You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Branding’ category.
“We need a flier (brochure, website, logo),” is how most design projects are initiated. That’s when the possibilities start to dissolve.
Maybe it’s a mandate from on high.
Maybe it’s what you’ve done every year.
Maybe you hope the flier will clarify what you want to accomplish. But that’s backwards.
Even when you really know you need a website or an annual report or an event logo, you should first ask why.
A brochure or a flier is merely a form — the what. They are just vehicles for your message.
The form could be writing in the sky.
The form could be a wine and cheese party with a presentation.
The form could be a short video.
Don’t limit the possibilities by starting with the what. Since you (as the client) are always right, you might get just what you ask for. But the most beautiful flier in the world can’t make up for the lack of why.
Even if you do describe the function as well as naming the form, you still risk thinking in limiting terms. You’ll always see a flier as a two-sided piece of paper folded in thirds. You’ll always see an annual report as an accounting of numbers. Maybe the flier can also be a lampshade. Maybe the annual report can also be an invitation (invitation in a broad sense, not a literal event).
Start with why. Now there’s potential for surprise or clever reuse or delight.
This new approach has a built-in problem though. What exactly do you ask for? How do you budget for why rather than what? How can you ask for a cost estimate if there’s no what to describe?
It requires a shift in thinking.
You’ll see design as a way of thinking, a problem-solving tool — not an end in itself, a poster or a website. This shift in thinking might cause you to hire different people, to ask different questions, to engage in a different way than you had before.
The end result might still be a logo, but now you’ll see the logo not as colors and fonts but as a container for your values and aspirations in a way you hadn’t before.
Designer Yves Behar of FuseProject told an interesting story at a sustainable design conference called Compostmodern. As a partnering design firm with Puma, he and his design team noticed that the plastic sleeves that t-shirts arrived in from the manufacturer could be folded just one more time, making the plastic sleeve smaller, thereby reducing waste and saving Puma tons of money. This was able to happen because of the unique relationship between the design firm and Puma that gave designers access to the inner workings of the company.
This ingeniously simple solution came about by chance and because the why was about a sustainability, not about redesigning t-shirts.
On your next project, let the form remain a blank slate until you’re really sure what the function is.
See related posts:
• The Tree of So-So? Or the Forest of Effective.
• Design Briefs: Don’t Get Caught Without Them
……………………..
(Image credit: Flickr / Amanda Wood, under a Creative Commons license)
You sit down to write copy for that new project. Words flow easily about what you’ve done and who you are. You can describe the what, where and when with finesse. The only problem is, in nearly every instance, the reader is going to ask, “What’s in it for me?”
It doesn’t matter if it’s a report, a marketing brochure, a workshop description or a fact sheet. It doesn’t matter if the reader is a committed, in-your-camp devotee. It doesn’t matter how much you think they need your information or how interesting it is.
Why is focusing on benefits so hard?
“I want to work smarter, not harder in 2012,” a friend resolved at an annual New Years Day party where guests reflect on the past year and state intentions for the new one.
Working smarter often involves working harder at first, but not harder on the same old stuff. Working smarter means putting systems in place that conserve time, energy and money. But that work often means asking hard questions. Otherwise we would set up resource-saving systems more often.
Which brings me to marketing budgets. It’s easy to squander time and money, equally valuable assets. Read the rest of this entry »
It is always easier to do than to plan to do. We often have an internal knowing about where we’re going and what we want to accomplish, whether it’s a visionary decision or just a project. So we skip the kinds of meaningful questions that help us chart the best path.
But that’s because the questions can stop you in your tracks (proof that you’re getting somewhere!) because they’re hard to answer. They involve having to think critically about who you are and why you do what you do. They call to mind selling and marketing, which most of us avoid.
But most of all, we’re not clear about who we’re walking towards. Or we’re walking towards everyone and no one. Read the rest of this entry »
Chances are as a business owner — especially a service-oriented business — you have something to offer beyond your core service that people want, maybe even need. But you’re not giving or selling that information or wisdom.
Think about your typical day and all the actions you take, the opinions you have, the advice you give, the troubles you troubleshoot. We all have blinds spots when it comes to what comes naturally. We don’t realize there is value in that pool of deep knowledge or interest we’ve spent years cultivating. We don’t think that sharing or selling that advice or information is a possibility. You might be thinking, “It’s just how I do my job.” Or, “Who would want to know that?” Read the rest of this entry »
If I’m looking for any kind of service, I don’t normally use Craigslist. (Though I am looking for an expandable Danish modern dining room table.) I prefer to ask colleagues or friends for referrals. It beats a shot in the dark. And referrals are a great way to share some love within your tribe.
But after asking around for WordPress developer referrals to add to my list, I was curious to look on Craigslist. Not surprisingly, many of the listings include the word affordable.
What’s wrong with affordable? After all, aren’t we always looking for a bargain? Read the rest of this entry »
The word brand and its counterparts, the mind-boggling (and snooty-sounding) array of words like brand architecture, brand extension, vertical branding, diagonal branding (okay, I made that last one up) are enough to make you not want to bother.
This leads small business people to think branding is only for the Martha Stewarts and Budweisers of the world. But as overused as the word brand is, it’s the only word we have to describe the totality of what a company represents to the outside world. Read the rest of this entry »
As an independent professional, you’re faced with whether to call yourself “I” or “we.” The alternative is to use only a company name and risk producing awkward copy for your website. Awkward, because when you don’t feel comfortable owning that you’re an “I,” but don’t want to claim you’re a “we,” you end up with passive language or other clunky constructions. Worse, you simply can’t express some ideas using only a company name in your verbiage.
I’ve gone back and forth on the issue. I’m coming down on the side of being an “I.” I really am an “I.” I don’t become a “we” because I extend my services by working with other professionals. Not in a true sense, unless this happens on every project, which it doesn’t. Some who all themselves “we” when they’re really an “I” might have a good rationalization. It makes me squeamish so I’ve always avoided “we,” and, well, have a hard time describing my services and client case studies with ease and clarity. Read the rest of this entry »
A better path for your next communication problem
(Download the white paper for The Tree of So-So? Or the Forest of Effective.)
creative commons license / flickr user: Today is a good day
Few businesses these days can afford to throw dollars at any communications unless they see some value—value being the relationship between cost paid and results achieved. Nonprofits especially can’t afford to, with budgets and staff strained as they are. Why then do so many organizations approach projects in ways that hinder their ability to be as effective as they could be?
…and this time with a cousin in the creative community, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for their Art Works logo design contest. While not openly advertising it as a contest, NEA is asking for completed design work to be submitted with the proposal. Some may ask “So what?” But there has been long-standing opposition in the creative community about speculative work. For thorough explanations of this issue, see here and here. The fact that this has come up so often makes one wonder why such a notable institution would engage in this way.
The design community is chiming in from various corners like today’s Huffington Post article and comments on the NEA’s own Web page for the contest announcement itself. Debbie Millman, president of AIGA sent out a tweet today questioning NEA’s intentions.
If you had the energy to wade through the 23-page RFP (request for proposal), you’d note the curious lack of creative brief (I discuss briefs here). A government agency needs pages and pages of liability, rules and restrictions. But for such a seemingly important project, for which they are willing to spend upwards of $25,000, the fact that the creative criteria for the work is so thin seems negligent.
Here is the RFP. There are also two amendments—answers to proposers’ questions. Some questions revealed a lack of reading the most basic elements of the proposal, which NEA found themselves repeating over and over: how many design options can I submit? One. Some questions revealed a laudable desire for more information. One asked why they were asking for design solutions in a proposal. NEA justifies this request saying: Since we believe that art works for everyone, this is meant as an opportunity to solicit ideas from as broad a public as possible and invite this country’s creative community to engage with their NEA.
While this is a nice thought, the benefits are not to the country’s creative community; they are to NEA—free ideas, no guarantee that any idea will be selected and ownership of all submitted ideas.
Which brings me to a few big problems with this RFP (aside from the obvious).
The “winner” believes they can get $25,000 if their proposal is chosen. NEA makes no claim to compensate that amount; it is merely their budget’s upper limit. I’m sure NEA has figured out that it’s in their best interests to pick a design that they can live with (but which represents them well enough), and have money left over. This is what multiple free ideas gets you—leveraging power. And once the work is done, it’s hard to justify the worth. The designer did give it away for free after all. Why would the recipient bother spending $25,000?
Another problem is the lack of a well-fleshed out brief about the Art Works program. The thin criteria designers are reacting to amounts to designing in a vacuum, rather than designing for a purpose. The “audience” is the American people. Given our health care debate, you’d hardly think we were one people. Not that it’s impossible to design for such a diverse group, just that you would think an organization like the NEA with a $25,000 budget cared enough to communicate more.
Also, it is surprising that a government-funded organization, also receiving donations, has the staff time available to receive, organize, print and review hundreds, maybe thousands, of submissions. Is this in line with their mission? And I’m on their side!
If the NEA had kept to the original (implied) spirit by limiting submissions to students, it could begin to justify the contest if they were to build an educational campaign around identity development. But the project is open to the world at large. And the fact that they are also claiming ownership of all submitted ideas means that they are freeing themselves of liability should they decide to use those ideas down the road, uncompensated.
There is more to say on this subject than I should write in a blog post. I’ll just end with this ironic statement from the RFP, which is the third of three interpretations of the word Art Works, as seen by NEA.
3. “Art Works” is a reminder that arts workers are real workers who are part of this country’s real economy. They earn salaries, support families, pay taxes. Artists are also entrepreneurs and placemakers, who revitalize towns, cities, and neighborhoods – both the economies and the ethos of them.
I couldn’t agree more.
Update June 2: Read D.K. Holland’s piece in Communication Arts: “Where Our Wild Things Are: Graphic design ethics in an age of exacerbation.”
