For those of you who are as intrigued as I am by creative ad genius, Art & Copy (2008), the advertising documentary directed by Doug Pray, was released last Friday, 5 days after the T.V. season premiere of “Mad Men”.

In Pray’s film many ad slogans and revelations are discussed with the creators and those surrounding the campaigns.

The synthesis of “Just Do It”

According to the film, Gary Gilmore, the notorious spree-killer, uttered the words “Let’s do it” just before a firing squad executed him in Utah in 1977. Years later, the phrase became the inspiration for Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign.

Dan Wieden, a co-founder of Wieden & Kennedy, tweaked Mr. Gilmore’s last words thinking it would make a good slogan for Nike. He said the resonance of “Just Do It” was completely inadvertent and unforeseen. In the film, Mr. Wieden recalled the moment it dawned on him to use the phrase. “None of us really paid that much attention. We thought, ‘Yeah. That’d work,’ ” he says, adding, “People started reading things into it much more than sport.”

Are these random creative coincidences or creative genius at work?

Mr. Pray, the film’s director, is a documentarian who has also directed commercials. He said part of his reason for doing the film was to shed light on the people behind ads that have left a mark on American culture. “There’s a beauty to things like ‘Got Milk?’ or ‘Just Do It’ or ‘Where’s the Beef?’ — this incredibly simple writing that seems to kind of say more,” he said. “They seem to work on some kind of a different level that has nothing to do with the product.”

I don’t see the creative process as random. I see it as genius. The brain, with its unknown complexities, can take any information and synthesize it in a way that appears completely random. If one is paying attention, the cues are there. You just have to let them surface and spark!

Now… just do it!

Microsoft has developed a new logo to visually brand its soon-to-open retail stores. Once again, a reminder of the perpetual competition between Microsoft and Apple.

I am not sure this new logo is consistent with Microsoft’s overall visual brand and logo. It is consistent with their brand colors, but other than that, people may have difficulty making the visual leap between the two. Maybe this is what Microsoft wants?

The new Microsoft retail store logo, shown at left below beside the Windows logo, seems reminiscent of the work of Josef Albers.

Josef Albers was chairman of the Department of Art at Yale University. The MS logo is reminiscent of his paintings and prints titled Homage to the Square. From these color studies came his visual exercises published in Interaction of Color which has been used in many graphic design teaching curriculums, including the Color Theory course I had as part of the Graphic Design program at University of Bridgeport. Anyone working with color today should familiarize themselves with Albers teachings.

Shown above, Josef Albers, Homage to the Square, 1970

Color is constantly changing. A color is subjective to its surrounding colors. It is almost impossible to see a color by itself without it interacting with its surroundings.

This image above appears as two very different greens even though both of the squares are the same color. The green is interacting with its surroundings.

Has Microsoft ever done anything totally ”different“? Apple prides itself on “being different”. Microsoft prides itself, it seems, on following Apples or anyone elses lead. When have they ever been original? So why begin now!

It’s like the old game telephone – you whisper something in someones ear and they pass the message along. The last person conveys what they heard and it is totally different than what was originally spoken. Telephone, rumors, whatever, so goes poor communication on the internet.

An image is being thrown about that has Pepsi logos on the left and Coca-Cola logos on the right and the comparison which many are commenting on since my post “Some things never change”. Well, this is just a bad story gone haywire.

I have tried posting comments to other blogs on this issue but they really are not receptive to anything other than their side of the story. And it is, indeed, a story.

The truth is…. The Coca-Cola logo is really a logotype. The logotype has not changed much since its early beginnings. What has happened, is, the logotype has been placed inside a fishtail, rectangle, and circle amongst other things, changing its look slightly on each usage. The logotype does remain the same.

I think my artwork on my post (“Some things never change”) may have been misconstrued. This is not meant to be a progression of the logo. It is meant to show the logotype between 1885-2009 remains pretty much the same. The uses of the logotype are what has changed through the years.

So in an effort to clear up a bad story. Let’s just begin over. Read this blog for clarification. And please feel free to comment on this story! It is open for discussion.

The Coca-Cola Company changed its advertising campaign slogan in 1969 from “Things Go Better With Coke”, to “It’s the Real Thing”. “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” was sung in advertising all over the world in 1971.

“I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke”  has an interesting story for those who recall the T.V. commercials which focused on masses of people singing, what has been dubbed, the Coca-Cola song.

It originated with Bill Backer, the McCann-Erickson creative director on the Coca-Cola account at the time. By chance, the idea came to him through an experience while en route to London. Passengers were compelled to stay together overnight when, due to bad weather conditions, their plane landed in Ireland. The following day, passengers gathered in the airport coffee shop sharing stories and camaraderie over bottles of Coke. He saw Coke, rather than it’s original intent – to be a liquid refresher – as a tiny bit of commonality between all people. Something universally liked and for all to share… in unison. (Bill Backer wrote about this in his book, The Care and Feeding of Ideas). Read the full story here.

Advertising surveys consistently identify the “I’d Like to Buy the World a Coke” ad as one of the best commercials of all time.

Why has Coca-Cola’s logo remained virtually the same for so many years?

The original logo was developed in 1885 using the iconic red and white color scheme still used today.

The script logotype has remained relatively unchanged, but the way it has been used has changed.

Currently, the logotype is placed within a square. In the past it has been placed within a circle, a fishtail and a rectangle.

Coca-Cola keeps its authenticity by remaining the same. The statement it makes is, we are and always have been the same Coca-Cola you know and love. Some brands don’t need to change or evolve. Part of Coca-Cola’s allure is the fact that you can always count on it to taste like, well, Coca-Cola*.

*This does vary from country to country due to the localization of the bottling process, subject to elements such as water and often resulting in a compromise of the brand. But that is another post for someone else.

Although Coca-Cola released a new formula in 1985, the logo remained the same.

Like they say, if it’s not broken why fix it?

What happens when you ask someone for their opinion?

You get it. Their subjective – not necessarily expert in the subject – opinion.

What happens when you set up the ”approval by committee” process? People most often give a critical assessment, as if this is the preferred answer. The person lending the opinion feels like they’re the expert and they feel validated. It is an ego-stroker. And we all like our opinions to be valued, dont we?

Visuals and words are subjective. People’s perceptions and interpretations always come into play. Asking opinions doesnt work – you can never please everyone. Design by committee is expensive and is often unsuccessful.

Here is an easy 3-step process to the opinion phase.

We believe this to be ideal for all involved, if and when it is doable. It is a process we love to work within when we can. The process is simple.

A company team is chosen and the process begins.

The company team:

1 gathers information from chosen parties internally who want to have a say in the project;

2 assigns a project leader to interface with the company team and the design team;

3 meets and conveys all the gathered information including opinions, perceptions, likes and dislikes to the design team.

Not as easy as 1, 2, 3. If teams are not excessively large, this can be very successful. Cohesiveness within the group is ideal and often needs some work before the team can reach maximum potential. If the design team observes disagreement amongst company team members, they will need to flush this out right away. Find out where the disagreement points and work through it until there is a consensus on how to move forward. If this is not done it will continue to be a thorn in everyones side.

Something to strive for. When achieved, it’s a win-win for all.

The word ”branding” is thrown around pretty readily today. In fact, at this point, it’s been used so many times that people have probably forgotten that it’s also a process for marking cattle with a hot poker, in addition to the relevant meaning in marketing speak.

A logo is the visual representation of what a company does, as well as what a company is about from a conceptual standpoint. But a BRAND is more than that.

A BRAND is the perception of the company that the world sees. It is everything a company puts out there visually, conceptually, and sensually, as well as in words. Logos, labels, promotional material, web communications, TV, advertising and anything connected to the company – including its people – should speak the brand.

So how do you make this happen, you ask?

Quite simply, really.

1. The brand must be stated clearly;

2. It must be conveyed concisely through the vision, mission statements and corporate values, and;

3. The leaders of the organization must have a good understanding of what all this means;

4. It needs to be implemented consistently with guidelines.

When this is executed successfully, it helps unify a company’s employees with common goals. These common ”things to aspire to” help build a sense of community throughout the organization. There are few things more powerful than a cohesive group of people working together toward a common goal. When they live the brand, it filters through the organization by osmosis. It has to. If everyone around you thinks, speaks and acts in a certain way, there is no choice but to internalize the unified vision.

So typically a logo is designed in tandem with “branding.” The visual representation needs to have meaning, which comes from the company’s vision – the brand.

We have worked on many logos for organizations, large and small. And one thing I can tell you is that a group that conveys their brand concisely and cohesively gets the most appropriate logo, and gets it quicker. Not because we work faster. (It is not about us, the designers!) But rather, we are more efficient because our work becomes targeted to communicate the most powerful concepts on which all stakeholders agree.

I recall one project where we presented five logo designs and all decision-makers agreed on the same one design. It is somewhat miraculous, but it does happen. I can tell you that it is because they were all on the same page about where the company was, where it was going, how they were going to get there, and most importantly, because they conveyed it to us (the outsiders) so clearly. It was a synthesis of their concepts into visuals – it’s as simple as that! …Or is it?

Although eye-tracking studies can and have easily been disputed, the information distilled from them can be part of your information arsenal. One eye-tracking study found that web users read in an “F” pattern.

Translated, this means that they first read in a horizontal movement, across the upper part of the content area; move down the page a bit and then read across in a second horizontal movement; and then scan the content’s left side in a vertical movement.

Interestingly enough, the “Z” pattern has traditionally been used for print. The contrast of the “F” and the “Z” and their mediums is something to ponder.

In the print publication world, it is known that we create directional flow with visual elements, all with the intention of getting a message across by moving the reader through the piece.

The conventional “Z” pattern of reading (in western cultures) is used for the strategic placement of important information. Starting in the upper left corner, working across to the right and then back to the left again, going top to bottom. The “Z” is on any page or spread (2 facing pages) if two pages are viewed together as one.

Applying this convention, whether it is an “F” or a “Z”.

The upper left corner in email promos/newsletters happens to hold the most prime real estate in your communication as it is the first thing people view. And for most, it needs to be the “grabber”.

The upper left corner of your website homepage can be thought of in the same way. Some of this is subjective to the viewers screen size. Viewing on a small screen makes the upper left most important as opposed to viewing on a large screen, where directing the eye is much more important. It can determine whether your viewer remains on your site or not.

What visual elements do you find successful in directing viewers, web and/or print?

Using visual images simplifies your message and supports or often takes the place of added text. It’s shorthand for a concept or something hard to describe. 

People’s visual recognition and association is very quick. Images communicate quickly. It‘s like the saying, “a picture is worth 1000 words”. But only if it is the right visual.

Images are capable of evoking powerful responses and connecting with each of us in unique ways. A conceptually appropriate image can draw us in and create an emotional bond by tapping into our own feelings. 

How can we make an emotional connection with customers through the use of images?

One way to evoke an emotional connection is for the viewer to be able to make eye contact with an image of a person. This connection can also be accomplished by using hands or any image that viewers identify with. Dramatic images can help convey a concept you want viewers to identify with emotionally.   

Here are a few additional quick image tips gleaned from numerous online eye-tracking studies:

Image quality is a factor in drawing attention. When people do look at graphics, crisp images attract attention better than small blurry ones. 

People in pictures facing forward are more inviting and approachable.


People who look like models (perfect human specimens, according to popular culture) are less likely to draw attention than “normal” people. We need to be able to see ourselves and emotionally connect with the image.

Faces in photos draw users’ eyes.
It is clear that eyes move toward faces when viewing photos of people. When choosing images with people, tighter images where faces are easy to read may work best to draw reader attention.

Multiple faces in photos attract more viewers. 
When choosing photos of people, viewers tend to look at and spend more time with images that have more than one face clearly visible.

People routinely click on photos.
It’s worth considering making homepage images links. From the homepage a photo click could lead to an article associated with the photo.

Size matters
Images that are at least 210×230 pixels seem to keep viewers most engaged. On both homepages and inside pages, the larger the image, the more it will be noticed and the longer a viewer will engage with it.

Once again, take note, most of the online rules here hold true for traditional print media as well.

Why Brand?

Why do the majority of people pay more for and buy more Colgate and Crest than generic toothpaste? It’s really all the same isn’t it? Or is it?

The average consumer must deal with about 10,000 brand names competing for mindshare. There will always need to be a way to help your potential customer make a buying decision. And, if you don’t create your brand, someone will do it for you. Perception is always out there–positive or negative. Creating yours just means you are in control your business.

What is a brand?

It is everything your company does, says, looks, conveys, exudes, breathes and to some who use this, smells and touches.

Branding is simply stating: 

who you are,

what your association is,

what you offer the world, and

how your customer should (or does) perceive you.
 

To the average observer, this appears to be simple. 

Here are some questions that can help you think through this.

How do you: 

Define your business?

Differentiate your business from the competition?

Discover new ways to think about your customers, your market, your technology, your business?

Uncover the things that make you special and use them?

Form the key questions that will allow you to see differently, gain new perspectives and insights, and discover viable and surprising ideas?

Discover new ways to think about your customers, your market, your technology, your Business?

Articulate your value and strategy with effectiveness, clarity, and insight?

Develop targeted communications that inform, persuade and inspire?

Visually communicate effectively?

If you are clear on these points, branding has begun.
 

What can branding ultimately do for you?

It builds a foundation.

It builds recognition. Repeated exposure builds familiarity and emotional appeal which ultimately…

builds trust,

builds expertise,

builds reputation.