The article discusses the interaction between brand image and that brand's values and argues that this relationship is often not what we think.
Instead of choosing brand values and then creating an image to communicate, famous brands choose an identity image randomly, without strategy or simply because they think it looks good.
———
Many big brands today have started with creating an identity image that can have a unique and powerful meaning to help that brand grow and avoid competitors.
In 1971, Carolyn Davidson - a graphic design student at Portland State University, was asked by a faculty member to design some publications for Blue Ribbon Sports company for a salary of $2/hour and she happily accepted.
If you haven't noticed yet, this is the story about Phil Knight needing a logo for a new sports shoe called "Nike" named after the Greek Queen of Victory, and that logo was Nike's first logo and it quickly became famous - it was the Swoosh symbol (swoosh symbol) as we still see it today.
<
figure class=”image regular”>
What direction would Nike's history have taken if they hadn't taken that opportunity?
Most theories suggest that the right process for branding is to identify the “brand essence” – perhaps at the heart of the “brand key” or “brand onion” – and then creative work conveys this through images and behaviour.
Because Nike is one of the great brand success stories, I see many people trying to take it as a lesson about brands with "solid values", "solid foundations".
Just as some strong imagery has helped build the brand, there's a certain element to the casual appearance of the Swoosh.
So maybe the impressive visual image of successful brands doesn't always come from careful planning;
It's funny to think that such a powerful symbol had to be created by a panel of Venetian PR and branding experts who conspired to draw a “brand onion” model around words like: “Strength”, “Fierceness”, and “Empire”.
To be clear, I am not only making the point that visual symbols play an important role in branding, but that it is often the visual symbols where the brand begins and from which its uniqueness and meaning derive.
While Michael Dell intended to name the company after himself and did not pay attention to its visual presentation, Steve Jobs decided in 1976 to name his start-up Apple because he had just driven past an apple farm and thought it was a name that evoked a feeling of "fun, excitement, and not scary".
I argue that visual images are not so much representative of (one) meaning as they are the things that create (many) meanings.
Images can have countless meanings.
—————
About the author:
Paul Feldwick is the former director of global brand planning at DDB.
