An article from the end of last year has magically reappeared on my LinkedIn feed this week. Unlike my normal reaction (“Ugh…not again”), this one elicited a different response (“Huh…wait a minute”). It’s not that I forgot that I’d read it, just that I started to see it in a whole new light. In all likelihood you’ll disagree with me. And I’m really okay with that. Because you’re wrong.
You say: The sea of sameness that permeates brand design today is creating a boring landscape.
I say: It’s a sea of built-for-purpose brands.
The article in question – “The hottest branding trend of the year is also the worst” by Thierry Brunfaut and Tom Greenwood – appeared in Fast Company in December 2018. The basic premise is that the sea of sameness that permeates brand design today is creating a boring landscape, where companies adopt the san-seriffed, wordmark-rather-than-logo trope championed by companies like Facebook, Google, Uber, Airbnb. Brunfaut and Greenwood refer to the copycats not as brands, but as blands. And, while one could criticize the originators of blanding, the authors focus their consternation on the wannabes because “the blands haven’t earned the branding they ape.” They are imitative nothings who should be ridiculed because of their lack of creativity-driven differentiation.
Up until this point I’d been nodding my head enthusiastically, even on my more recent read through. But, then I rediscovered a single line that recast how I thought about blanding: “The point is differentiation; by definition, that’s what branding is.”
Yes, but.
Make that,
Yes, BUT!
True, one of the points of branding is differentiation. However, that is not the only point of branding. Different only matters if it matters. Put another way, while one goal of branding is to be differentiated, another is to be relevant.
Different only matters if it matters.
And, much like differentiation forces brand builders to ask “different from whom?”, relevance begs the question “to whom?”
If we look at the small, scrappy, trying-to-gain-traction startups that have grasped onto the blanding that so many of us deride, the question of “to whom?” is not as simple as saying “consumers”. Having spent a fair amount of time with pre-IPO/-acquisition companies over the years, customers matter but the difference between making payroll next month and closing shop isn’t a customer. It’s an investor.
Investors are as important to early stage companies as customers are, sometimes more so. Having a brand that is professional, smooth and sleek can go a long way in legitimizing what can be a very nascent idea. It can be the difference between going to Kickstarter and going to Sand Hill Road. A bland brand can create the impression of legitimacy when a company is little more than an idea.
A bland brand can create the impression of legitimacy when a company is little more than an idea.
On top of this, a neutered brand approach can increase the degree of flexibility that a company has as it grows. In a business landscape where pivots are key moments to learn and improve, a brand that focuses too much on what sets you apart today can quickly become a brand that focuses on what set you apart yesterday. A bland may actually be a more practical way to address the need to look big, but still be flexible.
This is not to say that the brands that Brunfaut and Greenwood chastise are to be applauded. They are uninspired and boring, after all. I don’t find myself personally drawn to them because they’re boring, but I’m not going to judge them for their very practical decisions. While blanding may be subjectively boring, it can be awfully practical. That practicality is what allows these brands to ultimately earn their keep.
That practicality is what allows these brands to ultimately earn their keep.
So maybe, just maybe, the hottest trend in branding isn’t the worst, but the more efficient route to supporting rapidly changing businesses.
