flying colours

I've always wondered what would have happened if Paul Rand had chosen a different colour for his famous IBM logo (writes Peter). Maybe a bright orange, a lush green or a rich purple?

Or was 'corporate blue' already the default back in the late 1950s? {Must re-watch Mad Men to find out}

IBM even gained the nickname 'The Big Blue', and for as long as I can recall blue has been the safe colour of choice for corporations.

Move on 50 years from the design of IBM's logo, and surely the web has started to dilute corporate blue? No expensive multi-coloured inks to mix and print, plus access to may 1,000s of web safe colours - major corporates must be a riot of colour on the web?

Well, this chart from colourlovers.com suggests not - or at least not yet.

Skype, Twitter, AOL, PayPal, RealPlayer, WordPress, LinkedIn - all major brands born out of the web. And their corporate colour of choice? Paul Rand would be proud.

namestorming

We're increasingly being asked by clients to generate names for new brands or ranges. Having been through the process a few times recently, we've found that many heads really are better than one, so everyone in the studio gets involved in the first stages. Here are a few pictures from one of our latest 'namestorming' sessions...

launch pad

Over the past year or so, we've been putting together 'launch books' whenever a project is completed. They're printed as A5 booklets, and now make quite a good collection, with each one showcasing a different brand issue or brief. We do have some spares, so if any readers would like to receive one relevant to them, email info@wonderlandwpa.com or leave a comment.

how being too nice put paid to the banks

I used to have a mortgage with Abbey (writes Lawrence). They were brilliant - easy to read statements, I could talk to them on the phone quickly, even visit a branch where someone would be happy to sit me down in an office, give me a coffee and answer any questions. I even took a credit card out with them because they were so efficient and easy to deal with.

Then came the crunch. And a name change from Abbey to the less convincing Santander coincided with a greater change, not just for Abbey but for all the banks and insurance companies.

Prior to the crunch the high street banks had become rather good at talking to people. They were approachable, generally easy to deal with, and were more than happy to sell you anything from investments to insurance.

This nice and easy approach stemmed from changes in the early nineties. I remember working with NatWest (who'd recently changed from from the stiffer National Westminster Bank), as they embarked on a programme to move the perception of the bank away from a corporate institution towards a more customer-friendly business.

The bank tore down the steel bars and thick glass separating cashiers from customers. They were replaced with comfy sofas, open plan areas with discreet screening and plenty of pot plants. Simple, friendly illustrations adorned the covers of its in-branch booklets and window displays. The NatWest logo and its complementary typefaces became rounder and softer to reflect its newfound love of the customer.

And the other banks followed suit. Adverts for banks became the ones you didn't mind watching and plain English was enforced on every piece of written communication to make sure real people could understand.

Marketers who trained in FMCG environments started to infiltrate financial services. Banks became nice places to visit, to the extent that coffee shops were given concessions in branches. And at that point, it had gone too far. Banks forgot what they were about - there to deal with important aspects of people's lives. Essentially they lost their authority and with it their integrity.

So perhaps what started at NatWest all those years ago contributed to the downfall of the high street banks. They had become too easy, too nice and too friendly, handing out cash like they'd hand out a café latte. It become the norm.

But when everything changed, all those lessons in approachability were forgotten overnight, and banks went from "couldn't do more for you" to "we don't want to talk to you".

Which takes me back to my Santander situation. When I recently sold my house and needed a new mortgage my experience with Santander was tortuous. I gave them all the information they asked for but they kept asking for more. No-one with authority would speak to me, no mortgage offer was forthcoming. So I gave up. And when I tried to notify them of even the simplest of administrative tasks - a change of address - another long-winded battle ensued.

So while it's understandable that banks have pulled in the reins, they need to strike a balance between being discerning and being plain unhelpful, lacking in the most basic forms of common sense.

Perhaps all the advertising and design agencies working with banks - or indeed hoping to work with them - could think about how they can help their clients become customer-focussed and approachable again, without losing their integrity.

lighten up

Some of our latest Swedish work - for retail giant Axfood - is being rolled out this/next week. We've designed the packaging and instore communications for a new range of low energy lightbulbs. Ever heard of a lumen? Well, it's what the light output of these bulbs is measured in (rather than watts) so a big part of the challenge was to educate the consumer and take any confusion out of the equation. The bulbs are both energy and money saving in the long run, so pretty good all round!

And here they are in situ...

crayfish and cloudberries

Last Friday we held our August Final Friday (well, September First Friday really) at the studio. The theme was Sweden, and our International Client Director Anna did a great job of teaching us a few choice Swedish phrases, enlightening us with some surprising facts about the country, and most importantly introducing us to an array of traditional Swedish food and drink (please ignore the Kettle Chips that crept into a couple of the pictures)...

is the logo dead?

A logo is broadly defined as a graphic mark or emblem used by organisations to promote and gain recognition. In the good old days they sat proudly on corporate letterheads, plastered as big as possible on packaging, hung enticingly above shop fronts and featured prominently in advertising. Designers slaved religiously on logo bibles explaining in minute detail how the logo should be used and what you could (or more often couldn't) do with it.

The logo was the ultimate expression of a company's beliefs, personality and values, feverishly protected and consistently applied. Could this art form that can be traced back over 4,000 years be nearing extinction?

There's been much talk in the design press and blogs in the last few months predicting the death of the logo as we know it. Indeed some experts claim that the logo is nothing more than "an old fashioned approach to identifying products and services" and "a waste of time, money and effort." What is the role of a logo in today's branded world and have we really reached a point where the logo has become so commonplace that there's not much to be gained by having one?

why is the logo under threat?

Brand blindness is a term that's gaining currency online. Apparently the average person is subjected to over 30,000 commercial messages every day, most of them visual. Because of this, today's consumers are adept at quickly editing the information passed before them, looking for recognition in the sea of the unfamiliar. Is there any point crafting a new logo when anything 'new' is mostly ignored? If brand blindness becomes an epidemic, how does any brand stand out?

The digital environment has had profound influence on logo design development. Previously, the black and white fax was the ultimate logo test. Today it's ensuring your logo works on an ever changing palette of platforms and devices, whether it's on your company's website or as a Facebook icon. May logos just don't work on screen because they weren't designed to be seen on screen - many brands are now racing to solve this problem.

Digital also provides a tempting platform to bring the logo to life - make it move, wink, shimmer - desperately (and often inappropriately) trying to 'modernise' the mark and make it more relevant to today's social networking audience.

The most profound shift in logo design was undoubtedly when organisations and companies became brands. This seismic change saw a shift from a company's product or service to a focus on emotion; Apple no longer sell computers, they market a lifestyle. This shift has led to a flurry of complicated 'touchy-feely' logos that try to capture the desired emotion but often just lack clear focus.

Look at the new Kraft Foods corporate logo, a desperate example of this trend. Emotions are blurred and difficult to grasp concepts that need a bigger canvas than a single logo can provide. Logos function best when they simply and memorably explain who you are (Apple) or what you do (FedEx). Try to load too much meaning in your logo at your peril.

The public (and the press) love to hate logos too. £400,000 for the London 2012 logos? Waste of money! Especially when you can buy a ready-made logo online for $50 or less. The value of what a good logo can bring (and the skill and expertise required to create it) is slowly but surely being eroded.

the new logo

Some brave pioneers are challenging the traditional understanding of what a logo is and how it should be used. No weighty corporate manuals for these guys. Instead, a logo is created in the traditional sense, but then colour, texture, application, size, weight, orientation are all exploited to provide not just one logo but a multitude of variations and possibilities for any and every application.

The London 2012 logo was an early adopter of this approach. The initial reaction to the logo was one of near universal derision. Look beyond the jagged shapes and you'll see a clever way to use the logo to hold many different feelings, meanings and subjects without compromising the immediate impact and recognition of those sharp, pointy numbers.

The recent redesign of AOL takes this principles several steps further. Those much hated BA tail fins from the 80s were perhaps the first example of new logo thinking. Why have one logo when you can have (literally) hundreds?

Or why have any logo at all? Burnley, a small town in Lancashire famous only for electing a BNP member onto the council, recently rebranded itself to present the town in a new light. Any expected small town logo design is thrown out of the window, replaced by a squiggly, swirling, scribbly animation - visit burnley.co.uk to see it in full effect. It's not a logo, it's something entirely brave and new - a living identity perhaps? Whether it's appropriate for a town like Burnley remains to be seen.

future-brand

One of the biggest threats to the logo is the so-called 'brand world'. This is a hot phrase recently coined to describe the visual and verbal noise that surrounds a brand. The thinking goes that a brand world can create a rich tapestry of colours, images, sounds, textures and typography across any medium to engage the audience emotionally whilst being unique and recognised as identifying a brand or organisation. So identifiable in fact, the role of the logo could be about to be redundant.

Think of O2 and you will inevitably picture bubbles, shades of blue and perhaps even hear that nice man with the very reassuring and friendly voice. The actual O2 logo, whilst simple and effective, is actually pretty forgettable - it's the brand world that is memorable.

Deli Garage is a food brand in Germany that treats the packaging for its products as a brand world. There is no big logo, no typical food cues; instead a collection of products unified by strong colour, illustration, typography and physical structure that create a unique and effective packaged brand world. It's an intriguing idea, and one that potentially offers consumers a much deeper and more rewarding experience than the standard big logo approach.

rest in peace

So is the logo dead? Does the pressure from digital platforms, meaningless metaphors and public outrage sound the death knell for identity? Is the brand world approach really the brave new world?

Undoubtedly the traditional role of the logo is facing many challenged. By being pushed to communicate more and more it has actually become meaningless. On the flipside, the brand world is really nothing new, but the strength of a coherent and relevant brand experience is only just starting to be realised. One is not a replacement for the other - a logo can never tell the full story of your brand. Similarly a brand world can't ever be trademarked.

in remembrance

Let the logo do what it does best - simply say who you are or what you do. Leave it to the brand world to immerse and engage your audience. Don't get the two mixed up but make sure they work together.

In today's connected world, the bigger the palette your brand owns, the greater its reach and flexibility across the ever growing number of touchpoints. Consistency is old news. Coherency is the new visual currency.