Recently, the chief editor of a big advertising magazine wrote in her editorial: 'design and business; never the twain shall meet'.

Her opinion illustrates two things:
a) the gap that exists between marcom/business and design - one of the driving forces behind Visual Branding
b) the state of denial that part of the advertising industry still lives in.

How does design actually relate to business; how do you connect design to business?

This has got to do a lot with organisation, with the internal governance of visual branding. I look at it like this:

Chain of Visual Branding

Design is very much judged on its output, on what people see. Many companies that are dissatisfied with their design will start a project to create better design. But if they don't see design as part of a business process, as part of an interactive chain in the organisation, they will keep ending up with dissatisfying design. Like the guy that brakes up his third marriage and still thinks his partner is the problem.

If you want to achieve a situation in which the output, the design, is really consistently successful, all four elements of the chain need to perform above average. The chain is as weak as its weakest part.

In this outline I will look at this chain and indicate how companies can improve the visual performance of their brand. I will focus mostly on 'strategy' and 'organisation'.

Brand strategy: the only element of branding where design is truly invisible

In previous outlines, I already stated that the visual part is the most important composing factor of a brand: we live in a visually based society, a brand hardly has any invisible assets, but a multitude of visible expressions - from packaging, to product, advertising etc. etc. So without neglecting the power of marcom and actual behaviour (employees, retail, internet): visual branding is the key asset of a brand in this 21st century.

Therefore it is surprising how little attention design gets when it comes to brand strategy. A few observations: research into brand perception normally pays no attention to design; brand tracking research normally pays no attention to design and is limited to advertising effects (therefore it really isn't brand tracking but advertising tracking); brand strategy documents pay little attention to design; external brand strategy advice is most likely to be recruited from advertising agencies or independent consultancies while neither of them has real knowledge or authority in the field of design.

Another element is the financial side of brand strategy. I worked in advertising myself and for a long time I considered the difference between advertising budgets and design budgets logical. And of course: the bulk of advertising investments is media budget. Still, I see two symptoms:

• the 'invoice - deliverable ratio' of advertising agencies is extremely high compared to design agencies. Without judgement of quality: the amounts of money advertising agencies are allowed to charge for equal or comparable deliverables is much higher. It means the value perception is higher. But also: the 'industry standard', the habitual level of what a client finds financially acceptable, is higher. The next ten years will show further pressure on the earnings/fee structure of (traditional) advertising agencies and growth in the design industry.

• High media costs or not: budgeting is an expression of strategy, of choice, of priority. And in this respect too we will see change: a shift from advertising to design.

I give two examples. My own agency is in the process of creating a European/international brand, online brand for an international company. The brand will have no physical presence, it will be totally online. In other words: the internet concept we created ís the brand. It is the vehicle for marketing, communication, interaction, sales, service, fulfilment. The concept will be used in all European countries but probably also outside Europe.

The marcom budget for the first individual country where the concept will be introduced is about 4500% of our budget. So marcom in one single (not too big) country is budgeted 4500% of the creation of the international brand itself.

We have not one complaint about the co-operation or the budget, on the contrary. I am just providing facts that indicate the way of thinking in the industry. The example is probably quite common.
Another example: the Philips Senseo. The whole budget for the agency involved in creating and developing the (industrial) design of the product itself, was less than the budget for the photo shoot for the first print ad.

I think it is really important for business and marketing professionals to be conscious of the choices they make in this respect. 'But if the agencies do the job, why pay more?' the brand manager might think. He or she is right if design should stay on the level and position it is at. But that doesn't seem wise.

If design can achieve such great results with so little budget, imagine what more it can do for your brand if you were to invest more.

If you want to achieve more with design: create a bigger competitive edge, more communication power and more brand equity, then budgeting surely should reflect this ambition. Put your money where your ambition is. Not as a purpose or solution, but as a result of a strategic choice, a business opportunity.

Again I refer to Apple as an iconic example: a worldwide super brand, hardly spending a dollar on marcom. Design is key. That is not a matter of coincidence; it's a matter of choice.

The horizontal organisation

Small companies or big companies, single products brands or multilayered brands; governing a brand is a complex matter and a continuous battle. 

The average organisation concept around a brand is a professional in charge of the brand, supported by one or more experts in, usually, marketing/marcom. It is too expensive to have a complete staff of experts. More specialised expertise (media, direct mail, sales promotion, retail, internet, events) will be found in central staff departments.

The basic premise of all this, is a vertical organisation concept: the structure is based on vertical lines of responsibility and expertise.

Therefore, the big challenge for companies is to make all these vertical lines work together, to integrate expertise, to achieve a holistic approach of the brand. That's why we talk about multichannel, media-independent etc.

The company has to integrate the virtues of a matrix organisation; a horizontal orientation in addition to the predominant vertical organisation structure.

And design, maybe most of all, is an expertise that is regarded as a completely separate field of expertise. Not many companies have a design manager. And if there is one, he or she is often regarded as another approval hurdle. The designmanager normally has little power except perfect servicing ('no complaints, it can be handy to work with him'), perseverance, personal charisma and sometimes budget.

Visual Branding (see: outline 6) by definition and by nature requires a horizontal approach. This means for instance that:
1. Visual Branding is at the core of branding, marketing, business - it is regarded as a source of (marketing) innovation, business opportunity, market strategy, company culture and company development;
2. A horizontally composed brand DMU (decision making unit) has a decisive role in the overall management of the brand, including visual branding as a priority area;
3. The manager in charge of Visual Branding has authority in the company, he/she is leading and well known inside as well as outside the company;
4. Visual Branding is integrated in the 'mental infrastructure' of the professional staff; they are experienced and/or trained in the relevance of Visual Branding;

I am not saying Philips is a perfect example of Visual Branding but Philips surely is a very strong example of a company that has put design at the core of its business/brand strategy. It is really serious about that and organises the company structure according to the strategy. You see this choice reflected in policy, budgeting, organisation, tools and output. For Philips, design is a thing that matters.

In the coming years, more companies will follow.

There are roughly three kinds of professionals closely involved with brands:

- marketing & communication professionals
- business professionals (p&l-responsible)
- design professionals

Until now, marcom and business professionals are the people taken most seriously when it comes to brands. They are the heavyweights in this trinity, the ones developing brand strategy, managing the brand and the brand architecture, and achieving business targets.

Yet in everything they do, every plan they make, every rebranding, product launch, packaging improvement, retail refreshment, direct mail campaign, website relaunch; they are sure to end up with designers sitting at the other end of the table.

Profession and profile

Design is a difficult matter to marcom and business professionals. That has to do with both character and education. In their professional education, most if not all focus lies in the development of analytical, strategic and commercial skills. They chose this profession because of their talent for analytical and strategic thinking and because they are attracted to commerce. It means they rely heavily on the left part of their brains: the rational part. They process information, manage projects, develop ideas, judge risks and opportunities, from a mind set that is mostly rational. It's what makes them so valuable to their company.

Business and marketing professionals (BMP's) are strong in strategic-analytical thinking and in managing processes. Their mindset and their professional career spur them on to develop these qualities even further. That's why design is a difficult thing for them to grapple with. Important tools in the daily work life of BMP's are software programs such as Windows, Word and - not to forget - PowerPoint. The dress code is closer Wall Street than to world of art.

In walks the designer. Of course there is an increasing number of people in design agencies wearing suits. Especially in a country like the UK, where the business side of design is well developed. But still, the creative designer that does the job is a totally different person. Far away from Wall Street, probably driving a second hand car, sloppy-casual dress code, and maybe even a five o'clock shadow on their chin. An Apple addict, who works with paper, marker and Adobe.  Their right brain- the intuitive/emotional part - is most active. And their education trained their aesthetics talent and judgment to perfection. The term business case doesn't mean much to them.

The one with the dominating right brain needs the left-brain BMP get a project, employ his talents, show the world a portfolio and earn money. The BMP with the dominant left brain has his whole plan together, knows what he wants to achieve, what the strategy is, but needs the creative designer to get there and earn money.

Although invisible marketing would be a great concept for the environment: it doesn't work yet. Until that moment, the visual side of marketing & branding is dominant (see also outline 6: The comprehensive idea of Visual Branding).

Of course I am talking stereotypes (and of course you are the exception), but typecasting helps to make the situation clear. And honestly, I see it confirmed in projects involving creatives and BMP's all around the world.

Integration

A simple solution to close the gap between designers and BMP's is putting account managers in between. Quite practical, but I like to look beyond that. I see it as part of the challenge of this century to create a synthesis between design creativity and business.

As strategy director at Studio Dumbar I, for instance, avoid the typical account manager and try to create direct contact between the designer and the BMP as much as possible. And as a strategist, I am closely involved in creative development and creative reviews. I believe that is the direction to take. Because the more you are able connect design creatives and BMP's, the higher the level of energy: the more powerful the results.

Design creatives and BMP's represent complementary talents and skills. The better they are able to work together, the more successful a project will be. Look at success stories in marketing like the Heineken Beertender or Philips Senseo. These started with the creativity of marketers; just as big design cases (like Apple) have a lot more to it than just aesthetics.

There are modest signs of integration. Professional educational programs in marcom and business are opening their minds and started to integrate design into their curriculum. And design academies have understood the message that aesthetics only, is not enough for students to succeed in their careers. So they are integrating communication and brand strategy into their programs.

Visual Branding must be seen as a contribution to this integration of design and business. Just the wording itself is already helpful in this respect: 'Visual' representing design and 'Branding' representing marketing & business.

Visual Branding integrates the complementary expertise/professions of design and business in one term; it takes the mindset beyond the tunnel vision of specialists and shifts the focus to the overall objective that they share.

I received a lot of feedback on Visual Branding, online as well as offline. Several people asked me to recap the thought of Visual Branding. Therefore, I decided to change the program of outlines and add this one: a comprehensive definition on Visual Branding.

I have summarized Visual Branding in 7 points.

1. 'Global warming' by information

We live in an age of information overkill. The symptoms: intensely trained consumers, a battle for attention in commercial communication, a battle to conquer the hearts & minds of the consumer. This problem is not new. But answers are few. It is one of the reasons why Visual Branding is crucial for businesses.

Foolish consumers don't exist anymore; they only exist in the mind of foolish marketers.

2. Segmentation

The media-landscape is showing a continuous increase of segmentation over time. Nowadays, there are business models for magazines based on only a few thousand copies per edition. And the all-ip era will take segmentation to new dimensions, enabling real individualization of media-consumption by the consumer (or better put: media interaction).

Traditionally, mass media communication meant that a specific selection of media could reach a mass audience. Right now it means that a massive amount of media only reach a specific selection of people.

3. Visually based society

Since the beginning of history, people have communicated by telling each other stories. Then we invented the alphabet, later followed by the printing press. Just in the last century, radio, television, and internet were introduced. And here we are: in a visually based society.

The society in which we live 'mentally', is growing bigger and bigger. Communication techniques and infrastructure bring information everywhere fast and in large quantities. People easily travel around the world. At the same time, mortgage problems in the USA might cause people in England to lose their job.

The world is getting smaller, but therefore it is getting bigger.

In this interconnected information era, we have moved from a text-based society into a visually based society. And when the language of society is visual, companies should speak a visual language.

Visual language is a crucial aspect of Visual Branding. The visual part is the most decisive 'composing factor;' of a brand, the most dominant. It is in everything, from advertising to retail, internet, product, packaging, interior design, clothing etc. Just sit down for a moment and try to make a list of brand manifestations in which the visual aspect is not important. You will not get far.

Companies that are able to really manage the visual expression of all these manifestations, able to organize their Visual Branding, will outperform their competitors.

4. Fragmentation

It is hard for companies (or other organizations) to maintain sufficient span-of-control over their brand and brand architecture. They are faced with a vast amount of internal and external people involved with the brand, who have their own professional (and personal) interest, opinion and ambition. Companies are also faced with a complex media landscape (see 1 and 2) that they need to navigate in order to reach the consumer.  Together this creates fragmentation. The basic cause of fragmentation is that the level of complexity in marketing a brand exceeds the span-of-control in a company.

Governing a brand therefore is a difficult and complex affair. Besides, in many organizations, much of the mentality is based on traditional thinking. When it comes to branding, there still is much one-sided emphasis on advertising and marcom. Review boards or Decision Making Units, for instance, are often completely focused on marcom. If you take a close look at brand tracking research, you see that many research models actually do not offer brand tracking, only advertising tracking. The crucial, dominant visual side of all branding efforts is simply overlooked, or at least not sufficiently top-of-mind.

This is partly due to the fact that marketers and p&l responsible professionals have difficulty with terms like design or design managment. Because it creates the feeling that design as such is the main focus. It sounds more like design is a force on its own, than a contribution to the common cause: the success of the brand. That is also why I attach great importance to the wording Visual Branding. (and respectively visual brandmanagement). Because it expresses exactly what design can do: build strong, successful, effectively communicating brands.

5. Brand personality

I am convinced we should think much more in terms of personality instead of identity. This raises eyebrows, I know. And I want to stay away from any 'religious' or hairsplitting debate about words. I just give you my thoughts why I think 'personality' fits the current timeframe much better. Decide for yourself.

In marketing, communication and design, we have grown used to 'identity' as the accepted word. And it sounds like the right term. But is it? Did we ever give it a clear thought? In language and in society, 'identity' has a quite different meaning than most of us intend to say when we professionally use the word. Identity is about personal facts: where you live, what your name is etc. Identity is also about characteristics you share with others. You are, for instance, female, catholic, and a republican.

So it is important to conclude that identity does not refer to your individual personality or uniqueness. On the contrary: it points to facts that make you part of a group.

There is another way to illustrate that we use the word identity incorrectly.  Populist right wing politicians deliberately confuse 'identity' with 'personality'.  The vision that these politicians express (like Wilders in Holland, Le Pen in France, De Winter in Belgium) can be summarized as: 'if your identity is Muslim; your individual personality is criminal and dangerous'. So they deliberately confuse identity with personality.

With very good intentions, we do exactly the same. I think we should be precise. To my conviction, personality is a much better word. Just like people, brands have a personality. And it is this personality that counts. Was Tony Blair so successful because of his identity or because of his personality? Did you fall in love with your partner because of her (his) identity or because of her personality? Identity refers more to background, to roots. Personality is the decisive factor, the factor that makes the difference.

I rest my case. To sum it up:

Identity and personality are connected. Identity is a part of personality, not the other way around. Personality is what counts.

6. Visual Branding

Visual Branding potentially is the overall link; it can create visual unity and strength in processes that could fragment a brand; it speaks the language of our current society and thus consumers (visual language); it enables companies to translate much of their positioning and branding effort into something people see (and therefore feel, experience). Visual branding helps to create a mindshift in companies from advertising/marcom to the full brand, including design. It helps to communicate through an overkill of segmented information. 

The key to Visual Branding is the visual expression of a brand. Visual Branding is not about 'executing design rules', it is about visually expressing a brand personality, anytime, anyplace, anywhere.This means using the specific demands and opportunities of each medium, channel, moment, and event: from the product itself to packaging, internet, retail, advertising etc.
It means an organization has to give high priority to managing the visual expression of the brand in every element, because the visual aspect is the most dominant composing factor of the brand.

Look at Apple, the most perfect example of Visual Branding around. Products look different all the time, but they are totally and instantly recognizable as Apple, because they are a clear expression of Apple's brand personality. But it is not only the product: all manifestations of the brand are a strong, intelligent, evolving a visual expression of the brand personality.

Apple is a high-class demonstration of how Visual Branding creates extremely strong and effective marketing; it is a worldwide super brand, while comparatively it hardly spends a dollar on advertising.

7 Company type

Internal branding is quite important in Visual Branding, as it is in branding in general. Every organization has its own way to organize decision-making processes around the brand, the way to organize the link between branding, p&l etc. While deciding in which way it is desirable to integrate Visual Branding in the general brand management, it is good to picture the personality of the company. 
During my career of 25 years I have seen many companies (and other organizations) from the inside. From a viewpoint of branding, I've come to the conclusion that there are 4 types of organizations:
- Originals
- Professionals
- Wanters
- Dreamers

The ambitions with Visual Branding, the internal governance (Visual Brandmanagement); it all is strongly influenced by the nature of the company. But it would take too much space to elaborate on this within the framework of this outline. Therefore, I refer you to outline 3 and outline 4 on visual-branding.com.

Conclusion

There is a lot I want to say about Visual Branding. It is not a singular, one-dimensional subject. Through writing on this website and discussing the subject with audiences, I'm finding that I can still improve the way in which I explain my thoughts. I hope this outline has been helpful in explaining the overall view of Visual Branding.

If you have any thoughts, suggestions, ideas or comments, please feel free to give your feedback online.

We live in a time of 'global warming' in the field of communication and branding. It has been said that people living in developed countries see at average 550.000 brands each year. And a far larger amount of other commercial messages. It is a challenge for companies to survive and be successful in this fierce and constant battle of brands for the hearts and minds of consumers. We live in a thoroughly 'fragmented' world. Our society consists of images, the number one international language is a visual one. Consumers are thoroughly trained to read, understand and reject advertising messages. This 'catch me if you can' game has become increasingly complex and difficult to tackle.

This means that brands have to fight in order to be noticed. But how do you make efficient use of the budget and ensure return on investment? It starts by defining fragmentation as the process in which a brand looses its focus and consistency; the brand expression (the physical product or message) shows unwanted variation over different timeframes, different places, different media and different occasions.

The basic cause of fragmentation is that the level of complexity in marketing a brand exceeds the span-of-control in a company.

The degree to which the complexity exceeds the span-of-control equals the degree of fragmentation. This leads to a loss of power, results, return-on-investment of marketing investments.

Fragmentation is difficult to fight. It is not something you can pin point, isolate and solve. It is part of a gradual process that can come from any corner of the organization. No one is to blame, but still the brand is undermined, bit by bit on a daily bases. It can be the product manager who starts a direct mail campaign that is not in harmony with the overall brand, or a communication label that doesn't comply with the brand portfolio strategy, or in store material that is based on a different positioning.

The threat of fragmentation can hardly come as a surprise. For years professionals have been trying to fight it. More then twenty years ago the phrase 'integrated communication' was en vogue in an effort to achieve better co-ordination between communication disciplines like public relations, direct marketing and advertising. It put the subject on the agenda, brought improvement, but did not lead to a solution. Fragmentation still exists. Nowadays professionals care to coin phrases like 'multi-channel', 'through the line' or 'media independent' to ward off fragmentation. The need to offer the market and consumers a more integrated, holistic brand expression and experience is evident.

I have analyzed and weighed a few factors that create this unattended complexity. Important criteria are the number of people, departments within companies and agencies involved in building and promoting the brand.

Companies need increasing budgets for a decreasing effectiveness of reaching consumers and selling their brands. This is downward spiral. Can you recall the days when a relatively simple media plan of television commercials and print ads could reach a national target audience. Today, the road from A to B (the consumer) has to be planned through a refined and elaborate media-landscape. And looking at the 'all IP' era that we are entering; the complexity will grow.

Traditionally, mass media communication meant that a specific selection of media could reach a mass audience. Right now it means that you have a massive amount of media that can only reach a specific selection of people.

The combination of these internal and external developments does indicate why fragmentation is such a difficult and important issue to tackle. It can put strong pressure on communicating effectively. The brand, acting as a bridge between the company and the consumer, is under great 'stretch' pressure to create a good balance in being consistent and flexible over time (regular updates) and in submarkets and target groups (differentiation). This uncertainty puts fear in professionals who have to account for their actions and investments.

In this respect, Visual Branding is important. I explained in the first two outlines that the visual element in branding is crucial. In the current situation, brand DMU's (decision making units), review boards, brand tracking research, and other brand management instruments are basically focused on advertising or marketing communication. By acquiring control over all the visual manifestations you can seriously start to fight fragmentation. It helps to create a brand expression that is both dynamic and consistent - any where, any time, any place. In other words; consistency is not equal to uniformity and rules, it has everything to do with bringing the brand personality to life through it's visual manifestations, from advertising, to product design, retail, internet, packaging, folders, interiour design etc. etc..

The parent brand will become more important as the hallmark, the basis of strength and trust; sub brands and endorsed brands become more and more important in their role as the targeted answer to the dynamics of the market and the specific nature of certain target audiences. This means that the brand architecture will have to stretch (from parent brand to sub brand to endorsed brand) without losing its soul, its core. This increased brand stretch in the whole brand portfolio can be facilitated by the visual presentation of all brand appearances (Visual Branding).

The wording 'Visual Branding' as such is important for this purpose. It will help business & marketing professionals to see that design is not a purely aesthetic profession but an essential part of branding and marketing. When a company is in control of all visual expressions in its branding and marketing efforts, it will be able to fight fragmentation effectively - and outperform competitors in the battle for the hearts and minds of the consumers.

The personality of any company is a determining factor for commercial success. The management of (visual) branding, the way this is organised throughout the company, the nature of the ambitions, the feasability of ambitions, the results; these strategic factors are profoundly influenced by the culture and structure of a company. The previous outline dealt with the first two types of companies. Now I will tell you more about the other two types: Wanters & Dreamers.

Parameters

There are five basic parameters that determine to which category a company belongs to:

1. Position of the brand(s) in the Management Board
2. The way the discipline Brand Management is structured
3. Relationship of the brand(s) v. business targets and results (profit & loss)
4. Internal governance of the brand(s)
5. The quality of the output and the results

Wanters

Wanters are led by managers who understand that a brand is important, but they do not have a great affinity, knowledge or ambition to understand the complexity of branding. The brand is treated as the derivative of the actual business activity. The branding policy is the prime responsibility of the Marketing Communication Department, though in certain companies the Corporate Communications Department also has a say in matters. What also happens is that the responsibility is divided between the two departments. Together they have to advise and convince the Management Board.

None of the members of the Management Board has a professional background or sufficient experience with branding and marketing. Often one of the members has the brand in his portfolio. The brand is explicitely part of the joint decisionmaking process. In terms of professionalism and budgeting you can say that Wanters are more limted than Originals and Professionals. Brands that are owned by Originals and Professionals are often used as benchmark. They strive to reach with their brand(s) a comparable level and commercial strength. They mostly lack the same level of consistency, awareness and perseverance to actually become equals to Originals or Professionals.

Another matter is that they are limited in the way they are consistent with their brand. The managers in charge often turn to ad hoc activities that have a specific goal, but affect the consistency of the brand. This is due to the fact that the branding policy is not deeply embedded in the mind, mentallity and organization.

Quite often third parties can place a strong mark on certain (marketing) activities. Looking at the business sectors, I have noticed that Wanters can be found in more traditional markets like building, construction, engineering, but also ICT. Another field you will find them in, is the privatised companies. Take for example Deutsche Post and the Dutch energy-company Eneco. My assumption is that it takes these formerly state owned companies at least ten years or more to grow from Dreamers into Wanters. So what are Dreamers precisely?

Dreamers

Dreamers are conducted by managers who don't perceive the company as a brand. The company is nothing else but the business activity, the Management Board is primarly focused on trade or administration. The concept of marketing and communication is very limited. These type of companies do strive to be professional, but are weak with respect to budget and content. The focus is more on communicating their message then on building a brand.

Therefore the way the brand and communication are internally organised is restricted. The department and manager in charge does not have a strong position with the company. He is more focused on execution and experiences a great distance. It is hard to get the brand to become an agenda item and it is difficult to take decisions. This leads in general to weak brands, only the good intentions are visable.

Many examples of Dreamers can be found in for instance health care, non-governmental organizations and in (semi) government institutions. 

A friend of mine collected logo's of ICT-related brands. He ended up with an huge collection of brands that more or less all have the same visual identity. What all these brands communicate is “we are indifferent about our brand, we are generic as a company, we have nothing special to offer, we have no ambition and skills in marketing”.

Be it tomorrow or in the future, these companies - or their competitors - will discover that you can boost your company culture and market performance by paying more professional attention to (visual) branding. Ambition will bring them from Dreamers to become Wanters, and maybe in the long run to the status of Professional. 

Migration

My basis rule is: you can migrate from one company type to another. Up and down. In general not more than one step at the time. There is -like always- one exeption to the rule: Originals are born that way. You can't call yourself Original by strategic planning. Therefore, It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for a Professional to become an Original. This can be hardly a problem, for most Professionals it would be a foolish ambition. There would be little to gain and a lot to loose. Being an Original has everything to do with a deeply embedded culture of entrepreneurship and a strong adventurous spirit. 

Image below: The example from collected logo's of ICT-related brands.

The previous outline dealt with the concept of (brand) personality. Not only the personality of a brand is important to mention. The personality of the company is a big factor. The management of (visual) branding, the way this is organised throughout the company, the nature of the ambitions, the feasability of ambitions, the results; these strategic factors are profoundly under the influence of the culture and structure of a company. There have been many people before me that have given their vision on how to typecast certain companies. I will mention these typologies when they are relevant for my case.

Let me be so bold to give you my perception of the truth. I divide companies into four categories: originals, professionals, wanters and dreamers. In this outline you will find a brief profile of the first two mentioned. I will elaborate on the other two categories in the fourth outline, to be published in a fortnight. Let me be straight with you: the outline you are about to read is limited in the number of words I use. In the book I will go more into detail about the company-types and what a certain ‘personality’ entails when it comes to (visual) branding). For now, I am curious whether you will recognise what I describe in this outline and if you agree with my view up to a certain point.

Parameters

There are five basic parameters that determine to which category a company will belong:

1. Position of the brand(s) in the Management Board
2. The way the discipline Brand Management is structured
3. Relationship of the brand(s) v. business targets and results (profit & loss)
4. Internal governance of the brand(s)
5. The quality of the output and the results

Originals

Originals are companies that are strongly influenced by a charismatic leadership, this is the phrase commonly used in management literature. A charismatic leader is in my view a unique and strong personality who combines a specific combination of character traits. He or she is a dominant figure, who is involved in all the major decisions. This person determines to a large extent the company culture, the strategy of the company, the identity, the targets, the company and of course the brand(s). I would go so far as to say that the character of the leader determines the character of the company. Indeed, the genetical sets are identical.

Companies who can be described as Originals have a specific, distinguished nature. Yet there are originals in all sizes and shapes. What I can say is that we dont know a lot of these type of companies, since they went bankrupt in the course of their existence. The reason being that companies often fail who mostly work from an identity, which is strongly determined by one person. Just because the laws of the market are not obeyed or even ignored. But when there is sign of a commercial success, this can be very powerful.

What I see is that these type of companies are driven by personal goals, with respect to content. The ceo/president follows his own intuition and beliefs. Business and marketing expertise is added to help to maximize the talents, but they will never be determining factors. The culture can be described as ‘inside-out’, according to the classical identity model. Strategy is a result of identity.

Long term future

The Management Board ideally contains people who can deal with the strong character of the leader. They have complementary qualities which safeguards the long term future of the company. Skills like marketing, human resources development, operational excellence and financial expertise. There is a certain amount of risk involved when the colleagues do not supplement the leader, do not compensate his weaknesses and his ideas are not counterbalanced. 

The original is often seen as a beacon for other companies in the bloody sea called competition. The power of the brand is taken as a benchmark. Their is a great consistency in the manner the brand personality is conveyed, in the breadth (the way it manifests itself in every shape or mediaform) as well as in the length of time. Even though the dynamically developed brand does not behave in a static manner, the consistency is large. A client/consumer experiences a strong bond with the brand. Based on the theory of Kevin Roberts called Lovemarks¹.

Apple

Originals are closely related to what Andy Mosmans describes as ‘Legendaries’² and what Jim Collins and Jerry Porras call ‘visionary companies’ in their bestseller Built to last³. For me the best known example is Apple. The company Apple Inc. has a very strong culture which clearly defines in what manner a product of Apple should function, how it should look like, what the requirements are, and on which points there can be no room for compromise. The staff does not need to consult bulky brand manuals. Every product is a fully fledged representation of the personality of the brand Apple. The way the company functions can be best described as inside-out; the market follows the brand. It is part of the success of the company, on the other hand this way of thinking almost led to its downfall in the early Nineties of the last century. Companies like Apple take a far greater risk, the very nature of Originals dictates this approach.

If you look at Visual Branding I can tell you that Apple is by far the best example of my vision. Apple stays extremely dynamic in every manifestation (communication, materials, products, packaging, retail, et cetera). Everything is designed with a specific purpose. Taking into account that there is no uniform, corporate Apple style with strict rules and guidelines. On many products the Apple logo is hardly visible. Yet, the personality is omnipresent.

This is what Visual Branding is all about: a brand personality with a permanent visual and tangible presence, without the brand being forced in a straitjacket of uniformity. This requires a strong company culture and equally strong leadership.

Steve Jobs and the iPhone, source; Flickr, Jojomine75s, All rights reserved.

¹ Title: THE LOVEMARKS EFFECT: WINNING IN THE CONSUMER REVOLUTION AND LOVEMARKS: THE FUTURE BEYOND BRANDS. Author: Kevin Roberts, CEO Worldwide of Saatchi & Saatchi. Lovemarks transcend brands. They deliver beyond your expectations of great performance. Like great brands, they sit on top of high levels of respect - but there the similarities end. Lovemarks reach your heart as well as your mind, creating an intimate, emotional connection that you just cant live without. Ever. Take a brand away and people will find a replacement. Take a Lovemark away and people will protest its absence. Lovemarks are a relationship, not a mere transaction. You dont just buy Lovemarks, you embrace them passionately. Thats why you never want to let go. Put simply, Lovemarks inspire

³ Title: BUILT TO LAST, SUCCESFUL HABITS OF VISIONARY COMPANIES. Authors: Jim Collins and Jerry Porras. The book defines 18 visionary companies. The core myth is that visionary companies must start with a great product and be pushed into the future by charismatic leaders. Only a few fit the model, and not all are started by visionary leaders. What the listed companies do have in common is an almost cult like devotion to a ‘core ideology’ or identity, and active indoctrination of employees into ‘idealogically commitment’ to the company.

Professionals

The second category of companies I like to describe as ‘Professionals’. They are guided by strategic leadership. The Management Board is a team of professionals who have divided the portfolio in a logical manner. The business strategy results from a strategic/analytical vision on the market, the organisation and the brand. One of the boardmembers is responsible for the brand, usually being part of marketing & communications. Sometimes the brand is his main task, marketing or brandmanagement is part of the professional background. Sometimes the brand is one of his many priorities, the boardmember has no previous experience with branding and marketing.

There is a high level of professionalism and budgeting of marketingactivities. Marketing is of vital importance for the company policy. Throughout the company professionals consult each other and use a set of instruments (guidelines and manuals) to keep the brand on track. These companies work methodically on the brand and the company culture. Identity is a result of strategy.

Commercial

‘Professionals’ have a strong businesslike attitude. In this category less companies fail because their working methodology (strategic and analytical) avoids taking too many risks. Professionals are relatively more succesful than Originals, if you take into account their succesrate as well as their overall performance. It makes sense because these companies base their decisions on the market, instead of being led by intuition and personal beliefs. Their professional convictions tell them to look at the feasability of their plans. The number and size of failures is therefore much smaller, the same applies to the number and beauty of wonderful successes.

The companies and the brand(s) often reach a dominate market position. In the previously mentioned model of Kevin Roberts they score better on the parameter ‘respect then on love’. There are much more Professionals then Originals.

Having said this, it is possible that a company can migrate from one category to another or stays in a grey area between both categories. Retailer Body Shop is a good example of an Original that has migrated to become a Professional, especially since the takeover in 2006 by manufacturer L’Oréal. And Orange is an example of a borderline case; as a company it has all the marks of a Professional, in its (visual) branding the telecom giant behaves like an Original.

At the turn of the century, corporate communication professionals experienced their finest hour: in the world of branding the concept of ‘identity’ was the centre of attention. For many years corporate communication had been regarded as the department in charge of ‘very important things’ - but without direct relevance to profit & loss results. The strategic reputation based long-term focus of the corporate communication professional entered the core of modern marketing-theories. The concept of identity connected the ‘inside-out’ way of thinking of corporate communication to the ‘outside-in’ of marketing for years the predominant principle in business.

The strategic shift towards identity was not surprising. The traditional marketing approach had lost its effect. Marketing professionals had become a bit too much mechanical, executing the accepted rules and processes of brand building, marketing communication and product innovation.

Marketing itself became a mass produced product, a commodity lacking spirit and authenticity.

And the consumers at the receiving end grew tired of the traditional approach of push marketing. They literally didn’t buy it anymore. We all know the effects: declining brand loyalty, declining market share for well-known brands, more room for out-of-the-box ideas, no-brand products. This gave rise to new techniques like guerrilla marketing, pull marketing, experience marketing, niche marketing.

Identity prism

Thought provoking was the Identity Prism of academic Jean-Nol Kapferer in his bestselling book STRATEGIC BRAND MANAGEMENT (1995). His theory had a profound impact on how companies viewed the very nature of brand building. Of course the French professor didnt create the shift to identity single-handedly, but he can be seen as one of the visionaries who ignited the process. Companies soon acknowledged that identity was one of the essential keys for building successful brands. The focus in companies shifted away from the stereotype marketing mantra: doing and communicating whatever the consumer wants according to research. Business and marketing professionals started to pay attention to their own, inner values as a company, as a brand.

You can observe this shift in thinking from a historical perspective. Over the past fifty years the mentality/approach of companies has progressively evolved in several stages:

• product based
• sales based
• market based
• marketing based
• (brand)identity based

Brand personality

Just like people, all brands have a personality. Whether it is shallow and instrumental or deep, emotionally charged and carefully managed.
This personality is crucial. Why? To put it boldly: personality is a key issue in our society. Look at politics: the popularity of politicians and government leaders is personality based. It is not about their identity, it is not about their views, which are elements of the overall concept that matter most: their personality. Was Tony Blair so successful because of his identity, his views, or his overall personality?

In my view, the situation for brands is no different. It is all about personality. Personality is the concept to give life to a brand, to manage ‘identity and image’, to create likeability.

Identity <-> Personality

So what is the main difference between identity and personality? Lets set the record straight: of course they are not complete opposites, like Mars and Venus. It has to do with a fundamentally different approach. Identity as a term refers to background and facts in most languages. Your identity is about characteristics you share with others, like the country and culture you come from, your race, your religion, and facts, like the place where you live.

In communication it mostly refers to your true inner self - as a company or a brand. To quote Kapferer: “Having an identity means being who you are, following your own, determined, but individual path”. Be who you are. This is the paradigm of identity.

The concept of brand personality combines inside-out and outside-in; identity and image. A personality has it’s roots in the identity but is strongly externally focused. It is not ‘be who your are’. Personality is: Become who you should be.

In the words of Carl Jung: “Personality is the supreme realisation of the innate idiosyncrasy of a living being. It is an act of courage flung in the face of life, the absolute affirmation of all that constitutes the individual, the most successful adaptation to the universal conditions of existence, coupled with the greatest possible freedom of self-determination.”
[C.G. Jung, 1875-1961]

In psychology, three elements are defined as a part of personality:
-private personality (thoughts, feelings, fantasies, ambitions, talents)
-public personality (how you want others to see you)
-attributed personality (how others see you)

The private personality overlaps identity; the public and attributed personalities indicate the external aim and nature of personality.

Identity -> Personality

In historic perspective, the shift from identity to personality was organic and logical. Identity-based thinking was a logical reaction to marketing-based thinking. Forgive me for dropping names, but in many dynamic processes, I use the theory of dialectic development of the German philosopher Georg Hegels to explain the developments that took place: thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis. It also applies in this matter: the thesis is marketing (outside-in), the antithesis is identity (inside-out), the synthesis is personality.

This is an ongoing process that, fortunately, never stops. I am curious to see what will come next.

The use of brand personality

OK, now we have established the logic behind the concept of brand personality: what should we do with it? We use brand personality to bring brand strategy to life. Don’t forget, consumers demand a brand of flesh and blood. The consumer will treat your brand like you treat the consumer. If your brand has no personality and no warmth, the consumer will treat it likewise: zero loyalty, high price sensitivity.

The fact of the matter is that brand-strategy models are extremely important to modern business. But they are an intellectual piece of work, not necessarily a practical one. They are vital in telling what a brand should be all about and why; but less useful in helping professionals finding out how they should manage to achieve, follow and contribute to this strategy in the day-to-day business environment.

The brand personality should be clearly defined; like you would describe the personality of a real person. Obviously this does not apply to every brand. You can choose other verbal concepts to express the brand personality. It is most important to define a brand personality without using any professional lingo.

Use peoples language, simple words, create a lively picture of a personality that is absolutely clear to anyone. It will be a big contribution to what I call the internal governance of your brand. It brings you beyond the strategic words that are too abstract to manage a brand in daily business and beyond the strict guidelines that are too inflexible.

The power of paradox

One essential thing I would like to add to this outline about personality is the power of paradox. The point is that organisations are not one-dimensional, markets are not one-dimensional, people and personalities are not one-dimensional. So.....: why should a brand strategy be worded in one-dimensional keywords? Why is it that three or four keywords should stand for the eternal truth about the brand? Life isn’t as simple as that. And you limit yourself from a commercial perspective. Unless, maybe, you are talking about a very simple fast-moving consumer product. Any brand with more richness and complexity (and therefore: power) in its personality can achieve more by crossing the line of one-dimensional key words.

Right now I am involved in the strategic development of a European brand. One of the keywords of the brand strategy is ‘innovative’. This word is meaningful and meaningless at the same time. After reading and talking about the project we defined the paradox ‘innovative - mainstream’ to replace the singleminded ‘innovative’. And then you feel energy: a brand that should be innovative and mainstream. That is much more like real life, much more exiting, much more strength and power. And: much easier to conduct creative reviews in developing the brand and to organise internal governance once the brand is on the market. I can tell you from experience.

If you determine and define precisely the two or three fields of paradox that are crucial to your brand; you will have a unique and strong compass to build and conduct it.

Note to all readers:
Apart from your opinion, I am interested in interesting examples of what I am writing about articles or remote literature that I should know of (please be specific, up to the page)

• Why design is a key competitive factor in business
• How to make design work for your brand(s)

Rationale of the book

In the 21st Century the business world is fully discovering the (commercial) value of design as a key competitive factor. Yet business professionals still find it hard to use design as a strategic tool that makes brands perform better. And to work with designers. Design professionals find it hard to understand business strategy. And to work with professionals in branding, marketing and communication. A stereotype? Certainly! But true all the same.

The key to bring all this together, to influence your brand and your business, is Visual Branding. It epitomises the modern developments in marketing and communication; explaining why more and more businesses are shifting their focus to design and why this change works for brands.

We live in a time of ‘global warming’ in the field of communication and branding. In developed countries people see approximately 550.000¹ brands per year. And a far larger amount of other commercial messages. It is a challenge for companies to survive and be successful in this fierce and constant battle of brands for the hearts, minds and wallets of consumers.

Source; Flickr, Teun Castelein All rights reserved. ²

Reading this book will help you to increase the return on investment of your marketing spend, since it will help you reach and involve your customers in a more effective way. Consumers are thoroughly trained in receiving branded messages; judging them, looking right through them. They do this as effectively and subconsciously (and nearly as often) as breathing.

Foolish consumers only exist in the minds of foolish marketers.

This book helps you to smart up your marketing and branding efforts. It does not give an ‘all purpose model’, neither does it bring eternal and flawless wisdom. It offers an analysis and vision that helps you find the best answer to your own specific situation.

Visual Branding captures what is happening right now in a busy, globalised world of brands.

I invite you to visit this website and be an active contributor. I will release brief outlines of the 8 main topics in the book; every fortnight a new outline will be uploaded. Give your opinion, experience, ideas, examples, data that either confirm (or deny) the relevance of Visual Branding. In this manner the discussion about Visual Branding can continue to evolve even after publication. Business and design professionals from all over the world can share their knowledge and learn from each other.

I will continue to communicate and interact about Visual Branding through the website until it is fully integrated in our way of thinking and doing business.

May this moment arrive soon!

Tom Dorresteijn

P.S. Any input you give to www.visual-branding.com that is regarded valuable might be earmarked on the site or even be used in the first edition of the book or later editions. In that case we will clearly mention you as the source of this particular contribution. In other words: feel free to become a guest contributor to the site or the book.

¹ Source: American Trade Association.
² The Sandberg institute reflect with Artvertising to our current society where we live between the picture marks and the idea of a logo has developed into a life style, surroundings strategy and a business model.