From a design perspective, my understanding of logo design goals are to communicate uniqueness and speak to how a particular product is not only different from other products, but better. There was a piece recently on NPR's Morning Edition that captured this goal in a nutshell, which I have been unable to uncover since, but was highly relevant. It discussed the purpose of logos in terms of recognizability, and what a logo is intended to communicate in that recognition.
Logos highlight a company name and the services it has to offer to it customers, and most importantly, creates recognition of its goods among the consumer and client community. Companies and purchasers visually associate logos with a brand identity, much as we associate a picture of our house as the place we live, our office as the place we work, without having to read the address every time. Logos create identity, and at the core of identity is the idea of specificity and uniqueness; I live here and not there, I work here and not there, and I want this product and not that one, because this one is better. And all that is communicated not in the text, but in the context and subtext, and completely visually.
So, it’s a unique opportunity, to say the least, to develop an existing logo in a new direction. As with all major design projects, the most important question to answer is, what do you want to accomplish. It’s not to make a cool logo. At least, not that alone. The answer lies in answering, what is the purpose of the redesigned identity? What is it trying to present?
If the logo is to create an identity that says "this product is the same as these other products, just with another name," then the purpose of the logos, and the communication, might be served through mimicry. But that’s seldom a worthwhile design goal. A better way to think about echoing an existing logo is to define why it’s supposed to be like something else. Pepsi is like Coke-look at the logos side-by-side and you’ll see the similarities-but different. The similarity is in that they are selling the same idea, smooth cool refreshment, good taste, good times. But it’s the distinguishing differences that make all the difference—the how they present those ideas-that creates identity and specificity.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Monday, March 3, 2008
More Designing for Middle School:
Talking at their level,
lying over their heads
Communicating to this demographic is also about talking up to them, but at their own level. Do I contradict myself? Very well, I contradict myself.
My point is, there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek in communicating effectively with this age group. The most popular types of shows for middle schoolers are ones in which the authority figures are not as smart as the kids they rule over. Kids know best. Kids rule. And in these scenarios, kids make mistakes, but the mistakes are resolved by them, and they learn from them. But in the end, the constant in these shows is that the kids know best.
Kids this age are remarkably media-savvy. They’ve learned not to believe everything they see in print, and know that they are being lied to, to some degree, and that not everything the see (on the internet, and through self publishing and gossip-type blogs) in print is true. They are therefore cynical about the messages they receive in general. You have to avoid the hard sell, because they can tell a lemon when it’s just painted like a grapefruit. They won’t believe an assertion just because it is presented to them. Only facts and authenticity to back it up can convince.
This means portraying real diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender, with imagery that is inclusive. All the kids in the images should not be of perfect weight, or glasses-free, or with perfectly coifed heads. It means being aware of real trends, not merely the broad-stroked caricatures of Goths and skaters, hip-hop and prep that marks Hollywood shorthand of the 90’s. It means trying to be real.
But at the same time, like everyone, they want to receive messages that they can believe, in an aspirational way. This leads therefore to a form of visual flattery of this age group that we see in popular television, which presents schools in a glamorous light. Even if the school is dopey, and kids rule the school, the kids are all similarly well-dressed, and the homes are all comfortably middle class, and the hallways are immaculate. This is the world as they wish and might expect it to be, never mind how it really is. And the kids who often play middle schoolers on television are often of an older age range. But kids will not call them on this. Because the actors look like the viewers want to look, and are perceived as the viewers want to be perceived. They aspire to what they see, and draw the authenticity from that perspective. Lie to me, as long as they are lies I want to believe.
From a design perspective, this often plays into using models in photo shoots who are, for example, firmly at the upper end of the demographic. The kids can look average-and to keep authenticity, ideally should not be perceived as model-types-but not truly, awkwardly, geekily average. Average, as they want to be perceived; average, as a cool standard.
My point is, there is a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek in communicating effectively with this age group. The most popular types of shows for middle schoolers are ones in which the authority figures are not as smart as the kids they rule over. Kids know best. Kids rule. And in these scenarios, kids make mistakes, but the mistakes are resolved by them, and they learn from them. But in the end, the constant in these shows is that the kids know best.
Kids this age are remarkably media-savvy. They’ve learned not to believe everything they see in print, and know that they are being lied to, to some degree, and that not everything the see (on the internet, and through self publishing and gossip-type blogs) in print is true. They are therefore cynical about the messages they receive in general. You have to avoid the hard sell, because they can tell a lemon when it’s just painted like a grapefruit. They won’t believe an assertion just because it is presented to them. Only facts and authenticity to back it up can convince.
This means portraying real diversity in terms of both ethnicity and gender, with imagery that is inclusive. All the kids in the images should not be of perfect weight, or glasses-free, or with perfectly coifed heads. It means being aware of real trends, not merely the broad-stroked caricatures of Goths and skaters, hip-hop and prep that marks Hollywood shorthand of the 90’s. It means trying to be real.
But at the same time, like everyone, they want to receive messages that they can believe, in an aspirational way. This leads therefore to a form of visual flattery of this age group that we see in popular television, which presents schools in a glamorous light. Even if the school is dopey, and kids rule the school, the kids are all similarly well-dressed, and the homes are all comfortably middle class, and the hallways are immaculate. This is the world as they wish and might expect it to be, never mind how it really is. And the kids who often play middle schoolers on television are often of an older age range. But kids will not call them on this. Because the actors look like the viewers want to look, and are perceived as the viewers want to be perceived. They aspire to what they see, and draw the authenticity from that perspective. Lie to me, as long as they are lies I want to believe.
From a design perspective, this often plays into using models in photo shoots who are, for example, firmly at the upper end of the demographic. The kids can look average-and to keep authenticity, ideally should not be perceived as model-types-but not truly, awkwardly, geekily average. Average, as they want to be perceived; average, as a cool standard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
