http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/ Wed, 01 Sep 2010 19:52:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/#comment-5016 Mokokoma Mokhonoana Thu, 27 May 2010 10:10:19 +0000 http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4206#comment-5016 Graham, I agree with Andrew, a company with a logo is a brand. Irrespective of how poorly executed their strategy might be, it is still a brand. The thing is, a company doesn't really need to have a branding strategy in place for it to be regarded as a brand. A branding strategy is merely the company's efforts to control, direct, or manipulate the associations that consumers place on their business. A brand is a perception, and perceptions reside in the mind (of consumers). A simple example would be a logo designed by the client's neighbour's son with Microsoft Word, as much as it is likely to be of a second-rate quality, the sad reality is that it is still a logo. It is not the execution (good or bad) that defines the process, intent, practice or thing. A logo is merely a trigger of those association that consumers have attached to a company, it is what lies within those associations that should make the sale — and not the logo. If a client is to hire me, it will be largely based on the associations (incl. expectations) that they have attached to me — and not the letters M.o.k.o.k.o.m.a All the eight letters can do, is bring those associations to the client's mind. *A brand's being is not dependent on the presence (or absence) of a logo. Likewise, a human being doesn't rely on having a name to be.
I agree with Andrew, a company with a logo is a brand. Irrespective of how poorly executed their strategy might be, it is still a brand.

The thing is, a company doesn’t really need to have a branding strategy in place for it to be regarded as a brand.

A branding strategy is merely the company’s efforts to control, direct, or manipulate the associations that consumers place on their business.

A brand is a perception, and perceptions reside in the mind (of consumers).

A simple example would be a logo designed by the client’s neighbour’s son with Microsoft Word, as much as it is likely to be of a second-rate quality, the sad reality is that it is still a logo.

It is not the execution (good or bad) that defines the process, intent, practice or thing.

A logo is merely a trigger of those association that consumers have attached to a company, it is what lies within those associations that should make the sale — and not the logo.

If a client is to hire me, it will be largely based on the associations (incl. expectations) that they have attached to me — and not the letters M.o.k.o.k.o.m.a

All the eight letters can do, is bring those associations to the client’s mind.

*A brand’s being is not dependent on the presence (or absence) of a logo. Likewise, a human being doesn’t rely on having a name to be.]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/#comment-5014 Andrew Sabatier Thu, 27 May 2010 09:11:46 +0000 http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4206#comment-5014 @Graham The point is not just to discuss a suitable replacement for the term logo, the point is to demonstrate that a whole new language-space is required to handle brands. A language-space that the term 'logo' works to obscure. Any discrete identity can be usefully handled as a brand and no identity needs to be successful to qualify as a brand. A company with a logo is a brand, it's just not very effectively branded and probably not very effectively run as a business either. All that varies between brands is the extent to which all the various brand marks work to create an effective identity, regardless of the identity's main purpose or efficacy. A company with only a logo to show for their branding has clearly not managed their brand properly. Every aspect of a brand should be articulated by a coordinated concert of brand marks. Graham, you're imposing a limitation on the definition of a brand, a definition that says more about how you view brands than about what brands actually are. To fully grasp the point of the term 'brandmark' is to understand the necessity of a new way to handle brands (and branding). If all you can show for a business is it's logo then, indeed, you haven't created a brand you've just designed a logo. Logo's alone shouldn't be expected to represent brands. On this basis it should be clear that logos aren't worth much. A.
The point is not just to discuss a suitable replacement for the term logo, the point is to demonstrate that a whole new language-space is required to handle brands. A language-space that the term ‘logo’ works to obscure.

Any discrete identity can be usefully handled as a brand and no identity needs to be successful to qualify as a brand. A company with a logo is a brand, it’s just not very effectively branded and probably not very effectively run as a business either.

All that varies between brands is the extent to which all the various brand marks work to create an effective identity, regardless of the identity’s main purpose or efficacy. A company with only a logo to show for their branding has clearly not managed their brand properly. Every aspect of a brand should be articulated by a coordinated concert of brand marks.

Graham, you’re imposing a limitation on the definition of a brand, a definition that says more about how you view brands than about what brands actually are.

To fully grasp the point of the term ‘brandmark’ is to understand the necessity of a new way to handle brands (and branding). If all you can show for a business is it’s logo then, indeed, you haven’t created a brand you’ve just designed a logo.

Logo’s alone shouldn’t be expected to represent brands. On this basis it should be clear that logos aren’t worth much.

A.]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/#comment-5012 Graham Smith Wed, 26 May 2010 11:40:36 +0000 http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4206#comment-5012 Whilst I agree that the word 'logo' can now be associated with quite shoddy workmanship, to term them 'brandmarks' is quite inappropriate. This leads to the whole misuse of the word brand. Brands are not a given. Not every company that has a logo 'is' a brand. You can't promise to create a client a successful brand, neither should you advertise this fact. Yet designers of all disciplines believe that a brand is something you can attribute to everything from a logo for a small town shop, to a unknown financial consultant. Brands are created in the eyes of the consumer etc. So to change from 'logo' to 'brandmark' as a universal replacement does nothing to stop the confusion that people already have over what a brand really is. I had a massive dialogue on this very thing in my Facebook stream last week, it was astonishing how many designers truly believed one can design and create a successful brand. You can claim, advertise that you design and create identities, idmarks, logo and identity design, but should not claim you design brands or brand identitiy. Unless you are able to predict the future and assure all your new clients that you have the power to turn public opinion in their favour, regardless of the quality of he product, business or service in question. The way that designers misuse brand leads to confusion and expectation in the eyes of everyone else and clients. Clients want a successful brand, so they assume it can be guaranteed if a designer says so. Just not the case. Saying all that, and going back to the word 'logo', if a refresh was to be given to the name, it would need to be chosen carefully.
This leads to the whole misuse of the word brand. Brands are not a given.

Not every company that has a logo ‘is’ a brand. You can’t promise to create a client a successful brand, neither should you advertise this fact. Yet designers of all disciplines believe that a brand is something you can attribute to everything from a logo for a small town shop, to a unknown financial consultant.

Brands are created in the eyes of the consumer etc.

So to change from ‘logo’ to ‘brandmark’ as a universal replacement does nothing to stop the confusion that people already have over what a brand really is.

I had a massive dialogue on this very thing in my Facebook stream last week, it was astonishing how many designers truly believed one can design and create a successful brand. You can claim, advertise that you design and create identities, idmarks, logo and identity design, but should not claim you design brands or brand identitiy. Unless you are able to predict the future and assure all your new clients that you have the power to turn public opinion in their favour, regardless of the quality of he product, business or service in question.

The way that designers misuse brand leads to confusion and expectation in the eyes of everyone else and clients. Clients want a successful brand, so they assume it can be guaranteed if a designer says so. Just not the case.

Saying all that, and going back to the word ‘logo’, if a refresh was to be given to the name, it would need to be chosen carefully.]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/#comment-5011 Andrew Sabatier Wed, 26 May 2010 11:09:01 +0000 http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4206#comment-5011 Mokokoma 'Brand identity' is not a suitable replacement for the term logo because a brand defines a specific identity that is made up of much more than just a logo. All identities can be handled as brands but typically it is only commercial identities that are handled as brands. It's not so important that the term 'logo' is replaced but that an identity handled as a brand is understood as a system of brand marks of which one brand mark is primary. In the context of referring to brands as made up of brand marks the primary brand mark is indicated in use as one word ie. brandmark. So, technically the term 'logo' should be replaced by the term 'brandmark'. A brandmark is only one type of brand mark. Using the term 'logo' is not wrong but its use tends to hinder people from thinking in terms of all the marks of a brand and on this basis its use should be discouraged. A.
‘Brand identity’ is not a suitable replacement for the term logo because a brand defines a specific identity that is made up of much more than just a logo. All identities can be handled as brands but typically it is only commercial identities that are handled as brands.

It’s not so important that the term ‘logo’ is replaced but that an identity handled as a brand is understood as a system of brand marks of which one brand mark is primary. In the context of referring to brands as made up of brand marks the primary brand mark is indicated in use as one word ie. brandmark. So, technically the term ‘logo’ should be replaced by the term ‘brandmark’. A brandmark is only one type of brand mark.

Using the term ‘logo’ is not wrong but its use tends to hinder people from thinking in terms of all the marks of a brand and on this basis its use should be discouraged.

A.]]>