This might not be a true essay, but rather a reaction to an observation that was making the designer side of my brain twitch.
Over the last week, I have had no fewer than four conversations with coworkers and other designers about how their “Brand” is misused, abused, damaged and confused within their respective organizations. These have been separate and unique conversations about somewhat different topics, although the constant among them has been one central issue…the organization (mis)understanding of what exactly a “Brand” is and not internalizing it appropriately. Why is there not a better understanding of what exactly a brand should mean to people?
Brand ≠ Logo
March 5 on NPR’s Marketplace, the big story for Xerox was their new logo. Whatever.
Ron Frankel, who they claimed was a “branding expert based in Los Angeles” stated:
“…companies have been spending billions to rework old logos so that they can multitask for the Web, in video, on cell phones. For instance, AT&T sought a new emblem when it acquired Cingular. UPS has faced heavy competition from FedEx and recently went brown with it’s new insignia and KFC is trying to build customer backing by giving a facelift to “The Colonel,” but Frankel says it’s not enough that people know you.”
So, the problem here for me is that his point seems a bit short-sighted. Seeing as how companies these days need to do this kind of “brand maintenance” when big things happen…like mergers, or complete changes in business paradigms…or the moving of many of their services and customer touch points to the web, his point here makes me ask, “And this should happen differently, how?”
Don’t get me wrong, I am a Paul Rand fan ‘till the grave, and nearly cried when UPS rebranded. I am also a Pittsburgh resident and responded with a moment of silence when the Blattner Brunner agency replaced his Westinghouse “W” with their spinning monstrosity outside of the Westinghouse Building on Stanwix St. But even the most steadfast and timeless (as Paul Rand was a master of) identities need work sometimes as times change around them.
So why is that? Let the big man tell you himself:
“Here is what a logo is and does:
- A logo is a flag, a signature, an escutcheon, a street sign.
- A logo does not sell (directly), it identifies.
- A logo is rarely a description of business.
- A logo derives its meaning from the quality of the thing it symbolizes, not the other way around.
- A logo is less important than the product it signifies; what it represents is more importance than what it looks like. The subject matter of a logo can almost be anything.”
-Paul Rand
What we do not hear in this statement is that the brand IS the logo, or even that the logo IS the brand. The way this Ron Frankel and Xerox’s VP of branding were talking, it was among the most significant moves they have made in decades, and the act of changing their logo constituted a “rebranding” effort.
Poor Frankel, he tried, as he went on to say:
“They need to know why they should care. That’s what you tell your designer. Give me a visual representation that will start or try to communicate why our brand is the only solution.”
Ahem…Mr. Frankel, this is perhaps the second bit of direction given to first year design students, right after they are told, “pretend you have a client and need a logo.”
So again I ask, this is the crux of the news?
So why then do we find an entire segment on a nationally-syndicated radio show waxing on about the Xerox logo changes as the marker for a whole new face of the company? Now that there is a new logo, do the employees walk around the offices with a new-found sense of pride? Do they race back to their cube to pull out their Xerox-branded Ducati action figures with a renewed enthusiasm now that the logo is updated? Now that they have custom branded jump-drives and water bottles, do they believe Xerox now a phoenix rising from the ashes of its former self? No. They’re the same company that now has to explain to everyone why they have a new identity.
I waited for the real story…waited for the discussion with the CEO or CMO to come on to discuss how the company and its employees had to really discuss how they would internalize this new identity, how they would embrace it from the top down.
The best I got was:
The design has to create a link between the old and the new that doesn’t alienate the customer.
Again…this is what they started this segment calling “rebranding.”
You’ve got to make the right choices that are respected by the core customer and of course desired by the masses.
Well, seems they might be neglecting a fairly significant factor here. How about asking the Xerox VP about how this new identity reflects the unified voice of the company in everything the organization is, does and says? How about asking if the new identity is from the inside out, from the top down, adopted and believed in by everyone who answers a Xerox phone, delivers a printer or who lands a distributor deal for toner.
The brand ≠ logo. The brand is every single thing that could possibly reflect back on that company. It’s customer service representative’s tone of voice, the building foyer…and the quality of their products.
Brand + 1 (as Novaurora’s Jason Putorti says):
“There’s no such thing as a ‘neutral’ brand experience. This little word is kicked around a lot and its meaning is often confused. Your company’s ‘brand’ is how other people feel about your company. (Yes I said feel!) Put another way, it’s what your customers say about you, not what you say to them. You might even call it your company’s personality. For example, what do you think about Amazon.com? That’s their brand. If Amazon has done a good job, what you think will match up with what they want you to think, also known as their “brand values.” Every interaction between your company and your customer affects your brand in a positive or negative way. Well-executed visual communication can go a long way to providing the right takeaways.”
First published at Foundread.com, 27 November 2007
What he said. ^
Ok, that’s enough ranting. Although I do agree with Frankel that the new logo looks like a “baseball that got drunk,” I simply think that the interview failed to define accurately what “brand” means and what identity maintenance like Xerox just underwent really encompasses. In my opinion, the public might be better informed had they asked more thoughtful questions that got to the heart of why Xerox is now telling an entirely new story to us, and why they thought they needed to.
If I had to guess, I would speculate that if you called the Xerox corporate office and asked the person who answered the phone, they could answer these questions…and I would bet their answer would have nothing to do with being “desired by the masses.”
