“When corporate marketing departments dream of brand design, they only dream as far as they need.
The expensive and time consuming process of extending the brand into an interactive concept is usually pushed off until it becomes absolutely necessary.
Unfortunately, by the time some serious rethinking is required, a lot of people have gotten stuck in the mud of static branding. It’s completely natural for companies to resist straying from the handful of predefined styles that were never meant to address web forms, widgets, calendars and menuing systems.
Of all the arguments for modifying brand attributes to better suit a digital experience, the most compelling is this:
The way users feel about their experience is inseparable from the way they feel about your brand.
This maxim holds true for brick-and-mortar experiences as well as for digital interactions. A restaurant with great food but incredibly long lines and a bad wait staff will experience brand damage. The user experience is bad, and people will look elsewhere. The same thing will happen if your users get baffled by confusing menus, hard-to-navigate websites and perplexing layouts. If the user experience is bad, people will look elsewhere.
The way a user feels when they come in contact with a brand interaction point will implicitly shape their image of the brand itself.
This realization is a powerful tool for user experience professionals and can help snap clients and peers out of static thinking.”
It is helpful to remember that even the most accomplished companies have become experts at modifying brand attributes to suit interactive experiences. This is done without sacrificing brands, but rather by extending them.
Amen.
The same thinking applies to your customer service and social media touch-points (which, in some cases, may overlap). When crafting new programs and campaigns, be sure to do so not only with the organization’s framework in mind, but with the customer’s experience in mind. THAT is where the effectiveness of that campaign or program will be decided and where you brand ultimately lives. Don’t let rigid trade dress and 10-year old design “thinking” (I use the term loosely) dictate how your newest project will work, look and feel. If your branding is starting to feel dated, look at your project as an opportunity to refresh it a bit. Be smart. Don’t be a prisoner of the past.
Evolve. Adapt. Extend.
Read the rest of the article here. And for a deeper understanding, check out Jack Spade’s third brand precept (click here) and Bruce Lee’s advice on fluidity vs. rigidity (click here).
Have a great Monday, everyone.
[...] Don’t let rigid “branding” kill your brand « The BrandBuilder Blog thebrandbuilder.wordpress.com/2009/09/21/dont-let-rigid-branding-kill-your-brand – view page – cached “When corporate marketing departments dream of brand design, they only dream as far as they need. — From the page [...]
Ditto that Amen.
I’ve seen/experienced situations where companies function in more of clusters vs. a solid framework. They work departmentally and focus on what THEY would like to see and what THEY think would work best. Taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture is important and many of the times is overlooked on a daily basis.
Thanks for the reminders, Olivier.
I heard a similar concept expressed recently as “operational failure IS brand failure.”
Branding is meant to be a framework on which a company builds its operations, not one into which it contains them. To continue your metaphor, brands need to bend with the world around them, adapt with the shifting sands and winds. To be rigid means to break in the face of change.
Olivier, you hit the nail on the head yet again and I like how you frame your thoughts here. Successful brands design with the customer experience, the TOTAL customer experience, in mind. They also design with the experience of multiple stakeholders in mind. It’s not about their own requirements; it’s about the critical “customer” requirements.
Do you have an example or two of companies or organizations that are too rigid for their own good? What about examples of companies that have demonstrated flexibility in building their brands?
Yes, actually I have worked for two of them, but I will be graceful enough not to throw them under the bus here.
Very well said. Your post is right on the mark. I agree on the evolving, adapting and extending part. Great post alright.
[...] are the products of a a marketer who overcame the voices , the inherent corporate resistance and marcomms rigidity (riga [...]
[...] (Marketing with Meaning) (13) Now is the Media or our Discontent (Renaissance Chambara) (14) Don’t Let Rigid Branding Kill Your Brand (The Brandbuilder Blog) (15) Fear and Loathing in Social Media (Scott Monty) (16) Death of the [...]
Olivier – I’m late to the party on this one, but wanted to leave my $.02 anyways. There was a great article in Fast Company this month about Coca-Cola and their new design “system” that seems to be flexible enough for a world-wide network, but to a large extent retains “control” of the brand.
That’s where I think the magic is – in allowing the brand to breathe, while still ensuring consistency when it is necessary. Easier said than done, for sure.
Agreed: Ideally, you want to establish a balance between brand consistency and organic flexibility.