design investigation

brandingexplained and analysed

Branding : Explained

branding :explained Branding is one of the oldest design traits still used today, becoming more and more important, in an industry welcoming styles on a daily basis. The earliest records of branding data back as early as the 1200s, where farmers began branding their livestock, so the public knew who they belong to, a reletavily simple task, considering now branding makes or breaks a company.

So what is branding? Firstly we have to know what a brand on its own is. A brand is the figure of trust between the company and the user, how a brand is perceived, determines its success, be it a start up or established one. Once we have a brand, we have to develop its identity; brand identity is a tangible commodity, it fuels recognition, exaggerates differentiation and makes big ideas accessible. Therefore branding is a discipline, in which one has to seize every opportunity to show why their brand is better than the competitors.

Branding a company or individual goes beyond simply designing an ident (logo), branding goes much deeper than that. Be it a website, menu, accesoriess or a multitude of other things, branding goes through everything related to the relevant company or individual.

The images shown, taken from Alex Martineau’s ‘Denver Bicycle Cafe’ branding outcome, will explain how this process is applied.

Here we have the final logo for the ‘Denver Bicycle Cafe’, a design which Martineau wasnt going to use. When it comes to branding, the importance lies in communicating the brands ethics, rather than the design itself. The logo combines biking, coffee/beer and its location, displayed through iconic imagery related too each, making the message as clear as day. The logo is the primary image for the brand, in many ways the most important, so seeing it on the front window of the restaurant is no suprise.

Here we can see how the all important ident is used on absolutely everything within the cafe; business cards, coasters, menu’s etc. Its important to plaster the brands ident everywhere so it spreads around, and becomes more recognisable, as Martineau says the most important thing that an ident should do is “Ultimately, that it communicates the brand well. It is recognisable and essentially portrays the brand visually”. The aesthetic represented through the ident; the colours, fonts and feel are also going to be present throughout any other promotional material, meaning the decision behind ‘just’ the ident, will effect everything else. Also opening up the possibility for brand architecture within the ident can be very handy, if their are ideas for expanding the brand, beyond one area of bussiness, such as FedEx.

“Ultimately, that it communicates the brand well. It is recognizable and essentially portrays the brand visually.” Alex Martineau

branding explained / 02

branding :BRANDMARKSBrandmarks are designed with an almost infinite amount of possibilities, ranging from literal, to symbolic and word driven. The boundries among these categories of marks are not essentially defined since a number of brands decide to borrow bits from a number of categories, but knowing the differences and similarities is very useful - since certain types are better for their relevant brand counterparts.

topologysignatureA signtature is the relationship between a logotype and the tag line. Some brands acommondate split signatures that allow the mark and logotype to be seperated. The positioning of the signature can allow for user or brand choice depending on the need.

The Sequence of cognitionThe way an individual processes a brandmark is very much the same, with us first seeing the shape, than the visual imagery and lastly we have to decode the text. Reading is not necessary to understand a shape, but to identify a shape its necessary to read. Colour is next, the right colour has to allow for brand awarness but also for differintiation. Content is the last to be processed therefore its the least important when it comes to recognition.

wordmarks

letter forms

emblems

Pictorial marks

abstract / symbolic marks

A freestanding acronym, company name, or product name that has been designed to conver a brand attitude or positioning.

A unique design using one or more letterforms that act as a mnemonic device for a company name.

A mark in which the company name is inextricably connected

An immediatly recognizable literal image that has been simplified and stylized.

A symbol that conveys the big idea, and often embodies strategic ambiguity.

of marks

brand recognition / 04

Branding :brand recognition

IntroductionBranding ident’s (logos) are one of the most important features of a brands identity. They build trust, provide a link between the company/individual and its audience as well as being the go to definition of the company/individual. Therefore making the brands ident as recognisable as possible is somewhere at the top of the list, when designers begin making them.

What I want to find out is, how recognisable these brands really are, be it Coca Cola or a less known brand such as Target. How far engraved are they in us, how far can they be stripped back and distorted before they become unrecognisable (or will they?). Having created minimalist (abstract) takes of some of the worlds most famous brands, over a range of sectors, then showing them to a group of people, I want to know...

Does the brand still exist?

brand recognition / 06

Right10%

90%

Coca Colabrand recognition / 08

05

kodak

Right45%

55%

brand recognition / 10

07

Marlboro

Right20%

80%

brand recognition /12

09

Burger King

Right20%

80%

brand recognition /14

11

Google

50%50%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition /16

13

95%

pepsi

Right5%

95%

brand recognition /18

15

BMW m3

Right65%

35%

brand recognition /20

17

Amazon

Right25%

75%

brand recognition / 22

19

BBC

Right75%

25%

brand recognition / 24

21

Nintendo

Right75%

25%

brand recognition / 26

23

Atari

Right20%

80%

brand recognition / 28

25

hewelett Packard

Right15%

85%

brand recognition / 30

27

Harley Davidson

Right50%50%

brand recognition / 32

29

Subway

45%55%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 34

31

HBO

20%80%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition /36

33

Ebay

65%35%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 38

35

NBC

50%50%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 40

37

Apple

65%35%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 42

39

Target

65%35%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 44

41

Royal Air Force

50%50%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 46

43

LG

80%20%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 48

45

Ebay

65%35%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 50

47

OXfam

85%15%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 52

49

Lego

70%30%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 54

51

Adobe

Right10%

90%

brand recognition / 56

53

Bic

Right55%

45%

brand recognition /58

55

Cartoon Network

Right45%

55%

brand recognition / 60

57

T-Mobile

65%35%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 62

59

Eurosport

70%30%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 64

61

Cisco

35%65%

Wrong

Right

brand recognition / 66

63 Participants Results 20 different participants, of different backgrounds and ages took part in this test, resulting in an array of different results. Each participant was shown the exact same collection of idents, in the same order for the same amount of time, with their first answer being the one chosen. The infographic holds the participant data, starting from the centre outwards, from Aloy to James#2, showing how many of the 30 different idents the participant got right; a full ‘green’ circle is all right, half green is 15/30 and so on, therefore being able too compare results is quick and easy. There are certain patters, such as Taavi, Rachey and James, getting the same amount wrong, yet nothing really links them, besides two being male. The infographic it self has also been designed in a specific way, to look like a fingerprint, so it represents the identity of the participants and the brands. Although on the face of it, you could say the results look random, besides a number of people getting the same answers... but looking deeper and further we find their is much more correlation than first meets the eye.

aloy helen kay andrew quarina jit jamie anh tavis Ash

Ash Alba Jack Piper taavi Rachey james George Jay James#2

right

Wrong

brand recognition / 68

technology 23%

computing 6%

consumer 23%analysingvariablesHaving separated out all of the participants results in an easy to read infographic, it was a matter of now separating, understanding and analysing the variables that go with that. The infographic is split up into 5 different sections, each one showing a different set of variables (sex and age of the participants, 2 aimed at the design of the ident, and the last looking at the sectors of the brands).

Firstly, when looking at the sex of the participants, they were 71% male and 29% female with the males getting 68% of their answers right compared to 53% of the females.

Of all these participants 35% were born in the 80s while the rest in the 90s.

Now when looking at the design theory behind the idents, 36% were single colour compared to 64% which were multi colour. While both the minimalist and abstract designs were split evenly in a 50/50, although 81% were answered correctly when it comes to the minimalist designs, compared to 69% with the abstract designs.

food 16%

entertainment 30%

single colour identsMulti colour idents

participants born in the 80s participants born in the 90s

minimalist ident designsabstract ident designs

female participantsmale participants

brand recognition / 70

ConclusionThrough this experiment and the ability to correspond with industry experts / literature, I have broadened my knowledge and understanding of branding as a whole. Having the opportunity to test a brands recognisability on the strength of its most publicised image (ident) has been very enjoyable and has come up with some interesting results.

Firstly I feel the fact that the males did better in this experiment has nothing to do with the selection of brands used. I believe this is much more down to the males being more brand aware, and possibly to an extent quite possibly spending more time browsing areas where brands are more prominent (tv, magazines, internet) than the females. While the decade in which the participants were born, seem to have very little relevance, since every company has been around during their lifetime.

Looking at the results from a design standpoint, of the 36% single colour idents, 72% were answered correctly, while the 64% of the multi coloured idents were correctly answered 77% of the time. Which to me says the use of colour, and pattern through the use of colour, really does work and catches your attention for that little bit longer. While the fact that the minimalist designs were answered correctly 13% more of the time, shows that stripping away the shapes that are the foundations of the brand, to many make the brand much less recognisable.

The range of brands shown in the previous infographic shows the broadness of this experiment. One of the most interesting results from this that I noticed were that the second you abstract the Windows / Apple logo’s in front of anyone (over half of the participants were design students) they seem to lose sight of the brand; which is amazing since the design students interact with these brands on a daily basis.

In the end I have found that branding is an extremely strong tool, in many cases going beyond the ident of the particular brand. If a brand uses its exposure well, uses colour and a few skills such as repetition well, no matter how much you abstract the brand, some sort of recognisable piece of it still will be there.

konrad ziemlewskigdnmyear 2