Forgot your username or password?
The designer Jessica Helfand wrote
that her “wish for the New Year was to get through meetings without
someone mentioning ‘branding.’” That was a few New Years ago. With the
move from brand consciousness to branding
consciousness, her wish needs updating. The problem is no longer the
inescapability of meetings where branding is mentioned, but the near
inescapability of meetings where branding is the entire agenda. And not
just meetings. Lectures, seminars, websites, conferences, panels, Power
Point presentations and, for all I know, meditations, abound with titles
like “Your Brand as the Heart of Your Business,” “How Brands Became
Icons,” “Product is Brand,” “The Branding of American Design” and
“Branding Your Way to Globalization.”
Those are merely titles and may have substance behind them. But
titles are names, which also may have substance behind them. I suppose
that is what brands are ideally, names with substance behind them:
Apple, Patagonia, Hohner, Smuckers.
I once worked for a humor magazine where my first assignment was an
article on nomenclatural panic in the pharmaceutical industry.
Researchers were inventing new medications faster than copywriters could
dream up names for them. Computers could do it faster; but were subject
to inhuman error, generating brands like “Booboomycin,” that met
program criteria but did not carry market credibility.
The magazine’s offices were on New York's Fourth Avenue, which at
the time was itself being rebranded and reclassed as Park Avenue South.
Was the change important? It was to letter carriers. For slightly
different reasons, the American Craft Museum in New York has changed its
name to the Museum of Art & Design.
Some names, like some sticks and stones, can hurt enough to justify
considering change. Serious institutions with funny names have always
suffered derision. I wonder how many earnest high school students resist
applying to Bob Jones University because it sounds like a fast-food
franchise. All of my high school teachers were alumni of either Slippery
Rock or Indiana State Teachers College. Although Slippery Rock was no
football powerhouse, sports announcers unfailingly reported the scores
of every Slippery Rock game, for laughs. Indiana State Teachers College
was not a funny name, but a confusing one, considering that the school
was in Pennsylvania. Another Pennsylvania institution, Beaver College,
has renamed itself Arcadia University, to eliminate Animal House jokes. As a native of Beaver County, for which the college was originally named, I fear the rebranding of my childhood.
“What’s in a name?” Juliet asked. “That which we call a rose by any
other name would smell as sweet.” She was of course wrong. Names
influence perception and can enhance experience. But they need support. A
global brand strategist, citing McDonald’s as an example of regional
adaptation in branding, writes that “In India the brand caters to a
largely vegetarian and non-beef-eating population where its leading
burger, the Maharaja Mac, is made with chicken and local spices.” Well,
sure. But the operative change there is not the patronizing name of the
sandwich, but the ingredients in the recipe. That’s not branding. It’s
Branding is more than naming, but the process of branding aims to
burn the positive perception of a name into a product, a product line, a
company, and public consciousness. The subject, both real and imagined,
may have seemed innocuous at first. After all, except for Harry Potter
when he is wearing the invisibility cloak, everything and everyone has
an image of some kind. Image is the chief, and often the only, salable
element in products like fragrances and fashion. Its inflation in those
realms is innocently deceptive; any harm done is limited to ego and
discretionary income. But image is not reality, an obvious but necessary
mantra when it comes to brands, “FEMA,” the agency’s former
chief-of-staff Jane Bullock laments, “was once a brand name.” Stripped
of the reality of performance, the brand went under with the levees.
Branding becomes socially dangerous when offered up, and bought, as an
approach to problems beyond the marketplace.
When the city of Fayetteville, North Carolina, struggling with its
image, hired an image consultant, they were advised that, because Fort
Bragg was their most conspicuous, and their only nationally known,
feature, their most exploitable marketing commodity was patriotism.
“Patriotism,” the consultant told them, “can be Fayetteville’s most
It unnerves me to hear about deliverables from anyone who doesn’t
work for FedEx or UPS, or about branding from anyone not in a John Wayne
western. Patriotism can’t be delivered. Brands are product shorthand
for trust. That isn’t a deliverable either, which is why cattle
rustling, the world’s oldest organized form of identity theft, led to
The Department of Defense, seeking to revitalize a troubled brand
called the Army, has engaged the Leo Burnett agency to make its case.
The choice is inspired if you believe the agency’s claim that it
“creates ideas that inspire enduring belief for many of the world’s most
valuable brands and most successful marketers, including McDonalds,
Disney, Marlboro, Nintendo and the U.S. Army.” I don’t. The enduring
belief that an ad agency can “create ideas that inspire enduring belief”
is what gives branding a bad name.
Ralph Caplan is the author of Cracking the Whip: Essays on Design
and Its Side Effects and By Design. Caplan is the former editor of
I.D. magazine, and has been a columnist for both I.D. and Print. He lectures widely, teaches in the graduate Design Criticism program at the School of Visual Arts, was awarded the 2010 “Design Mind” National Design Award by the Cooper-Hewitt
and is the recipient of the
2011 AIGA Medal.
The president of Grand Rapids–based Peopledesign discusses who will own the conversation of design and how they’re forever experimenting and adapting to ensure their relevance and success in the design climate of the future.
Section: Inspiration -
interview, business plans, human resources, collaboration, new business development, studio management
Design feedback shouldn't be a painful process. In fact, if it's a painful process, I'd say someone's not doing it right. The most successful projects are usually ones with a collaborative workflow between a well-balanced team of designers, developers, project management, and of course — clients! It's essential to have a healthy feedback process, in which the client knows exactly what feedback is most helpful for the next round of revisions, and the designers and developers know how to translate and solve those problems.
I know, I know, both web teams and people who have hired web teams are out there groaning right now (we get it, and this isn't a soapbox). Everyone has had their fair share of difficult projects and poor communication, but it doesn't have to be that way. In efforts to improve the feedback process for web clients and design teams alike, I'm writing this two-part article about How to Give Good Web Design Feedback, and Turning Client Feedback Into Your Best Work.
Because in-house designers regularly collaborate with different departments, they can develop a well-rounded view of needs and opportunities within their organization. By applying their unique design thinking skills to non-design problems, in-house designers have the ability to effect positive change from within.
Section: Tools and Resources
When Euro Modernist Design Met American Chewing Gum
Posted by Michael Dooley
5 days ago from
Imprint-The Online Community for Graphic Designers
Turner Duckworth Holiday Card 2009
Perfect #Sunday reading RT @itsnicethat: #Design stories inside @NewYorker's remarkable covers http://t.co/7ZG7xfodp8 http://t.co/r0HXcwmuoK
14 hours ago
Corcoran Glimpse Book
The Big One 2014
November 22, 2014
Web Developer/Webmaster – Scottsdale Convention & Visitors Bureau
November 18, 2014
el hawa collection catalogue
Lara Assouad Khoury