branding Category

A Tough Decision

When you’re a small business serving people and organizations, it is tough to say no. Within limits, we do our best to say yes to a customer’s business, timelines, specifications and expectations. We also know that saying no is sometimes why people hire us and we can do that easily too. Two weeks ago, however, I was faced with a tough decision. One of our customers asked us to work with them to crowdsource their brand identity. They wanted to get a greater variety of ideas on a budget and had heard crowdsourcing was a good way to go. For one of the first and few times, we had to say no. (If you haven’t heard of crowdsourcing, click here before you proceed).

Let’s lay the facts out, before I give you my two cents. We were hired to develop a brand identity after having a very fruitful and successful set of strategic planning engagements with our customer. We developed one round of concepts, the customer embraced one of the concepts. We refined it and they were happy. They then showed it to their board. The board thought it was not creative enough and suggested that our customer outsource. At this point, we told our customer that its ok, having multiple rounds of design is not uncommon. We will take their board’s thoughts into consideration and start again. We offered them a discount on the rework in order to stay within their original expectations of budget. Their response? Our board wants to outsource – thats it. We want more ideas on the identity, however they wanted to continue working with us on creating a brand system and collateral.

I am a fond believer in the democratization of talent and information that the internet creates. Throughout the years I’ve even engaged developers in Pakistan and India to support application development projects. I believe that outsourcing just seems like “out” sourcing now, but in reality it is just the first steps in a more important and meaningful global collaboration without borders and nationalistic illusions. (We need to stop thinking of ourselves as Indians, Americans, Serbians, etc and instead as citizens of the earth.)

A brand, however, is an incredibly delicate and powerful thing. It is the essence, the heart, the soul of an organization embodied in the absence of words. (No wonder we take ourselves so seriously here at Blue Daring). Its the one thing that people take away that allows them to recognize your work and your business again and again. That said, you don’t “crowdsource” or better yet, throw to the wind, your identity. Your identity is a careful process of creative and strategic collaboration, concepting, reworking and finally adoption. To allow something so intimate and important to be the subject of a desperate bidding war by out-of-work designers and would-be artists is a failure of vision and lack of responsibility.

Are these the rantings of a slighted vendor? Absolutely not. Not only were we paid for our work to date, but we walked away with a relationship intact. I respected my customer’s wish and they respected ours – they even committed to continue to speak highly of our work and talent. And let’s note… we are ALWAYS open to collaboration and being creative about work in order to get things done. We know that our value as a company is beyond simply design. Brand outsourcing, however, will never, ever, be the right thing to do. It’s the equivalent of having strangers dress you, speak for you and represent you in the course of your day. Needless to say when you are an organization representing tens of thousands of people – that is simply reckless.

Bottom line, I am happy that we did not answer to the dollar. It is never popular and sometimes costly to stand up in what you believe in. However, people who hire Blue Daring, hire us for truth, guidance and good advice. We better damn well have conviction.

Logorama

logoramaA few weeks ago I finally found the time to watch the movie Logorama, an entertaining 16-minute animated film, that is entirely made up of 2,500 different brand logos, icons and mascots. This came out last year and garnered an award at the Cannes Film Festival and later won the Academy Award this year for Best Animated Short Film.

What I thought was fascinating about this film was that it felt like a visual trivia game, where the viewer is watching and simultaneously guessing what all of the companies’ brands are. A brief synopsis: Police (Michelin men) chase an armed criminal (Ronald McDonald) in the cityscape of Los Angeles. During the chase, mascots from dozens of other companies (ie. Pringles, Pillsbury, Mr. Clean) make up the conversational characters as dozens of logos and brand icons literally fly by. There is a lot of subtle humor in it and it moves fast. So fast in fact, you want to watch it again.

After watching the movie, I felt conflicted. I loved it because it was well done and unexpected. I found the landscape of logos overwhelming, which I would guess is the point. As a designer, I loved seeing all the logos and can appreciate the talent and energy that went into creating them, but at the same time, at what point do we reach a brand saturation point? Is the world that designers are helping to create, becoming unnecessarily obtrusive to our everyday life? Let me know what you think, I would like to hear your thoughts.

The Dangers of a Stale Brand

Over the last year we’ve been talking to a number of organizations all with the same problem; they have an identity crisis. These aren’t five-year old companies finding their way – these are 15, 20 even 30 year-old organizations who have had a startling revelation. My target market is changing – and I haven’t changed a bit. Sure I’m successful, but who am I? (See Vanessa’s post about your brand as a person)

How often have you heard yourself say – “Let’s swing by Blockbuster.” Chances are, less so lately. Once the go-to source for families and individuals seeking on-demand entertainment, Blockbuster is now the subject of CNN’s latest headline. Title? Blockbuster bleeding to death. How’s that for family entertainment? Blockbuster became successful in the 90s by pioneering a revenue sharing agreement with studios that guaranteed it premier access to new releases and major profit margins that fueled the growth of almost 4,000 stores. When you’re in every neighborhood in the country, your brand equity is as strong as Kleenex’s. So what happened? The internet transformed renters’ meaning of entertainment. From the laptop to the iPhone, devices became a source for any entertainment under the sun. While Blockbuster still did what it does best [movies], it failed to perceptually align itself with “entertainment” today. In a nutshell: Blockbuster failed to shift its brand equity from stores to the web. By the time they endeavored to do so in 2004, their brand was just a johnny-come-lately to the incumbent: Netflix.

Blockbuster’s misdirection was a strategic mistake, but I would argue that this was equally a matter of wasted brand equity. Just because a brand has been around for a decade or three and seems to be doing well, doesn’t mean that it is immune to irrelevance. The internet is only an example of the quickening pace of [r]evolutions and loyalties in industries and people. Whether your brand targets a demographic whose dynamicism is as speedy as its growth, or whether market leadership has made you deaf to the rumblings of your competition’s innovation, a brand is a terrible thing to waste. As the visual symbol for your organization, your brand must always reflect who you are today – not you 20 years ago. If you think your branding can be put off because it doesn’t affect your bottom line, think again. Your brand becomes old school – your reliable profits become old news.

What’s the lesson from this story? There’s a few: 1) don’t rest on your laurels, 2) brand stasis is slow suicide, and 3) stop asking yourself “Who am I?” Instead ask your audience who they are and where they’re going. They just might have the insight to keep you relevant [not to mention profitable].