MOCCA STUDIO | Logo Critique

[Levi]

The branding is irrelevant.

Um...

so the 'brand' Google isn't important to searching the web (it's basically programming when you think about it).... we don't say do the same for bing or duck duck go do we.... just google it.
so the 'brand' Photoshop isn't important when it comes to photo manipulation... can you even think of another photo manipulation program that has the same recognition OUTSIDE of design circles.... can you photoshop this for me (we've all heard this as designers)

Both those terms (and others) have become so connected with day to day communication and the program/task they do that no one in their right mind can say that branding isn't important or doesn't have an impact....

Pretty sure you've said branding is irrelevant before but I would put money on you buying a particular brand of (for example) cereal even though most cornflakes would be made in the same factory etc and pretty much taste the same. What about clothes, do you buy a lot of it from the same store for example.....

You'd be surprised by how many things you buy are linked to the brand as much as the taste/look of it.

I know in regards to my watches I've bought them partly due to what the brand represents (although I'm not blinded by it) as much as the way they look, there are lots of watches that look similar and at a basic level they're there to tell the time (legibility etc is a different matter) but there are certain brands that have a better 'image' than others when it comes to things such as value for money, quality or just being 'posh'.

Now we might say we don't buy into brands but if I was to tell you a brand called rolex in relation to watches you'd have the immediate impression of what it is (an expensive really good watch brand.... I'm not a huge fan personally but...), same goes for omega but does the same apply to Vacheron Constantin a less well known brand within the 'consumer' space? Doubtful unless you're into watches, in which case you'd know it's regarded as part of the holy trinity in watch circles (yes they are that good and that expensive). See branding and marketing plays a bigger part than you think it does.

 

[G.A]

Simply?
A brand is a person's gut feeling about a product, service, or company: it is defined by users!
It can be only influenced, not controlled.
Branding is a customer's mental picture of a product, service, or organization.

To say that branding has little relevance is a shallow and incorrect conclusion.

 

[sprout]

A brand is a person's gut feeling about a product, service, or company: it is defined by users!
It can be only influenced, not controlled.

I have to disagree here too. That gut feeling you speak of, is engineered. It is pretty much entirely controlled – depending on how much money is thrown at it, of course. For the larger brands, we all think exeactly what we are supposed to think about them.

 

[G.A]

I have to disagree here too. That gut feeling you speak of, is engineered. It is pretty much entirely controlled – depending on how much money is thrown at it, of course. For the larger brands, we all think exeactly what we are supposed to think about them.

In the end the brand is defined by individuals, not by companies, markets, or the so-called general public. Each person creates his or her own version of it. While companies can’t control this process, they can influence it by communicating the qualities that make this product different than that product. They’re appointing brand managers, who are building brand departments, which are populated by brand strategists, who are armed with brand research. When enough individuals arrive at the same gut feeling, a company can be said to have a brand.

Let's take an example: how do you explain the loss Volkswagen has had after the Dieselgate scandal, despite being an established brand?

 

[sprout]

Let's take an example: how do you explain the loss Volkswagen has had after the Dieselgate scandal, despite being an established brand?

Of course we have autonomy to decide and your VW example has some merit, but I bet if you did a straw-poll people’s emotional response to those brands that have millions to spend in branding, they would be pretty much identical to a fairly tight +- variance. It may be a product of my cynicism combined with experience, but if enough marketing and branding dollars are thrown at something you can ‘influence’ that response to a very, very high degree, otherwise legions of people would not be quite to so eager to spend £1000+ on successive marginal upgrades to a particular brand of smartphone.

 

[G.A]

It may be a product of my cynicism combined with experience, but if enough marketing and branding dollars are thrown at something you can ‘influence’ that response to a very, very high degree, otherwise legions of people would not be quite to so eager to spend £1000+ on successive marginal upgrades to a particular brand of smartphone.

The foundation of brand is trust. Customers trust a brand when their experiences consistently meet or beat their expectations. People base their buying decisions more on symbolic cues than features, benefits, and prices (while features, benefits and prices are still important to people, experiences and personal identity are even more important). We're talking of a process that can be studied, analyzed, learned, taught, replicated, and managed

 

[Levi]

In the end the brand is defined by individuals, not by companies, markets, or the so-called general public. Each person creates his or her own version of it. While companies can’t control this process, they can influence it by communicating the qualities that make this product different than that product. They’re appointing brand managers, who are building brand departments, which are populated by brand strategists, who are armed with brand research. When enough individuals arrive at the same gut feeling, a company can be said to have a brand.

Let's take an example: how do you explain the loss Volkswagen has had after the Dieselgate scandal, despite being an established brand?

You know you're actually contradicting yourself right...

The company defines their brand and how they want to be perceived via marketing etc, then it's up to people to decide if they buy into said marketing, this is made easier by them utilising the brand strategists and the focus groups etc to see which one is most likely to stick.

I'll go back to rolex from my earlier post, rolex artificially restricts their supply of watches via their authorised dealers, they deliberately make it harder to get their watches (they can make a lot more than they do) so they can push the story they want to push. The general consumer who doesn't know much about other brands, because they're not marketed as heavily, thinks that because they're hard to get and high price means that the watch is 'special' and they have to have one. Note the way they're selling the product, it's not about their innovations, it's not about their heritage, it's essentially about them being expensive and 'rare', ie aspirational for the consumer.

I can give you a perfect example of how the branding has worked, I was shopping one day and I was looking in a window with some watches in that were 'consumer' prices and a young boy asks his dad something about watches and the dad replies with something about a rolex but he couldn't afford one (the tone of the reply was 'sad').... rolex have spent years pushing this story and it's clearly working because a lot of people 'want' a rolex, even though the quality isn't really that good (relative price wise) and most of the pricing is really down to the brand name, the truth is every single watch in the window would do the same as a rolex would, well apart from emptying your bank balance lol.



You mention volkswagen dieselgate, and in all honesty not much has happened to their brand, they had a fine but that was from the governments but fact they've actually used the 'negativity' from it to promote theair already planned move over to electric cars.... it sure hasn't impacted on their sales and if anything they've made the negative nature of dieselgate into a positive for the company. A little scandal (which in all honesty wasn't that big a deal to most people) isn't going to erode the emotional connection to a company that brought us 3 (if not more) of the most iconic cars (beetle, camper bus and golf) in the world.



And a little side note, if 'branding' or more accurately brand awareness wasn't important why is there this stupid thing called 'influencers' on instagram who's entire reason for being on instagram is to promote their own personal brand so they can get advertising gigs which are basically them promoting another brand for money....

The foundation of brand is trust. Customers trust a brand when their experiences consistently meet or beat their expectations. People base their buying decisions more on symbolic cues than features, benefits, and prices (while features, benefits and prices are still important to people, experiences and personal identity are even more important). We're talking of a process that can be studied, analyzed, learned, taught, replicated, and managed

You're giving people far too much credit about them making their own decisions... just look at how many people jump on buying an iPhone because of the 'brand' when there are phones that will do everything most users use their iPhone for for under half the price. I'm going to be honest NOBODY really NEEDS a £1000 phone. There's a reason the term apple sheep came about....

And once again you're contradicting yourself... that bit in bold is the exact reason why branding has so much money spent on it because it can be used to influence the target market.

 

[sprout]

…experiences and personal identity are even more important). We're talking of a process that can be studied, analyzed, learned, taught, replicated, and managed

I agree to an extent. However, the moot point being, to what degree that those emotional cues can be (or are) manipulated.

Of course, hard factors like customer experience are a huge determinant in brand perception, but it is that percentage of the whole that is governed by emotional manipulation that is open to question. In reality, manipulation has to marry up with actual, real-world experience, in the end, or the whole thing falls over, like VW, as you say. They got caught out, so all that built up trust for reliability and German engineering, confidence, etc, was exposed as a lie.

Its the first thing I tell any client. Your brand has to be honest, or it will bite you in the backside in the end. You may make short term gains by making exaggerated statements, but eventually reality will not match expectation and it will work against you. No one trusts a lier.

However there are industries where this gap is wider and more nebulous, when emotional manipulation can and does take place. For example, the online gambling industry, or age-defying cosmetics. Industries where it is far harder to quantify hard results.

 

[G.A]

You know you're actually contradicting yourself right...

I'm not contradicting myself, we're talking about a complex of factors that go into defining it.

The company defines their brand and how they want to be perceived via marketing etc, then it's up to people to decide if they buy into said marketing, this is made easier by them utilising the brand strategists and the focus groups etc to see which one is most likely to stick.

I'll go back to rolex from my earlier post, rolex artificially restricts their supply of watches via their authorised dealers, they deliberately make it harder to get their watches (they can make a lot more than they do) so they can push the story they want to push. The general consumer who doesn't know much about other brands, because they're not marketed as heavily, thinks that because they're hard to get and high price means that the watch is 'special' and they have to have one. Note the way they're selling the product, it's not about their innovations, it's not about their heritage, it's essentially about them being expensive and 'rare', ie aspirational for the consumer.

I can give you a perfect example of how the branding has worked, I was shopping one day and I was looking in a window with some watches in that were 'consumer' prices and a young boy asks his dad something about watches and the dad replies with something about a rolex but he couldn't afford one (the tone of the reply was 'sad').... rolex have spent years pushing this story and it's clearly working because a lot of people 'want' a rolex, even though the quality isn't really that good (relative price wise) and most of the pricing is really down to the brand name, the truth is every single watch in the window would do the same as a rolex would, well apart from emptying your bank balance lol.



You mention volkswagen dieselgate, and in all honesty not much has happened to their brand, they had a fine but that was from the governments but fact they've actually used the 'negativity' from it to promote theair already planned move over to electric cars.... it sure hasn't impacted on their sales and if anything they've made the negative nature of dieselgate into a positive for the company. A little scandal (which in all honesty wasn't that big a deal to most people) isn't going to erode the emotional connection to a company that brought us 3 (if not more) of the most iconic cars (beetle, camper bus and golf) in the world.



And a little side note, if 'branding' or more accurately brand awareness wasn't important why is there this stupid thing called 'influencers' on instagram who's entire reason for being on instagram is to promote their own personal brand so they can get advertising gigs which are basically them promoting another brand for money....


You're giving people far too much credit about them making their own decisions... just look at how many people jump on buying an iPhone because of the 'brand' when there are phones that will do everything most users use their iPhone for for under half the price. I'm going to be honest NOBODY really NEEDS a £1000 phone. There's a reason the term apple sheep came about....

And once again you're contradicting yourself... that bit in bold is the exact reason why branding has so much money spent on it because it can be used to influence the target market.

Today we base our choices more on symbolic attributes. What does the product look like? Where is it being sold? What kind of people buy it? Which "tribe" will I be joining if I buy it? (as Rolex for the social construct of demonstrating wealth) What does the cost say about its desirability? What are other people saying about it? And finally, who makes it? Because if I can trust the maker, I can buy it now and worry about it later. The degree of trust I feel towards the product, rather than an assessment of its features and benefits, will determine whether I'll buy this product or that product. Trust is the ultimate shortcut to a buying decision and the bedrock of modern branding.

Instead of building a brand on USP (the Unique Buying Selling Proposition of a product), there is more attention to UBS (the Unique Buying State of their customers).
The success of the Nike brand is ample proof of this concept.
As a weekend athlete, my two doubts are that I might be congenitally lazy and that I might have little actual ability. I'm not really worried about my shoes, but when the Nike folks say "Just do it", they're peering into my soul. If they understand me that well, their shoes are probably pretty good. I'm then willing to join the tribe of Nike.

Depending on your Unique Buying State, you can join any number of tribes on any number of days and feel part of something bigger than yourself. You're a part of a select clan (or so you feel) when you buy products from some clearly differentiated companies.
Brands are the little gods of modern life, each ruling a different need, activity, mood, or situation. Yet you're in control. If your latest god falls from Olympus, you can switch to another one.

Brands don't develop in isolation, either. They result from the interaction of thousands of people over a long period of time. Branding requires not only the work of executives and marketing people who manage the brand, but an ever-changing roster of strategy consultants, design firms, advertising agencies, research companies, industrial designers, and so on. It also requires the valuable contributions of employees, suppliers, distributors, partners, and customers: an entire brand community!

 

[G.A]

I agree to an extent. However, the moot point being, to what degree that those emotional cues can be (or are) manipulated.

Of course, hard factors like customer experience are a huge determinant in brand perception, but it is that percentage of the whole that is governed by emotional manipulation that is open to question. In reality, manipulation has to marry up with actual, real-world experience, in the end, or the whole thing falls over, like VW, as you say. They got caught out, so all that built up trust for reliability and German engineering, confidence, etc, was exposed as a lie.

Its the first thing I tell any client. Your brand has to be honest, or it will bite you in the backside in the end. You may make short term gains by making exaggerated statements, but eventually reality will not match expectation and it will work against you. No one trusts a lier.

However there are industries where this gap is wider and more nebulous, when emotional manipulation can and does take place. For example, the online gambling industry, or age-defying cosmetics. Industries where it is far harder to quantify hard results.

That's right, it goes without saying that in order to establish credibility, there needs to be a solid foundation to make it happen. After establishing your position, values, differentiation, creative design, marketing, and business strategy it's up to the customers to choose

 

[sprout]

it's up to the customers to choose

It is, of course, but, to my mind, that choice is a long way from neutral and objective. It is a fairly skewed, emotive offering, intended to get the customer to think and feel a particular way. It comes down to how much credence you give the degree of customer autonomy and how much of that ‘choice’ is, or can be, manipulated and ‘guided’. I believe more than the average punter may like to believe, which is why we all have a moral responsibility with the work we put out.

 

[G.A]

It is, of course, but, to my mind, that choice is a long way from neutral and objective. It is a fairly skewed, emotive offering, intended to get the customer to think and feel a particular way. It comes down to how much credence you give the degree of customer autonomy and how much of that ‘choice’ is, or can be, manipulated and ‘guided’. I believe more than the average punter may like to believe, which is why we all have a moral responsibility with the work we put out.

Yes, just as I said

Each person creates his or her own version of it. While companies can’t control this process, they can influence it by communicating the qualities that make this product different than that product.

Obviously, the qualities are not the only ones to be defined, but at the level of perception they are the ones that have the most impact

 

[fisicx]

Blimey! Lots of good discussion here.

Brand and branding are not the same thing. Google is the brand. They have a logo but when you search this is often replaced with an image recognising a person or occasion. And look at how branding has evolved for many companies during their lifetime.

As long as the customer recognises the business the actual branding doesn’t matter too much. Change the shades, tweak the font, play with the shape - nobody other than the company and the graphic designer really cares. You buy a coffee from Starbucks because of great marketing not because they have a mermaid on the cup.

 

[Levi]

I'm not contradicting myself, we're talking about a complex of factors that go into defining it.

Today we base our choices more on symbolic attributes. What does the product look like? Where is it being sold? What kind of people buy it? Which "tribe" will I be joining if I buy it? (as Rolex for the social construct of demonstrating wealth) What does the cost say about its desirability? What are other people saying about it? And finally, who makes it? Because if I can trust the maker, I can buy it now and worry about it later. The degree of trust I feel towards the product, rather than an assessment of its features and benefits, will determine whether I'll buy this product or that product. Trust is the ultimate shortcut to a buying decision and the bedrock of modern branding.

Instead of building a brand on USP (the Unique Buying Selling Proposition of a product), there is more attention to UBS (the Unique Buying State of their customers).
The success of the Nike brand is ample proof of this concept.
As a weekend athlete, my two doubts are that I might be congenitally lazy and that I might have little actual ability. I'm not really worried about my shoes, but when the Nike folks say "Just do it", they're peering into my soul. If they understand me that well, their shoes are probably pretty good. I'm then willing to join the tribe of Nike.

Depending on your Unique Buying State, you can join any number of tribes on any number of days and feel part of something bigger than yourself. You're a part of a select clan (or so you feel) when you buy products from some clearly differentiated companies.
Brands are the little gods of modern life, each ruling a different need, activity, mood, or situation. Yet you're in control. If your latest god falls from Olympus, you can switch to another one.

Brands don't develop in isolation, either. They result from the interaction of thousands of people over a long period of time. Branding requires not only the work of executives and marketing people who manage the brand, but an ever-changing roster of strategy consultants, design firms, advertising agencies, research companies, industrial designers, and so on. It also requires the valuable contributions of employees, suppliers, distributors, partners, and customers: an entire brand community!

Yes you are contradicting yourself and you've literally fallen for everything the marketing people have been using to sell stuff for decades...

 

[fisicx]

Just to add - brand is only important if you need to be recognized. Branding can give you the edge but once a brand is established the branding becomes less so.

Bob the builder is known for his great skills as a builder. People lke they way his team all have the same poloshirts and the vans are wrapped the same way. What doesn't matter is the exact styles. It's red and brown with a house logo. Anything more than that doesn't matter to Joe Public.

As an example - Janguar used to be known for the leaping cat on the their bonnet. People still refer to the 'big cat' when talking about the cars. Their brand was British muscle cars. What you have now is an electic SUV with a plastic badge on the front. Their branding has zero connection to that developed by William Lyons.

 

[fisicx]

One more thing - do all the members here spend time on their brand? Do you all have unique branding? Does this branding pull in more new business?

I use to have branding. I took it all away and it made zero difference to my business. It may be different if your products are in the supermarket but even then, brands often change their branding.

When I say branding is not important - I mean the details don't matter. Coke is red and black, pepsi is blue and silver. That's all you see when you are in the drinks aisle.

 

[G.A]

When I say branding is not important - I mean the details don't matter.

That's ok, because branding is the process of connecting good strategy with good creativity.

Each lap around the branding circle, from differentiation to cultivation, takes the brand further from commoditization and closer to a sustainable competitive advantage.

 

[G.A]

Yes you are contradicting yourself and you've literally fallen for everything the marketing people have been using to sell stuff for decades...

Ah..ok

 

[sprout]

Coke is red and black, pepsi is blue and silver. That's all you see when you are in the drinks aisle.

That effect only happens after years of brand association and recognition. That is when the mnemonic thing happens. People see that pattern and colour and immediately recall all the emotional responses they have to it.

I have worked on branding for both large and small companies over the years and yes, it does work. It is usually more directly evidential on the smaller ones. For example, some years ago I had a client approach me who ran a pre-school singing and dancing class. She had a good little business. All the mums who came recommended her. However, she had been trying to franchise it out across the country and was getting nowhere. Why? Because, as I said to her, if should could stand in front of her potential customers, she was credible and knowledgeable. They would see how good the classes were, how much their kids learned. However, to then take this to a wider market, she couldn't do this, of course. The brand identity she had, or rather the visual representation of it, was one she’d created herself on her kitchen table when she first started out. It simply told the wrong story. I spent a long time talking to her, finding out exactly what she wanted to achieve, who her intended audience was etc, etc.

Between us we created a visual language which encompassed the trust and the values she had and wished to foster. She now has dozens of franchisees across the country. Of course the graphic representation of this brand alone did not do this. It took a lot of hard work on her part, a consistent social media campaign, amongst other things. What it did, however, was put her in a position to be able to appear credible in the market place. It told the right story. People picked up on the right emotional cues. The scene was set.

That is what it is about, the use of type, colour and image can change the way people emotionally engage with a product or service. Nothing practically changed about the curriculum for the classes before and after the rebrand. People just believed and trusted it. She backs it up. They are great classes (if you are into that sort of thing), so the branding is not telling any porkies and over-selling, or making spurious claims. It simply tells the story of the business and imbues the correct responses.

 

[hankscorpio]

I'm so lost reading all this.

Branding is the most important thing a company can do.
It defines them - their ethos - their target audiences and their core values.

It's a reason why companies spend millions on corporate branding and rebranding.

When it comes to advertisements, there are various types. Reminders about a product, Rice Krispies, Corn Flakes, Milk - you know these already exist and the recipe hasn't changed since day dot.

You might see and advert that says "Samsung" with very little other info, that's just a reminder of their product. It's visual and connects with an audience.

But they might have a new product - so they will advertise themselves and Samsung product they are pushing.


But none of the advertising is going to make sense without their brand and core values.

I'd be rightly confused if Corn Flakes brought out an advert with elderly people sitting around eating it - it's not their core values or ethos or their demographic.

Instead they put the box on the screen with the sun rising and cockle doodle doo - and you know it's Corn Flakes.
Imagine the same advert but with an alarm clock - you wouldn't necessarily associate that with Corn Flakes and it would leave you confused.


Branding and Branding Strategies are the most important thing ever.