Reversing a decades-long trend towards modernist-inspired logos that are more abstract
and less representational, companies from BMW to UPS are resorting to modeled, "3D"
treatments in rebranding their image. Even Apple has swapped its familiar rainbow-"
striped symbol for a sculpted version that's identical to the one stamped on its
machines.
|
|
|
|
In the larger narrative of design, the emergence of so-called "3-D" logos among
the revamped identities of leading multinationals might be charitably viewed as
no more than a mere skirmish in today's branding wars. Corporate identity programs-once
considered well nigh immutable-are under attack like never before When companies
are pressured to outperform their competition, yet still maintain some level of
integrity. From the surreal spectacle of disgraced brands-look at the fallout from
the Enron debacle or Martha Stewart's nakedly public humiliation-to morphing nebulous
entities that change ownership and alliances overnight, how a, brand is perceived
can fluctuate with the morning's business news. And that uncertainty is reflected
in the current crop of logo redesigns. Whether in the deft camouflaging of Phillip
Morrisrecently reincarnated as Altria-with its cheery checkerboard, or the "green
washing" of a refurbished British Petroleum, with its flowery symbol, today's corporate
identity system reflects a business environment at the mercy of new and unexpected
forces. But as a recent round-robin discussion of the issue among some opinionated
designers revealed, further changes are in store. |
|
|
|
The wisdom of making the logo into a virtual object-"productizing" it if you will-provoked
differing reactions from designers who were polled. "3D is seductive," writes Black
dog?s Mark Fox, "but sol are identities that are flexible, easy to use (and scale),
and inexpensive to produce." |
|
|
|
Pentagram's Michael Bierut, while pointing out that the logos which work best "are
really flat, simple designs," acknowledges "a lot of things that were true when
I started 25 years ago aren't true anymore. It used to be a logo
had to pass the
fax test-to reproduce small, in one color. But when anyone can send a digital file
full of fancy effects, why pretend these inhibitions still exist when they don't
anymore?" |
|
|
|
According to David Peters of Exbrook, a strategy and branding advisory, 3D (or its
simulation) exerts a primal pull on our perceptions. "We look at shapes, but we
reach for objects," Peters observes. As design continues to mold every mark, every
surface, every interaction in Grafting the human experience, "the future lies in
3D," Peters adds, "if only because we have the technology to fake it." |
|
|
|
M.A.D.'s Erik Adigard (see pg. 58 in this issue) questions the very notion of a
logo as the ultimate branding device. "Too much is going by too fast for people
to 'read' and assimilate the branding intent behind a logo," he writes. "If logos
are to be memorable at all, the branding needs to be not just iconic but engaged,
experiential, and visceral." |
|
|
|
Dept. 3's Guthrie Dolin agrees. "When we focus on the logo alone, we overlook a
fundamental point: as designers, we have a collective opportunity to evolve the
practice of brand identity and the way its development is conceived. It's not just
about logos anymore." For Dolin, identities have the potential to permeate the realms
of time, environment, context, and circumstance. "Why stop with logos?" Dolin asks.
"Why not brand across all the five senses?" |
|
|
|
Dolin conjures up a world where designers create "experiential" brands that exist
across every media, at every touch-point, embedded in our sensory memory. And why
stop there? Why not let the brands demonstrate its "core promise" differently every
time? Eventually, Dolin predicts, brands will be tailored to consumers' age, origin,
environment, likes and dislikes-even their mood. just as information guru Edward
Tufte has noted that layering, multiples and parallelism provide the viewer with
a better view of complexity, so, Dolin asks, "since people can process multiple
stimuli, and experience them as a sum greater than the individual parts, why not
use every channel available to convey meaning, create associations, and embed experiences?"
A frightening prospect, perhaps, but why not indeed? |
|
|
|
"The future lies in 3D," adds David Peters, "if only because we have the technology
to fake it."
|
|
|
|
|
