Identity Change is a joke today

A couple of days ago - One+ announced its change in identity.
That sounds huge right?

The idea of identity change itself seems like a massive exercise. The name suggests a new look altogher.

When we hear these words - we visualize someone who has completely changed his appearances to look different to avail a new passport right? At least - that's what I see.

But in the advertising world - the word is bigger than the reality.

In the case of humans - the need for that change is far more crucial. The new identity gives someone a new lease of life - to be somebody new. All the links to the past are erased.

But for brands - there's a huge legacy that needs to be taken forward. Thing is - consumers have invested a lot of their time and money to like something about the brand. And they remember their relationship through the logo of the brand. Which is why design houses that create logos need to keep something alive of the brand and can't really change too much.

Which from a practical and logical stand point seems fair. It goes back to WHY is the change required in the first place. Either it's not relevant anymore, or has been acquired by or has merged with another company, there's a new management etc.

If we look at some of the brand logo evolution - we'll notice some very similar logos and almost cosmetic changes. Google, Facebook, Pepsi are some who have made a huge noise of the change in their identity but the factor of the change is almost unnoticed by the regular eye.

If that's the case - I really wonder if the change is actually required. Is it done as a climax of an internal orgy session? Don't know and can't say.

The latest one that I chanced upon was One+.

Here's their old and new identity:

The article on Afaqs talks about how the internal creative team and external agency partners worked for over 7 months to arrive at the new identity.

REally? 7 months for this? Thicker lines, removal of the red encasing, a thicker bolder font and a few sizes bigger.

If advertising can faff it's way into convincing people or even marketeers into buying something - no body can come close to design houses who can pull of something like the one above.

I've been privy to such "identity changes" and know a thing or two about how they do it too.

More than consumers - the people that need to buy into this jargonistic bullshit are the marketing team, the investor and shareholders. Consumers have beyond a point nothing but to agree to it.

Also - I've never heard of a consumer saying that they haven't bought something because they didn't like the "identity" of the brand. All they can say is if they liked it and in which case - it needs to stand out. Making such small changes is in my opinion a jingoistic attempt to put out some brand work when NO actual work is coming out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The unforgettable evening with Hari

I fell on to the ground with a droning sound reverberating in my left ear. I was slowly losing sight of my surrounding. I was breathing hard and fast and could feel my breathing on my stomach, but slowly, even that began to fade away. And then... silence. I awoke with the noise of the small crowd gradually getting louder and louder and nearer and nearer. My eyes were open and were having difficulty adjusting to the bright light. I could feel my breathing again but this time - slow and controlled and now, my chest was heaving rather than my stomach. I was sweating profusely and the sudden lack of action was generating immense heat within me and I could feel it on my feet and hands. I felt like an ember emanating heat all over. I could feel the warm floor below me, even though it was wet. I also began to feel the heat below my, on my back, even though I was sweating and my banyan drenched. I moved my arms closer to my hips, folded them to help myself up but somehow, all I could do was th
Read more

Strategic planners, lateral thinking and stand up comedy

 Strategic planners have this innate habit and drive to connect seemingly unrelated dots and try to make sense of the world around them. No wonder that they immerse themselves into so many different kinds of things - and each will find its way into the work they do. Either it's in the brief, in the strategy deck, in the consumer insight, in the quest to simplify complicated thoughts and behaviours, anything. It's almost as if this constant need to connect dots and look for patterns is our coping mechanism to find meaning in chaos. It helps us understand the world better. And we do this so often that most often - it's on auto mode and spontaneous.  While we do this daily with the knowledge we assimilate along the way, we rarely utilize it to generate newer ideas when required. And then, I chanced upon a wonderful video by Mark Pollard, that showed me a new way to leverage this connection seeking behaviour of planners. It was used to showcase the power of lateral thinking, wi
Read more

Planners need to write BRIEFS not A creative brief

I was reading BBH Lab's list of 100 things planners should know, brilliantly captures by Chaz Wigley, Chairman of BBH Asia. (https://www.bbh-labs.com/chazs-100-things-a-planner-should-know/ ) The 10th point in that list is an interesting one. He says - "If you expect creative people to present you with multiple options then you should be ready to write multiple strategies to tackle the problem." I completely subscribe to this point of view. In fact, I think it should be the way we tackle creative briefs. But any look at a creative brief format of most agencies, you'll notice that it strips one of the ability to write multiple ones. The process is tedious, a lot of the columns are unnecessary that makes one question why it was called BRIEF in the first place. I feel a lot of them have too many unnecessary information points for the creative. They, in any case, rarely read it. They don't like briefs, they prefer the BRIEFING. To delve into the difference between the
Read more