imitation of life

the strong emotional bonds that brands manage to establish with their audiences sometimes make it seem that they behave as if they were people.

the relationship that comes to be established with brands can go beyond the purely rational, transcending criteria such as price or functionality when it comes to tipping the balance in favor of one brand over another. we talk about the personality of the brand, its values or its mission and values, in the same way as we would do when referring to people.

This "imitation" of the people who make brands is being reversed. There's a tendency for people to adopt behaviors and attitudes like those of brands, in order to achieve the same levels of affinity and empathy as you. That's personal branding: the adaptation of lessons learned from years of experience with brands to help people (politicians, independent professionals, etc.) achieve stronger and longer-lasting emotional ties with their audiences.

The challenge for brand experts when tackling a personal branding project is to maintain a delicate balance so as not to end up objectifying the person and so that when they present themselves to their audiences, they are perceived as real, credible, and unique, rather than as an imitation of life.

so designy

there are people who tend to refer to certain furniture or buildings or household objects as "so designy" as if to emphasize that these furniture, buildings or household objects have aesthetic characteristics that make them "modern". modernity and design are not synonymous.

everything around us has usually needed to be drawn, i.e. designed, prior to its production. from a pencil to a space rocket, it is necessary to design it beforehand.

design should not be understood as a purely aesthetic exercise. this would lead us to evaluate the results only from a subjective point of view. objects are designed to fulfill a purpose. if we add to this that they are at least aesthetically acceptable, we will be adding value to the piece. what makes a design achieve excellence is not only that it fulfills its purpose correctly, nor that it is "beautiful" or attractive to the majority, but a combination of both variables, plus other factors related to economic issues.

the reason for identifying the term "design" with "modern" could lie in the fact that excessive importance has been given to this phase of the process, when, although it is indeed relevant, it is not predominant over functionality or production cost.

Historically, the pieces whose design has proved to be the most enduring and have been designated as truly excellent, have often resulted in works that appear to have no design at all.

So, we can safely say that nothing is "very designy" because everything is designy.

design waste

someone once said that designing packaging is designing junk. this statement is absolutely true and not only that, but the more junk that design is, the more it means that it has succeeded.

designing packaging is largely about turning the designer's work into everyday objects that silently accompany us on a daily basis. the design of a cereal box or a tetra brik of milk that by their very ordinariness become invisible on the kitchen table. and from the table, inevitably, to the trash can and from there to the landfill. and all that journey as a symbol of the contribution of packaging to the commercial success of a brand.

the purchase decision usually lasts only a few seconds from the moment of purchase in front of the supermarket shelf. of course, the influence of packaging on the purchase decision is not the main factor. price, communication, location on the shelf, etc. are other factors that also help the consumer to make a decisive purchase decision. however, packaging can lead to a definitive rejection on the part of the consumer.

all the effort dedicated to design by marketing departments and design agencies is focused on contributing to the seduction of the consumer so that the consumer ends up designing that packaging and throwing it away when it has fulfilled its function. that is the beauty of designing packaging, the beauty of designing garbage.

the customer is not always right

the words client and supplier, when we talk about a branding project, tend to poison the process if we do not dispense with the backpack of connotations they usually carry.

the relationship between the two parties on either side of the table should not be understood as that of a superior who is in charge because he is the one who pays and an inferior who disciplinarily obeys orders to satisfy the client's needs. sometimes, what the client wants is not what he needs and the branding expert must be able not only to identify it, but also to communicate it to the client. contravening the client's requests does not necessarily mean going against the project, but it may be doing a great favor to the brand.

let's lose the fear of being able to express our professional opinion, even if it goes in the opposite direction to what we are asked to do. the client must understand that he is not paying us for what we do, but for what we know, and the moment he is able to value the work in this way, the table will no longer be the barrier that separates both parties and will become the board where we work together. in this way we will become what the english call partners, because the client is not always right.

of fashions, manners and manners

The end of the year is a time for recapitulation of the past and for the oracles to tell us what will happen in the next twelve months. graphic design is not exempt from this annual liturgy.

it is said that 2015 has been the year of "flat design", of websites with full-screen background videos or photos or bright pastel colors. for 2016 we are already being told that everything will be extreme attention to typography (this should always be the case), custom illustrations and infographics (weren't they already?) and bright and powerful colors.

when designers bend to fashions, either for mere convenience or to match the taste of audiences, they are doing a disservice to the client, to their work and to themselves. if the logos of all brands were designed according to the criteria of fashion, something as key for them as differentiation would not be achieved. the mere definition of the word fashion speaks of its expiration date and for that reason it would be putting an expiration date on design when brands should have a vocation of maximum permanence.

by no means are following fashion the proper manners of a good designer.

author's trademarks

There are municipalities that, when deciding to commission the construction of a bridge, have as a main criterion that the inhabitants of the locality take less time to travel the distance that separates them from the next town.

other municipalities prioritize the bridge as a piece with great personality and decide to commission the project to a renowned architect whose works are immediately recognized. recognized in the literal sense of the word, that is, just by seeing them you know who the author is. the bridge then does not reflect the personality traits of the town, it may even ignore the main needs of the users and in the end it is just another piece in the author's collection. the bridge is identified as the author's and not as a reflection of the personality, life and souls that inhabit that town.

this is also sometimes the case in the visual identity of brands. some clients commission this work to a designer or agency "because they like their designs". it is obvious, but it is good to remember that the visual identity of the brand should be a reflection of the brand's personality and not the personality of the author of the identity. the designer should bend to the needs of the brand, leaving aside the temptation to somehow leave his or her signature.

the professionalism of the designer is measured in a certain way by his ability to be humble and develop a visual identity that fulfills the maxim that it should be related to its author if not identified with the brand.

in my opinion...

when the development of a brand reaches its visual expression, we approach the dangerous zone where everyone has something to say.

there is a moment when it becomes clear that branding is not really an exact science, much less a pseudo-science. it is the point at which the visual expression of the brand is designed. starting from the same concept, the same positioning, values, etc., the designer can come up with different options. if there are several designers working on the same project, these interpretations start to multiply.

all of these possible versions of visual expression of the brand can respond to a greater or lesser extent to the needs that have been previously identified, and

What is certain is that all these possible visual identities will be submitted to the opinion not only of the client, to whom this role legitimately corresponds, but also of practically anyone, whether or not they are aware of the previous steps taken during the creative process.

everyone has an opinion, everyone gives their point of view and our job should be to know how to take each of these opinions in its proper measure. the creative process is enriched with contributions from third parties but the criterion that should prevail at that moment is that of the designer. the ability to discern between the opinions that contribute something to the brand and those that do not, is key for the final result to be optimal. all this is the good and the bad of working on something that is so opinionated. what do you think?

size matters

"the logo is mall, i want it bigger". this sentence has been heard countless times by those of us who dedicate ourselves in one way or another to the visual identity of brands.

This request exposes the generalized idea that the logo is the brand and that the bigger the logo, the better for the brand, but that is a debate that we will leave for another post in this blog.

when a client perceives that his logo is not sufficiently visible, his logical reaction is usually to ask for it to be bigger. sometimes this is the right solution, but it may entail changes that affect other elements of the design, affecting (or detracting from) the final result. when the logo is not sufficiently visible, making it bigger is not always the best solution. it can be made more visible even by making it smaller, placing it in a more appropriate place, treating the colors intelligently or being able to direct all eyes towards it.

The important thing is that the communication between the client and the brand specialist, the designer, etc. is correct: the client normally knows what he wants, has identified his problems and what he should not do is to explain how to solve them, because that is what the brand specialist, the designer, etc. are for.

"don't tell me how to solve your problem, just tell me what the problem is and I will give you a design solution", should be the correct answer to these situations, because the solution that may be obvious in the first place, does not always have to be the best one, since size, in many occasions, matters.