Mansur Mirani | Passionate about Design & Usability - Latest Comments

Re: The Battle Between Corporate Identity and Brand Identity

Kaiser Shlootman — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 02:12:28 -0000

Hey Mansur,

I actually read a chapter called "Hidden Meaning of Colors" in a book years ago... I just pulled it off the shelf, out of curiosity, and it says:

"Some colors have a general tendency to please or to displease. Eysenk summarized research carried out by forty statisticians who studied some 21,000 subjects in several countries. He concludes that the preferred colors are:

1) Blue
2) Red
3) Green
4) Purple
5) Orange
6) Yellow

Perhaps the biggest brands in the world use blue and red, because research suggests that they are the two most preferred colours?

They go into the "emotional value" of each colour... and colour combinations as well... With regards to the "red-blue" combination, it says "can signify a desire for conquest and a need for intimate and erotic contact. It is suitable for packaging beauty products or for stationery for love letters"... just in case you're thinking of using the colour combination on something for "platonic contact" :-) Anyways, the book is called 1001 Advertising Tips by Luc Dupont. The book is about 20 years old now, but I remember it to be a pretty good one... The price tag on the book is $28.95, and is accessible to most everyone! A large market research budget is not necessarily needed for things like this. Of course, "believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear"... but in my opinion, if you're making a decision like this based on something that you've put some thought into (with at least a little bit of substance behind) then I think that's good enough... If research suggests that Blue actually relaxes the person perceiving the colour... whereas Red makes the person tense up... I'll take their word for it, and keep it in mind... In the end, for me, colour (and logo/graphics/design) is a "reinforcer", not a "deal breaker"...

My opinion is that a company that is clever will probably naturally create a clever logo... But I do think that a clever logo reinforces the image. Is it required? To me, about as required as being "clean cut" when going to a job interview... Not necessarily required, but if you have time to shave... may as well, it can't hurt!

I do think both Google and Google's logo are very clever... There are a few impressions I have on Google, but with regards to the "clever logo", to me, this is very clever: http://www.google.com/logos/. To me, Google does this with their logo not for the first impression, but to reinforce the image that they want people to perceive... I don't think Google is being disingenuous though... I think they are just being, and reinforcing, who they are... when they play with their logo like this. They could just leave their logo alone, and probably do just as well and still take over the world, like they are! But, I don't think they're wasting their time either... There are core things that are good to reinforce, when "clever enough" to see the opportunity to do so...

All in my opinion :-)

Re: The Battle Between Corporate Identity and Brand Identity

Mansur Mirani — Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:21:44 -0000

Thanks for your reply Kaiser! You bring up some very good points. You hit the nail on the head when you said that a company's image is based on many variables. As mentioned in this article, making sure your products and services are top notch is a very good start in making sure the "impression mix" (as you call it) starts off with some high grade ingredients.

Regarding your perception concept, this is yet another angle corporations can take to persuade the receiver of their identity to think of them in a certain way. This topic can be a full article on its own! As you said, a company's logo (a lot of the time) is the first impression someone will consume about your company. The impression you would like to communicate about yourself can be accomplished by the colours you use, typography, etc. Interestingly enough, blue and red seem to be the most dominant colours for the biggest brands in the world. Why is this so? Due to extensive research proving that these two colours will make you the most money? The fact is, the logos of the biggest companies in the world were designed when these companies were nothing but a few kids in a garage.... who for sure did not have budgets to do market research on what the best colour for their logo would be. Do you really think a company that wants to be perceived as clever requires a clever logo to accomplish this; or is simply being clever enough? Do you think Google would be less successful with a different logo or different colours? Do you think Google's logo is clever? Do you think Google is clever?

I see where you are coming from but in my opinion the logo is just the first impression. There is still much that needs to be done to make her say "I do"!

Re: The Battle Between Corporate Identity and Brand Identity

Kaiser Shlootman — Wed, 23 Nov 2011 01:31:59 -0000

In the end, I agree... It's the product or service that is most important... Or, more specifically, the perception the individual has on the product or service... But to me, the perception the individual has on the company who is offering the product or service is also important (i.e. if P&G was involved in animal testing to manufacture their products and services, I imagine that more than a few individuals would stop being consumers, regardless of their individual product branding - or regardless of the quality of their product or service). A company's "image" is not only defined through design, but also through the company's actions, "tone", products, and service... It all is a part of the "impression mix"...

To me, trying to shape perceptions is the most important aspect of marketing (through the "actual" actions, products, and services... and through influencing the "impressions" of the actions, products, and services). Lots of people who know little about technology, not only buy, but love Apple (because of the "impression" they have on the company, products, and services)... and lots of people who know a lot about technology, not only buy, but love Apple (because of the "actual" company, products, and services)... With impression, you may be able to fool people once... or twice... but eventually if the actual isn't producing like the impression is selling, things will eventually go down hill... and visa versa.

To me, logos and design play a role in helping to shape the perception part... A logo can help build awareness (stick out in the crowd), but I think a more important role a logo does is reinforce the desired perception... It doesn't need to be "the greatest designed logo ever", but a "good enough logo to give the perception you want to reinforce"... A logo should be "clever" if you are trying to influence an impression of cleverness... a logo should be "simple" if you are trying to influence an impression of simplicity... and a logo should be "clip art-like" if you are trying to influence an impression of small, home made, "unmanufactured" and "un-corporatized"...

Re: The Battle Between Corporate Identity and Brand Identity

Mansur Mirani — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:26:51 -0000

Thanks Zoe! The paper by Shultz and Kitchen has some great concepts. A lot of good stuff on corporate communication that I did not mention in this article. Definitely a good read if you have not done so already. By the way, I like the comic :)

Re: The Battle Between Corporate Identity and Brand Identity

Zoe Mullard — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 01:25:39 -0000

Nice article and thanks for sharing the piece by Shultz and Kitchen.