Selected spreads from the Asperand Brandbook.
Showing posts with label branding. Show all posts
Showing posts with label branding. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Friday, October 9, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
DS: Naming, Typefaces and Color
#1 Fasteco
I like Fasteco because it is a new unique name that is catchy, easy to pronounce and connotes my attributes.
#2 Eround
Eround is a play off around. "E" can stand for "eco" as well as "earth", so that can add a double meaning to the brand, supporting many of its attributes.
#3 Pegasis
This name can be interesting in terms of imagery and potential logo, but is traditional and does not bring anything new to the world.
Some other ideas from the brainstorming with Amy and Greg:
Opireco (mix of Open Air and Eco)
Ugreen
Wednesday, September 2, 2009
DS: Travel company. Initial research.
Collecting Data
-Market sizing
the company will target people 20-30 years old, who either just started their career, or are just beginning to get into it. They love traveling and active vacations are a big part of their lifestyle. This category wants to be able to use environmentally-friendly transportation on affordable prices and get reasonable deals for hotels, car rental and dining.
-Awareness
the company will be broadcasted through different types of media: environmental design, print and digital media as well as such resources as radio and online ads.
-Attitudes
people who are loyal to the company are also loyal to the idea of environmentalism and care about the effect they produce. The company also targets people who want to be environmentally friendly, but are just learning how.
-Recognition
the brand will be recognized by such organizations like Green Peace for its support and attempt to make travel a friendlier experience.
-Reputation
-Statistics
-Demographics
Monday, August 31, 2009
Design Systems (DS): Three Briefs.
1.TRANSPORTATION: Travel assistance company.
The company is going to focus on helping people find how to find affordable tickets, hotels, rentals and will also provide useful information for tourists. This company will focus on making travel and preparation for it easier and cheaper. Among the usual ways of travel, the company is going to promote environmentally-friendly modes of transportation, like cycling, carpooling and walking around. It will target people who want to travel and see the world, but need assistance with picking good deals. They are also thinking about the impact they make on the planet. The competitors will be mainly such companies as Bing, but it will be a lot more open.
2.PLACE: "Plant a tree" park.
The company is going to focus on helping people find how to find affordable tickets, hotels, rentals and will also provide useful information for tourists. This company will focus on making travel and preparation for it easier and cheaper. Among the usual ways of travel, the company is going to promote environmentally-friendly modes of transportation, like cycling, carpooling and walking around. It will target people who want to travel and see the world, but need assistance with picking good deals. They are also thinking about the impact they make on the planet. The competitors will be mainly such companies as Bing, but it will be a lot more open.
2.PLACE: "Plant a tree" park.
The company is going to be a non-profit organization that will attempt to make a certain part of community green and friendly. This is not a park in its traditional understanding. People will contribute to the organization by planting trees and plants in the designated area. It will target environmentalists, people who want to make their community a prettier place and people with kids who want to teach their kids the basics of green lifestyle. The main competitors will be companies like Green Peace and others.
3.INFORMATION: Weather prediction.
This company will be a reliable source for weather prediction and trip planning. It will have detailed information, road condition and other weather-related suggestions. It will also be a first-alert weather organization that will help you stay safe in dangerous weather. The company will also promote a healthier way of living, like using solar power and other types of alternative energy. It will target pretty much anyone who occasionally gets out of the house and wants to know what to expect. Environmentalists will also be welcome. The main competitors will be Weather.com, except it will be more focused on actual weather conditions.
Monday, February 16, 2009
T4: Just some thoughts.
I thought a little bit about the discussion our class had today and realized that it corresponds with something that I wrote during the summer on my Z Intern blog. Even though the "loosey-goosey" approach to this project is something unusual and was not practiced in our previous classes, I feel like it is one of the projects most relevant to the "real" world. We don't have set deadlines in this project and it is interesting to see how people manage their time and progress. I feel like not having a red flag in the calendar, screaming "TURN IT IN" allows us to be more focused on the process rather than the outcome. It is important because we will not always be responsible in the outcome, while the process can sometimes belong to us completely. So I guess this projects teaches our some non-design skills too, which is a pretty good addition to the usual learning outcomes.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
IA:Research about Brands. Collecting information.
I was surfing the web, trying to find information that would be relevant to the topic of branding and that would be interesting to work with. The "Emotional television" article talks about the things viewers have an emotional response to and how it is achieved. The article also touches upon the way people's decisions are often clouded by emotive advertisement.
The "Hipster" article from Adbusters presents an interesting perspective on the "street-cred". It talks about the way hipsters become a trend. Brands and publicity plays a big part in this. Here's an interesting quote from the article: "The American Apparel V-neck shirt, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Parliament cigarettes are symbols and icons of working or revolutionary classes that have been appropriated by hipsterdom and drained of meaning. Ten years ago, a man wearing a plain V-neck tee and drinking a Pabst would never be accused of being a trend-follower. But in 2008, such things have become shameless clichés of a class of individuals that seek to escape their own wealth and privilege by immersing themselves in the aesthetic of the working class."
I thought this article "What is a lifestyle brand?" was pretty funny, mostly because the amount of anger the person has
The "Cheap Beer?" is a good example of the way brands loose their historic roots. I thought that the example of the PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer) beer was rather informative.
Here's a quote: "That is to say, PBR’s blue-collar, honest-workingman, vaguely anticapitalist image-image attached to it by consumers-is a sham. You really couldn’t do much worse in picking a symbol of resistance to phony branding.”
Here is some basic information on the "Buy Nothing Day" campaign by Adbusters.
This Forbes article "World's Most Desirable Luxury Brands" presents some useful information about Gucci and why it is so valued by the consumers. It also tells you who buys Gucci. Surprisingly, only 7% of the polled North American shoppers buy Gucci.
Here's an article I found " Interbrand Launches Premiere Leading Luxury Brands Study" presents some facts about the business side of luxury brands.
I have a very interesting chapter from the book "Ways of Seeing". It makes a lot of good points that explain what is advertising and how it works. I also have a brand glossary with all the key terms of branding. Have some imagery too.
The "Hipster" article from Adbusters presents an interesting perspective on the "street-cred". It talks about the way hipsters become a trend. Brands and publicity plays a big part in this. Here's an interesting quote from the article: "The American Apparel V-neck shirt, Pabst Blue Ribbon beer and Parliament cigarettes are symbols and icons of working or revolutionary classes that have been appropriated by hipsterdom and drained of meaning. Ten years ago, a man wearing a plain V-neck tee and drinking a Pabst would never be accused of being a trend-follower. But in 2008, such things have become shameless clichés of a class of individuals that seek to escape their own wealth and privilege by immersing themselves in the aesthetic of the working class."
I thought this article "What is a lifestyle brand?" was pretty funny, mostly because the amount of anger the person has
The "Cheap Beer?" is a good example of the way brands loose their historic roots. I thought that the example of the PBR (Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer) beer was rather informative.
Here's a quote: "That is to say, PBR’s blue-collar, honest-workingman, vaguely anticapitalist image-image attached to it by consumers-is a sham. You really couldn’t do much worse in picking a symbol of resistance to phony branding.”
Here is some basic information on the "Buy Nothing Day" campaign by Adbusters.
This Forbes article "World's Most Desirable Luxury Brands" presents some useful information about Gucci and why it is so valued by the consumers. It also tells you who buys Gucci. Surprisingly, only 7% of the polled North American shoppers buy Gucci.
Here's an article I found " Interbrand Launches Premiere Leading Luxury Brands Study" presents some facts about the business side of luxury brands.
I have a very interesting chapter from the book "Ways of Seeing". It makes a lot of good points that explain what is advertising and how it works. I also have a brand glossary with all the key terms of branding. Have some imagery too.
Friday, January 30, 2009
My opinion
I think that branding is a controversial topic because there are always two opinions about it. Some people think that the world would become dull without brands, some people think that they are the greatest vice of the modern era. Both are radical and I think that the subject has both positive and negative aspects, which is why I'm interested in researching this.
I think that the vast variety of brands is a positive thing. Brands create competition and as it was said in the Economist article, it benefits the consumer. Brands are valuable when there is choice. I watched a pretty interesting movie over break about a style movement in the 50's Soviet Union, called Stylyagi or "Stylish". During the times when people were raised to look and act and think the same, there were individuals that would try to express their individuality by listening to music that was outlawed, dressing into clothes that would make them stand out of the crowd and living a secret life that allowed them to be who they truly were. This was risky and involved a lot of personal courage and required a lot of investment. The Stylish had to purchase expensive clothes bought in Europe or the US and sold in the black market. This brings me back to the branding. Now the consumers have a choice and you can buy anything and dress into whatever you want, as well as live as you find suitable. It seems, however, that most people use this not to their advantage, but to conform. The only difference between the past is that people are trying to be the same, but it's their own choice. This supports the point that the world becomes homogeneous because of the brands. At the same time, I'd rather have a choice and decide whether i want to conform or not. Since the demand creates the offer, the consumer has more to choose from.
It was said in class that being relatively close to the industry, designers are not often fooled by the science behind branding. I agree with that. Brand essence and catchy slogans do not make me believe that my lifestyle will improve or change if I buy Addidas sneakers or regularly go to Starbucks. The quality of the product and the guarantee that i get when I purchase it from a well-known brand are usually the things that make me want to buy something. Brands are the "names" of the companies. As it was said in the article, brands help the consumer find out what the company sells.
Even though I don't think that brands are something that attribute to people becoming more superficial and materialistic, I am pro-branding. It is an aspect of our lives that is going to be there whether we want it or not and we should make peace with it while having a clear understanding of why and how the system works.
I have more thoughts on this, so I might have additional posts on the topic.
I think that the vast variety of brands is a positive thing. Brands create competition and as it was said in the Economist article, it benefits the consumer. Brands are valuable when there is choice. I watched a pretty interesting movie over break about a style movement in the 50's Soviet Union, called Stylyagi or "Stylish". During the times when people were raised to look and act and think the same, there were individuals that would try to express their individuality by listening to music that was outlawed, dressing into clothes that would make them stand out of the crowd and living a secret life that allowed them to be who they truly were. This was risky and involved a lot of personal courage and required a lot of investment. The Stylish had to purchase expensive clothes bought in Europe or the US and sold in the black market. This brings me back to the branding. Now the consumers have a choice and you can buy anything and dress into whatever you want, as well as live as you find suitable. It seems, however, that most people use this not to their advantage, but to conform. The only difference between the past is that people are trying to be the same, but it's their own choice. This supports the point that the world becomes homogeneous because of the brands. At the same time, I'd rather have a choice and decide whether i want to conform or not. Since the demand creates the offer, the consumer has more to choose from.
It was said in class that being relatively close to the industry, designers are not often fooled by the science behind branding. I agree with that. Brand essence and catchy slogans do not make me believe that my lifestyle will improve or change if I buy Addidas sneakers or regularly go to Starbucks. The quality of the product and the guarantee that i get when I purchase it from a well-known brand are usually the things that make me want to buy something. Brands are the "names" of the companies. As it was said in the article, brands help the consumer find out what the company sells.
Even though I don't think that brands are something that attribute to people becoming more superficial and materialistic, I am pro-branding. It is an aspect of our lives that is going to be there whether we want it or not and we should make peace with it while having a clear understanding of why and how the system works.
I have more thoughts on this, so I might have additional posts on the topic.
IA:The Case for Brands
Brands make firms accountable to consumers. People find a guarantee of quality that is assured by the reputation of a brand.
What is good in brands?
- Brands began to emerge as a form of consumer protection. The consumer would know what type of product he/she was buying and if it was as good as the previous one.
- Brands create competition that benefits the consumers. (Wimpy vs. McDonald's)
-Brands have value only when consumers have a choice (as opposed to the non-brand market in the Soviet Union)
-Brands are the tools that companies use to create customer loyalty.
What is bad in brands?
-Brands are vulnerable. Any failed ad campaign, scandal or drop of quality can scare off customers.
-Brands need a lot of work. They need to be cosseted, sustained and protected.
What is controversial?
-Brands create an emotional response in the consumers and it can be seen as an exploitation of the consumers' needs.
-Brands create a promise of a superior lifestyle. This upsets many customers because they do not want to believe in the brand's notion that paying more leads to achieving success or happiness.
BUT: brands are no different from other symbols of success that were valued in the past centuries.
What is good in brands?
- Brands began to emerge as a form of consumer protection. The consumer would know what type of product he/she was buying and if it was as good as the previous one.
- Brands create competition that benefits the consumers. (Wimpy vs. McDonald's)
-Brands have value only when consumers have a choice (as opposed to the non-brand market in the Soviet Union)
-Brands are the tools that companies use to create customer loyalty.
What is bad in brands?
-Brands are vulnerable. Any failed ad campaign, scandal or drop of quality can scare off customers.
-Brands need a lot of work. They need to be cosseted, sustained and protected.
What is controversial?
-Brands create an emotional response in the consumers and it can be seen as an exploitation of the consumers' needs.
-Brands create a promise of a superior lifestyle. This upsets many customers because they do not want to believe in the brand's notion that paying more leads to achieving success or happiness.
BUT: brands are no different from other symbols of success that were valued in the past centuries.
IA:Truth in advertising outline
Naomi Klein sees branding as a negative phenomenon that exploits the consumers' emotional needs and makes the world superficial and homogeneous.
Why are brands bad?
- Brands create a false promise of a better lifestyle and attempt to produce a false essence. (Nike=transcendence; Starbucks=community). Brands are selling a feeling or essence that are usually far from what you can really get from the product.
-The identities that are created for the companies are injected into the society, creating a false understanding of what is positive and what should be admired.
-Brands are replacing the influence of the thinking individuals and intellectuals by creating a false essence of the meaning of life and a quick way to happiness. It is hard to compete with because brands always promise higher status and an alluring future. As a result people become more superficial and can start to believe that happiness can be achieved by wearing certain jeans or staring at an expensive flat screen tv.
-"Bennetton believes that it is important for companies to take a stance in the real world instead of using their advertising budget to perpetuate the myth that they can make consumers happy through the mere purchase of their product." [article]
BUT: by presenting world issues the company creates a bigger distance between the consumer and the issue. (no community at Starbucks) The promises that sound so noble are usually not kept.
-The quality of the product changed into a "stylistic badge of courage" ("I'm wearing Benneton, so I'm cool")
How are brands vulnerable?
-Internet activism that shows the gap between what the brands try to look like and what they really try to achieve.
Why are brands bad?
- Brands create a false promise of a better lifestyle and attempt to produce a false essence. (Nike=transcendence; Starbucks=community). Brands are selling a feeling or essence that are usually far from what you can really get from the product.
-The identities that are created for the companies are injected into the society, creating a false understanding of what is positive and what should be admired.
-Brands are replacing the influence of the thinking individuals and intellectuals by creating a false essence of the meaning of life and a quick way to happiness. It is hard to compete with because brands always promise higher status and an alluring future. As a result people become more superficial and can start to believe that happiness can be achieved by wearing certain jeans or staring at an expensive flat screen tv.
-"Bennetton believes that it is important for companies to take a stance in the real world instead of using their advertising budget to perpetuate the myth that they can make consumers happy through the mere purchase of their product." [article]
BUT: by presenting world issues the company creates a bigger distance between the consumer and the issue. (no community at Starbucks) The promises that sound so noble are usually not kept.
-The quality of the product changed into a "stylistic badge of courage" ("I'm wearing Benneton, so I'm cool")
How are brands vulnerable?
-Internet activism that shows the gap between what the brands try to look like and what they really try to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)