More and more advertisers are finding new ways to set their brand apart from others as a way to gain consumer mind-share. A prime example of what I'm talking about would be the MAC vs. PC commercials. Companies have always built-up their brands by comparing them to the leading brand and claiming they're better. The difference here is that MAC used subtle humor and sarcasm to subliminally say "Hey...we're better than PC's", without really hitting you over the head with it.
Although the articled referred to a corporate mark as 'ubiquitous', in my opinion many marks in todays corporate America are just the opposite - unambiguous - if they have been branded and positioned correctly and consistently to gain a spot in the consumers memory.
The CBS logo - the all seeing eye - is a good example of a company that has positioned themselves correctly in the industry, and remained consistent with their identity system. This allows them to still be one of the most recognizable corporate marks in America today.
In conclusion, positioning, corporate identity collateral and marks play a very subliminal, but important role in gaining consumer mind-share...just think back on our first exercise. How many brands did we name by looking at only one letter of a logo? It's kind of sick when you think about it. It's almost like brands have a pretty sneaky way of latching onto you brain, even when you don't know it.
Great commentary. The sequence of cognition on page 9 is very helpful in understanding why people remember the marks that they do. While the reading mentions formal qualities, we know from our mapping exercise that experience plays into this as well. We might remember a mark because of how it looks, we also might remember a mark because of an experience we had with it. Also, in your example of Mac vs. PC, I would argue that the Apple logo has come to stand for something much more than computers: it stands for "cool" & "hip".
ReplyDeleteBrands with abstract symbols are often the most recognizable, but the meaning is lost to the average person. When a designer pitches the idea behind a mark, they explain the meaning to the client. With explaining they often make sense. Sometimes, to the mass public, they are just babbling to themselves.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Pepsi redesign, few notice that for each form of Pepsi, there is a variation of the logo. Arnell uses the idea that the white in each logo is a smile. Ok I see that. In the diet forms the smile is smaller, while Pepsi max, super high sugar content, the smile is HUGE. Why? just to differentiate the styles. But I have asked many people, they never noticed.
I agree and disagree with you. While I agree that the average person might not be able to understand the concept behind a companies symbol or logo. But if the symbol or marketed correctly, I think most people would be able to describe the meaning behind it and I think there is a difference between the two.
ReplyDeleteTake Nike and their swoosh for example. I personally don't like the logo as I feel the concept is lost to the average person. Most people don't know nor care to know that Nike is a greek god and that the swoosh represents a wing and how that represents the company. Most just understand that it stands for athletic shoes, or just do it, or nike, etc. So in that the mark has formed its own public definition through clever marketing. Whether or not that goes in hand with the concept is up to debate.
Makes one wonder if a clever concept is even necessary if one can design a distinguishable mark and market the hell out of it so that a meaning is placed into the public. Or maybe I'm just selling the average person short.
The idea that a brand holds a loyalty to a consumer makes the value or branding just that much more crucial. Considering how many new products you are exposed to each year, you have to be able to cut through all the crap initially to get what you want. If a new product comes out from a previously known and trusted company you will notice because of the logo or mark used on the product. You feel comfortable with this product so therefor you will buy that product over the joe-shmoe company selling the exact same thing. This importance is huge, but at the same time this makes rebranding very tricky.
ReplyDeleteFor example take Tropicana. They did a redesign of their juice (who is owned by the Pepsi Co.) and it falls completely flat. It looks almost as if it's a second rate juice that could have been mistaken for Great Value brand. Their numbers showed that the consumer had no problems with the current design yet Pepsi went on this whole re-design kick and screwed themselves. The consumer lost the connection with the product and therefor complained. Maybe this isn't a great "branding" rant but I thought it was an interesting look at how loyalty to the consumer and the consistency of you're look is of great value.