A few thoughts on the evolution of brand identity.

Karl Gerstner wrote in his Designing Programmes:

“Instead of solutions for problems, programmes for solutions — the subtitle can also be understood in these terms: for no problem (so to speak) is there an absolute solution. Reason: the possibilities cannot be delimited absolutely. There is always a group of solutions, one of which is the best under certain conditions.”

The above paragraph was published in 1964, at the peak of the modernist crusade. The same decade Neuburg introduced his contructivist, functionally minded Neue Grafik at ICOGRADA in Zurich, and Paul Rand was working for IBM.

The 60s set the bar in corporate identity design. Modernist, focused on the ‘consistency, consistency, consistency’ mantra, helvetica and simplicity.

At the same time, the concept of brand has been evolving fundamentally. Brand as  product, organization, person and symbol — all those notions became a part of the brand identity systems. Yet, the visual identity remained more or less a slightly stretched result of the constructivist paradigm. As Paula Scher states:

“Generally, there’s a paradigm of what things look like in any arena. What you want to be able to do is find a new way to stretch that paradigm forward, to break its own mold.”

For years logo was treated as a base of an identity system, augmented with graphic means only essential to make it visually coherent in multi-channel environment. Used as a stamp or badge, such identities culminated in Umberto Eco’s “closed texts” — visual systems with unequivocal, static meaning, recurrent structure & disciplined sequence.

Eco juxtaposes “closed texts” with “opera aperta” (open work): open, internally dynamic “opere in movimento”, in which the the artist (or designer) deliberately leaves the arrangement of their compontents either to public or to chance, giving them a multiplicity of possible arrangements. By definition such works are simply much more engaging to the user.

Digital media have vastly reshaped brand landscape and thus allowed to stretch the paradigm a bit further. Technical restraints that limited design for half a century are gone. Together with rising consumer awareness (cogent brand conversations, no logo movement etc.), they gave the means to think of identity as a vessel for expressing personality rather than consistency.

The recent AOL rebranding is one example of a series that shift from the “logo as a badge” strategy to the identity as a visual language flexible enough to convey a number of ideas. Others include: the controversial London 2012 Olympic, Natural History Museum, Walker Arts Center, City of Melbourne, Casa da Música, and, undoubtedly most known: MTV, changing countless times throught the last 26 years and Google.

All these identities (named “flexible identities”) have in common:

1. endless permutations of the logo itself (often designed through customized software);
2. versatile and  distinct visual language (colors, typography, imagery, etc.) allowing adaptation to different environments, executions and contexts;
3. the concept behind is a system rather than a particular design, giving the designer almost unlimited freedom (though within some contraints);
4. they empower the organization with almost complete visual and verbal laguage, open to virtually any message it may need to convey;
5. the visual differentation does not spoil the fundamental, thought-through brand personality & identity that stands as a benchmark; a signifier may (and does) fluctuate but the meaning stays fundamentally the same;

Although the flexible identity solves most of today’s brand identity problems and seems a logical development, the static brand probably is not coming to an end. A dynamic branding model obviously has some constraints, but I think that it is an evolution phase rather than a trend. Of course, like any other idea it might enter a stage of an overused fad, quickly making the static brands trendy again. Evolution by definition is a gradual process.  Maybe we’ll reach a moment, in which a simple, straightforwad and “classic” logo and identity system will seem refreshing.

Gerstner’s “boîte à musique” identity designed in 1954 in all likelihood was the first example of flexible identity, a “programme for solution”. Unless the possibilities will be delimited absolutely, the flexible identity looks like a reliable strategy.

A must-see.

Apparently Pawel Tkaczyk patted me on the back in his post. I’ve immediately felt obliged to share such a list myself. So here it is: my personal pantheon of the greats I’ve had privilege to meet in my professional life.

Andrzej Tomaszewski. The Typographer.
[pronounced as: Andrzej Tomaszewski point THE Typographer (capital T!) point].
To say that his designs are elegant, flawless, or impeccable, would be an understatement. I suppose that there’s a level of perfection and elegance, that can be only described by the word: virtuosity. I had the pleasure of meeting him during last year’s KrakTypo, and was literally blown away by his vast knowledge and commitment to share it.

Lukasz Dziedzic, type designer.
In essence, Lukasz is like lowercase “g” from Helga: slightly eccentric & rebellious, eminently agile and above all incredibly enchanting. Every single font he designs has this intangible feature commonly described (for lack of a better word) as coolness. He just told me that he’d rather be vanishingly-gray than portrayed, so I’ll keep it short: when I grow up, I hope I’ll draw at least a single glyph like he does.

Marcin Wolny, co-owner of Studio Otwarte, a graphic designer himself.
I doubt I’d be where I am today if not for the immense creative freedom and autonomy I’d received while working at SO. No matter how strong the dissent or how heated the discussion had been, as long as I could reasonably justify a concept and its execution, I had his full support, even if personally he would not agree. The most important lesson I’ve learned from him: when leading a design team, your role is to water rather than weed.

Last but definitely not least:

Karina Wieczorek, inspirer.
Karina is not a designer (although she’s got much to do with design in her job). We’ve known each other inside out for years now, so rather than elaborate on what a great friend she has been, I’ll quote her colophon: “Glenn Gould once said “The purpose of art is not the momentary ejection of adrenaline, but rather the lifelong construction of a state of wonder and serenity.” I have no ambition of being an artist, but I find the feeling, which is a cross between curiosity, joy and surprise to be the best inspiration and antidepressant.” She’s been my first reviewer and her visual intuition has prevented me from sheer ugliness several times. And one of the most joyful and inspiring of people I’ve ever met.

A list of common but not that obvious mistakes in logo design

I’ve been recently commissioned to review a logo for a beauty product. The what do you think question. The logo itself was well crafted and will probably prove successful, but it got me thinking about general rules for logo design. The technical aspects are well covered (e.g. here or here), but there are a few guidelines that exceed the obvious “it has to be legible and memorable”. So, here’s my list of common, but not that obvious at first glance, mistakes in logo design:

1. Cliché logos
   Undoubtedly clichés communicate. Usually they provide straight-forward symbols easily understood by all. They facilitate the communication process and therefore are quite common. The problem is distinctiveness: there are around thousand of logos with a tree (highlighting heritage), leaves (nature) or a globe (we’re global). The design idea does not have to be unique in the history of graphic design (which is highly unlikely), but it has to be distinctive in a particular marketplace.
   Every industry has its fig leaf, concealing the designer’s lack of original idea, so make sure you find one before the designing work. And if you, unfortunately, happen to exploit a cliché, make sure it is executed with a superb design.
   [Sidenote: the same applies to so-called generic shapes: a star, a heart, a circle et cetera: no matter how much effort is put to make them look distinctive, there are millions of other versions of the same shape.]

[continue reading]

How companies deal with their customers’ sensory overload

Cayce Pollard, the protagonist of William Gibson’s Pattern Recognition, suffers from a rare disorder: psychological sensitivity to corporate symbols. She reacts to logos and advertising as if to an allergen, suffering panic attacks at the sight of Louis Vuitton luggage. Acutely sensitive to branding, she laboriously removes every trademark from her apparel or appliance.

Although entirely fictional, the novel seems to have anticipated a prevalent epidemic of sensory overload with brand labels. In bygone days marques used to be the most prominent feature of a product, providing a sense of identification and affiliation. Luxurious, heavily branded products used to be an evidence of wealth and social status. The equivalent products nowadays would most probably result in status asthmaticus at the most.

There may have been some exaggeration on the part of the asthma reaction. But the shift in the way product logos are perceived and often looked down upon is far from fictional. The corporate obsession to brand lifestyle rather than mere products brought the repercussive no logo and anti-consumerist & anti-corporate resistance. [continue reading]

(or when to say no)

John Ruskin once wrote, that the best work never was and never will be done for money.

The truth is most of us work to keep a paycheck coming in. Yet, a sense of accomplishing something that really matters (gasp), of excellent quality, creatively fulfilling and most of all – serving the client’s needs – seems essential to keep one’s sanity. Otherwise you risk losing your heart and gradually drifting away from your initial moorings (Presupposition: we all aim at more than little).

So you care about the output of your work, strive to keep the standards and use all your experience and knowledge to convince clients, that some of their revisions or modifications would bring conspicuously shoddy results (And I’m talking about significant alterations, not changing type from 10pt Garamond to 12pt Caslon).

The problem starts, when although you’ve clearly articulated your reasons, the client says: ok, we understand. Still, we want it our way. [continue reading]