Martynas Kasiulevicius
What are the important features in an effective brand identity? Discuss through at least 4 examples, which in your opinion succeed or fail.
Essay by Martynas Kasiulevicius
Martynas Kasiulevicius + What are the important features in an effective brand identity? Discuss through at least 4 examples, which in your opinion succeed or fail. Welcome to the 21st Century, a century in which you can buy almost anything you like from millions of different suppliers and companies. A Century in which having a successful business can bring you fortunes. Just alone in United States “there are almost 21.5 million” small businesses, which make up 90% of the countries business population. The other 10% are classified as “big companies” meaning that they’ve previously or currently had success, which lead to the growth of their company. Well how did they do it with such a great amount of competition? Well in this essay I will be covering the ins and outs of a brand identity and I will share two examples of brands that have previously or currently succeeded and two brands that failed. What is brand identity? “A brand identity represents your company's values, services, ideas and personality. A consistent and well-‐positioned brand can do your advertising. It can generate loyalty from your customers and make you the envy of your competitors.” An interesting fact is that “80% of the companies” don’t have a brand identity; this means that they try to reassemble other companies within that industry making it harder for themselves to stand out and sell their products. So why is it important to have a brand identity? Apple, arguably the most famous and well-‐known computer brands in the 21st Century world, known for their high quality finish product and their simple Apple logo. However their history shows that they didn’t start successfully, in 1980s when the company went public their shares averaged to only about “$2.75 per share; today markets cap is about $200 billion”. On top of that the company was struggling to compete with their major rivals “Microsoft” a brand, which is also been and is extremely successful in the computer industry. Apple needed a major breakthrough to find themselves on top of the industry, and it didn’t came until 2001 with the new release of a “Breakthrough digital device” called ‘iPod’. However not just mind blowing products, but also interesting marketing techniques started to evolve from Apple in that year. Apple started to use color white consistently in their products, packaging and even in TV advertisements. Their grey apple logo, which was also re-‐developed in 1998 to improve sales, had a significant impact to their customers. Simple company logo, catchy and simple name, basic colour scheme, a brand identity, which may seem really boring and plain, however it was just the opposite. Their plain white colour scheme that carried onto their products made them look different and stylish from the rest of the computers. And not only the simple design of their products but also packing everything into one place made Apples products look simple, easy to use and something that doesn’t take up lots of room on your desk.
Martynas Kasiulevicius Jonathan Ive is the responsible designer behind Apple. He leads a widely regarded one of the best designer teams in the world. “As the driving force behind the look and feel of Apple's innovative products, Jony also provides leadership and direction for Human Interface (HI) software teams across the company.” It’s clearly visible that Apple not only look seriously into the technological side of their company but also they carefully handpick the best designers around to build a team that has been extremely successful over the past years with the amount of rewards that they’ve been getting in regards to apple design. Soon not only their products started to look stylish but also their packaging. A simple square box for a Mac or an IPod seems again to be very boring, however the limited amount of text and information displayed on the boxes, high quality large image of the stylish product made the customers appreciate the product more. The proportions of images and the amount of them is very different compared to a non Apple product packaging; being different is a good thing as customers are more likely to remember the company and brand. This helped Apple to re-‐develop themselves into an upper class computer brand, and even having a high price tag on their products the brand image and identity was so powerful that it didn’t scare of the customers from buying their stylish products. So by doing the complete opposite of what their rivals were trying to do “packing as many things into a box as possible, not caring about the way their products look but caring about the way they persuade the customers to think that the more components to the computer the better” Apple managed to stand out of the crowd. It’s what exactly the early 2000s needed, when computers started to be affordable to everyone, people started to buy them, however many of them had no clue on how to use them and Apple took an advantage of this by making their products look simple so the customers would think that it’s easy to use and the design, style and brand identity made them pay the high price because they thought that the computers were also extremely good.
Innovative and stylish designs of Apple products are reflected in their brand identity; it makes everyone believe that it’s the best and easy to use product around. This achievement from Apple didn’t come quickly, it took a lot of thinking, risk and creativity to be different from everybody else which created Apple an immense brand identity and now Apple hope that it will last them for many years to come. (PS this essay was written on an iMac one of Apple products.)
Martynas Kasiulevicius Risk taking, creativity and being different from everybody else are probably the most needed values in the company; this has to be reflected in the company for it to succeed like Apple has shown. However another technology company called “Kodak” didn’t supply such creativity and risk taking, which lead the company to the end of their digital photography which they invented. In 1878 George Eastman was able to demonstrate “the great convenience of gelatin dry plates over the cumbersome and messy wet plate photography prevalent in his day”. This great invention and drive gave him the opportunity to from a company called “Kodak” in 1888. The first “Kodak” camera was invented and placed into the market that year. The history shows that “Kodak” wanted to make the camera technology simple and easy to use for everyone, this is seen from their slogan “You press the button -‐ we do the rest." Similar to Apple, Kodak’s first intensions were to make this new technology easy to use so that amateur photographers could enjoy this great experience, so what went wrong for them? Kodak was developing rapidly and in 1976 they had a 90% market share of photographic film sales in the United States. They had an early start because other major companies started to get into digital photography only in 1995, however they never took an advantage of its early start. “Philosophically, the company was steeped in the film business, and to embrace digital meant cannibalising its own business.” Other companies started to fill the place, which made Kodak really hard to get back to the top. It took up until 2001 to rev back their digital business. Despite getting back into the category that they once created and invented Kodak “designs weren't as eye-‐catching other manufacturers’ models. “ This sluggishness didn’t help Kodak to develop their brand and build on the history and the innovation that they created. Similarly to Apple, Kodak had the idea of creating the digital cameras for ordinary people and simplifying technology so that people with little knowledge could use it straight away, however the brand image and the cameras didn’t match one another and fell down the pecking order quickly. Unlike Apples products Kodak cameras were dull and boring, which inevitably didn’t reflect the company’s brand image. The design of a product is very important, however other things like materials and their textures can really help the product stand out, however Kodak clearly didn’t take that into consideration and rather used ‘cheap’ and ‘poor quality’ plastic to
Martynas Kasiulevicius produce their products. This reflected bad on the company as it suggested to the customers that Kodak were simply not trying hard enough to win them over. In addition the company’s logo is too simple and not creative enough so that people would remember. Dissimilar to Apple, Kodak logo contains their name written in red with two yellow lines crossing horizontally just above and below the company name. The colours of the logo yellow and red are primary colours thus symbolising basic simplicity with no cutting edge to the design of the logo. Furthermore those colours don’t symbolise with high-‐end quality and possibly value for money. On the other hand Apple have created a logo, which is a symbol of their name, which automatically makes it very easy to remember. Additionally Apple logos appear slightly differently on each of their product, some are pure black and others are shiny silver, this is because Apple wanted their logos to match the design of each of their product therefore by changing the colour of their logos Apple managed to not only keep their symbolic logo but also adapt it to their product designs. The main aim that Kodak had in mind when innovating this new category of cameras was to make the users important, and their captured moments long lasting. This led their company to concentrate on the printing more than the digital camera business, therefore they drifted away and allowed other companies like Sony and Cannon take advantage and overtake. Kodak started to take less risks which resulted in less exciting innovation compared to other company innovations such as face and smile detections. The once historic and innovative brand was started to blend in and fade away compared to other majorly growing digital photography companies like Nikon and Cannon. By 2005 the company was no longer in the frame of leading digital photography companies and the brand started to suffer even more by that as their ‘Cheaply’ looking designs started to suggest customers the poor build quality and reliability of the product. Eventually all this negativity has led to a massive crisis in Kodak’s adventurous digital photography business and in 2012 Kodak was forced to stop making digital cameras in order to “cut the costs”. There were many key lessons learnt, and for other companies even to reflect to Kodak’s approach, success and failure. I believe that the major problem of Kodak’s failure wasn’t the brand image, but the product and the design of products, which heavily affected the overall Kodak brand in a negative way. The story of Kodak's downfall is a confirmation that true pioneering essence is much more often found in smaller companies and start-‐ups rather than old-‐school behemoths of the past. After all, if you don’t have much to lose, you tend to make many more all-‐in bets. But, as Kodak has shown, if you do nothing but play it safe, the cost just to stay in the game will carve you down until you've got nothing left.
Martynas Kasiulevicius There are very small amount of companies that can possess a history such as Coca-‐Cola. Companies that last a hundred years are usually the ones that are in commerce, or in recession just like previously looked at company Kodak. Only few of the companies have hard to come by, just like Coca-‐Cola. During its long and illustrious history of Coca-‐Cola, the product and the brand has come so far that it became almost like a must need tool to complete the perfect “family dinner or occasion”. So how has the brand survived and stayed at the top of the power for so long? “Simple: by staying true to its roots.” The companies first ever brand and drink labels of the 1900’s are similar and just as recognizable as the ones today. Opposing to the popular concept of rebranding the logo of Coca-‐Cola had very few changes in over a century of existence. So if the history is so important in Coca-‐Colas branding, then how did all of this start? The answer lies in 1886 when “John S. Pemberton created the formula for his new drink in 1886, his partner and bookkeeper, Frank M. Robinson, suggested the name Coca-‐Cola,” he thought that ‘the two Cs would look well in advertising’. He wanted to create a unique logo to go with it, and experimented writing the company’s name in “elaborate Spenserian script”, a form of penmanship distinctive of the time. The actual logo design and brand is very simple, a bright red background with a contrasting text of “Coca-‐Cola” either black or white. The wavy lines occupied the logo only for several years, but the main body and theme of the logo always stayed the same/similar. The main concept of the branding and brand image is very similar to Apple, minimalism and keeping everything to the simplest is the way forward for these companies. Moreover not only the logo became the flagship of the company but soon the design of the bottles became also a major drive force of the company. The two seem to work really well, and with a simple
Martynas Kasiulevicius design it is quickly recognized. The bottle was so recognizable that in 1990s Coca Cola decided to include the bottle in their company logo. However the bottle designs started to vary and change, therefore coca cola in 2000s decided to go back to their original roots of their old logo design. Due to sticking with the roots and history of the company Coca-‐Cola managed to keep their success and at the top of the industry. Now Coca-‐Cola own most of the fizzy drink brands such as ‘Sprite’ and ‘Fanta’ thus controlling the industry and are able to make their main brand Coca-‐Cola more successful then ever before. The current logo represents how Coca-‐Cola is always going back to their roots and history, as the design in the current day is the same as from 1940s. Another company, which is owned by Coca-‐Cola called Innocent, can also share a successful marketing campaign. ‘Innocent’ was founded some 12 years ago by a trio of friends. Adam Balon, Jon Wright and Richard Reed decided “try out a new business venture by selling pure fruit smoothies at a small music festival. They provided two dustbins for customers to deposit their empty cups, one labeled ‘yes’ the other ‘no’. The question on a sign above the bins read ‘should we give up our jobs to make these smoothies? ‘By the end of the day, the ‘yes’ bin was overflowing, and ‘Innocent’ drinks became a reality.” The company started of small and slowly, this meant small incomes and profits. Due to the lack of funds the trio were forced to hire their friend designer Dan Germain to create the company’s look and feel. Dan wanted the company to “make everything say instantly that the product is fun and good for you”. After some consultations and discussions Dan came up with a simple logo of an apple with a halo. This seemed very appropriate as the apple fruit suggests natural smoothies and halo links back to the company’s name as a symbol of innocence. The simple and instinctive design didn’t stop there, as the company wanted their drinks to stand out in café shelves. They started of first by designing a plain see through plastic bottle, which would contain the natural smoothies. The see through packaging allowed bright, natural and organic colors of actual smoothie do the main job of standing out. To finish it of a contrasting plain and white wrap containing all the information along with the company’s logo and name was wrapped around the middle of the bottle. This simplicity and reliance of the product gave a homemade feel and look to the product.
Martynas Kasiulevicius
From the beginning, Innocent has pleased its customers with its direct, almost irreverent approach to business, using a simple, down-‐to-‐earth communications technique that reflects the no-‐nonsense honesty of the Innocent brand and its products. “Crucial to the company’s success to date has been its employment strategy, striving to employ experts in every relevant field from ethical procurement to web design. Last year, Innocent was named as top employer by the Guardian newspaper. In the same year, the company recorded a turnover of £38 million – proof, if proof were necessary, that a commitment to company culture and wholesome brand values really can lead to outstanding commercial success.” In conclusion I think that Innocent are one of the most successful brands in terms of simple design and bold approach to the business. Innocent are a great example of a well developing business, which was achieved through carefully selecting the staff which were able to make the business stand out from all other companies. The reliance on product and the design of the brand around the product has once again showed how business can become successful and use their products as part of their brand image.
Martynas Kasiulevicius
Martynas Kasiulevicius 4 brands discussed in the essay Succeed: 1. Apple 2. Coca-‐Cola 3. Innocent Fail: 1. Kodak
Bibliography:
General Research: Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hz9vF7HTFts http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ppcfq4cOMo&feature=relmfu http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crncl_d_YR4&feature=plcp Articles: http://www.changinghorizon.co.uk/brand-‐identity.html http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/jonathan-‐ive.html Images: http://www.custom-‐build-‐computers.com/image-‐files/cheap-‐desktop-‐pcs.jpg http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/NjY3WDEwMDA=/$%28KGrHqF,!lkE8HMBnciiBPIF scIVyg~~60_35.JPG Facts: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/opadhome/mtdpweb/sbfacts.htm Apple Research: Videos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc_FiHTITHE&feature=related Articles: http://www.edibleapple.com/2009/04/20/the-‐evolution-‐and-‐history-‐of-‐the-‐ apple-‐logo/ Images: http://www.hotacid.com/ekmps/shops/hotacid/resources/Design/apple-‐imac-‐ 271.jpg http://www.techville.net.au/site/imacgallery_files/collage_lb_image_page59_5_ 1.jpg Kodak Research: Videos: Articles: http://www.quora.com/Innovation/What-‐are-‐great-‐examples-‐of-‐companies-‐ that-‐failed-‐because-‐they-‐didnt-‐adopt-‐new-‐communications-‐technology# http://www.kodak.com/ek/US/en/Our_Company/History_of_Kodak/Milestones _-‐_chronology/1878-‐1929.htm
Martynas Kasiulevicius Images: http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/kodak/dx3215-‐review/camera-‐front-‐ angled.jpg http://www.freeinfosociety.com/media/images/2189.jpg http://www.bovo-‐tighe.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2012/01/Kodak-‐logo-‐ Current.jpeg Other (proof of failure): http://shop.kodak.co.uk/store/ekconseu/en_GB/list/ThemeID.3925900/Digital _Cameras/categoryID.28927200 Coca-‐Cola Research: Videos: Articles: http://inspectyourbrand.com/big-‐brands/coca-‐cola-‐maintaining-‐brand-‐ identity/ http://www.coca-‐cola.co.uk/125/history-‐of-‐coca-‐cola-‐logo.html Images: http://inspectyourbrand.com/wp-‐content/uploads/2010/11/Coke-‐vs-‐Pepsi.jpg Innocent Research: Videos: Articles: http://www.logodesignlove.com/innocent-‐logo http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/case-‐studies/innocent-‐drinks/ Images:
Martynas Kasiulevicius
Fin.