Archive for the ‘branding’ Category
I just added this post to the Fallon planning blog…thoughts on generous brands and their Election Day involvement.
What’s a Nubby Twiglet you say? It’s not a ‘what’, but ‘who’. This artist/graphic designer’s name made me giggle, so I want to share with you her blog, found here on Nubbytwiglet.com. I like her bold, clean, and slightly sexy work. Some is available for purchase, but she also gives away free stuff, like wallpaper.
From Black and White Graphic Insight: 2007:
Logo work for Lola London Photography:
all via Free Design Goodies
Toyota is doing something that is a great example of a brand listening to their audience. At Scionspeak.com, you can create your own car logos, which you can save to the gallery, print, our (for $) have applied to your car. Sounds pretty cool. I played around with the designs today and I don’t even own a Scion. (Toyota is focusing on building brand affinity with current Scion drivers, but if non-drivers start thinking about the Scion differently from this new user-designed oriented experience, I’m sure Toyota would welcome this.) Also see a full article from the New York Times.
Also, Jinal at Constant Beta reminds brands of the importance of listening. While she calls out the value of the web, her point hits upon the general relevancy of brands being good listeners.
What is sexy? Have fun exploring ideas of sexyness with K-Y Brand. This is a fun place to share your quick thoughts on the concept of “sexy”. Of-course, it’s no fun giving if you’re not receiving, so don’t be afraid to play around with the swirling sexy phrases – here you can see what others have offered up.
What is most interesting is the filtering tool to the left of the phrases. By de-selecting gender and moving the age markers around, you get a rough idea of who thinks what is sexy. I’m curious to know how many people 70+ have shared their thoughts. (Maybe you should send this to your grandma?) I’m most interested in the male 20-30 demographic, so I turned the women off and adjusted the age marker. A few definitions of sexy appeared: naked on an elephant, naked bus driving, naked jumping jacks. And corndogs. At least K-Y can confidently infer that men think nakedness is sexy. Hah. Jokes aside, there’re some sweetly unique responses as well.
I appreciate the fresh and fun vibe of this interactive experience. Unlike a lot of brands, K-Y isn’t telling us how to think or act, what to buy, or what kind of person we should be. As they say under the “Sexy Is” rollover, our definition of sexy is much more interesting than theirs (true), and by collectively sharing our own “sexy mantras”, we can help create a create a new attitude of what’s hot.
So what is sexy?
Roger Dooley of Neuromarketing blog asks “Why struggle to make ads more appealing when you could be making the product itself more appealing by tapping into the consumer’s true feelings and reactions?” This makes a lot of sense. Advertising has its place and purposes, but doesn’t it seem almost obvious that product design should be a key element in trying to connect with people?
Dooley’s blog focuses on the intersection between brain science and marketing. In today’s post he talks about neuroeconomics, and how this study of emotional response to brands/products could be an important tool for designers. Recent studies have found that areas in the brain stimulated by familiar products/brands are the same areas stimulated by comfort and contentment (see Wired.com’s “Designers See Dollar Signs In Your Emotions”)
Dooley says “There’s the potential for a great combination of art and science in the process of emotional design. Brain scans can in no way replace the creative aspect of a brilliant design, but using advanced techniques to measure customer response and emotional engagement have the potential to avoid non-starter designs and make good design even better.” It’s ironic (or is it) that design, what I thought was something one reacts to and creates, intuitively, is beginning to consider science (not usually an intuitive discipline) as a possible ‘partner’ in the creative process. This brings me to wonder about the specifics of neuroeconomic studies. Do they ask questions such as:
- If we show subjects two vases, in the same color, material, and finish, but one being asymmetrical and the other symmetrical, which area of the brain will favorably light up?
- When shown curves versus 90 degree angles, what results in positive response?
- Is there more comfort towards primary colors combined with straight lines, or muted colors and curves?
Why are some first time product experiences special? Upon seeing or feeling something new (whether it’s an upgraded product or a new product altogether), why do we react with joy, surprise, happiness, or confusion? Why do some products give way to an intuitive experience and understanding, while others leave us far from impressed or engaged? It makes sense that design (good, smart design) should be a pathway to brand engagement. Experiencing a brand or ‘thing’ at its core is much more powerful than seeing how potential consumers might use it on tv or in a print ad. Again, not to discount the value of ‘advertising’. I guess I’m more of a champion of good ideas, and not all advertising is a good idea…
Just some random musings…