 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
|||||
 |
|||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||
 |
 |
||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Studio GT&P is a graphic design firm based in Foligno, Italy. Work includes: packaging, printed marketing collateral, web sites, corporate identities, visual brand strategies and interactive presentations. Lo Studio grafico GT&P è un'agenzia di graphic design che si occupa di grafica pubblicitaria, realizzazione marchi e loghi, immagine coordinata, siti web, depliant, cataloghi, brochure e marchi.
A brand is a recognizable image of a company; it is born to be reproduced and widespread, hence the need to study its usage and its use in globally recalling to mind a specific image.
A logotype design firm through its
brand is able to transmit to the consumer a clear idea of its activity
and its
products.
Identity
While creating a unique brand experience for every client, Studio GT&P
is dedicated to using sound strategy combined with typography, imagery,
colors and textures.
Each identity communicates an individual and compelling brand promise.
Identity is fact... the effective sum of the facts that can be used, in the minds of various audiences, to distinguish a given entity from all others. To manage identity is to manage these facts.
In thirty years work with CEOs, we've learned there are just three core aspects of the leadership responsibility we need to focus on:
1. Destination, short for who we are and where we're going (includes vision, positioning, corporate purpose and mission statements)
2. Culture and personality How we must behave to get there
3. Composition
How best to express our defining components, to help get there.
Situation factors are other possible facts about the company (real or merely perceived) which can serve in the minds of key audiences as identifying factors. HQ location for example (Kansas City-based Hallmark...). Sometimes they're even stronger than the name and logo; examples are Transamerica's tower (architecture), and Bill Gates (management). These “situation factors” including products, brands, and subsidiaries must be understood in analysis and planning; like all other identity tools they can be reshaped, changed, ‘spun’ and leveraged.
Third, there are the verbal and visual Identity System elements we more directly manipulate... names, theme lines, logos, signature systems, association models and other verbal or visual tools.
The presence of a leader is signaled by an identity system visibly managed to express the institution's defining destination, culture and composition.
The Six Universal Attributes Of a Great Mark
If we weren’t in the room when the decisions were made, if we don’t know what the CEO’s intentions were, how can we say one logo is “better” than another?
As in ice skating, technical merit can be judged independently of communications content, and we can all see the skater fall. The first five things that distinguish great marks from ordinary ones are technical; the last one addresses content. Great marks are always:
1. Distinctive.
The design idea need not be unique in the world, just distinctive enough so you can “own” it in your particular marketplace.
2. Practical.
Can be printed small, in ink or pixels; works in black on white as well as in colors; works in reverse too, white on black. (Faces, human or animal, usually flunk this last test; the eyes turn white.)
3. Graphic.
Communicates purely in visual terms, to the right brain hemisphere; doesn’t depend on verbal, intellectual interpretation. (Example: Tenneco seriously considered and rejected a “10ECO” logo design. Clever, but it’s not a mark, it’s a pun.) If a wordmark, it can be recognized by form alone (you don’t have to “read” Coca-Cola’s logo more than once or twice).
4. Simple in form.
Contains only one graphic idea, one gimmick, one dingbat. Thus if there’s a symbol, the accompanying name is plain and unadorned. And if it is a wordmark, one idea or device makes it special–like IBM’s stripes. (The more unique the name, the simpler the graphics can be.)
5. One message.
In content too, great designs try to express no more than one attribute (such as stature or speed or dynamism) and support a single aspect of positioning.
6. Appropriate.
In the end, of course, the content’s got to be right. An otherwise-great mark fails if the reputation, positioning, and personality expressed are at odds with management intentions.
How does it work? What's it all about?
Here are some key tools used in diagnosis, planning and management of identity solutions.
Components Of Identity >
The three kinds of components that need to be understood, to determine and shape an institution's identity
Corporate Identity Process >
The four universal phases of an identity program... analysis & planning, creative development (naming if needed, and design), application design, and documentation/launch/maintenance.
Corporate Brand Platforms >
The six strategic foundations for planning, designing and managing institutional identity
Decision Trees >
This powerful tool controls naming and branding decisions throughout the corporation, in a way which everyone can understand and accept.
Naming >
A disciplined approach to naming
Guidelines And Standards Manuals >
Here are some on-line examples of the documentation required to maintain great brands
Implementation Checklist >
The corporate media that typically need to be audited and (usually) redesigned
Corporate Brand Platforms
A Corporate Brand Platform is an actionable articulation of management intentions in six parts.
The "Components" tool groups these intentions under three headings... the vision or defining destination, desired culture, and communicated composition. In practice, it helps to break the 'vision' piece into three elements (positioning, purpose and mission) and to add a 'personality' statement to the 'culture' piece. Thus there are six expressions of the leadership intentions I have found most useful to specify, for the purpose of planning, designing and managing the corporate brand:
1. Positioning >
What we hope to "be" in our audiences' minds, compared to other companies
2. Purpose >
What we are in business to do
3. Mission >
Beyond the economics, why it is worth doing
4. Composition >
How we are best seen to be structured to achieve our purpose
5. Culture >
The distinctive shared behaviors that best support our common purpose and mission
6. Personality >
Our chosen style and manner
Not all companies, it’s true, can usefully articulate all six statements. Their units, perhaps, may share no meaningful common purpose, mission or culture. To that extent, however, the corporate brand is by definition weaker; the units themselves may constitute the stronger and more relevant brands.
Time after time, this six-part construct has been proven to be effective as an identity planning tool. (See Celera, Dow Jones, Flowserve, and Commonfund examples.)
Naming & Branding Decision Trees
The general case (PDF): Alpha Corporation Decision Tree
Great companies love creative entrepreneurial managers. Naturally, creative managers love to give a creative name to anything they make or manage, and its own logo too if they can. This can be healthy, creating new brand wealth. But unless it is controlled, it is also a recipe for brand chaos, confused customers, lowered quality impressions, excessive marketing budgets and ultimately a diminished corporate brand.
Should a proposed business (product, service or unit) be descriptively named under the corporate brand? Does it need a descriptive name with a creative twist, just distinctive enough to claim a "TM" designation? Or should it stand more freely under its own unique proprietary name, registered ®, perhaps distanced from the parent? The best answer is almost always a question of optimum balance, between the product or unit's legitimate business interests and the corporation's strategic and communications interests.
It is futile to attack such questions as merely a "logo cop," acting on self-directed principle. You need the support of clear, unarguable policy that everyone from product manager to CEO understands and accepts. The Decision Tree is a magical tool that makes this almost easy.
Fortunately, to get a good fix on the best strategic branding balance in any given business situation, there are only four or five questions that need to be asked. I think these following four question are universal... applicable in all industries. (In a multi-brand company, a fifth question can help... is the proposed offering best thought of an extension of an existing brand family? See Engelhard example, below.) And each question, as it happens, has three possible answers.
• Question 1:
Is the business [product, service, whatever] fully controlled by our management?
• Yes (proceed to question 2 ),
• No (can't use our brand! save for required legal disclosure, in small print) -- Or it's a cooperative or joint venture, under contract, in which case a separate set of brand policy guidelines [not discussed here] comes into play.
• Question 2:
Is management committed, long term, to this initiative?
• Yes...
• Not yet (for example it's a learning experience or market test)
• No (a rare answer... applies to one-time opportunity businesses)
• Question 3:
How do we think this business will impact our master brand?
• It will reinforce our current brand image
• It will help to expand our brand in desired directions
• Its effect on our master brand will be neutral, possibly even negative. (And as a practical matter 'neutral' is also negative, to the extent that any further stretching of the master brand will tend to dilute it.)
• Question 4:
Only then, ask how the corporate or master brand will impact the proposed business. Again there are three choices...
• Positive. The master brand will help launch/establish/support the business.
• Positive if secondary. It will help, but only if it's in a secondary role as sponsor, as ultimate parent and endorser; the business needs to feature its own 'flag.'
• Neutral or negative impact. The master brand is not an asset for the proposed product or business
And that's it. With these four questions, you can construct your own "Branding and Naming Decision Tree." Each situation, each "branch," will lead to a logical and understandable approved signature type... that is, the kind of name (and visual presence) that makes strategic sense for the offering, and its verbal and/or visual association to the parent brand. (Although there are some twenty-four possible branches, there may be only a handful of signature options, six or seven at most. Engelhard, below, offers five options.)
Why is this "tree" approach effective, in gaining support for (often) an ultimately tougher branding discipline? I think it clarifies the issue of balance, between corporate and business-level perspectives. The two 'impact' questions -- impact of the brand and impact on the brand -- are fair and reasonable. They make room for legitimate business marketing initiatives, while reminding everyone of the equally legitimate corporate reputation interests in the business's success.