Adrian Shaughnessy<\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n
In an age where companies think branding strategists can solve all their problems, Adrian Shaughnessy argues that designers should take back control. Here is a condensed version of his article.<\/p>\n
Graphic designers rarely question the practice or culture of branding. Hardly surprising, since the creation of brand identities and branded communications is what provides so many graphic designers with a living. Designers need clients, and clients want branding.<\/p>\n
So, if designers want to have plenty of work, it\u2019s probably wise not to look too closely at what branding is, and what its effects are on the profession of design or on the wider culture. However, this unquestioning assimilation of brand culture is inevitably raising questions of its own.<\/p>\n
For example, why have hundreds of designers chosen to call themselves \u2018brand designers\u2019, or even worse, \u2018brand imagineers\u2019? And why has the term \u2018identity designer\u2019 been widely abandoned, when it more accurately \u2013 and perhaps more honestly \u2013 describes what the majority of \u2018brand designers\u2019 actually do?<\/p>\n
Opposition to branding<\/strong> Instead, I want to look at three things: the ways in which branding has affected the practice of graphic design and the role of the graphic designer over the past few decades, the reasons behind why graphic designers gave up being \u2018identity designers\u2019 in favour of becoming \u2018brand designers\u2019, and what exactly constitutes good and bad branding.<\/p>\n Branding: a definition<\/strong> A more nuanced definition is provided by Seth Godin, an author and entrepreneur who has been lauded as America\u2019s greatest marketer. For Godin, a brand is \u201cthe set of expectations, memories, stories and relationships that, taken together, account for a consumer\u2019s decision to choose one product or service over another\u201d.<\/p>\n Godin also goes on to make the point that a brand \u201cused to be a logo or a design or a wrapper. Today, that\u2019s a shadow of the brand, something that might mark the brand\u2019s existence. But just as it takes more than a hat to be a cowboy, it takes more than a designer prattling on about texture to make a brand.\u201d He concludes by stating that, in brand creation, \u201cdesign is essential, but design is not brand.\u201d<\/p>\n My personal view is that the role of design in branding is about the creation of the symbolic or outward face of companies, institutions and services. But as soon as branding becomes about depicting or conveying the less tangible assets such as \u2018brand essence\u2019, \u2018brand promise\u2019, or any of the other clich\u00e9s of branding, I become skeptical about what designers can contribute.<\/p>\n Anyway, telling customers what to think in the age of social media is simply a waste of time. Not only that, it\u2019s also a form of fundamentalism.<\/p>\n The brand effect<\/strong> So whether the brand gurus like it or not, the logo is still king in the world of branding, which in turn prompts the question, why are so many brand theorists in such a rush to downgrade the importance of logos and design in general? Remember Godin\u2019s phrase \u2013 \u201cit takes more than a designer prattling on about texture to make a brand\u201d. Unless I\u2019m very much mistaken, there\u2019s a strong hint of anti-designer sentiment there.<\/p>\n If we accept that the \u2018design\u2019 \u2013 the logo, graphic architecture, and so on \u2013 is the badge of recognition and the point of identification for all brands, then we must also acknowledge that designers are pretty important factors in the making of brands \u2013 perhaps more important than any other individual or group in the entire brand creation process.<\/p>\n If this is true, then it puts a great deal of power directly into the hands of the designers.<\/p>\n And here\u2019s where the problem lies: designers are notoriously tricky and mercurial characters. They\u2019re difficult to control and stubborn about their ideas. As far as the brand consultants, the marketing people and the PR busybodies are concerned, life would be much easier if it could be proved that design is only a minor part of brand building, and much better if non-designers were in control of it.<\/p>\n By making branding into something other than a graphic design discipline, clients have leveraged control of design away from designers and into the hands of various non-designers. You can see this most clearly in the big branding groups, who employ dozens of \u2018suits\u2019 \u2013 strategists, business analysts, account handlers \u2013 and only a tiny number of designers.<\/p>\n Control issues<\/strong> They become obsessed with strategy, values, tone of voice and market research, forgetting that they are judged on their products, their services and their conduct, and not on what they say (or think) about themselves. In other words, businesses imagine that they can brand their way to success \u2013 which of course is an illusion.<\/p>\n There are two major side-effects to allowing non-designers to control branding. The first is to allow logos and design language to emerge that are poor, or in some cases dire, in appearance. The second is that, by allying themselves with the gobbledegook of branding, designers have allowed design to become a junior partner in the brand creation process.<\/p>\n The consequence of this is that most branding programmes are run by non-designers, with predictably bland results.<\/p>\n The decline of the identity designer<\/strong> So when I say that I think it was a mistake that designers stopped being identity designers and became brand designers, I\u2019m not being backward-looking. Instead, I\u2019m saying that it is more progressive to be concerned with the visual image of an entity than it is to be concerned with its \u2018brand values\u2019, which in the end are mostly just smoke and mirrors.<\/p>\n Plus, and this is the really important bit, the other stuff is no longer controllable. Firms and organisations can say that they are \u2018ethical\u2019, \u2018customer centric\u2019 or \u2018service focused\u2019, but unless they really are these things, they are wasting their time saying that they are. For me, this is why designers should stick to design, and firms should not confuse branding with the actual services or products they offer.<\/p>\n Keeping it simple<\/strong> For him, identity is \u201cbuilding the essential elements that an organisation is known by: name, logo or symbol, colour, typographic style and visual language, and how you uniquely put these together, how you express these to create a sign, an image. We create the building bricks of an organisation\u2019s DNA.\u201d<\/p>\n Perkins sees a clear difference between brand creation and identity design: \u201cThe brand is the whole experience, the service, product, personality and expression, and I can\u2019t see how people claim to do the branding, the total experience. We build identities, not brands.\u201d<\/p>\n In Perkins\u2019 view, Vitra, Mercedes, Audi, Apple and Lufthansa all have great brand identities. He calls them \u201ctimeless, and no matter what the climate, consistently strong\u201d. But significantly, all these identities were initially created before branding replaced corporate identity as the primary activity of many designers.<\/p>\n What makes a good brand identity<\/strong> In truth, making a clear visual statement and incorporating some subliminal messaging is really all that a brand identity can hope to do. Any ambition beyond that is simply wishful thinking.<\/p>\n Take the Google logo. It is cheerful, and people seem to like it, especially the way it is allowed to reflect events and anniversaries. It has been created for the digital era \u2013 a near zero-weight logotype designed for fast loading.\u2026 However, my main objection to the logo is that it is a piece of woeful logotype design for one of the most ubiquitous companies, and it could only have emerged in the age of branding. It\u2019s impossible to imagine any of the great logo designers, dead or alive, doing anything as weak and lacking in subliminal qualities. Yet for the age of branding, it is somehow acceptable.<\/p>\n Brand value must be earned<\/strong> For me, all the brand identities that work are memorable, optically robust, and designed with a sense of style and proportion. These are technical qualities that can be evaluated and assessed, but I also look for how well a brand identity is suited to the entity it is serving \u2013 the subliminal qualities that Sean Perkins mentioned. Yet I suspect that in nearly all cases these are retrofitted.<\/p>\n We imbue the logos and physical appearance of a brand with the values that we want. In other words, business and institutions have to earn brand value \u2013 it simply cannot be imposed by a logo, a slogan or a promise. It has to be real.<\/p>\n Words: Adrian Shaughnessy is a graphic designer, writer and educator, and a co-founder of Unit Editions<\/a>, and has authored numerous books on design. He is a senior tutor in graphic design at the Royal College of Art in London. This article has been reproduced with the kind permission of Creative Bloq, and can be viewed in its full form here<\/a>.<\/p>\n In the October issue of Creative Bloq, design commentator Adrian Shaughnessy wrote an article \u2013 \u2018Why designers should give branding back its soul\u2019 \u2013 arguing that brand identity design should be taken out of the hands of strategists and returned to graphic designers.<\/p>\n As someone who trained as a graphic designer and who is choosing to specialise in identity design, I thought it as an opportunity to share some of my thoughts and opinions on branding and identity design.<\/p>\n Graphic designers need to grow up<\/strong> Brand strategy is not something that was taught in design school, at least when I was studying. But understanding the relationship between design and business is central to the branding and identity process. I\u2019ve since become fascinated by brands and branding; its mix of business strategy, leadership, psychology, sociology; and the role design has in influencing brand perception and human behaviour.<\/p>\n If graphic designers want a seat at the top table, they need to have an understanding of business. Michael Johnson of Johnson Banks talks about how if a designer wants any level of control, they must be willing to step into the boardroom.<\/p>\n Branding as a platform<\/strong> When I work with leaders, I see part of my task as helping them to articulate a clear vision for the future of their companies. Their brand identity becomes a platform by which they can share and reinforce their vision in both visual and verbal ways. In the same way we often hear \u2018Brand is not a logo\u2019, identity is not just a logo.<\/p>\n Brand values are important<\/strong> Sure, there are some who seek to use values as a manipulative marketing tactic (spin). But they fail to appreciate that in this hyper-connected and transparent world, they will be found out. But values which are deeply embedded into the life of a organisation can inspire its brand on to greatness.<\/p>\n As Steve Jobs said, \u201cTo me, marketing is about values.\u201d Markets can change, products can change, people can change; but values should not change. When designing an identity with the intention to last, understanding the values that shape a company help to inform the work we do.<\/p>\n Design is strategic<\/strong> By doing graphic design, I get to do a job I love. But I\u2019m not an artist. Graphic design is a job, working for real clients with real business challenges that need to be met.<\/p>\n There is a place for decorators. But when you are a multi-million pound business, or an organisation that serves thousands of people, leaders are looking for something that penetrates deeper. Creativity is not whimsy as some believe. Creativity \u2013 to me at least \u2013 is an ability to think differently and find unexpected solutions.<\/p>\n At the 2012 Clinton Global Initiative, Tim Brown of IDEO said, \u201cDesign at its essence is really about being intentional\u2026about how you want the outcome to be.\u201d Design by definition is strategic, it is planning, it is intentional.<\/p>\n
\nOf course, beyond the world of design it is not the case that everyone accepts branding unreservedly. There are those, such as anti-capitalist activists, who are opposed to branding in all its forms and see it as a representation of unacceptable corporate power. There are also social commentators and cultural thinkers who see our obsession with brands as evidence of enslavement to materialism and consumption. But it is not my intention here to discuss the ethical or political sides of branding.<\/p>\n
\nFirst, we need a clear definition of what branding actually is. In the graphic design section of the website About.com, the following definition is offered: \u201cTo create a \u2018brand\u2019 for a company is to create their image, and to promote that image with campaigns and visuals\u2026. The goal of a brand is to make a company unique and recognisable, and to project a desired image.\u201d<\/p>\n![\"1-Design-vs-Strategy\"](\"http:\/\/www.equus-design.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/1-Design-vs-Strategy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nAs Seth Godin makes clear, brand people love to proclaim that a brand isn\u2019t just a logo. And if you are looking at the total footprint of a brand, then that\u2019s absolutely true. But try building a brand without a logo or graphic architecture, and you\u2019ll find that it simply cannot be done.<\/p>\n
\nThe most significant effect of this is to hand control of branding to brand people, and to be a brand person, you don\u2019t need to be a designer. Business people understand branding in a way that they don\u2019t understand graphic design.<\/p>\n![\"2-Design-vs-Strategy\"](\"http:\/\/www.equus-design.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/2-Design-vs-Strategy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nIn our always-on, networked world, no business or institution can be unconcerned about its public image or its reputation. No one denies that managing a brand\u2019s ecosystem is important and necessary, but without a good visual thumbprint, without good identification collateral, this task is impossible.<\/p>\n![\"3-Design-vs-Strategy\"](\"http:\/\/www.equus-design.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/3-Design-vs-Strategy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nThe designer Sean Perkins founded North, one of the most admired design studios of the past 20 years. The company has created groundbreaking identities for RAC, First Direct, the Barbican and The Photographer\u2019s Gallery. Its work is always robust, distinctive and highly attuned to its client\u2019s needs. But Perkins is adamant that he is an identity designer, not a brand designer.<\/p>\n
\nGood visual branding is honest, graphically expressive and highly memorable. It should be optically sophisticated (not muddled or over-cooked) and it should work in print, digital and broadcast settings. In other words, what Sean Perkins calls \u201ca strong, simple identifier that can imbue subliminal qualities of strength, security, trust and assurance\u201d.<\/p>\n![\"4-Design-vs-Strategy\"](\"http:\/\/www.equus-design.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/4-Design-vs-Strategy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nI want to end with a plea for a return to smart identity design. To try to achieve anything else is almost pointless, and will also involve the designer \u2013 and brand owners and consultants \u2013 making horrendous assumptions and arrogant assertions.<\/p>\nShould branding be in the hands of strategists or designers? Brand identity designer Andy Cogdon gives his perspective.<\/h3>\n
Why graphic designers need to embrace strategy
Andy Cogdon <\/span><\/strong><\/h4>\n
\nWhen I decided to start specialising in identity design, it soon became clear to me that there was a massive knowledge gap that needed to be bridged. I had a decision to make; either to find a brand strategist to work with, or to learn myself.<\/p>\n![\"5-Design-vs-Strategy\"](\"http:\/\/www.equus-design.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/5-Design-vs-Strategy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nBrand to me is an organisation\u2019s DNA, all the things that make them uniquely who they are, and what the organisation stands for in the minds of people. Branding is our attempt to frame people\u2019s experiences of that brand in a positive way; reinforcing the brand promise. Identity is the visual styles, devices and guides which govern this framing. Identity also acts as a platform, through which a brand can share its story with the world.<\/p>\n![\"6-Design-vs-Strategy\"](\"http:\/\/www.equus-design.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/01\/6-Design-vs-Strategy.jpg\")
<\/p>\n
\nAdrian Shaughnessy describes brand values as \u201csmoke and mirrors\u201d and earlier use Apple as an example\u2026\u201cApple products are loved because they work efficiently and look good.\u201d And yet anyone who has spent any time studying Apple will know about its absolute obsession with simplicity. It is one of its core brand values and shapes everything it does. Simplicity has stood it out against its competitors time and again. Simplicity is deeply ingrained into every employee and influences every design decision.<\/p>\n
\n\u201cDo you make things look nice? Do you spend more time worrying about nuance and aesthetic than substance and meaning? Do you fiddle with style while ignoring the big picture? If your answers are yes, yes, or yes, you are a decorator.\u201d \u2013 Steven Heller, Design Cult<\/p>\n