< dynamic identities
- Started
- Last post
- 12 Responses
- letters2
This article doesnt present to me such a strong case.
1. Its missing some really dynamic campaigns that have been at it for a while, like Fossil.
2. The reasoning seems to me rather poor in this article. For example:
"Radical though they seemed then, dynamic identities are increasingly popular, as Saks's new design program illustrates. One reason is that "consistency" is less effective in today's frenzied, attention-deficit-friendly society, where the average Western consumer is said to be exposed to more than 3,000 corporate symbols a day: that's everything from a logo on a passing truck to branded labels in the fridge. "A stable image becomes invisible," Mau said. "Unless an image is evolving and refreshing it becomes static, which is death to an image."
This is rubbish. "A stable image becomes invisible," "consistency is less effective?" I don'd buy that rationale at all. A stable image is what creates household names/identities (Coca-Cola, FedEx, abc, Playboy, etc.).
Yes, I agree that being "fresh" is important to many brands, but I would argue that the best execution of this principle is usually not a changing identity, but changing contexts, applications, etc.
I do believe there is a place for dynamic identites. My issue is with the article, whose support of the argument in this article is weak at best.
And imagine your potential client reading this and then asking why they should be consistent...
- Silnt0
Good response.
-
- Rand0
although I ostensibly sometimes dabble in branding for a living, I find it increasingly hard to take it seriously or find any interest in discussions of it
- Witt0
I sound my barbaric YAWN over the roofs of the world.
- letters20
*bump*
- frankiefido0
your critique of the article presents a weaker case than the article itself, imho.
"I would argue that the best execution of this principle is usually not a changing identity, but changing contexts, applications, etc."
it sounds like you're missing the point.
- frankiefido0
ps: who fuckin cares about fossil?
- Redmond0
Consistancy devellops steady habits.
All the sports clothing staples like Adidas and Nike haven't changed their branding in years. They just update the colors a little. Madonna is still raking in the big bucks and she just updates the same record a little every 2 years. Weither you like those brands or not is irrelevant, they are effective and lucrative.
Dynamism should be applied only to adapt the brand's image just enough so that by it's secondary elements, it's still associated with the current trends. The core of it should remain the same old same old.
- r_mutt0
Dynamism should be applied only to adapt the brand's image just enough so that by it's secondary elements, it's still associated with the current trends. The core of it should remain the same old same old.
-
(which is precisely what they're talking about)
- letters20
Dynamism should be applied only to adapt the brand's image just enough so that by it's secondary elements, it's still associated with the current trends. The core of it should remain the same old same old.
-
(which is precisely what they're talking about)
r_mutt
(Mar 19 07, 08:22)I'd actually say that the article is arguing not for a consistent mark/brand, but for one that is dynamic/changing. I think the point above is a bit more specific and refined (in the context of all of Redmond's post post) – that the identity stays the same but is used in ever-changing contexts and applications.
- non0
I did not enjoy reading that article.
- r_mutt0
letters, i think you should re-read the article. they're talking about exactly what i quoted from redmond.
- version30
all i saw were buzz words