Like a plot twist gone astray, the streaming film company, Netflix, has once again befuddled customers by reversing course with a recent brand announcement. Weeks ago, Netflix announced its intention to divide its streaming and physical mail business units into two separate entities, while simultaneously apologizing for recent price hikes. This effort was intended to kick off the renamed DVD mail service, christening it Qwikster. Apparently, public outcry and common sense won the day, as Netflix backtracked and rejiggered its plans.

This on-again, off-again game of brand Twister has damaged the Netflix name and its brand cache. While we can only guess at the business reasons that motivated these decisions, it’s plain to see how Netflix shot itself in the foot from a brand perspective.

In some ways, the rationale behind Netflix’s merry-go-round of christening, defending, and retreating from its plans doesn’t matter. Brand identities are tightly bound up in what people think and feel about a particular brand, and most everyday customers won’t ever get to know a company’s reasoning for an initiative. They shouldn’t have to — brand decisions are made in the present, where they affect, challenge, and reflect on an organization — for better or for worse.

We think it’s a useful and instructive exercise to rewind the film, so to speak, and walk through some of the reasons why Netflix’s actions are the equivalent of a disaster movie, or maybe just brand mistakes, seen in high definition.

Brand Equity Squandered
Netflix painstakingly built and earned its reputation as a forward-thinking, powerful content provider, employing a Long Tail strategy to re-envision the movie rental industry. The future-forward vision of delivering films and television to users initially focused on using direct mail as the vehicle for providing films quickly. Fast delivery, responsive customer service, and a super-optimized supply system were all strong brand attributes, and crucial to its growth. Coupled with the company’s commitment to developing better and better recommendation algorithms, all of these factors drove Netflix’s popularity and to a place as the leader in its sector. Cute little red envelopes became synonymous with fast service and the delight and surprise of receiving your next film in the mail. The website experience of Netflix was helpful, friendly, and user focused.

But changes have taken hold in the industry, with corporations moving towards streaming models of delivery, and while Netflix did it first (and arguably, best), it mis-managed the evolution of its brand. This Qwikster debacle grew out of this shift away from Netflix’s original model, and that, coupled with an earlier price hike, started pushing away many of the company’s loyal customers and fans. In surprisingly short order, Netflix began squandering many of the good feelings and past positive experiences previously associated with its brand, as users began to feel excluded and alienated from the formerly warm embrace of Netflix.

Business-friendly, User Hostile
The move to focus more on streaming users makes sense, and that change is a wise one for the company. But the initial concept of the Qwikster rollout was primarily built around the needs of the business, and not users. From a user experience perspective, it seems foolish and nonsensical for a single company to force current users to navigate two distinct websites, handle user accounts separately, and degrade the user experience by providing no integration between the related sites. These are not the actions of a company focused on its customer base, and it made many of the Netflix DVD/Blu-Ray subscribers feel like second-class citizens.

Better to Retreat Than Stand Your Ground
But we have to cut Netflix a little slack. Every brand has missteps. Remember the Apple Newton? No one is immune from screw ups, and the best and most popular brands get to make their mistakes right in the spotlight. So, a brand has to make a decision — to retrench, and fix the problems, or stand their ground and defend the decision. But we know what happened to other brands who’ve gone down this path. New Coke? Tropicana rebranding? The Gap logo? You can circle the wagons, but eventually consumer-facing brands need to kneel before their customers and offer the mea culpa. The above brands survived after all the hoopla, and the name of the game is moving forward after a mistake.

But Who Drives This Train?
Of course, this seems to suggest a dangerous precedent. How willing are companies and organizations to hold the line when a seemingly unpopular decision promises to lead to better places tomorrow? Good PR can’t always serve as the indicator for whether a decision is correct or not. Often, the issue is not the actual decision itself, but how it is communicated to the target audiences and public at large. But even if communication is pitch-perfect and completely on-brand, bad things still happen to good brands. Sometimes a temporary black eye is the cost of visionary leadership.

Still Wondering
All that being said, Netflix’s handling of the scenario was odd — with strange communications, then an out-of-the-blue reversal. The company’s delivery was odd, which caused many to speculate that this rebranding was setting up its mail delivery component to be spun off completely, in anticipating of selling it off to another entity. Perhaps Netflix wanted to distance itself from soon-to-be-obsolete technology, maintaining its technology-forward brand image. Or possibly, the company wanted to jettison the extra baggage of hard costs and labor of mail service, as it seeks to become the premier content partner for streaming devices and online.

In the end, we don’t know. But we do know that Netflix could have done a few things to avoid these pitfalls. Here are a few brief thoughts that might serve as a good reminder:

Keep users first. There is always a fine line between decisions that make good business sense, and those that are good for users. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made. But when in doubt, the more profitable decisions (in the long term) will always be for the good of customers.

It’s all about tone. How an organization communicates hard truths (like a price hike) is almost as important as the content of the actual message. Honesty, sincerity, and a clear message about why a decision will eventually benefit an audience will go much further than a strange, pseudo-apology. Directness, transparency, and consistency are the keys.

Don’t underestimate the value of a good name. Netflix almost threw away millions of dollars of brand equity by renaming part of their service. Forget the fact that the name was poorly-conceived (I still can’t spell it correctly!). Any change was a poor one, if it wasn’t going to utilize the goodwill, recognition, and singular awareness of a little red DVD envelope. When your organization spends years, millions of dollars in advertising, and the hard work of building a brand people can trust, renaming must be done with the most sober of mind, if it needs to be done at all.

While the book won’t be officially released until next month, here are some fun moments we’ve had during the process:

The photo shoot for the cover in LA. We did the art direction for this shoot both in Los Angeles and via Skype to Chicago. Cover photography by our great friend Love Ablan. Love also shot all of the artwork for the book interiors as well.

Press proofs from the interior of the book, showcasing some great video game inspired art by artists from all over the world.

Some shots of the book on press (a web press, to be specific) at the press check with our printer, Quad Graphics, in Massachusetts.

We’ve just received our copy of the brand-new inspiration book by LogoNest. The book was an outgrowth of the popular logo website, and we were asked to lend our voice to this first collected volume. Hexanine partner Tim contributed the case study/tutorial “Marrying Symbol And Metaphor.” It’s at home among other great writing by Steve Zelle (of Processed Identity), Leighton Hubbell, and a slew of other design authors.

Below is an excerpt from “Marrying Symbol And Metaphor.” For the rest of the story and more great logo inspiration, you can purchase the limited-edition book at the LogoNest website.

Defining The Symbol
A symbol is roughly defined as an image, object or depiction that represents something else. Understanding the basics of symbology is at the core of what we do as designers. It’s crucial for identity designers to absorb the basic symbols of culture, whether they are derived by association, resemblance, or convention. Symbols are super-valuable, because they communicate a vast amount of information with simplified visual depictions. Think of a stop sign’s associations, or the cross that represents a broad array of religious thought. These symbols don’t tell a complete story, but they stand in for much more complex thoughts or concepts. So, the first step of crafting an excellent logo is to generate a library of relevant symbols.

Recently Dr. Pepper Snapple Group redesigned one of its flagship products, Squirt soda. We teamed up with client and collaborators at BevReview to bring you an analysis of the new package design.

Here’s an excerpt:

There are so many factors that influence the success of a beverage brand that have nothing to do with the actual flavor or taste of the drink. In some sense, the way a drink tastes is last in a long chain of events leading up to purchase and guzzling. Every step that leads up to the actual drink pouring down your throat is what brand designers call a “moment of brand engagement,” a singular opportunity for beverage makers to connect with you, the prospective audience/purchaser.

Check out the rest of the article at BevReview, and let them (and us) know what you think.

During the research phase of a recent identity project, we spent some time revisiting numerous examples of what we like to call “fluid identities” — logo systems that use multiple iterations of a mark (or series of marks) to communicate a particular aspect of a brand. These might take the form of a logo that changes with each viewing, or a singular mark that gets impregnated with different imagery, depending on the context. At one point, these types of projects were few and far between, but now these isolated examples have grown into a full-blown trend. The days of the static logo are certainly not extinct, but this persistent way of thinking about malleable identities seems like a portend of things to come.

A logo system comprised of many moving parts and contextual styles is clearly not right for every project, and this approach shouldn’t be used carelessly or without deep consideration for the brand connection. Instead, this way of thinking about a fluid identity is another (powerful) tool in the designer’s “bag of tricks.” Like any other design approach (whether it’s a grid style or a Photoshop filter) this is not a gimmick — it’s a way to solve the client’s identity design issues. The examples we’ve collected probably do the best job in explaining the needs and rationales for such a project, so you’ll find them below. We’ve grouped them into categories based on how their mechanics and fluid natures are utilized. We hope this article will serve as a useful resource, so feel free to leave examples we haven’t unearthed in the comments below.

Identities based on the brand’s DNA

Even though they are different, each of the following examples uses some concrete part of their brand’s DNA to populate the fluid nature of the identity.

Client: MML Mobile Media Lab
Designers: Etienne Bourque-Viens (Pixel Circus), Raphaël Daudelin (FEED), Michael Longford (York University), Anouk Pennel (FEED)
Description: Echoing the client’s multimedia approach, the identity “is constantly changing and will mutate over time.”

Client: AOL
Designers: Wolff Olins
Description: People use AOL ostensibly as a search engine, to find all sorts of things, so this identity leverages that multiplicity with a wide variety of supporting images.

Client: SECCA
Designers: Pentagram
Description:“The final identity conveys a continuing flow; the logo literally moves and fluctuates, echoing the constant change of SECCA’s galleries and community programs.”

Client: Casa da Música
Designers: Sagmeister
Description: This identity is based upon the shape of the Casa da Música in Portugal, the building designed by Rem Koolhaas.

Client: Get Up Hair Identity
Designers: Alexis Rom Estudio
Description: The DIY nature of the stamping process allowed stylists to customize their identity materials in a wide variety of ways.

Client: New Museum
Designers: Wolff Olins, Omnivore, Droga 5
Description: The unique shape serves as a containing window to emphasize or deemphasize different graphic elements to great effect. The logo is fluid, with New and Museum serving as ‘bookends’ to frame whatever message is needed between the words.

Client: MIT Media Lab
Designers: Richard The, E Roon Kang
Description: “The logo is based on an algorithm that produces a unique logo for each person. A custom web interface was developed to allow each person at the Media Lab to choose and claim their own individual logo for his/her business card, as well as a custom animation software which allows people to create unique animations for any video content the lab produces.”

Identities that morph to fit their design applications

Client: PWC
Designers: Wolff Olins
Description: This scalable identity uses shifting panes of color to adapt and fit any space or medium, using size and scale appropriately and powerfully.

Client: ITI
Designers: Heydays
Description: “The logo can be seen as just a flat artwork, but can also be seen as a cube felt with colors. The multicolored supporting graphic illustrates the logo folded out, and comes in a number of different versions. This communicates both the adaptability of the system, and life taking different directions. Appearing different on every surface, the visual expression is a representation of life, freedom and possibilities.”

Client: Nickelodeon
Designers: Tom Corey, Scott Nash, Alan Goodman
Description: This whimsical identity was designed with TV screen use in mind, and helped transform the flagging kids’ network, from 1984-2009.

Client: Knopf
Designers: Various
Description: The famous Knopf Borzoi logo changes with nearly each book jacket design, depending on the needs and whims of the jacket designer.

Logos that change based on external variables

Client: Nordkyn
Designers: Neue Design Studio
Description: “The visual identity is based on two main ingredients; our newly developed payoff, ‘Where nature rules,’ and weather statistics from the Norwegian Meteorological Institute. A feed of weather statistics affects the logo to change when the direction of the wind or the temperature changes. On the website, the logo updates every five minutes.”

Logo enclosures that house value-adding content

Client: MTV
Designers: MTV In-House Design Team
Description: “We really wanted to see the logo featured in a new way, and this was really meant being able to house all the great things that are happening at MTV at any given time.”

Client: NYC Inc Company
Designers: Wolff Olins
Description: The city’s identity mutates with a grid-like structure and a variety of “fillings,” using color and photo elements to remix the logo in an endless variety of ways.

Client: Museum of Arts and Design
Designers: Pentagram
Description: “We wanted a way of writing the name that could embody the values of the Museum, something that seemed inventive and surprising, and that could appear in different ways on different occasions. The Museum, after all, is dedicated to artists who take typical forms—say, vessels, or chairs—and transform them over and over again. We hope that the simple forms of the new logo will permit just that kind of transformation.”

Additional factors to consider before undertaking a fluid identity project:

The pieces need to equal the whole.
Many audiences will never see more than one iteration of the logo system. So, if any individual variant is weaker than a singular logo would be, the overall identity will suffer. Showing 100 variations of a mark might look great in a design case study, but the multiplicity probably won’t matter to your audience — most of them will assume the logo they see is the primary graphical face of the organization. So, all the qualities of a great identity must be present in each and every variation of your mark, which is admittedly a tall order.

Does it fit the brand?
As identity designers, we are always of conscious of helping our clients’ brands stand out. The idea of doing something new or different isn’t insignificant, since our media maelstrom forces brands to do increasingly more to gain visibility. Designing a fluid identity can help bring that needed awareness to an organization, but it shouldn’t be a gimmick at heart. This way of thinking about identity design only works when it’s an outgrowth of the brand’s distinctive DNA – some essential characteristic of the company or organization, whether it’s the nature of change, the style of a building, or illustrating the whimsy needed to play in a specific industry. Some brands might need to show diversity of service or product, while others see flexibility as a crucial competitive advantage, and other organizations have evolution written into their foundations.

Is the system/usage built to support a modularity?
A fluid identity works especially well for Nickelodeon and Knopf, because of the structure the logos exist in. Both companies have flexibility to play with the makeup or look of their logo, but this additional freedom only works because the logos live within rigorous support systems — the Knopf Borzoi always appears on the spine of a book it’s tied to, its size is relatively consistent, and it always shows up in that familiar paperback/hardcover environment. The regular use of media and placement adds a consistency that a pocket folder or Times Square billboard could not. Nick’s identity worked because viewers were guaranteed to see many permutations of the logo per hour on their television screen, preventing any confusion or weakness that the single viewing of one version might cause.

What do normal logos do well? (Maybe you don’t need a fluid logo)
It might be enticing to consider a variable or fluid identity for your client, but before you decide that a changing logo is the ticket, consider making your current mark work harder. Maybe it just needs to be more flexible across applications to have the visceral impact that’s needed. A well-designed, thoughtfully-considered mark can be ready to make the jump from the printed page, to a web version, to an animated intro on the latest iGadget. Good designers have those end requirements in mind before putting pencil to paper, and they stay at the forefront throughout the project duration.

Correction: Additional information about the New Museum identity has been added with help from that project’s director, Suzie Ivelich.

We’re sure this has never happened to you, but sometimes brands misstep and the results aren’t pretty. Whether it’s because of bizarre weather patterns, changing stylistic trends, the rise of American Idol style voting, or slow news cycles, some logos just aren’t well-received. And to be fair, some logos are crappy, objectively. But assuming the work you and your team have launched isn’t a horror show, chances are that it’s decent, solid and professional. But that doesn’t mean everyone will like it. Sometimes the Internet brings the hate.

Take the recent GAP logo debacle, or an even fresher example, the Big10 identity created by Pentagram. Both launches set off firestorms on Twitter and Facebook, with hoards of supposedly-livid commentators going off about how terrible each design was. In a situation like that, what is a brand to do? It’s easy for commentators (who didn’t design the project or pay for it) to say that “public opinion” is king, and encourage a brand to quickly retreat, scrapping months of work and tens of thousands of dollars. But is that the correct response?

In this era of instant Internet feedback, it’s easier than it’s ever been to voice an opinion. We are rapidly becoming a society of people who comment on anything and everything online, from what we ate for lunch, to the people we see picking their noses on the train. There’s also a certain kind of mob mentality and overzealous hatred unique to the bowels of the Internet, message boards and blog comment fields, and when it’s your brand caught in the crossfire, it can be difficult to decide how to respond. It takes a savvy team to sift through the feedback and determine if it’s legitimate, important, and weighty enough to shift the direction of your brand efforts.

So, if you find your organization (or yourself) in front of the Internet firing squad, it’s not advisable to automatically head for the hills. Instead of acting on the instinct, it’s probably worth it to expend the time and effort to figure out what’s truly going on. That time can lead to crucial insights, helping your team determine if a remedy is indeed necessary, and what the possible repercussions might be. Here are some important issues to consider:

Determine Your Audience
Before digging into the feedback you’ve received, it’s helpful to revisit the project goals and creative brief. Who it is your brand/campaign/effort trying to reach? Has your target audience changed, or does it need to change? What are the end results – better word-of-mouth? More website traffic? Increased sales? Bringing your brand back into the spotlight? Without setting a specific benchmark for success in reaching a target audience, it’s nearly impossible to differentiate success from failure. You’ll never know if the logo redesign was successful, much less whether the feedback you’re getting is significant in the life of your brand. Keeping these goalposts in mind as you parse the public feedback will help direct your course of action in beneficial ways.

Look Who’s Talking
Once you’ve firmly established your target audience and goals, it’s time to dig into the feedback itself. What is the quality of the commentary? Who are the people trash talking your new logo? What vehicles are they using to communicate their displeasure? Are there pockets of negativity being riled up by certain outlets? Do certain opinions stem from a few specific tastemakers, or are they more grass-roots driven? Do these people (or representatives of certain demographics) fit into your target audience? Not to put too fine a point on it, but do these people truly matter to your brand? If you’ve redesigned the on-air identity for Lifetime Television (aimed at middle-aged women), then it’s largely inconsequential whether Xbox playing, Mountain Dew chugging 14 year-olds respond negatively or not. This seems obvious, but it’s a major call – not a call based on gut instinct, but a qualitative decision focused on the pre-determined needs of your brand.

How Is The Criticism Affecting Your Brand?
Whether your target audience if part of the firestorm or not, in this connected era, it’s important to consider how quickly negativity can spread. You might be concerned about your brand receiving a media black eye, but it’s best to set true numbers to those negative impressions. The business bottom line is this: Do you believe that the negative feedback is affecting your business goals? Is working to preserve your brand’s reputation worth the price of scrapping your shiny, new logo? Or does your particular situation support the adage that “there’s no such thing as bad publicity?” Is it enough that people are talking about your brand again? Has your redesign led to a drop in sales? Do your front-line sales associates hear from customers about the logo? Are your other brand touchpoints being affected by the logo’s negative reception? It would be self-serving for us to say that a graphic identity is the end-all, be-all of a company’s brand, but it just isn’t true. There are organizations with amazing products and mediocre visual identities, while some brands hide crappy services behind beautiful design. Design is just part of the equation, and you need to ascertain how large a part it plays in what you do.

What Actions Do You Take?
Even if you decide to stay your present course and weather the storm of criticism, this negative experience can be a fruitful one. What can you learn for future efforts? Are there any nuggets of wisdom you can pull from all the chatter? Are the criticisms specific and concrete, or just generally harsh? Do your dissenters offer up any constructive thoughts or ways to improve? Is the criticism true or valid? Or are people just generally displaying our innate resistance to change? Maybe you can determine if it really was a content issue, or a problem with the way the design was released instead. (Yes, we’re looking at you, GAP.) Perhaps there was a better way to announce your intentions and plans for the future.

In deciding to respond, it’s important to note that there’s a lot of territory between appearing defensive and offended on one end, and seeming aloof and unresponsive on the other. Your answers to the above questions can help you figure out a next-step response. If you do rush to defend your position, what you say (and possibly as important – HOW you say it) is crucial. Possibly there’s a strategic and understanding way to affirm the voices of dissent while still forging ahead with your brand plans. You might engage people on Facebook, or email specific audience influencers and ask for some deeper discussion. Or you might decide to remain silent and let the storms of criticism die down while normal business continues. (Sometimes, engaging in the argument just legitimizes the “opponent’s” arguments, so it might be better to remain above the fray.) You might need to provide additional context – like supporting your new logo with more imagery that shows it in use. Or adapt your positioning accordingly – a more thoughtfully-crafted statement could help clarify your brand position.

Finally, it’s important to remember that even if you’re the client (and it’s your brand), you’re not the only involved party. Your design partners have a huge stake in how their designs are received, and they will be motivated to make sure things go well. If any of the above negativity is visited upon your brand, how will you work with your design firm (in partnership) to right the ship, allowing both parties to save face? Among all the options, surely there’s a scenario where everyone – your brand, your audience, and your design team – can come out positively.

We are big fans of Steve Zelle’s design blog, Processed Identity. He digs in deep with identity designers on how they strategically solve clients’ logo issues, highlighting the inherent value of custom logo design. It’s all about the process, and we’re excited to once again be featured on PI, with a case study of our work with BevReview.

Thanks to Steve for his great continuing work.

By now you’ve heard from many corners of the Internet about Gap’s failed rebranding effort, their response, and eventual recanting. Large corporate rebrandings, their challenges, and failures are nothing new. But the particular way in which Gap presented, backpedaled and reversed leaves our heads spinning. The drama has played out in the blogosphere, on Facebook and in the media. Hopefully Gap has learned something and closed what seems to be a (pardon the pun) gap in the understanding of their own brand.

For your consideration, we bring you five things that Gap should have learned from their rebranding debacle:

Stand behind your designs and your creative firm.
Other than lackluster execution, most of the problems were caused by Gap’s handling of the logo. From an outside perspective, it smacked of an organization not fully supporting a new design. The logo debuted online with little of the usual press releases and fanfare. Regardless of whether this was a social media experiment or just cold feet on Gap’s part, it gave off an uncertain impression that the new logo wasn’t able to shake.

As soon as negative reaction sparked online, Gap was quick to backtrack, suggesting that “sharing of other ideas” was always part of this logo’s launch (it wasn’t — this effort was a fully-baked design). When that didn’t fly, and criticism grew, Gap ultimately scrapped the (presumably expensive) end result. This waffling and morphing of the company line made the change feel even worse. Gap seemed to shrink back from all the negative feedback and left their design agency, Laird & Partners, twisting in the wind. Instead of some justification or explanation why the new identity was on-target, we heard crickets chirping.

A well-crafted positioning statement and explanation of the change would have shown support for the design, and ultimately, the firm who created the mark. Instead, Gap’s stance left Laird in an awkward place, unable to defend the work that was approved and commissioned by its client. After all, Gap’s internal team signed off on the logo themselves. The work might have been a brand misstep, but all parties are responsible. The quick way Gap washed its hands of the logo leads us to wonder if there really was true internal support for the change within the company. Or maybe it’s just the sign of a fearful executive team, unwilling to commit to a path and stick to it. A brave and committed client who brings something new into the marketplace often has to ride out the first waves of criticism, and Gap seemed unwilling to do so. This spells failure for any project, design or otherwise. And in an environment like that, bold identity and design work doesn’t have a chance of being born.

Familiarity is not the same thing as brand equity.
Henry Ford’s “faster horses” quote comes to mind here. Consumers don’t always know what they want (see also iPod, the Internet, etc.) and often fear the unfamiliar. So brands need to discriminate between inertia and actual brand love. A lack of willingness to change doesn’t mean that the new thing is automatically bad (though in this case, the Gap logo seems to be quite flawed) because people are comfortable with what they know. Maybe customers knee-deep in a recession didn’t respond well to big changes in their comfortable, mass-market brand.

Many established brands have reinvented themselves with positive results, and Gap has the challenge of figuring out which step in this process was the wrong one. From our vantage point, it seems that the Gap logo reaction is less about the mark itself, and more about how Gap customers see themselves. They aren’t embracing a cold, Swiss-style type treatment and minimal color. Given a choice, they cling to a logo that has associations of Christmas shopping bags in the mall, college-era hangtags, and middle-class, reasonably-priced clothing.

On the Internet, people hate things.
Twitter and Facebook have become avenues for brands to get a better sense of what their audiences are thinking and saying, and this is a valuable resource to mine. But it’s important to note that the Internet also fosters a unique kind of snarky, “hater” behavior that doesn’t mirror real-life reactions. Scenarios such as this one cater to negativity, piling on, one-liners, spoofs, and a bastion of meaningful feedback like “I HATE the Gap logo!” Brand managers and executives need to have the wisdom to know the difference and intestinal fortitude to embrace the results.

Crowdsourcing is still a dirty word.
This statement only made matters worse, and was a thinly-veiled attempt to backtrack on the new logo’s prominence, leaving Gap with egg on their face. This looked like the poorly-conceived spin doctoring that it was, and didn’t jive with the Gap brand or its existing strategic plan. The only thing the design community hates worse than poorly-executed work is poorly-executed free work. In a moment where Gap’s design acumen was questioned, this abandoned idea only raised the hackles of brand designers who might be more understanding about how difficult this process is.

Sometimes bad is just bad.
It’s easy to Monday Morning Quarterback logo designs, but it seems pretty clear that the new Gap logo was a flawed effort. Its derivative use of Helvetica, and the casual tossing away of its brand equity both seem wrong for the company. We may never see what else Laird & Partners presented to Gap, but ultimately the mark seems to strike a false note, and moves the brand in the wrong directions strategically and creatively. Maybe this blowup can serve as a wakeup call for Gap, highlighting the fact that established brands aren’t often built to chase after tired trends.

In the end, if all Gap gains from this costly exercise is better understanding of its logo’s strength and emotional currency, then maybe it was worth it.

Occasionally we use this space to showcase some of our students’ great work.

This time, we are highlighting Brigid Eduarte, former Hexanine intern and student in one of Tim’s Brand Standards Manuals classes at Chicago Portfolio School. Brigid’s project consisted of redesigning the Mead identity and collateral, and creating a clever, whimsical brand book. All of her work captured the creative, imaginative spirit she envisioned for this brand redesign.

Great work, Brigid.

So, in that spirit, this occassional feature will showcase brands who are putting their “souls” out there in unique and engaging ways. The marketplace is a challenging arena, so we hope to bring some encouragement and inspiration from these brand moments, even if we didn’t have a hand in creating them.

Timbuk2
Timbuk2 makes custom travel bags, messenger and other kinds. They state that the company was “born in a San Francisco garage and bred on the backs of messengers in the city streets.” A few weeks ago I received my new 17″ laptop messenger bag from them, in this plastic shipping bag.

I think the images speak (loudly) for themselves, and for the roots, feel, and heart of the Timbuk2 brand.

Domino’s Pizza
Much has been made of the latest Domino’s Pizza campaign that centers around their newly-formulated pizza flavor and ingredients. It’s an uphill battle to change any brand’s image, and even gutsier to question its soul by admitting your primary product tasted like cardboard.

But they did it, and it seems this brutually honest new set of values has taken hold in a big way. Domino’s has now made a pledge to go against the grain with their food photography, promising not to use food styling or fake ingredients to depict their ‘za. Building on these new brand foundations, they are soliciting un-retouched photos of their new pizza. What a bold way to back up your new brand approach.