At Hexanine, we are huge film buffs, so it’s with great pride that we finally showcase our work with Laemmle Theatres. This great group of movie theaters in the LA area are stalwarts of excellent foreign, indy, and art house film. We were recruited by Three Thirty and Innfusion Studios to help expand their brand identity and design the current website. Check out the portfolio entry for more deets.

“Products are created in the factory. Brands are created in the mind.”  - Walter Landon, founder, Landor Associates

Every organization worth its salt has a logo or visual identity that helps distinguish, identify, or describe its brand to audiences. And if you’ve visited the Internet at any point lately, you can see that everyone has opinions on logos. But when people say “I don’t like it!” or “That’s terrible,” what do they actually mean? There is a deeper question beneath such reflexive comments, though. Honestly, how do you evaluate a logo? How do you know if your company has the next Nike swoosh on its hands, or something much less awesome?

Being identity designers, we’ve seen thousands of logos, and have designed many of them ourselves. It can be tricky evaluating a logo’s strength, because there is more involved than just judging good looks. Below are some considerations, based on the criteria we use to judge our own work at Hexanine. Taken together, all of these put combine to form a useful benchmark for determining if the “front door” of your organization is doing what it should. How does your logo rate in each of the following categories?

1: Differentiation. How well does it stand apart from other logos? Is it unique and memorable — especially when compared to your competition? Or does it get lost among other organizations who share adjacent mindshare or audiences? In an age of constant brand bombardment, the Zag is a crucial ingredient in standing out. For some industries, differentiation might be the difference between market dominance and permanent second-class status.

2: Aesthetics. This is traditionally considered the chief responsibility of designers — and rightly so. Having a visually-strong mark is now the cost of doing business, and organizations who don’t pay attention to the power of beauty do so at their peril. Is your logo well-crafted? Does it employ great symbology and excellent/appropriate typography? Are the visual details of layout, color harmony, and illustration executed at the highest levels? Does your logo scale well and reproduce effectively on a variety of platforms? Clients who come to us for identity design or redesigns typically have beauty atop their wish lists, but it’s only part of the overall brand picture. Visuals are the glue that hold an identity together, but they also work in service of all the other following areas.

3: Conceptual Strength. Differentiation and beauty are not enough. Strong, sophisticated conceptual thinking is what separates logo makers from true brand identity designers. A logo that doesn’t tap into the brand’s ethos and business goals is like a cheap Hollywood set  – beautiful to look at, but not strong enough to withstand close scrutiny. How well does your logo echo the brand story? Does it communicate an appropriate metaphor? Does it include necessary chunks of the brand’s essence and heritage? Does it function like a page torn from the larger brand’s tale? Is it correctly aimed at the people and audiences who will draw the most meaning from it?

4: Surprise / Unusual / Aha! Factor. This is that difficult-to-quantify aspect of identity design that causes someone to take a second look, or to dwell on your logo for another moment. That Something Special could be almost anything, as long as it makes sense within the context of your brand. It might be a surprising and unusual combination of symbols, a visual pun, or some hidden element that reveals itself over time. None of this is absolutely required, but it’s certainly icing on the cake of the best identities. This isn’t flash and sizzle, but it’s something that helps an identity remain in the mind, tying itself forever to a set of products, services, or a larger brand.

5: Usage. How well is your logo being used? This seems like it’s outside the purview of logo design, but in truth, some of the most important work is done after a logo is designed. Building a context and visual language around the mark is essential to making sure your overall brand identity is successful. Some visually unimpressive logos benefit from exceptional visual positioning and a proper context that allows them to shine all-the-more brightly. What other visual parts of an overall identity are paired with your logo? Do photography, illustration, original patterns, and imagery add up to help the logo be more than the sum of its parts? Context can become the perfect stage to spotlight the best aspects of a less-than-perfect logo, while also minimizing its weaknesses.

To show how this might work in practice, we’ve rated some well-known logos. Very few corporate identities are going to rate perfect in every category, but the ratings below will show you how well-rounded logos can be successful, and how some brands choose to focus on some aspects at the expense of others.

Nike: Usage makes all the difference
Nike does an amazing job with its very simple logo. But the power of the brand is not in the visual execution of the mark, but in the power of its use. The swoosh has been burned into the brains of billions of people via amazing association with athletes, emotions, and sporting events. Wherever the logo appears, it is always used flawlessly, transcending any issues with the construction of the logo itself.

FedEx: The Godfather of hidden images
While the FedEx logo seems austere, its simplicity and strength are memorable in themselves. Its unique and varied usage across parts of the company was quite provocative in 1994, and allowed the brand to grow and define itself visually on the canvases of its moving delivery trucks. And of course, there is the infamous hidden arrow. 

Microsoft: Simply bland
The Microsoft identity is decently-made and generally unremarkable. The mark is very static, and the typography is completely forgettable, which might be an unforgivable sin in the software industry. The brand took a risky move by porting the brand’s most powerful (only?) brand asset — the Windows color palette and iconography — and poured them into a new corporate identity. Simple logos are not always easy to execute, but in this case, simplicity means losing what little personality the original had. This execution is bland, except when used to great success in its motion graphics applications.

Apple: Cleverness that ages well
Apple’s once-bitten piece of fruit has evolved with the company since its initial rainbow-colored rollout. It has been beveled, liquefied, and stamped on the backs of millions of iPhones and iPads. The original brand story of hidden knowledge (Eve, the Garden of Eden, etc.) has been all-but-lost in its modern incarnations, but the company’s backing with gorgeous, functional product design has only increased. The cleverness of using fruit to sell computers and electronics hasn’t aged a bit.

Starbucks: Pouring a tasty cup of omnipresence
This beautiful and transcendent mark is so ubiquitous that it doesn’t need typography. The logo’s application on thousands of street corners and billions of coffee cups doesn’t hurt, but it succeeds not just because of its constant presence in modern living. It endures because of solid coffee and a whimsical mark that stands for a brand experience that has changed modern retail and the way people think about hot beverages forever.

T-Mobile: Not so pretty in pink
Pink (magenta, really) — is the best thing the T-Mobile identity has going for it. The logo is clunky, seems difficult to use, and has far too many moving parts to be considered visually successful. The typography seems inappropriate for the brand, and suggests the fact that T and Mobile are headed towards a visual divorce, slowly drifting apart. But T-Mobile has ended up owning its magenta brand color in such a powerful way, that it barely needs a logo in its communication. Consistent, repetitive, and effective use of the color has allowed the brand to own that bright, cheery magenta in a way not seen since UPS captured Brown. Someone must have been thinking pink.

It’s easy to critique from afar, and every brand his its own idiosyncrasies and issues, but having a solid framework for success in logo and identity design is the first step in making sure it’s not your organization’s logo in the crosshairs.

“Well-designed logos are the work of the designers. Successful logos imply the company’s use of the logo.”

-Per Mollerup, quoted in Steve Heller’s interview at The Atlantic.

The glowing age of celebrity endorsements is fading. Sure, large corporations still hand out millions to basketball players and pop stars to attach themselves to some level of current “cool,” but no savvy audience truly believes this is anything less than a financial transaction — a paid endorsement, dollars for smiles. Insert cash, and a celebrity will say whatever you like. But is this good or bad for your brand?

Other smart people are correctly predicting that we’re nearing the end of the era where advertising is a driving brand force of large organizations. And that has advertisers concerned — a concern that leads to desperation. In a move designed to repackage the tired old “paid celebrity endorsement” for today’s cynical audiences, the latest spin is to hand out creative titles to celebrities, in order to show how they’re influencing a brand’s offerings.

Alicia Keys is BlackBerry’s Global Creative Director (who also uses an iPhone). Lady Gaga is “fairly involved” as a Creative Director at Polaroid, actually attending meetings, brainstorming, and providing feedback on products! Newly-minted Bud Light Platinum Creative Director Justin Timberlake apparently produces and stars in his own commercial work for the beer giant. Now that’s called “creative direction?” Color me skeptical.

While I have plenty of respect for what each of these musicians does behind the mic, this leads one to wonder how much talent crossover there is between pop stardom and branding and marketing. Should designers, creative directors, and product engineers be worried about our jobs? I doubt it.

The people who should be concerned are the stewards of these brands. What are these celebrities doing to their most valuable asset, the brand image? The potential negative impact is more far-reaching and brand-critical than it might seem on the surface.

Your brand is a constellation of products, thoughts, emotions, and ideas — some generated by the actions, offerings, and communication of your brand, and others created in the minds of your audience. The classic thinking behind celebrity endorsement is this: Brand X wants to raise its stature or reach a new demographic, and so, hitches its wagon to a star. Ideally, Celebrity X has a cultural orbit somewhat closely matching Brand X, and now that the two are aligned, new light from that star shines afresh on the product or brand.

But does that work? Many times the whole thing backfires, and companies find themselves distancing their brand from cheating golfers or cocaine snorting supermodels. Sure, celebrities shine brightly for a time, and when they are allied with your brand, they can bring a new set of orbiting loves, attributes, and audiences into your universe. But I’d make the case that drafting off another “star body” is harmful in the long term, because it muddies the overall brand message, draws attention away from more immutable brand attributes, and dampens the passion and communications that spring forth from a healthy brand. Here are three major reasons why enlisting a celebrity “creative director” is a mistake for many brands and organizations:

1: Creating Is Your Job, Not Theirs

Marketing, product creation and development — these must be done by the people who are intimately familiar with the brand, those who care about it, inside the organization. Those who are part of a brand or tasked with its communication have a stronger vested interest in success than a (famous) hired hand who has no long-term attachment to the parent brand. (And this is not a slight against outside agencies or firms — after all, we are one of them. In typical situations, consultants are hired for their skill and track record in partnering with brands, whereas celebrities are hired chiefly for their fame. It’s hardly the same thing.)

Bringing celebrities in to get their feedback and input also sends counterproductive messages to your brand’s workaday teams — that their contributions are not as valuable, and can be overlooked or overruled in the name of fashion and fame. This isn’t good for your internal and contracted teams, or the long-term health of your creative folks, who are a major engine that fires your brand.

2: Your Message Is Not Their Message

In 2013, celebrities are their own brands, and they stand for their own set of personal values — beliefs, ways of creating, political or cultural leanings, etc. Each tweet or press release is calculated to provide maximum exposure and appropriate alliances, for that person. For a celebrity who trades on their name and likeness, this is the endgame. It makes sense. And while there might be some temporary overlap with your brand, if these famous faces are savvy, their eyes are still fixed on the long term, and their own overall branding. This requires them to remain loyal only to themselves, and guarantees that they will continue transmitting their own brand messages. Whatever paid endorsement you’ve agreed upon (your brand message) is just subtext to the celebrity’s larger, personal brand messaging. Your own communications get muted and muddled, because they will never be the primary message. A transmission containing many voices is invariably less powerful and evocative, and your brand’s ethos is more valuable than that.

3: Great Brands Must Power Themselves

Finally, at the heart of the celebrity endorsement premise is a fundamental flaw, because brands cannot effectively draft off the power of another body. Like a swimmer, a drafting brand requires power from somewhere else, and the “coolness” of a celebrity will only help sustain brand movement for a limited time. Celebrity attachment can’t create movement, just pass it along. It’s this unique, powerful, and singular inertia that brands need to define their personalities and carve a unique place in the universe and in the minds of audiences. Like forces of nature, great brands are powered by the will and imagination of those inside the company, to provide vision, clarity, creativity and something worthwhile to the world. This isn’t a responsibility that you can cede to a momentarily-cool celebrity.

In general, I believe that bringing out the benjamins for a celebrity is an inherently insecure brand position. It makes it seem like the brand itself isn’t special or unique enough to chart its own course, and develop its singular position. The (considerable) money needed for a celebrity endorsement or “creative partnership” is better spent developing new products, messaging, and concepts that build upon the ethos of the brand, rather than seeking a transfusion of energy or coolness from some famous person.

Alina Wheeler wrote the book on identity design. Literally. She is the author of Designing Brand Identity, which is just about to be released in its fourth edition. It’s an excellent resource and is arguably the textbook on the discipline of overarching identity design. Over the years, we’ve found Alina’s thoughts, insight, and process to be an invaluable roadmap in developing and shaping our own identity design process, leading to greater results for us, and our clients. The book is a great 50,000 foot view, allowing readers the ability to see the design journey from beginning to end, but also allowing them to zoom in on how each part of the process contributes to overall project success.

On the eve of the book launch, we wanted to chat with our friend and colleague about this latest version, and also pick her brain about the state of identity design today.

Tim Lapetino: This might be a silly question, but since this is the fourth edition, what’s different about Designing Brand Identity this time around?
Alina Wheeler: Each new edition is smarter and more robust — a quantum leap, and a year of my life. Brands continue to grow exponentially as the global currency of success. The world changes, new innovations and insights become mainstream, and brilliant new work is done around the world. The fourth edition has 37 new case studies, more than 400 new images, more than 200 new quotes, diagrams, and checklists. All in all, more than fifty percent of the book is new content. The structure is the same as earlier editions: DBI4 organized by subject spreads in three sections (Basics, Process, and Best Practices).

The fundamentals and the disciplined process that I believe in have not changed. The tools have changed. The third edition, for example, did not feature apps, tablets, responsive design, video, or mobile. Making a difference and social networks have become even more critical to success. The mix of 120 firms featured is more geographically diverse, less NYC-centric, more global, with more nonprofits. The case studies are even more diverse in terms of the types of problems solved. Many subjects (like positioning, customer experience, and intellectual property) have been completely rewritten. I’ve reached out to more experts around the world.

TL: Why do you think the book continues to be popular? Is it how you outline the process in this comprehensive way, or is there something else attractive about identity design itself?
AW: It’s easy to use as a resource, and it offers a lot of value. I believe that the book (DBI4) is the most comprehensive and accessible resource in the world for anyone who needs to understand brand fundamentals, the intersection of strategy and design, and the process to build a brand. The book appeals to leaders and managers who understand business but need insights into the benefits of branding and design. Designers who are eager to understand more about branding fundamentals, like positioning and strategy, or naming for example, refer to it regularly, and use the book to educate their clients and their staff. It helps many to write a better contract. It helps organizations understand the complexity of the decisions and commitments that need to be made to be the brand of choice. Companies use it to build a business case internally for revitalizing a brand. And I am happy that It is also used in universities for both design and business majors.

I believe that the five phase process is easy to understand, logical and helps ensure that the right decisions are made for the right reasons. It works for entrepreneurs and it works for very large consumer brands. The process to revitalize a brand is daunting if you have never done it.

TL: Why did you write this book?
AW: I wrote this book because it didn’t exist. I wanted it on my shelf. The world was filled with smart strategy books written by MBAs and eye candy books written by brilliant designers. I wanted to simplify and clarify what is, to many, a daunting process, deconstruct the process, and bridge the gap between strategy and design. I wanted to create a single resource where someone could get answers fast, and learn from other experts and best practices. As tools and technology become more provocative, it’s more important than ever to stay steadfast to brand fundamentals.

I meet a lot of smart people around the world who are confused by radically different methodologies used to ignite and revitalize brands. The book continues to be popular because it’s a single resource that is easy to understand, and easy to use.

My book is filled with smart things that others have said. Many of the processes and checklists are developed by other practitioners — my job is to find them, get their permission, edit it all down to its essence, and then weave it together in a logical framework.

TL: Since the publication of the first edition of DBI (2003), how would you say the discipline has changed?
AW: There is more C-suite consensus that brand is the most valuable asset that any organization has. Design thinking is being embraced by the business schools. As the world migrates to mobile, there is an even greater need for brevity, simplicity, radical differentiation, and coherence across platforms. There is a greater understanding of how important employees and the internal culture are to being the brand of choice. Branding is no longer about massive deployment of messages; it’s about having a conversation. There is more customer data than ever in the history of the world, armies of algorithms working hard, and more managers uncertain as to how to measure success. There are even more specialists standing in line to be the brand authority. The world continues to have people that claim they do branding, but they don’t.

TL: How would you encapsulate the state of identity design today?
AW: Heightened! Good design continues to be a great and powerful differentiator, when it evolves from putting a stake in the ground about who an organization is and what it stands for. It is an exciting time — an explosion of global talent and new tools. The possibilities are infinite. It is also the most challenging time — a crowded marketplace, fierce global competition, rapid-fire change, and an unstable economy.

TL: What makes a great logo? An excellent identity system?
AW: A great logo has meaning. It is the fusion of strategy (intelligence) and visual form. The best ones are radically differentiated, work effectively across media and marketing channels, are easy to protect, and are immediately recognizable at different scales. It always blows my mind that a favicon can be immediately recognizable within nanoseconds even though it is 16×16 pixels wide. An excellent identity system balances coherence (everything holds together regardless of the marketing channel) with flexibility (an ability to anticipate a new product, a new technology, or a new marketing channel).

TL: What principles cut across the decades, resulting in strong work? Or would you say the rules have changed for organizations and their visual branding?
AW: The strongest work thrives when there is leadership that has committed to protect, preserve and grow this valuable asset. The strongest work always evolves from an authentic foundation: we know who we are, we know what we do best, we understand our customers, we value and nurture our internal culture. It is harder than ever to be a player and transcend the clutter. Even when you are a local business, you now sit on a competitive global stage 24/7. More of us will need to design a brand architecture that works in new markets like China. So brand builders need to have tenacity and a good toolbox, to insure that every opportunity is seized to be the brand of choice. Have the rules changed? Customers are using a wide range of devices to be connected. Social media is an increasing part of the marketing budget. Brands are now two-way conversations are opposed to rapid deployment of one-way communications. Icons now may need to include a growing family of apps. So, the fundamentals are the same, but there are new challenges each time you wake up in the morning!

An excellent identity system balances coherence with flexibility.

TL: How did you develop the processes and steps you outline within the book? Do these come from your own design practice, or have you gleaned insights and methods from others over time? Who are those influences?
AW: Ever since I was a young child, I’ve been fascinated by how people and organizations express who they are and what they stand for. English was not my first language, and I have always valued clear, simple communications. Over the last decade, I’ve interviewed hundreds of experts — on the client side, and on the consultancy side. I have heard stories about how remarkable results were achieved, and stories I can never repeat, about major initiatives ending mid-stream. I have talked to CEOs, CMOs, SVPs of Design — in essence, everyone who is involved in a branding initiative. I’ve interviewed both happy and grumpy employees who work for companies that have been rebranded. I met with movers and shakers from some of the best branding consultancies and design firms in the world. My book is filled with smart things that others have said. Many of the processes and checklists are developed by other practitioners — my job is to find them, get their permission, edit it all down to its essence, and then weave it together in a logical framework.

I also was the managing partner of Katz Wheeler, the design firm I co-founded with Joel Katz. Joel introduced me to the rigors of symbol design and information design. Our staff was filled with super bright and talented individuals that inspired me each and every day. I was very involved in AIGA nationally and locally, and started lifelong friendships with some of the leading design thinkers in the nation. I later founded Rev Group, where I developed my process methodology, and started developing some of the tools that I write about.

TL: What would you say is the difference between logo design and identity design?
AW: Logo design focuses on one element: a pictorial or abstract symbol, or a wordmark. Identity design looks at a whole integrated system: organizational goals, key stakeholders, key messages, brand architecture, typography, color, imagery, look and feel, sound, motion, and of course, the competitive landscape. My experience is that most designers are either good at designing symbols, or designing a whole look and feel and standards. Most clients do not understand the rigors of logo design or identity design.

TL: How do you feel about the crop of logo critique sites that have sprouted in the last handful of years?
AW: I really admire the thoughtful analysis by people like Tony Spaeth and Armin Vit. These are professionals who have been involved in complex problem solving, and who understand the fundamentals of good design and positioning, and the implications of designing larger systems that work. I prefer analysis that takes in consideration context and touchpoints, or why a change was needed. I am less enthusiastic about any kind of voting or public commentary about intrinsic design qualities or any type of competitions. There is a wealth of intelligent commentary, but unfortunately so little time.

TL: With projects like the GAP identity and the Big 10 logo redesign, it seems like redesigns are becoming big news outside of designer circles. Is this a good thing for identity design and practitioners, or does it hurt the process? How do you think social media is changing this part of the design landscape?
AW: When Starbucks launched their rebrand, I was astonished by the amount of chatter by loyal customers who either applauded or questioned the strategic move. Starbucks did a great job of posting why the change was made. It was exciting for me to see the redesigned icon in a town square in Cusco, Peru. It made me realize that the mermaid without the type was actually more respective of the local culture. Social networks get out the news faster than any press release in the history of the universe. Fiascoes like the GAP and Tropicana have a really negative influence on the perception of the profession as a whole. Clients new to the process become phobic — risk taking and change become less appealing.

TL: How can the practice of identity design grow, and where do you see the discipline going?
AW: Identity design will continue to grow because the world is a fiercely competitive, complex, and dynamic marketplace. Differentiation is survival. I am excited by more multidisciplinary collaboration to solve increasingly complex problems. Most problems involve issues of identity, and so identity design will be even more vital. I see more engineers working side-by-side with designers. I am hopeful that design thinking will even have a broader global impact. If I think way into the future, I see a lot more personalization, where private labeling will be replaced with personal labeling in holographic shopping malls. I think that there will be more designing an experience, as opposed to designing a thing.

TL: Who do you think is breaking new ground in identity design?
AW: I am drawn to dynamic identity systems: Tate by Wolff Olins (still fresh but designed 10 years ago), IBM’s 100 Icons of Progress by VSA Partners, IBM Smarter Planet icons by Ogilvy Worldwide, MIT Media Labs by TheGreenEyl, and OCAD by Bruce Mau. Each of these builds on brilliant strategy, big ideas, and good design. They all have what I call long legs, i.e. engendering infinite possibilities. It’s not for everyone and you need to determine when it’s right. I am fascinated by successful country brand identity, like Peru. There have been so many failures, that it’s good to see a country brand that is achieving what it set out to do.

TL: What is your advice for aspiring designers who are drawn to the allure of brand identity?
AW: I always ask an aspiring designer “why?” I would encourage them to work hard, look at everything, read a lot, be a sponge, live life to its fullest, and immerse themselves in the culture of their communities. Experiment a lot and determine what aspect of brand identity they can add the most value to. I would encourage them to study marketplace dynamics, psychology and organizational development in addition to design and communication.

—

We’d be remiss if we didn’t thank Alina again for her time with this interview, as well as her significant contribution to the field. If you haven’t already, pick up a copy of the newly-updated edition of Designing Brand Identity.

I think he’s right on, but there’s more to the story. Brands aren’t solely formed of audience belief or market opportunities. They are the creation of driven, hard-working, vision-casting individuals who put bits of themselves into their organizations, whether it’s their passions, perspective, or merely sweat equity. To completely cede the soul or mission of a brand to the opinions of others means leaving out an essential slice of the organization’s DNA.

We believe that the sweet spot of powerful, authentic brand identity (and communication) lies at the intersection of an organization’s view of itself (the Authorial element) and the connection the brand makes with those in the world (the Responsive element). When a team or organization can weave a brand story and overall identity that integrates both of these elements, it has achieved the sweet spot, a place of lasting connection and success.

The brand identity of your organization is at the heart of all communications with the outside world. It’s an identifier, a signature, a symbol loaded with meaning that flows from the brand itself, and most importantly, from people’s experiences with that brand. Crafting great brand identities is our main focus at Hexanine, and we believe it’s vastly important in business, culture, and the world around us.

However, in the arms race that is today’s business landscape, it can be tempting for those of us in branding and marketing to take shortcuts by looking to the latest in trends, “secret” strategies, or so-called silver bullets to make our brands stand out. It’s so easy to succumb to the latest brand bandwagons or popular approaches, but for good brands, this isn’t necessary. A simple storytelling approach will work powerfully. But what story to tell? How do you create these elusive brand narratives?

The irony is that great organizations are often sitting on gold mines without even realizing it.  Fabulous, valuable riches are at your fingertips — unique drivers, compelling histories, and singular stories waiting to be told. Often, these critical assets are easy to miss because they’re far too familiar, or they’re the buried treasure locked away in some lost closet of organizational knowledge. To recognize the riches your brand already has sometimes only requires re-adjusting your viewpoint, or taking on an outsider’s perspective. We love to play the outsider role, and combine it with the insider knowledge and expertise of those inside organizations. But the groundwork can be so much fun, and deeply rewarding as well. For all of the strategy and identity work we do with client partners, the first steps involve an archaeological dig of sorts, to mine and uncover what brand stories are waiting to be found.

Once a project sets sail, there’s a lot to be done before we ever arrive at the conceptual or strategy-writing phases. Rather than wastefully starting from scratch, we’ll often begin instead by assessing what stories a company or organization already has that are of value — both in the minds of leadership, and in the audiences a brand touches. Our chief roles as strategic brand designers involve excavation, curation, and storytelling — digging deep to find these nuggets of stories, evaluating them for use, and then weaving them into powerful, relevant brand communications.

Good stories are at the heart of every great brand, whether these are explicit and product-centered, or aspirational and loosely connected. Some are association-based, tying themselves to positive experiences and memories. Coke has essentially been evolving this message for decades: “Drinking Coca-Cola is a refreshing, essential part of whatever fun you’re having!” Other brand stories seek to connect to an audience’s shared values and desires, creating a stronger connection to the brand by tapping into already-active beliefs: “TOMS Shoes improves my wardrobe and style, and also lets me help kids in need.” There are many other stories to tell and billions of ways to tell them, but the tales begin with digging through the existing treasures an organization has.

The best stories and materials that emerge from the excavation become part of the creative process, serving as the raw materials we can polish up, refine, and use strategically as part of the new brand identity, messaging platform, or initiative we’re creating.

Here are some of the high-level steps and questions we ask ourselves (and our clients) as we dive deeper during this process:

Figure out what elements exist.
This is all about mining your history, digging into archives, memories, and previous work. It’s helpful to do categorical and deep dives into campaigns, efforts, internal initiatives, brand books, ads, taglines, and anything else in your archives. This cataloging process is something that many brands avoid, but it’s helpful to take stock of everything that exists before deciding what’s of value. But it’s helpful to use some of these criteria: What do people remember? What campaigns, slogans, or historical images have potential value? What are the pros and cons of those things that people remember? Can they be utilized to stir or germinate something new?

What are the stories that your organization tells itself?
How do you communicate inside the organization about what’s important? What does the organization claim as important externally, and how do those stories and values differ from what the company says in internal communication? How does your organization view itself? What lenses does it use to evaluate history, progression, and the future? Do these lenses change over time, or with shifts in leadership?

What is the organization’s “reason for being” that isn’t about making money?
Being profitable is assumed for any successful organization, but what sets yours apart? Why do people in your organization care? Why did the founders do this instead of something else? What gets your leaders up and out of bed in the morning?

What stories are others telling about your brand?
Is your company known as a great place to work? Do you have a reputation (deserved or not) for something specific? What assets or liabilities are attached to your name? What data do you collect from places like customer service, Twitter mentions, or media overviews? What trends begin to emerge? What are brand interactions like for those not drinking your company’s Kool-Aid? In the name of brutal honesty, it’s easy for these research efforts to become sensitive, because shortcomings often itch for someone to blame. But it’s important to focus on the data-gathering, not problem-solving at this point. Of course, an organization still needs to own any negatives and constructively see each as part of a larger change process for the brand — of correcting issues and moving towards better solutions. Oftentimes, giving first aid to your brand’s reputation can become a brand story in itself. Domino’s is an amazing example.

What is your organization’s culture and personality?
It can be tempting to graft in a new corporate culture or way of working, but the most powerful organizational ethos grows organically. How can you step back and observe what’s happening under your own roof? Is there something unique about your processes, or how you think about those ways of working? What stories are to be found there?

After this process is completed, these stories and many other elements flow into a brand brief, which then becomes the fertile soil for all development, whether it’s strategic, visual, or otherwise. It can seem more sexy, fresh, or interesting to start with a blank sheet of paper, but the greatest brands don’t throw away stories of value. And the best brands and marketers know that unique and authentic stories are gold for the people who see their worth. Stories are the well we all draw from, and ensuring that your company has a strong grasp on its brand stories will help guarantee success long into your future.

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.

So, as part of Tim’s Brand Standards and Identity class at Chicago Portfolio School, here are identity redesign projects from two students, Diane Johns and Megan King.

Megan has redesigned the logo for the DVD/Blu-Ray publishers, Criterion. She’s done a great job customizing and streamlining an existing typeface for wordmark use, and subtly works in the traditional “widescreen” proportions as part of her mark.

And Diane has reimagined Barnes & Noble with her own redesign. This clever mark is cobbled together from typographic punctuation, with an approachable, offbeat style for 21st century reading.

Great work all the way around, ladies!

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.