From energy brands to home furnishings, the pros and cons of renaming is something of a hot topic in the brand industry. With a recent influx of self-explanatory, simple naming, we could start seeing a backlash if brand stretch isn’t considered and built into the name from the start.
Similar to a politician seeking office, a brand campaigning for “votes” should move consumers to purchase by painting a detailed picture of how their lives would be better – their aspirations fulfilled – if they select that brand at the store shelf.
With methodologies stemming from anthropology and social sciences, we are able to uncover the semiotics that defines current generational trends.
We are in the grip of a making movement. A new generation of makers fuelled by digital know-how and technological advances have given a boost to manufacturing and business with online start-ups launching hourly.
Ever since Diane Van Furstenberg’s S/S show surprised everyone with the debut of Google Glass, the most recent crop of Fashion Weeks both here and Stateside have been hailed as the most digital editions yet.
If you look at how our world economies and societies follow a rise and fall cycle, never seeming to learn from the past, you begin to suspect there’s inevitability to it all. Our sense of the aesthetic often mirrors this rhythm, which could give forward-thinking brands a clue as to what people will want next.
Everyone from Sports bodies to Academics, Journalists and Politicians, began the scramble to draw meaningful lessons from the universally acclaimed games, that can be applied not just to sport, but to aspects of our lives well beyond.
If a brand builds this kind of deep and powerful connection, then its identity and packaging represent a great deal of emotion. They become symbols of our love for the brand; in psychological terms we could say that design becomes the object of our attachment to the brand.