen to learn, so thanks again for the reply.
By Andrew Sabatier
07 JUL 2009, 15:30 GMT
How we handle a brand identity determines how we experience a brand.
A logo cannot hope to carry the content of a brand. It is a tag for a brand, it is not the brand itself. However, even though a logo acts as a tag for a brand it also offers its own content to handle. And so does not require direct access to the source material that constitutes the total brand experience to which the post above is at pains to point out.
To many people, especially dedicated logo designers and other logo-obsessors, a logo appears as a complete object and gives the impression that the experience of a brand is idealised and fixed, and as a result of the logo, powerfully contained.
Furthermore, given the prominence of logos, the manner in which they are presented and the pride of place accorded to them they tend to be over-valued and appear to be more than they are worth in reality. This problem is compounded by referring to them as logos. Hence the superficial, pseudo-mystical and misleading allure of the ‘logo’.
My point cannot be dismissed as mere semantics. Language mediates experience and so the term logo mediates a particular type of experience. If we refer to a logo as a mark of a brand, the experience of a brand’s primary mark (aka logo) will be different. The handling of a brand’s primary expression as a brand mark facilitates an understanding that the primary brand mark is one of many brand marks.
Brand marks are more effective at cueing experiences than logos. All the sensationalist power of the title of the post above would be lost by replacing the term ‘logo’ with the term ‘brandmark’. The rest of the post would be an interesting read about brand experiences and not a misleading and attention grabbing stab at the role of logos in brand experiences.
I stab logos too but for the reasons I’ve described. It’s time for a more effective alternative to enter mainstream consciousness. Everyone stands to benefit from talking about brand marks.
A.
By Tony Spaeth
07 JUL 2009, 18:44 GMT
I too, Andrew, am never really comfortable using the word “logo;” it diminishes the thing’s true importance. “Brandmark” isn’t perfect either, because “brand” too sells short the stature of the corporate presence. But what can we do? Our first priority is to communicate and let’s face it: “logo” is the word the world uses.
By Andrew Sabatier
07 JUL 2009, 22:23 GMT
I’m not proposing perfect. I’m proposing ‘more effective’.
A brandmark (one word) is the primary brand mark (two words). All experiences are made up of terms that establish conditions and determine the nature of the environment at hand. This environment describes the brand and the experience of the brand at hand. The terms of a brand can be handled as marks, linguistic as well as gestural. These marks cue experiences, many of which go beyond the known tags in the practical experience of a brand.
Brand marks are both tags and cues. Tags to the known and stable tangible reality, and cues to the complexities and sensitivities of the deeply personal and shared experience. A language based on these notions indicates where the art, science, religion and philosophy of brands meets with the real world in which people and their social networks live. People deal with these areas of experience on a moment to moment basis and so should brands.
‘Corporate’ and ’stature’ are terms of authority from an institutional space where intimidation and manipulation tend to hold currency and creativity is, more often than not, held to ransom. We no longer talk about corporate identity or endorse authoritarian behaviour. Instead we talk about approachable and responsive brands. This is because everything in the world is subject to brand identity and now more than ever we avoid being told what to do, what to think or how to be.
Brands are the means by which people make their way in the world and brand identity provides the means to handle, understand and determine these brand experiences.
The brand-illiterate still use terms they had been offered by the change-makers of the day, from a pioneering era that brought capitalism to the masses. This was the world of the advertising agency and design consultancy, and their clients via the brands they brought to market. The term logo has been inherited from this time. The change-makers of today need to re-assume a pioneering role and bring more effective brand identity tools to an altogether different market with different needs, expectations and aspirations.
Today the change-makers are the brand consultancies and their clients. Brand consultancies need to follow through with the changes they initiated by taking brand consulting deeper into the brand experience. To achieve this they will need a more effective language to handle brands.
I believe such a language will be made up of brand marks.
A.
By Scott Lerman
07 JUL 2009, 23:07 GMT
Actually, we (at least me) still talk about “corporate identity”. It’s a useful term. Corporations are legal entities. They hire people. They have cultures. They create products and brands. In fact, I’ve always preferred the term “identity” to brand–particularly when attached to “corporate”. Identity is human and emotional. It fell out of favor in the lexicon because it became too closely associated with–logos!
Being a steward of a corporate brand often means taking on longer-term and more weighty responsibilities (unless the product/service brand is also the corporate brand.)
And while you see corporations and the very notion of stature as authoritarian, I don’t. Many corporations are thriving, vital communities. Many earn stature through good acts and use it to accomplish ever more.
By Tony Spaeth
08 JUL 2009, 1:49 GMT
Right on, Scott. That’s why this is called Identity Forum, not Brand Forum.
To me, Branding is a junior profession. Branding is about marketing. Identity is about leadership, which incorporates marketing.
(And let’s agree to agree: when we say “corporate” identity we mean institutional identity, regardless of legal structure. The institution can be a school. church, nation as well as a company. It can even be a person, an institution of one.)
Pulling together several strings in this young blog, let me add that Identity Forum can easily share two paths of purpose:
1. To teach the breadth of identity tools available to leaders, well beyond design, that can effect desired change;
2. To celebrate, nevertheless, the sometimes magical power of excellence, starting with design excellence, that a great “logo” can stimulate.
I see no conflict. Our designer-voices are passionate about words and strategy. Our strategy consultants know and love great design (or we’d be doing something else).
By Dan Dimmock
08 JUL 2009, 2:29 GMT
By Andrew Sabatier
08 JUL 2009, 13:23 GMT
The issue here is not brand versus identity.
To mark out an identity you need to brand that identity. Branding is intrinsic to identity. The reason Brand is so prevalent is it describes any discrete identity, including corporate brands. To get rid of Brand you need to offer a viable alternative to branding.
Corporate identity is a secondary conversation used to mean collective identity, irrespective of the size of the institution or legal category. I lead with brand identity and qualify it as corporate if the context doesn’t already do that for me.
Design will also only take you so far. Design is a commodity in service of brand strategy. Celebrating the form of a brand mark and the configuration of a strategy comes in the context of a celebration of the creativity exhibited by the brand. If the brand mark in question is creative it will have an optimum form to express that creativity. And it will most competently represent the market space configured by a creative strategic positioning. This approach is the effective branding that leaders need to carry their identities into the minds and hearts of all those whose lives are enabled by the brand.
Corporate identity may traditionally be associated with logos but brand identity and brand marks have an obvious connection. More energy can be spent getting the configuration of the brand strategy and the form and types of brand marks right without spending energy holding a fragmented and cumbersome language together.
As I wrote before, language mediates experience. If you want to describe a compelling, memorable and even magical or transcendent brand experience you require a language that has these qualities.
A.
By Joshua Schoenaker
11 JUL 2009, 14:46 GMT
And that’s just in English. Try translating this discussion in Dutch.
By Joshua Schoenaker
11 JUL 2009, 15:06 GMT
Also, I wanna say thank you to Tony & Co. for creating the opportunity for me as a student, to learn a lot from the articles and discussions of some big names in the industry on this here forum and identitworks.com. I think I already learnt more from you guys then all my teachers combined in 4 years. So please, keep going and maybe someday I can contribute something back:)
By Alan Brew
22 JUL 2009, 0:39 GMT
Interesting philosophical and (dare I say) semantic debate about identity, brand identity, logo, brandmarks and brand marks. I am glad I now understand the difference. As an uninvited guest to this debate may I volunteer that I am more inclined to Scott and Tony’s view about corporate identity but then, as the three of us are safely over the age of 50 and therefore qualify as geezers, I am probably in danger of biasing our collective formative professional years to that interesting point in social pre-history when the masses were being introduced to capitalism, thereby making me, at least, much less able to connect with today’s brand literate ‘change makers’. Precision of language is important though and to that end I thought Scott might be interested in Joe Queenan’s column “Icons aren’t what they used to be” in the Wall Street Journal (link below). It leads me to ask - by what definition are fairly well-known companies such as EDS and National Semiconductor considered to be brand icons? Come to think of it, what is a brand icon? Is it the same as a brand mark?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124804449707563477.html
By Tony Spaeth
22 JUL 2009, 23:33 GMT
Thanks for that, Alan, and for sharing Joe Queenan’s musings on the morphing of
“iconic.” Seems to me it’s fair to call a brand “iconic,” meaning famous for being famous; Apple, for example, is surely an iconic brand in that sense. And if we call the apple itself an icon, aren’t we just calling it a symbol… well, perhaps a notably successful symbol?
And welcome to the Identity Forum, where your hard-earned insights are always appreciated.
By Scott Lerman
22 JUL 2009, 23:48 GMT
Alan, My use of “iconic” to describe Bank of America, National Semiconductor, EDS, 3M, Caterpillar, and Harley-Davidson is not ”another case of hyperventilating journalists hijacking an otherwise admirable language because they are desperate to insert an infectious banality into their work…” (But perhaps that’s not what you implied by sending us off to read Joe Queenan’s article.) These companies aren’t just “fairly well known,” each was a defining force in their arena. Personally, I see the evolution of these brands as more than run-of-the-mill consulting assignments. There is an obligation to honor their (iconic) pasts while ensuring their relevance to the future.
By Andrew Sabatier
23 JUL 2009, 12:38 GMT
The purpose of thinking in terms of brand marks is to invoke a more effective impression of what constitutes a brand and to grasp how brand marks determine the substance of a brand experience.
These brand marks are every kind of ‘thing’ that gives form to a brand, tangible and intangible. These are physical things as well as say, units of language or abstract ideas.
Brand marks describe the form of a brand. They also mark out how a brand is configured. A brand strategy is a configuration of brand marks. Brand marks and brand strategy are intrinsically connected and in combination give expression to brand imperatives ie. the reason (and manner in which) the brand exists.
Thinking in terms of brand marks is a radically different approach to describe and handle brands. As one of many examples, this approach also identifies the limits of design by indicating what design can and cannot do for brands. It reveals how brands are collectively held opinions and how we might best manage these opinions to make the brand more effective as well as secure it from failure. And in the context of a discussion of iconic brands, provide an understanding of how brands are more likely to become iconic.
By Alan Brew
04 AUG 2009, 6:43 GMT
I don’t know Scott. I think you are stretching a point to breaking. As influential as EDS was as a business, I doubt very few people could say today what EDS did or bring to mind any element of its brand. Is that iconic? Even by the most liberal interpretation of iconic, EDS (RIP) does not measure up. I would just like to see a little more precision of language before the whole branding dialog collapses under the weight of its own rhetoric and we end up talking to ourselves.
By Scott Lerman
04 AUG 2009, 16:23 GMT
No stretching involved! EDS was a BtoB brand. Its brand was never targeted to the masses, but quite famous with business audiences.
By Alan Brew
04 AUG 2009, 21:16 GMT
Does a brand that is “quite famous with business audiences” qualify as iconic? I think not. I rest my case.
By Scott Lerman
04 AUG 2009, 21:45 GMT
Interesting. What does the contributor group think? Can b2b brands that are famous only in the business space be dubbed ‘iconic’? I think yes…
By Tony Spaeth
05 AUG 2009, 1:44 GMT
I’ll bite, Scott. Yes, clearly an identity (brand, if you will) in the business space can be iconic. The name McKinsey, for example, doesn’t even need a logo to be iconic… famous, that is, for being famous as a name. McKinsey is a name which (in its glory days, which may still be with us) said ‘caviar,’ distinctively and efficiently.
But “EDS?” As an identity it is (was?) virtually invisible. There is no verbal content, just initials whose origin is obsolete, and effectively lost. The brand itself was engorged by a presence that sucked all other air out of the EDS room — Ross Perot. EDS became famous, in and beyond B2B, for the distinctively military culture Perot infused and embodied. Name? Non-existent. Logo? Irrelevant. To me EDS is the classic case of a personna-driven reputation, where the identity itself is a passive factor, merely (and marginally) functional.
For me, an iconic brand is one that in itself brilliantly advances a leader’s vision, not one that just goes along for the ride.
By Scott Lerman
05 AUG 2009, 4:51 GMT
The transition from founder to the second generation is always a test of where (and if) the brand lives. EDS never recovered from that handoff. Of course it doesn’t help when your founder starts a rival company!
By Henry Kaye
07 MAR 2010, 5:14 GMT
“To me, Branding is a junior profession. Branding is about marketing. Identity is about leadership, which incorporates marketing.”
Totally agree with Tony. Branding is subordinate to Corporate Identity *not* the other way round. To some people the Brand is a proxy for image, for others the Brand’s a consequence of everything the company does! Given the later definition, Branding ≠ Brand.
By Henry Kaye
07 MAR 2010, 5:54 GMT
Sorry but I find Brand Identity to be tautological when talking about Corporate logos. On customer experiences, also I find depending on who you talk to… given their discipline… will often replace the adjective before “experience” or “identity, marks and strategy” with the discipline they use to approach the problem. i.e., Any lack of objectivity into the perspective of the problem renders it purely semantic (not to mention confusing!) as people who find problems tend to find problems within their means to solve, ascribing the appropriate adjective and lingua franca relative to their problem-solving domain. Personally speaking branding should remain only as an umbrella term on the balance sheet.