Our friends at Google Labs have just published a new tool, in which we can count the uses of words or phrases in the 15 million books they have entered, to date, in their data base. I thought it would be fun to track “corporate identity” (blue) against “corporate brand” (red). Here are the trend lines:
source: Google Labs
Since 1800, “corporate identity” (the blue line) shows a long, low incidence,with a puzzling little spike in the early 1900s (the corresponding “corporate brand” spike comes from horse and cow citations). Corporate dentity clearly begins to accelerate in the mid-to-late 1950s, exactly when Lippincott & Margulies committed to the promotion of “CI” with missionary fervor.
“Corporate brand” flatlined until 1990, when (of a sudden) “brand” got hot. I am surprised, however, to see how shallow its climb has been. And frankly I am heartened. When we are talking about institutional identity, “brand” takes us to the wrong place — to how we sell. “Identity” asks us to be clear about who we are, and why we matter. It’s good to see that in books, at least, “Corporate Identity” commands the high ground.
You can run this test yourself at http://ngrams.googlelabs.com
By Scott Lerman
18 DEC 2010, 6:47 GMT
Tony, you know I favor the word ‘identity’. But I suspect that the trend is the use of ‘brand’. Add that standalone term to the mix and the other modified terms become faint background static…
By Scott Lerman
18 DEC 2010, 15:43 GMT
By Tony Spaeth
18 DEC 2010, 19:11 GMT
That’s right, Scott. And unmodified, as your search shows, identity swamps brand, perhaps because it’s such a handy word in detective stories. My point, and focus, is limited to “corporate” brand or identity. And I admit it: I will continue to use “corporate brand” occasionally, for its sex appeal.
By Jerry Kuyper
20 DEC 2010, 20:20 GMT
Tony, thanks for demonstrating this new Google tool.
I can remember where I was standing at Landor in 1989 when I first heard a corporation described as a brand. It just seemed wrong, Ivory Soap is a brand, not the company that makes it.
Last week at the HiBrand Product Identity conference in Moscow I felt like I was in a time machine listening to heated discussions about the definition of a brand – company, product, service, person, idea, etc.?
Over the last 20 years I have come to accept “brand” not as a substitute for “identity” but as a broader, more inclusive term than corporate. There are many entities beyond corporations that have identities, such as, companies, partnerships, organizations, institutions and subsidiaries as well as products and services. The term “corporate identity” is often incorrectly applied to entities that are not corporations. We may choose to draw the line at different points regarding what is a brand and what is an identity but these entities do share a need:
“to be clear about who we are and why we matter”
For a broad term that would include all of the entities described above I use the term Brand Identity.
Fellow contributor, Alina Wheeler, provides a more detailed and thoughtful line of reasoning in her book “Designing Brand Identity”.
By Andrew Sabatier
21 DEC 2010, 16:37 GMT
‘Corporate identity’ is only really useful to denote a collective endeavour such as an organisation that behaves in a corporate manner. It is not more effective at communicating what we now understand to constitute a corporate brand. A brand is the total experience of a distinct and consciously branded identity, corporate and other.
All ‘marked out’ identities are identities that are consciously ‘branded’ and so it makes sense to hold these identities as brands. Only some types of brands are made up of collections of coordinated entities. This typically means identities that behave in a corporate manner. Versus, identities that are branded as products or services. The traditional distinction between types of brands has been corporate brands and consumer or product brands, although this is partly problematic as many corporate brands are also consumer brands.
If the terms ‘corporate brand’ was to be superceded by ‘corporate identity’ as Tony’s post suggests then where are we left with when it comes to consumer or product brands? Do these brands then, by the same logic, become consumer or product identities? Highly unlikely for obvious low level reasons. And, it seems that in the same vein, it’s being suggested that only consumer or product brands retain the term ‘brand’ and that corporate brands be referred to as corporate identities?
It seems to me that to revert to ‘corporate identity’ an obvious trick will have been missed. As a (1) brand consultant ‘corporate identity’ does not offer a more effective way to hold an identity that behaves in a corporate manner and that can also be seen to be held in a corporate manner by a collectively ‘identify-able’ audience such as a (2) target market. This would appear to be a step backward, no matter what Google Labs uncovers in common published language usage. There seems to be no real case to be made based on common language usage. Common language usage does not reflect expert opinion and high level management insight. A proper and full definition of what constitutes a brand has yet to be taken up in the mainstream media.
Corporate identity is a description of one aspect of a corporate ‘branded’ identity and as Tony’s casual study appears to indicate it is also a useful (and common) way to identify institutions as corporate identities. And, if we’re endorsing corporate brands as traditional institutions then we’re probably not doing our jobs properly as brand consultants. Yes, I would agree, brand consultants are also identity consultants but, to my points, identity consulting is subject to brand consulting, which, critically, includes brand strategy. Brand strategy is not tantamount to business or corporate identity strategy.
A recent development in distinguishing types of brands has been to make a distinction between business brands and consumer brands, both of which can handle a further qualification (or extension) of a brand as a corporate identity – were we ever to need to point out this distinction at all.
A.
By Henry Kaye
31 DEC 2010, 6:39 GMT
The distinction is a simple one: It’s one of Perspective otherwise they’re the same.
Corporate Identity = Who we are (sender)
Corporate Brand = How you comes across* (receiver)
*accumulating over time
But I ask, how you come across without knowing who you are?
By werner vandevelde
17 JAN 2011, 14:53 GMT
With his comment Henry introduces a new dimension to the debate. The difference in perspective is expressed in the terms ‘identity’, communicated by the sender, and ‘image’ (of that identity) formed by the recipient. Among other things Communication surveys measure the degree of coincidence of Identity and Image. If coincidence is high it means that communication strategy and execution are on track.
As to the use of Brand versus Corporate Identity: the term Corporate may be on a higher hierarchy level for the very simple reason that companies own brands whereas brands cannot own companies.
In the early existence of a company, the identity of the company strongly determines the identity of the brand(s) owned by that company; a monolithic brand architecture is likely to be followed. Once the company grows and activities gain broader scope covering different types of markets, the original corporate identity will yield and adapt to the organically grown new reality – simply business reasons of opportunity. Almost only in times of business crisis or major acquisition will a company actively re-determine its essence by taking new strategic directions carefully captured in their new Corporate Identity.
Clearly, Corporate and Brand identities influence each other and a degree of ‘fit’ needs to be monitored, but both are different things and need to be managed accordingly.
w.
By Denis Riney
20 JAN 2011, 18:45 GMT
Surprising stats - but I would quibble about the relevancy of the data pre-1995 (when the Internet started to blossom)
I wonder what the trend line looks like over the last 15- 10- or 5-year periods - it might tell a different tale.
By saffron
22 MAR 2011, 14:47 GMT
as a new brand manager( learner).. I am loving the clarity in this post.. identity word relates me to the truth, values
By Grand Pubah of Corporate Identity
19 MAY 2011, 23:16 GMT
Thank you Wally Olins.
Branding is solely a made up Practice whom can only trace its roots to when Walter Landor invented the terminology in late 1980s.
Corporate Identity is soley a Legitimate Practice whom can trace it’s roots thousends of years back to the ethiopian and sumerian tribes, as well, cave paintings.
Branding as a Profession has destroyed any pre-conceived notion of Corporate Identity.
One only has to look at the landscape of weak, prosaic, diabolical identities that are more tactical than strategic.
Corporate Identity can survive without Branding !!!!
Branding cannot survive without Corporate Identity.
Mr. Spaeth, It is a misnomer to solely credit Lippincott & Margulies as being the purveyers of Corporate Identity, they were not alone.
Corporate Identity is an Industrial Design activity others were involved sucn as, Henry Dreyfuss, Norman Bel Geddes, Donald Desky Associates, Dixon & Parcels, The Dickens Group, Frank Gianninoto Associates, (others).
Raymond Loewy stated he invented the term. Gordon Lippincott stated he invented the term.
The 1st Modern Day Corporate Identity program was International Harvester by Reymond Loewy before Lippincott & Margulies..
The truth lies in who or what you believe the Chicken or the Egg.
There were others involved with Corporate Identity at the seme time as Lippincott & Margulies:
1. Saul Bass
2. Paul Rand
3. Morton Goldsholl
4. Walter Landor
Others to numerous to mention.
For all the Corporate Identity programs Lippincott & Margulies designed historically.
None of them has garnered the press of one Identity developed and designed by SAUL BASS or PAUL RAND.
“Corporate identity clearly begins to accelerate in the mid-to-late 1950s, exactly when Lippincott & Margulies committed to the promotion of “CI” with missionary fervor”.
The largest and most successful Corporate Identity 1950s to date was CBS designed by Bill Golden and Georg Olden CBS in-house design team.