I’m looking for examples of variation between a corporate visual identity standard (logo, color etc. used in marcomm, online) and those same elements applied to product. As an example, Logitech: has a colorful logo and a green color pallette, but frequently uses a flat, metallic badge on their products, which assume many different colors.
Also would be curious to hear your thoughts on doing this. There seem to be some positives as well as negatives:
products exist on a different timeline, can outlast a visual identity
products need to “fit in” while marcomm needs to “stand out.”
To your quote above though, I’d actually say the opposite is true. A brand identity should last a minimum of 5 years if not longer if done well. A product rarely lasts more than a year in the pipeline.
Likewise I think the product branding os where there is often more “brand stretch”. Ie. those products that exist on the fringe of the brand’s positioning to reach niche markets and/or appeal to fads or trends that may be short-lived but bring needed cashflow to a company. Ideally of course the product should never stray from the core market/position of the brand, but in actual fact this happens all too frequently.
From my perspective, there of course should be a strong link between product and brand identity. I’m not only talking colors and logos here, but rather an underlying brand DNA and design principles. These principles extend to graphics, product, marketing, etc. It could be something as simple as the Rams/Braun/Philosophy of minimalism and rational graphics/form, or it could be the maximalism of Oakley that reaches across product, graphics, POP, etc.
products need to “fit in” while marcomm needs to “stand out.”
This aspect is also an interesting one. I’m not certain how or if it applies (as product also needs to stand out and brands also need to fit in (in a product segment), but is an interesting take on the issue…will need to think this out more…
Our Converse brand mark is the Star Circle, but we no longer use it on product. Vary the product logo by collection, One Star, Star Chevron, Chuck Patch, Jack Purcell Signature. Other than Jacks, they al have some variation of a star. The Star Circle corporate mark is the newest, but is based on teh Chuck patch which is the oldest.
Likewise I think the product branding os where there is often more “brand stretch”. Ie. those products that exist on the fringe of the brand’s positioning to reach niche markets and/or appeal to fads or trends that may be short-lived but bring needed cashflow to a company. Ideally of course the product should never stray from the core market/position of the brand, but in actual fact this happens all too frequently.
From my perspective, there of course should be a strong link between product and brand identity. I’m not only talking colors and logos here, but rather an underlying brand DNA and design principles.
Related work clothing, gloves boots, etc. are a logical offshoot for a heavy equipment manufacturer like Caterpillar. Workers can relate/associate with the durability of their equipment.
Yo’s example of Converse is what I’m talking about. The CAT example is not: they’re applying their brand consistantly across a wide range of products.
To get specific: would it be wrong for me to have one visual identity on our website, and a variation of this on product? Check us out: http://www.cardinalhealth.com …There are many reasons why you might not want to apply that logo/color scheme to product. But to make this case, I would like other examples.
PS: In medical, products do outlast the marcomm brand! Lifecycle can be 10+ years!
Just completed a project for P.F. Chang’s and did some research on them. While they have 120+ restaurants that share the same color pallet and logo that fall on an Asian interior theme, each restaurant uses completely different treatments to Achieve this within the basic pallet. The ambiance, lighting, watercolors, and materials are location unique, but you still know you’re in one of their restaurants even if the interior is radically different, which is usually the case.
So interestingly much of their brand is built around interpretations of an interior design pallet used more as guidelines.
I think for this reason it might be good to draw up a strategy encompassing the different marks you want to use, and where, when and how to use them.
this way, even if the individual marks evolve in 10+ years, the strategy can still be relatively consistent. For us, each mark represents a different segment of the business. But even big brother “Nike” has several marks, the bold NIKE, the script lowercase “nike”…
In terms of the OP’s request, wouldn’t that be like having a subset of logos particularly for placement on the product? Once the matrix has been established, the company would work within those boundries to maintain the brand.
Oakley seems to be another brand that has a similar strategy. The “O” is present most of the time, but in all ranges of materials and finishes for different products. I can remember back in the late 80’s early 90’s where they used the logotype, but not so much anymore that they’ve built recognition on the “O”. And now the “O” takes on different shapes blended with the product it’s associated with along with different levels of embossing, etc. What do you think their strategy for this looks like? Is it more open-ended? Free-evolving?
I have noticed that GE does the same. on some of their products the logo is metallic, some it is mono chromatic, and in others it is blue. I have a GE house phone that is black with a grey logo.
I think this does have to do with having a good style guide. If you can create that identity of you logo and make it recognizable than you can start to play with the colors and locations.
The multiple logos of Converse, Nike, Oakley are interesting examples. I know Harley Davidson does this too.
These are almost sub-brands, but not quite. More like un-named stylistic sub-brands designed to better fit the specific product application and/or reach a larger market. In all cases, there is no question who the masterbrand is.
But those are all iconic brands–I wonder if you could pull that off without brand equity?
They are more like licensed goods. as opposed to subsets of brands. The goods are almost never really similar to the goods that the brand itself is “known” for.
Pretty much, but in the case of PF Chang’s the environment, experience, and food are the product. You can only realistically put a logo on the environment so in their case the subset is their environmental pallet. I’d love to see all the style boards for their different locations.
In the case of logos it would seem that in some cases their appearance is morphed to integrate with a product’s design, but within still recognizable boundaries.
I think it’s the norm for branded environments like retail & restaurants to apply design guidelines to unique contexts. This is especially true when you’re moving into an existing space, or dealing with local zoning or regional contexts.
This is another good example for me. It points to the fact that a brand is frequently defined by a set of things, deployed in different ways.
I think you will find that this is the case with a lot of identity and branding design especially in a large corporate environment. I have worked for a few both full time and freelance and have I found that if they have a strong brand identity then they usually have a very strong style guide. With this it includes these structured guidelines around what the environment should look like, where logos can go, what pantone colors they have to be, etc.
I would suggest looking into if they have a style guide. If they do not then it is the perfect opportunity to create on.
