Your logo vs. your brand

There’s a wonderful chapter in Natalie Goldberg’s Writing Down the Bones: Freeing the Writer Within (affiliate link) called “We Are Not the Poem.” It’s my favorite chapter of the book, and it’s one I’ve gone back to many times in my professional and personal life, for many reasons.

I’ve shared with writers and designers when they’ve had to deal with particularly trying edits or critiques — or what was perceived as personal attacks disguised as edits or critiques.

I’ve handed out copies of the chapter to a journalism class right before I handed back their first assignments, covered in my red-ink edits and remarks.

I’ve read and reread that chapter to remind myself that whatever I create — a blog post, an article, a book, a song — is not me, but merely a reflection of an aspect of me and my thoughts at a particular time and space, and that I should not interpret reactions (positive or negative) to my creations as critiques of me as a person.

And now I’m about to use it to talk about branding and logos.

“Sometimes when I read poems at a reading to strangers,” Goldberg writes, “I realize they think those poems are me.”

It is important to remember we are not the poem. People will react however they want; and if you write poetry, get used to no reaction at all. But that’s okay. … Don’t get caught in the admiration for your poems. It’s fun. But then the public makes you read their favorites over and over until you get sick of those poems. Write good poems and let go of them. Publish them, read them, go on writing.

We are not the poem. It’s a good way to think of ourselves and the work we create.

We are not the award-winning articles we’ve written, or the rough drafts we’ve wadded and tossed into the wastebasket. We are not the deck we built last summer, or the garden we tended, the marvelous magazine cover we created, the website we redesigned, the blog post we published.

Which brings me back to branding and logos.

Our brand is not the logo. Right?

On Wednesday, Twitter and the marketing/branding blogs (including this one) were blowing up with chatter about the new Starbucks logo. (Here’s my contribution.) In the wake of that news, several of us higher ed marketing types spent about 20 minutes exchanging a flurry of thoughts on the topic of branding and logo design. It began when Paul Prewitt tossed this morsel to me and Seth Odell:

Why do people equate brand to graphic identity? The graphic elements are only a small part of a strong brand. @andrewcareaga @sethodell

Seth and I responded, as did Travis Brock (via @EMGonline) and Eric Hodgson. Due to Twitter’s 140-character limit, none of us could very easily respond to Paul’s question, but I believe we all agreed with the second half of his tweet, that “graphic elements are only a small part of a strong brand.”

At one point, Seth tweeted, “I think graphic identity may be the strongest point of brand connection for low level stakeholders.” And he’s probably right — especially when it comes to big brands, such as Starbucks, that spend truckloads of money to get their logos, slogans, taglines and other more tangible brand elements out into the media space.

But back to Natalie Goldberg and poetry. I think people assume that an organization’s visual identity — i.e., its logos — is in fact the brand.

Because, despite what Natalie Goldberg says about the differences between the poet and the poem, what people see and react to is not necessarily the poet, but the poem — the tangible creation.

Let’s do a little word association. Let me toss out a name to you — Robert Frost. Now, what do you associate with that name? Perhaps one of his more famous poems, like “Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening,” or maybe one of the passages from that poem, like “But I have promises to keep/And miles to go before I sleep.”

Now, why would those associations come about? Because you’ve read or heard them so many times. They’ve become what you associate with the “brand” of the poet Robert Frost.

Maybe poetry isn’t your thing. So let’s try Baha Men. What comes to mind? (I’m not going to type the song title here, but if you listened to the radio or went to a club at all in the early 2000s, I’m sure you and I associate the same tune with this band.)

But I’m supposed to be talking about logos here — visual things. If logos are supposed to embody and communicate the essence of an institution’s brand in a visual sense, then the best ones should be associated strongly with the institution they represent. Just like a Picasso looks like a Picasso, and a Dali looks like a Dali.

So, your brand is more than the visual identity. But these days, in our highly visual culture, the visual identity is a crucial component.

Also, creating a brand isn’t writing poetry. It’s more like alchemy. That’s the way Scott Bedbury, the guy who helped create the Starbucks brand, describes the process it in his book A New Brand World (another affiliate link).

The alchemical process … — the transmutation of “base” materials into gold — occurs in the deepest recesses of the human brain as a memory. This memory may be sharp, or it may be out of focus; it is of everything that the consumer in question has seen, heard, or felt about that particular brand. The products themselves are just one contributing factor among many in this mental construct.

Author: andrewcareaga

Higher ed PR and marketing guy. Communications director for Missouri University of Science and Technology (Missouri S&T) in Rolla, Missouri, USA. Slow runner, mediocre guitarist, lover of music and puns, and an avid St. Louis Cardinals fan. I blog and Tweet about #highered, #music, #gocards and #random stuff.

8 thoughts on “Your logo vs. your brand”

  1. That was a great Twitter conversation yesterday.

    I agree with Paul’s comment, with one slight difference. “graphic elements are only a small part of a strong {creative execution of the} brand.”

    If you have a true brand, you should be able to take the creative executions away, still leaving the intangible aspects of the brand (brand promise, positioning, key messages). If you have a “graphic-based” brand and the graphic elements are taken away, your brand no longer exists.

    I like to equate branding to an orchestra concert. The musicians come together to produce a beautiful piece of music, in synergy and harmony with everyone. They look clean in their concert formal wear. The concert hall is clean and well managed. Sound equipment is working correctly. And so on..

    Everyone loves the music, but forget that hundreds of hours are spent practicing and perfecting the music, tuning the instruments, sound equipment is connected and checked, cleaning and pressing the tuxes and dresses, cleaning the concert hall to get ready for the concert. Everything has to come together for the concert to go smoothly and provide an enjoyable experience. If one musician is out of tune, it can leave a bad sound for everyone to hear.

    A lot of hours are put in to creating a fine-tuned brand and building a consensus around it. The creative execution of the brand is one way to help bring people together around the brand. If you don’t have the brand (promise, positioning, etc), the creative doesn’t have anything to focus clearly on narrowly on.

  2. Travis – I like your parenthetical addition to Paul’s thought, and the orchestra analogy. When all elements of a brand work together “in concert,” so to speak, then it’s a beautiful thing.

    Adam – I think you and I have the same top-of-mind awareness of that particular brand. ;)

  3. Graphic representations of brands are extremely important because they trigger that memory Bedbury is talking about. But they are, as you said, only representations. I remember a couple logo fiascos of the last couple years–the intial “up in arms” about Wal Mart’s change (which turned out to be a good thing) and the GAP debacle. Why do we care so deeply what kind of pictures companies use to depict themselves? I was uneasy with the Starbucks change, but only because I am worried about my coffee getting lost in the new list of services, not because they changed their logo. But, the logo change becomes connected to my dis-ease and I get uptight about them changing something I think is partly mine. Goofy? You bet–but is shows the power of brand in our life. Thanks for the insight.

  4. Curious how Starbucks chose to change its main graphic identity so soon after launching its new Seattle’s Best blood bank logo…

    I think the key thing to remember in changing the look of a brand is to have a clear reason of why you’re doing it. Changing a logo for its own sake–because internal users are bored with it or an advertising agency is trying to make a mark–is a recipe for disaster. Since Starbucks is evolving its services beyond coffee and hasn’t updated its logo in many years, this does seem like a reasonable and meaningful change.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: