The answer to brand ‘attribution confusion’ is simple
Stuart Watson, Partner and Co-Founder at Nomad, believes that sometimes less is more and, when it comes to branding, ever-morphing logos and complicated sub-brands are creating consumer confusion. Here, he explains why we need to remove the complexity and work on building powerful memory structures through simplicity and repetition.
)
The problem with branding is that there’s just too much of it and people have stopped caring. We designers need to cool our jets and make things less complicated if we’re to make brands and consumers connect again
Why do brand guys like me spend so much time complicating everything?
You’re walking down Oxford Street in London when you spot that iconic yellow shopping bag. In an instant, you recognise exactly where it's from and start wondering about its contents. It’s rich in meaning, even sparking a tinge of jealousy. That glossy Selfridges & Co shopper sticks in the mind and brings thoughts of luxury and indulgence to the fore. It’s just a yellow bag and yet it means so much more. It’s the same for Tiffany & Co, Cadbury and McDonalds. Simple and effective brand attribution.
Why, then, do brand guys like me spend so much time complicating everything? Modular systems, primary, secondary and tertiary colourways, ever-morphing logos, complex sub-brands. All we’re doing is creating a bigger chasm between the parent brand and the consumer – and losing love in the process.
Above: The bright yellow Selfridges bag is instantly recognisable.
Attribution is the buzzword of the day, and it’s ushering a watermark moment into the world of branding and marketing. As companies flex and grow, new brand and logo iterations are often designed to announce fresh products and services in an effort to grab attention and maintain retention. But, in some cases, that approach is having a counterproductive effect, diluting precious brand equity and attribution. It causes confusion and creates barriers. So, maybe it’s time to stop and accept that it’s all got a bit out of hand.
Maybe it’s time to stop and accept that it’s all got a bit out of hand.
Of course, saying ‘stop’ can feel counterintuitive. No one wants to turn down work. But if saying ‘yes’ has the potential to cause harm, we need to put on our big boy pants and accept that it’s time for a rethink.
This is something that the BBC did recently with its latest identity shuffle. It’ll no doubt ruffle a few feathers because people can go pretty nuts when companies redevelop brands and logomarks (it’s not just about disliking change, it’s about breaking links with memories and the uncomfortable feeling that transition can bring). But what the BBC has done is strategically spot on.
It knew it had to do something. These days, a lot of people love iPlayer more than the BBC, for example, and others don’t even make the connection between the two. With all the sub-brand roll-outs, the warm and fuzzy brand love was being diverted away from the Beeb itself. And at a time when arguments are raging around TV licence fees, that’s a worry. The top bods knew they had to make people aware of the value that the overall BBC brand brings.
+ membership
Access the world's largest advertising database. With an intuitive toolset that helps you explore, present and collaborate more effectively.
Learn More
Above: The redesigned BBC logos aim to join the dots between the disparate elements of the brand.
When you have people saying, ‘But I don’t watch terrestrial TV’, and questioning whether they should have to pay the licence fee, it’s fair to say the brand has become disparate and confused. So, in addition to its use in the primary logo, the three-box concept has been reimagined in a series of icons that represent the various services the BBC offers. It’s been designed to join the dots between all the different bits. It has ripped out all the noise and created a single-minded user interface where all things BBC can be located.
When we log on to Netflix, we’re logging onto Netflix and not questioning which ‘bit’ of the brand we’re subscribing to.
We need to remember that simplifying and rationalising can make a stronger impact. When we log on to Netflix, we’re logging onto Netflix and not questioning which ‘bit’ of the brand we’re subscribing to. There’s one brand identity with a navigation system that lets you choose a film, or a documentary, a real-crime drama, or whatever.
Not so for Sky consumers, who are presented with a smorgasbord of separate offers. But what that does is cause resentment when the bill comes through the door. ‘I only watch Sky Sports, why am I paying for all this other stuff?’ Sometimes less is more.
Above: The choice of what we can what and on which device has exploded, but that can cause confusion.
Part of the problem is that there’s just so much choice across all sectors. In the world of UK broadcast media, we’ve gone from three channels to hundreds, one TV per household to three devices each, a couple of broadcast platforms to dozens. It’s exploded. What brand designers need to do is remember that consumers aren’t that interested in scores of nifty little brand and logo iterations. They just want to crack open a beer and watch the match.
What brand designers need to do is remember that consumers aren’t that interested in scores of nifty little brand and logo iterations.
It’s not just media, everywhere you look brands are taking a similarly layered and complicated approach. But all we’re really doing is confusing people and making them turn away. By continuing in this vein, everyone risks losing standout.
Perhaps the next breakout move should be to strip it all back and return to basics. Remove the gimmicks, the complexity, the layers, and work on building powerful memory structures in the hearts and minds of people through simplicity and repetition. Create your iconic yellow shopping bag.
