One might be forgiven for thinking that the recent past was some
kind of Golden Age of corporate identity design. What with the dot-coms and
other New Economy companies springing up by their techno-optimistic thousands,
many a young designer was handed a rich, once-in-a-career opportunity to limn a
new company's graphic identity from Square One.
What many of these companies had in common, of course, was their
desire to be seen as futuristic, dynamic, global, connected, fast - you know,
kinda swooshy. At least that’s what must have gone into the creative
briefs all those designers got handed by the various marketing departments in
question, because that’s what they cranked out: swooshes by the Illustrator’d
gigabyte, none of which bore up under the weight of their overdetermination.
The banana slug that ate the world
Oh, there’s the iconic original, Carolyn Davidson’s 1971(!)
banana-slug-shaped morsel for Nike; in the form of its streamlined update of the
mid-1980s, I’d buy that a reasonable cross-section of the global audience
actually relates it to the qualities it’s supposed to evoke. But
all those
others? All those
thousands of swooshes, half of which probably belonged to companies that
dropkicked their second round of funding and shuddered to a
FuckedCompany halt
before their first year was out? How precisely were these arcs supposed to
differentiate themselves from the competition?
Especially since each one was a sure sign of non-dynamism,
of stasis and intellectual sloth, in exactly the same way an executive bragging
about his (and it is generally a “he”) ability to think “outside the box” is
revealing himself to be incapable of any such thing.
Faced with each new iteration, asked to buy into its assertion
of vim and vip and vigor, I begin to feel like a citizen of a malign hegemony -
one of the Aeron-chaired masses laboring joylessly under the sign of the
swooshtika, muttering imprecations against the flapping of its ubiquitous
banners, yet never publicly questioning the happyfaced official doublethink of
swooshy dynamism.
Things aren’t that bad, I can hear you saying. They’re
just logos, after all. Well: yes and no. Despite the recent turbulence,
we live in a triumphalist age for capital. In the late-capitalist world - and
not much of this pretty sphere remains off that particular grid - corporate
identity is much of the fabric of our daily lives. We’re bombarded with
something like 3,000 marketing messages on the average day: logos, yes, and
jingles too. Taglines and catchphrases, undigested prejudices and vaguer
preferences. This stuff matters.
Defining the terms
So what this will not be is another essay mocking all the myriad
swooshes, jumping men,
blue-green color combos, or the like - by now, each has been well and truly
hammered down by the Web design community. The concern here - since for better
or worse we’re not going to leave capitalism behind anytime soon - is simply to
beg all you marketing types for a more inspired generation of corporate identity
design brief, in the hopes that your designers will have more room to breathe
and evolve. And just maybe they’ll throw something your way that’s more
inspiring (and makes more of a difference to the bottom line) than yet another
swoosh.
Now, I know a little bit about marketing; it [edit: used to be!]
my day job, much as I loathe it. I know that all too often the prime imperative
is offend no one. Of course, offending nobody also means inspiring
nobody. I’d rather win the fanatic loyalty of a small but utterly dedicated user
base than the tepid acquiescence of the masses. And that means escaping the neat
one-to-ten scales of your focus groups, going beyond anything you were taught in
b-school, and diving heartfirst into a way of thinking about identity that is
rooted in emotion.
Think about the brands that transcend brand, the products and
identities that arouse a neurochemical trickle of glee or delight or desire. For
myself, there’s the VW
Beetle. Michelin’s M.
Bibendum. Victorinox’ Swiss Army Knife (and knife alone, not the
wretched heap of me-too products they’ve slapped with the icon in hopes that its
aura would rub off.) Apple and its Mac, of course.
London Transport. I still remember Pan Am
fondly, with yet-unextinguished dreams of its
service to the Moon. And for a little while there, at least while they were
on top of their game, I’d go all foggy and murmur, “Mmmmm...Prada,”
any time I brushed the silversexy surface of one of their garments between
thumbtip and index finger.
That’s just my collection of triggers. You may prefer
Harley-Davidson or Absolut or, god help us, Polo, but you know what I’m talking
about:
People have IBM Thinkpads, but they positively stroke their
iBooks. They use Leatherman tools, but they write odes to their Swiss Army
knives. They may drive Honda Civics, but they name their Beetles (old
or new.) I bet you’ve got a similar story, of a product that reached way,
way beyond the mere outlines of utility, all the way into the deep end of
emotion.
Love vs. the swoosh
Saatchi & Saatchi’s Kevin Roberts calls brands like these “lovemarks,”
and v-2 thinks that’s entirely apropos, even if the phrase sounds a wee bit sado-porn.
If there have to be products in the world, and corporations to sell them and lay
claim to the contents of our dreams, at least let them be well-crafted, with
euphonious names - no more
Scient/Aquent/Viant/Agilents! (I’ve got a million-ton beatdown waiting right
here for the next consultant that tries that one.)
More, let the identity be executed with feeling, with a
viewpoint and a voice, with the will to offend some that it may inspire others.
(Can I tell you how wonderful it is to visit Roberts’ Lovemarks website, see
phrases like “bullshit detector” and “fuck-you attitude,” and realise that - far
from coming off as sophomoric gestures - they’re fresh and astringent as a
bleach wash, against the hegemonic tide of focus-grouped dullspeak you expect on
a corporate site?)
Yes, this plea is a long, long way from the hurled cobblestones
of May 1968, and it’s not exactly Seattle either. Some will doubtless feel that
all the above is little more than an exhausted capitulation to global capital.
But at the very least, please - let there be no more swooshes.
©2004 v-2 Organisation
|