Let's turn to the venerable Wikipedia for a quick definition:
"A brand is a collection of images and ideas representing an economic producer; more specifically, it refers to the concrete symbols such as a name, logo, slogan, and design scheme. Brand recognition and other reactions are created by the accumulation of experiences with the specific product or service, both directly relating to its use, and through the influence of advertising, design, and media commentary. A brand is a symbolic embodiment of all the information connected to a company, product or service."Note how the wiki article clearly states that a brand is an accumulation of experiences.
Any individual with a shred of knowledge and understanding in art and design is aware that an artist / designer cannot create a brand.
In our world of FLOSS, the meritocracy has created individuals that we, as a culture, trust in. With the distinct vacuum of personalities trained and focused on art and design issues, the meritocracy has given credence to notions and ideals spread by individuals without an analysis of the language and concepts perpetuated.
This has led to a good number of individuals in our community bandying terms such as branding around with the implied knowledge of formalized training in art and design. Sabdfl has been guilty of this -- often resulting in other people reusing the term in completely ill informed instances.
I'd cite Launchpad's logo legal news as a byproduct of this perpetuation of misinformation:
"The Launchpad Logo, previously unlicensed, is now licensed as “Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales”. “No Derivative” was chosen to preserve our branding integrity." -- Launchpad NewsYet again we are led to believe that the design of the logo is somehow branding. I would hazard a guess that locking down the artistic and design aspects of a FLOSS project might be more detrimental to Launchpad's 'branding' than the poorly kerned wordmark of their new logo.
Getting down to the essence of branding is no easy task. Many consider branding the sole creation of an artistic design team. While this is a critical component, all a design team can fundamentally achieve is the laying of a groundwork -- an arena -- for an audience to experience. The combined accumulation of experiences with a project creates the brand.
A solid analogous example of this might be to look to the automotive industry. Many car designers chase after critical terms for their given audiences. Luxury is one of those terms that many car manufacturers attempt to create with their brand experience. Consider the following listing:
- Ford
- General Motors
- BMW
- Hyundai
- Mercedes
Thus in the end, the notion of 'branding' yet again falls upon the audience. The company creates the playing field, the audience creates the brand.
I'll leave you with the very astute quote from the Logo Design Workbook:
"The identity is not a brand. The brand is the perception formed by the audience about a company, person, or idea. This perception is the culmination of logo, visuals, identity program, messages, products, and actions. A designer cannot 'make' a brand. Only the audience can do this. The designer forms the foundation of the message with with the logo and identity system. A logo is not a brand, unless it's on a cow."Perhaps the next time you hear a PHP script author-cum-art-director or bash-shell-wizard-cum-designer start flaunting branding and brand identity around, give it some serious thought.
Once again, thank you for reading. I am but the sum of your clicks.
9 comments:
I don't understand this post. It seems like you think Canonical doesn't understand branding, but what you explained sounds very much like what Shuttleworth said earlier this week at Debconf8.
And its not like the current Ubuntu logo doesn't reflect this attitude. The core of Ubuntu is collaboration. The circle of friends is a meeting of people to accomplish something great. Collaboration is in the code of conduct, it's in the organization structure, it's in the open access and communication.
I think the new logo reflects what launchpad is better than the previous logo. Shuttleworth might be a popular cosmonaut, but that's got little to do with LP's brand. LP is at the end of the day a collection of components with which people can collaborate. I'm no art critic, but I'd guess that the middle is the "launchpad" and the colored polys surrounding it are the bug tracker, code hosting, support queue, build service etc. Maybe it's not perfect, but it's better.
Obviously, the closed source system is contradictory to the open principles that it purports to build upon. To bend another person's phrase to my own will: "Software is only closed until it's opened. Bad releases are remembered forever." It's far worse to release bad software than closed software (and terrible if it's both). People remember "GNOME is bloated" more than they do "Blender was closed".
@jldugger:
"It seems like you think Canonical doesn't understand branding"
I would think that many companies and individuals have seen the term many times, possibly even used it. Allowing a company like ValuSoft to release Ubuntu is a testament to Canonical either completely misunderstanding branding or failing to push a brand vision. I guess that means that yes, I don't think Canonical understands branding. I'd cite a long list of oopsies in their packaging and web presence as further proof. I'll also chalk up four years of having watched Canonical's coder-centric vision exacted with great measure. To quote Dinda on one of Shuttleworth's blog posts (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/63#comment-10241):
"Okay, so how many artists were among the original developers(coders) you gathered at your home for the first Ubuntu brainstorming session? When did you discover that art is essential and not an afterthought?"
"I think the new logo reflects what launchpad is better than the previous logo."
Aside from the obvious subjective statement, I'd think you took issue with me on the logo identification -- which I wasnt' commenting upon. I merely cited the wordmark kerning -- which is appalling. In terms of 'branding', locking down a logo so that no one can remix it (no derivs) is again part and parcel of why I say that FLOSS still doesn't understand branding. At the core of FLOSS are the rights and freedoms associated with Free Software. No-Derivs certainly flies in the face of this and somehow, in some way, I would think this affects the brand image of a project that orbits around a Free Software community. Perhaps more particular to this instance -- having the source readily available might allow someone to fix the utter neglect the kerning shows.
"Obviously, the closed source system is contradictory to the open principles that it purports to build upon."
Bingo. I simply am not in agreement with people who flaunt words that they don't understand. "Branding" would be one of those words. A logo is not a brand. Period.
You should really watch that video I linked.
But I really don't understand how you can fault Canonical for both allowing Valusoft's work and for not being even more permissive by default. Trademarks are a difficult thing. Law demands they be protected or lost.
And we know branding / trademarks matter. Firefox is a perfect example of where identifying the logo makes the system easier to use. In older Ubuntu releases, I've had people ask me how to install Firefox, even though it's on the gnome-panel in unbranded mode (their words, not mine). Any discussion about branding, Ubuntu and Debian would be worthless without mentioning Firefox...
@jldugger:
"But I really don't understand how you can fault Canonical for both allowing Valusoft's work and for not being even more permissive by default."
It appears that the 'official' on the packaging is the stamp that Ubuntu has blessed the product as 'official.' I'd hazard that Canonical was well aware of the product and its form. Anyone who has had to twiddle with the logo or worried about -buntu in their remix / distribution title is well aware of Canonical's scrutiny. I'd hope that brand integrity and permissive use are not mutually exclusive. Stamping 'official' on a product is another thing entirely.
"You should really watch that video I linked."
Unfortunately, in the video, 'brand' was used where derivative should probably have been. Again, 'branding' is somehow mixed in with repackaging of software and customizing. Simply a misuse of the word. When Mark talks about the connection between the audience and vendor, he is closer to the point. As a whole, however, it isn't a discussion about branding.
As I have said countless times, I believe Mark to be a brilliant mind, a tremendous leader, and a wonderful visionary. It's a great link too, so thanks for offering it up.
"Firefox is a perfect example of where identifying the logo makes the system easier to use."
Branding is not a logo. It is not the recognition of the logo. A brand is the culmination of audience experience with a product. And yes, I'd agree with you in a heartbeat if you suggest that John Hicks is an amazing talent.
A brand is emotion. A brand is experience. A brand is the core set of ideals behind a product connected with the identity system.
It is here where Ubuntu flails. More often than not this isn't a result of diabolical thinking but rather a simple neglect.
Maybe I picked the wrong video, but the part where Mark says "true branding is when the heart shines through" is what I referred to. It sounds a lot like what that quote says, and makes no sense under your suggested substitution ("true derivation is when the heart shines through"?). He brings it up about Debian, although I don't think Debian's image in technical excellence quite as strong as he says.
The word "brand" has grown to encompass something more than mere identification of origin. You're right that it's the entire organization's duty to make reality live up to the brand. If Ubuntu isn't collaborative, or people think it isn't it's a failure of Canonical and Ubuntu to create an effective brand. (I have no idea about the subject of people who think Ubuntu shouldn't be collaborative.)
That means that how packaging and development are done is part of the Ubuntu brand. Artwork too ("linux for human beings" means not just for programmers!). This brand isn't about how Ubuntu makes you feel when you use it, or what other people will think when they see you using it.
There was a massive campaign when Ubuntu launched. The code of conduct lays down guidelines to insulate Ubuntu from the vicious community it might otherwise inherit from Debian that often repel outside collaboration. Membership included anyone with dedicated contribution. Before you write your next article, go email mako about the Ubuntu brand. He can point out specific actions he took years ago to "lay the foundation" you talk about. He's not formally trained in graphic design, but please don't dismiss him out of hand or say that he neglected to establish a core set of ideals.
Sheesh, so many words in the comments here, all the while it seems quite simple:
With the definition Troy uses, which is surely in line with a couple of books on the topic, brand is the outcome. It's not what you do.
Now sadly the term just isn't used consistently. Looking for a term for "what you do", I considered corporate identity, but found definitions that make it equal to what Troy understands as branding.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to touch words ;)
Sheesh, so many words in the comments here, all the while it seems quite simple:
With the definition Troy uses, which is surely in line with a couple of books on the topic, brand is the outcome. It's not what you do.
Now sadly the term just isn't used consistently. Looking for a term for "what you do", I considered corporate identity, but found definitions that make it equal to what Troy understands as branding.
Some people shouldn't be allowed to touch words ;)
@jldugger:
"But I really don't understand how you can fault Canonical for both allowing Valusoft's work and for not being even more permissive by default."
It appears that the 'official' on the packaging is the stamp that Ubuntu has blessed the product as 'official.' I'd hazard that Canonical was well aware of the product and its form. Anyone who has had to twiddle with the logo or worried about -buntu in their remix / distribution title is well aware of Canonical's scrutiny. I'd hope that brand integrity and permissive use are not mutually exclusive. Stamping 'official' on a product is another thing entirely.
"You should really watch that video I linked."
Unfortunately, in the video, 'brand' was used where derivative should probably have been. Again, 'branding' is somehow mixed in with repackaging of software and customizing. Simply a misuse of the word. When Mark talks about the connection between the audience and vendor, he is closer to the point. As a whole, however, it isn't a discussion about branding.
As I have said countless times, I believe Mark to be a brilliant mind, a tremendous leader, and a wonderful visionary. It's a great link too, so thanks for offering it up.
"Firefox is a perfect example of where identifying the logo makes the system easier to use."
Branding is not a logo. It is not the recognition of the logo. A brand is the culmination of audience experience with a product. And yes, I'd agree with you in a heartbeat if you suggest that John Hicks is an amazing talent.
A brand is emotion. A brand is experience. A brand is the core set of ideals behind a product connected with the identity system.
It is here where Ubuntu flails. More often than not this isn't a result of diabolical thinking but rather a simple neglect.
You should really watch that video I linked.
But I really don't understand how you can fault Canonical for both allowing Valusoft's work and for not being even more permissive by default. Trademarks are a difficult thing. Law demands they be protected or lost.
And we know branding / trademarks matter. Firefox is a perfect example of where identifying the logo makes the system easier to use. In older Ubuntu releases, I've had people ask me how to install Firefox, even though it's on the gnome-panel in unbranded mode (their words, not mine). Any discussion about branding, Ubuntu and Debian would be worthless without mentioning Firefox...
Post a Comment