Mokokoma Mokhonoana || Graphic designer http://mokokoma.co.za Tue, 28 Jun 2011 11:57:55 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 mokokomahttp://feedburner.google.com Fine designers are puppets, but who’s pulling the strings? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/LqLKVuM5dhQ/ http://mokokoma.co.za/fine-designers-are-puppets-but-whos-pulling-the-strings/#comments Thu, 12 Aug 2010 10:32:35 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4416



puppet string
Whilst having a chat with a client, who later turned close friend, she said something about the client-and-designer posse that really got me thinking.

She was one of those clients who knew what they wanted, with regards to the overall look that they desired for their business’s logo. Great? Well, it depends.

Apparently, while she was at varsity, her lecturer told them that it’s their job as marketers to up with ideas, and then find a designer to “bring the idea to live.”

So basically, all the graphic designer does, is take the client’s idea and then make it look good. No questions asked. Else, the designer’s rent might not be paid.

A client that already has what they want in mind (and nothing but what they want) is either a blessing, or a curse to the project. It all depends on what it is that the client commands.

I then asked her whether that meant that the major difference between a client and the graphic designer is the fluency in a design application.

And if it really makes sense for a designer to study for years if all that the marketplace requires from them is nothing but the fluency in a design application — a condition that anyone (well, almost) can realize in a few weeks.

I believe that the client knows more about their business, its offering, and their industry of trade. While the designer on the other hand has visual communication expertise. Thus, the two are supposed to team up not compete for authority.

Generally, clients feel as if they weren’t part of the design process if there’s no “something” in, say, the logo that they have requested to be.

The subjectivity of  ”successful” design

The talk then triggered a question that I asked myself, and ultimately my friend:
“What makes a successful design project?”

Is it the byproduct of a designer that blindly followed what the client dictated, or the byproduct of a designer who provided the best design solution for the client’s business visual communication challenge, regardless of what the client thought was suitable?

Is any random design solution successful, so long as it has pleased the client?

Allow me to employ an analogy, to better expose what hides behind a scenario that seems straightforward on the surface.

In the analogy, the patient is symbolic of the client, while the doctor respresents the designer. The patient’s body is the client’s business. While the patient’s problem is the client’s business’ visual communication challenge.

The client is in pain. And she assumes that a few painkillers will be sufficient. She then approaches the doctor solely for him to recommend the best brand of painkillers.

After seeing that the patient is in pain because of a fracture on her right leg; should the doctor prescribe the fanciest brand of pain killers, or should the doctor just ignore the patient’s demand and then recommend that she get a cast?

What should designers prioritize; the client’s business’s visual communication challenge, or the easy route — the client’s ego?

Does “anything go” so long as the designer’s rent get to be paid?

Nonetheless, a completed project (read: giving in to the client’s demands, thus, keeping the patron’s mouth shut) and a successful one aren’t necessarily one.

*Another brief, and yet another dilemma.
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/fine-designers-are-puppets-but-whos-pulling-the-strings/feed/ 0 http://mokokoma.co.za/fine-designers-are-puppets-but-whos-pulling-the-strings/ The invisibility of design – Ideal design http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/lPhKqpfOH14/ http://mokokoma.co.za/the-invisibility-of-design-ideal-design/#comments Thu, 01 Jul 2010 08:57:13 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4350



Reid Miles Jazz cd coverLebogang Nkoane pointed me to this writing by Alex on Retinart, and he asked me what my thoughts are on the statement (from the writing) below:

“The design just carries the message, rather than attempt to be the message.”

I have had a writing in my drafts for past three months or so, it focuses on the invisibility of good design but I’ll try to marry that with the line that Lebogang’s question is based on. Here it goes:

When two people in different geographic locations wants to communicate, they’d be in need of a tool or medium that will allow them to exchange information, news or ideas. Be it a telephone, a mobile phone, a letter and so forth.

In a situation where a man calls his wife who is on the other side of town, through a telephone, just to say “I love you.” For the man, the sender, the most important thing is for the message to reach the wife, the receiver.

As important and valuable as the telephone is, the most important thing in this scenario is the message, “I love you.” The telephone is merely used to transmit the message. Throughout the phone call, the spotlight will be on the message, not the telephone itself.

When talking over the phone, have you realized how the phone is forgotten and the conversation takes center stage? When reading a letter, have you realized how the words takes all your attention that you hardly see the paper the words are written or printed on? When watching a movie, do you realize how at some stage you fail to notice whatever you’re using to watch the movie, be it a TV, computer or even an ipod — as you would be drawn into the movie itself?

Bad design gets in the way of the communication process.

It’s due to that that designer’s go wild in an attempt to let their masterpieces get the attention they believe it deserves. But good design goes unnoticed (by ‘design’) as it lets its master, content + message, get the spotlight.

Design is too broad for me to make an objective argument, so I’ll stick to design in the context of CD covers from here on.

Like I always assert, there needs to be a function to be realized for form to justify its existence. Thus, the CD cover is brought to being primarily as an identification tool, and in almost all cases the designer will go a step further and then try to communicate, say, the theme of the album through the very same arrangement of visuals (read: design) — which is a beautiful thing but it rarely ‘kills’ the album if it’s not done.

It goes without saying – the statement I just made opens room for an argument within an argument:

“Is anything presented by design a message?”

Is the artist’s name, album’s title and their portrait a message, simply because they’re presented by design?

A designer either uses the visual arrangements of a layout to present, or to communicate a message. Either way design, in the context of things like CD covers, is the message.

But it’s only when the layout affects what its contents communicate can we declare design and the message as one.

When you drink tea, you don’t necessarily think, “Oh, I’m drinking hot water, sugar, milk and crushed leaves.” As you see them as you should, a collective. The same applies when a viewer consumes a design. They don’t see; an album’s title, the artist’s name and their portrait. They see a CD cover.

In some cases it’s the photography that carries the intended message. Now the question is; “do we give credit to the photographer, or the designer ‘cos they arranged where and how the photograph is placed?” If the message is communicated by the typography, where does the credit go? The designer or typographer?

The end product is one, therefore, the message and the design are one. It’s only when the design has failed does a viewer separate the design from the message.

The design is the only way the viewer consumes the message. They see design as a collective. Likewise, when having a good cup of tea, a person sees a cup of tea — and not hot water, sugar, milk, and a tea bag.

And that’s what a good design should be, a thing – and not things.

*Lebogang: Thanks for pointing me out to such an insightful read. Alexendra: thank you for such an inspiring and well-researched writing.
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/the-invisibility-of-design-ideal-design/feed/ 2 http://mokokoma.co.za/the-invisibility-of-design-ideal-design/ The art of critiquing a graphic designer http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/rdrkgnX65aU/ http://mokokoma.co.za/the-art-of-critiquing-a-graphic-designer/#comments Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:53:11 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4273



criticism is for he weak sticker photograph by andria laurenI usually get emails from other designers, mostly students, with nothing but an attachment of their design, and the question: “What do yo think?”

(And inevitably, that inspired this writing.)

I always assert that Form follows Function, and my argument is quite simple. I say that there needs to be a Function to be realized for Form to justify its existence.

There needs to be, say, a visual brand identity to build associations around a brand, for a logo to justify its existence.

For that reason, design should be a process, and product that is led by intent.

Like with most artistic fields, graphic designers are not immune to critics (and their produce – criticism). But, depending on how it is carried out, criticism can actually be beneficial to the critiqued.
As subjective as design is, I believe there are some aspects of a design that are not subject to subjectivity.

For example, as much as two people might have a love/hate take on a design — things like the illegibility of the design’s copy is not justifiable.

Nonetheless, a technically flawless design doesn’t necessarily equate to an effective design.

If you were asked to put a sign that directs traffic to the left, and you put a sign with the words “turn right” — technically (spelling, legibility of “turn right”, etc.) you might be right, but intent-wise, the correctly-spelled-cool-sign will be fruitless.

A sprinter who runs the fastest, but in the wrong direction, is a loser. He just gets the privilege of knowing that, the earliest.

I love sharing my take on other people’s work, but only when I have an objective (and hopefully constructive) opinion regarding the work.
But how does one objectively critique a design whose intent is unknown to he who is expected to critique?

Most of the time, we as graphic designers, showcase work without documenting the brief, or the design’s intent or desired goal.

In such cases, a graphic designer’s work is judged and critiqued on nothing but its aesthetics. Critiquing work by its appearance, without being aware of what the intent was, is sort of pointless.

If a student answers “Twenty-eight”, how logical is your judgement of the answer if you’re not aware of the question to that answer?

Apart from inspecting the spelling of “twenty-eight” what’s there to comment on? The kerning? Or the colour of their crayon?

That’s like a designer showcasing nothing but:

grey square shapeIsn’t it useless to judge such a design if its intent isn’t provided?

But if the design is accompanied by something like:

“I was required to draw a shape with three equal sides, and colour it with the equal mixture of black and white.”

shapes blue circle green square grey octagonBy looking at the intent, instruction, or brief that the designer was trying to answer to, it is easy for the critique to objectively remark:
“While your three design options (above) are neat, clean, cool, and dope, you’ve have failed the test of intent.”

But if the designer answers the same brief with:

grey triangleWhether the critique hates the colour grey, or has “beef” with triangles, it matters not. As, objectively speaking, the designer has succeeded in answering the brief.

Only after making a habit of including the brief (read: intent) behind the work showcased, can we allow fellow colleagues to share objective opinions of our work.

The result? Meaningful feedback that will build the critiqued.

If you decide to ask another person:

“What do you think of my answer of ‘six’?”

can you at least include the question:

“What is five multiplied by one?”

So they are able to objectively tell you that, while you’re spelling (technicality) for ‘six’ is correct — the answer (intent) isn’t (fulfilled).
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/the-art-of-critiquing-a-graphic-designer/feed/ 1 http://mokokoma.co.za/the-art-of-critiquing-a-graphic-designer/ Brand marks: The resurrection of logos http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/TbjVvmBDf84/ http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/#comments Wed, 26 May 2010 10:04:33 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4206



wwf, logo, identity, black and whiteIf logos aren’t dead, then a genocide is in order.

I think there’s a need for graphic designers to gradually move away from the term “logo.” There’s really nothing wrong with the term itself, the problem is the expectations that clients have placed on logos.

But most importantly, the fact that graphic design has evolved to be a discipline that should be led by branding.

Therefore, some of its terminology should be adjusted accordingly.

Abandoned are the unbranded

No amount of good, kick-ass, wow, dope, or cool graphic design will reward the entrepreneur if their business has a second-rate branding strategy, or worse, if it doesn’t have a branding strategy at all.

In such instances, graphic design is nothing but the making of pretty pictures.

In the context of commerce, a graphic designer is a blessing to the entrepreneur. In a sense that the designer possess the expertise to articulate their brand strategy, through strategic arrangement and choice of visuals.

The name of the game

What we call things is more important that we realize.

If I introduce you to a someone who is a painter. It’s inevitable that you expect them to, well, paint. A singer, to sing. A dancer, to dance. A cook, to cook.

What I like is that the noun is termed based on the verb. He who does, is a doer. No confusion, or unfair expectations there.

So, if you hire a dancer only to find out that he can’t paint. The blame should be on you, and not on the poor dancer.

The way forward

Like I have mentioned in my previous writing, I too strongly urge that we as designers let go of the term “Logo,” and replace it with either “brand identity” or “brand mark.”

I like brand identity, but the downside of the term is that its a bit vague. As a brand identity can be both, visual and verbal. So, brand mark it is.

What I like about the term “brand mark” is that within the term itself, lies its purpose of which will discard the unfair expectations that a logo is somehow expected to fulfill.

Irrational expectations like a logo solely having to make a sale, whenever it is paraded in an ad.

But “Logo” is tattooed in our minds?

First thing first, whether you too see what I’m proposing as the most logical step forward or not, the transition will definitely not happen overnight. But it will need all those that share the same stance with me to double as an evangelist for the term “brand marks.”

There are colleagues who are already doing their bit, and Andrew Sabister is one of the very few that I am aware of.

The steering of this transition is our responsibility as graphic designers, and not the clients’.

The hurdle that needs to be jumped

I strongly believe that graphic designers need to create, and advocate branding-led visual communication solutions. It’s either that, or we play decorators.

There are a few deliverables within the graphic design discipline that seem like they don’t require an in-depth strategic branding thinking. Things like CD covers, posters, leaflets, etc. But I think they, to some extent, do.

The biggest challenge is no doubt, the fact that there are graphic designers who have an opposing stance, regarding the importance of branding.

I am saying it again, “graphic design needs to be branding-led.”

But who am I to press-gang you to be of the same stance as me, when some of the world’s renowned and “celebrated” graphic designers think that:

sagmeister, branding is crap, testimonials, quotations, website, branding
[Screenshot: Sagmeister, Inc.]

My take on the above disregard of branding

Take time to understand the logic behind branding, and hopefully you’ll share the same points of view with those that advocate branding-led graphic design. Only after that, can you start your transition from “logo” to “brand mark.”

— Long live brand marks!
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/feed/ 5 http://mokokoma.co.za/brand-marks-the-resurrection-of-logos/ Logos are dead (the postmortem) http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/jkKir3d8DRM/ http://mokokoma.co.za/logos-are-dead-the-postmortem/#comments Wed, 12 May 2010 14:25:02 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4112



buyology book cover head barcode price tag martin lindstrom neuromarketing subliminal advertising“Logos are dead. And, logo designers are just being defensive and in denial, as this assertion sort of spell out an end to their livelihood.”

Talk about a kick in a logo designer’s baggy pants!

With the passing of each day, and browsing around the internet, I run into more and more “logo obituaries.”

While reading Buyology, a very insightful book on neuromarketing by Martin Lindstrom, I once again stumbled upon the assertion that “logos are dead.”

With this title, the author spends the book analyzing what makes people buy.

The author dedicated the fourth chapter of the book to subliminal advertising, and he discusses how companies selling cigarettes now rely on it to lure smokers, seeing that the government banned ads selling cigarettes.

Ironically, the ban (or rather: the reaction to it by cigarette brands) of cigarette advertisements seems way more profitable, to companies that sells cigarettes, than the return on investment that they saw from their advertising efforts before subliminal (and cigarettes) advertising was declared illegal.

Brief summary of the study:

A group of smokers were used to test the efficiency (or lack thereof) of subliminal advertisements.

From the study, the finding was that smokers respond profitably when a cigarette brand’s logo is not shown in their advertising. Aparently, the moment they see a brand’s logo, they see that as what it is, an ad, they deliberately ignore the ad.

That’s due to their conscious state of mind, which allows them to be rational.

However, smokers fell into the advertiser’s trap when the ads didn’t have the logo of the brand being sold. The advertisers strategically included things that they have, over time, built association to their brand around.

Malboro went as far as sponsoring Ferrari’s racing cars, after sometime, consumers have subconsciously associated “Ferrari Red” with that of Malboro. After that, a brain scan revealed that the sight of a Ferrari trigged whatever is responsible for a smoker craving a puff — all this is subconscious to the smoker.

So what the ads did was, not to sell the smokers smokes but, to trigger whatever is responsible for them to crave a cigarette, by merely showing something that the smokers have subconsciously associated with a particular of a cigarette brand.

Below is an extract from the study:
“In 1997, in preparation for the ban on tobacco advertising that was about to come into place in the United Kingdom, Silk Cut, a popular British tobacco brand, began to position its logo against a background of purple silk in every ad they ran.It didn’t take long for consumers to associate this plain swath of purple silk with the Silk Cut logo, and eventually with the brand itself.

So when advertising ban came into effect, and the logo was no longer permitted on ads or billboards, the company simply created highway billboards that didn’t say a word about Silk Cut or cigarettes but merely showcased the logo-free swaths of purple silk. And guess what? Shortly after, a research study revealed that an astonishing 98 percent of consumers identified those billboards as having something to do with Silk Cut, although most were unable to say exactly why.

In other words, the tobacco companies’ efforts to link “innocent images” — whether of the American West, purple silk, or sports cars — with smoking in our subconscious mind minds have paid off big time.”

(Martin Lindstrom’s conclusion)

“For companies, the logo is regarded as king, the be-all and end-all of advertising. But our study had just shown with what my research team assured me was 99 percent scientific certainty, the logo was, if not dead, then certainly on life support; that the thing we thought was most powerful in advertising was in fact the least so.”

Did the logo really lose its “magical” powers?

I think Martin is right. But, on a wrong expectation. A logo never had such power to sell, by simply dangling it in the eyes of consumers. And, it’s impossible to lose something you’ve never possessed.

A logo was, and should always be, used as a tool used by the owner to mark their products. That’s the most important responsibility of a logo.

Although, companies like Apple’s products can be identified with ease even with their logo out of sight, a logo is Apple’s way of saying “we made this,” which will attach whatever emotions and expectations you have in Apple’s products to any product that bears their logo itself.

In the context of branding, a logo will identify the brand it stands for, but it can never, at least solely, capture or communicate the entire brand story or philosophies.

What a vast number of people, like Martin, are expecting the logo to do is comparable to a job seeker expecting their identity (just the name – not their reputation) to sell them to the interviewer without them having to show their resume, their portfolio, or even utter a word.

The challenge is that an identity, verbal or visual, of a person or business, carries with it a reputation. But, what is supposed to make the sale is the reputation, memories, and experiences that a logo is meant to evoke, and not the logo itself.

Conclusion and a simple solution:

A logo is nothing but a visual brand name, and not a sales pitch. Furthermore, the term “logo” should be replaced with a more meaningful word.

A word that bespeak the role which the mark should be expected to fulfill.

In my next writing, I’ll explain and share what we as “logo designers” should do to move forward, and how colleagues like Andrew Sabatier are doing their bit to advocate branding led identities.
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/logos-are-dead-the-postmortem/feed/ 2 http://mokokoma.co.za/logos-are-dead-the-postmortem/ Does more backs and more macs connote superior work? http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/iqZCcn4JXf8/ http://mokokoma.co.za/does-more-backs-and-more-macs-connote-superior-work/#comments Thu, 06 May 2010 09:09:51 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4072



pencils HownowdesignA typesetter, a copywriter, a graphic designer and a photographer when working together are called a team. Likewise, a graphic designer, a graphic designer, a graphic designer and another graphic designer working collectively, are a team.

There are some things where more means better. Better product, better service, thus, a better (or rather: best) way of investing in design.

One of the things I love about the creative industry is that it’s a bit fair when coming to “whom do great ideas go to.” Working in a hundred-dollar-per-minute fancy office doesn’t connote superior work to that of a creative working from the basement.

(Although that will drive most clients the guy with the fancy office’s way)

A company with one graphic designer can, without doubt, offer a better visual communication solution than a company with a creative team made of thirty designers.

That’s the beauty of the ideas and creativity, they don’t discriminate on how deep (or shallow) the creative’s pockets are.

A great idea, is a great idea — it matters not, who the conceiver is.

I have silently observed and noticed how some design companies, like the one below, are using made-of-more-backs-and-macs team that will work on a client’s project as a means to make their offering more irresistible.

Here’s their identity design packages:

brandmark identity logo design packages

A client in need of a graphic designer’s expertise doesn’t really know (or give a damn) what goes on behind the scenes, but to most, the thought of having thirty graphic designers working on their project will definitely yield a sense of security, surety and a better end product.

But, is it fair to sort of make clients choose most expensive “design package” by merely promising them more hands working on their project, if it doesn’t really guarantee better work than that of a one, two or three wo/man team?

I’m not trying to discredit team work, nor am I attempting glorifying it — my question is, whether the promise of a large team is a justifiable client luring marketing tactic.

Since a team of thirty designers with a year’s experience each, isn’t equivalent to one designer with thirty years of experience.
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/does-more-backs-and-more-macs-connote-superior-work/feed/ 0 http://mokokoma.co.za/does-more-backs-and-more-macs-connote-superior-work/ The overburden of design in pursuit of attention http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/wjbgeNdGGTs/ http://mokokoma.co.za/the-overburden-of-design-in-pursuit-of-attention/#comments Mon, 19 Apr 2010 00:17:12 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=4036



contrast crowd umbrella blueDesign is both a verb and noun, a process and a product. But in this writings I’ll be referring to the latter, whenever I mention the ‘d’ word.

In print, design regrettably exist in a static form. Which suggests that it does not enjoy the privilege of “moving pictures,” like animation and video do. Furthermore, It means that the very same static artwork must: attract attention and still get to present content to its intended audience.

With moving pictures its simple. Dedicate the first few frames to whatever you can use to grab attention, and then present what the motion was created to present, communicate or sell.

I find that a lot of graphic designers, art directors and the likes, overrate the need to use the most part of their canvas to attention seeking visual arrangements.

Designers sacrifice their artwork’s chance to communicate. All in the name of the consumers’ attention.

While a message is useless without someone to consume it. The consumer’s attention too, is futile without a concise and meaningful message.

The one thing that is rarely discussed or taken advantage of, is the artwork’s surroundings.

Regardless of context, the most efficient way to attract attention is to break a pattern. For example, If you are in a very quite place, any sound will be sufficient to attract your attention by breaking the pattern of silence.

So when designing a poster for a rock band, and the poster will be placed on a white wall. Why not just have a dark background for your poster instead of squeezing a thousand guitars, eight drumsticks, and seven guys with skinny jeans within the poor poster?

The attention that a print ad has to supposedly ‘fight’ for is overrated.

Attention is usually confused with interest. And what the design/er should prioritize is evoking interest, though the design/er has very little control over. No amount of great design will make a fourteen year old interested in an ad promoting nappies.

The failure to consider the surroundings, or medium on which the design will be fed to its audience, is the root of this overuse of attention seeking and meaningless visuals.

Contrast should not only be limited to the design itself, as the contrast between the design, as a collective, and its surrounding can get the job done with less clutter.

A fussy layout is a silly attempt to earn a designer’s keep.
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/the-overburden-of-design-in-pursuit-of-attention/feed/ 0 http://mokokoma.co.za/the-overburden-of-design-in-pursuit-of-attention/ A Lesson from the story behind the Lacoste logo http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/sH8nffW76kI/ http://mokokoma.co.za/a-lesson-from-the-story-behind-the-lacoste-logo/#comments Wed, 31 Mar 2010 20:35:16 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=3967



lacoste logo brand identity crocodileLacoste, well-known for their polo shirts has a very brief, but quite interesting, story behind their widely known brand identity, that is made of a crocodile.

The company name derived from the surname of its founder, Rene Lacoste, a world renowned tennis player then.

Rene Lacoste was nicknamed the “crocodile” by the press after he made a bet with the captain of the French Davis Cup team. Apparently, Rene was promised a crocodile skin suitcase, something that was very important to the team, should he win the match.

Though he lost the match, the public stuck with the nickname “crocodile” and Rene then decided to have a crocodile embroidered on his blazer, which he wore to the court.

Fast forward to the time Rene had to get an identity for his business.

The crocodile was made part of Lacoste’s brand identity.

Though, it’s possible not to think of Lacoste when you see or hear of a crocodile. The crocodile inevitably comes to mind whenever you think of Lacoste.

So “technically” there is no meaning (but a story) behind the Lacoste logo, but it stands for something in the minds of the consumers. Some of you might argue that the story and meaning are one — nonetheless, both are not really about the brand itself but its founder.

At first the most prevalent thing that Lacoste brought to mind was “good quality polo shirts” but that was until they decided to add more products to their brand’s offering.

For that reason, to some people Lacoste stands for “fashionable footwear”, “uniquely scented fragrances”, “stylish handbags”, “elegant watches” and so forth but that’s another story.

The most important thing to take from this is that the brand gives meaning to the logo, and not the other way around.

I just found out about this and I thought this would be interesting to those that, like me, didn’t know the history behind Lacoste’s identity. Plus, this sort of support the points I made in the writing prior to this one.

And of course “crocodile” is likely to open an argument of its own as others would say that “It is not a crocodile but an alligator.”
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/a-lesson-from-the-story-behind-the-lacoste-logo/feed/ 1 http://mokokoma.co.za/a-lesson-from-the-story-behind-the-lacoste-logo/ Psst! Meaningless logos too can get the job done http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/CV7FnUT7jiQ/ http://mokokoma.co.za/psst-meaningless-logos-too-can-get-the-job-done/#comments Tue, 23 Mar 2010 11:24:01 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=3899



wwf logo identity brandmarkA brandmark designer’s priority is to develop an identity that visually differentiates brands, especially those competing for the same consumers.

Apart from form of an identity, colour is heavily relied on to communicate something or evoke a feeling about the brand the mark represents. The biggest challenge for us, as brandmark designers, is that we don’t really have control as to what the colour red means to whoever is exposed to the brandmark.

Colour is a very subjective subject.

Apple’s logo gets the job done, whether people realize the meaning behind it or not.

The focus should be placed on how effectively does the logo express or at least fit a company’s desired brand image not on which colour can the designer use to communicate that the brand is “innovative.”

At times creative rationales behind logos are misused by brandmark designers as a tool to give clients an impression that the designer deserve the amount of zeros on their invoices.

The story behind a brand, what they do and/or how they wish to be perceived usually shapes the look and feel of the brandmark but this isn’t really a must do. The brandmark will give meaning or attach experiences with the brand to the brandmark, and not the other way around.

That’s whole point of having a brandmark; identify and call experiences to mind.

How useful is the green on a brandmark, if consumers aren’t getting the fact that it is intended to communicate “growth?” Anyways which brand isn’t in pursuit of growth?

The challenge is that offerings and aspirations of most brands are common. Aiming to articulate them in a logo often leads to monotonous brand identities.

As much as this is not what we’d like to hear as brandmark designers, consumers don’t really care about what we’re communicating with the logo. People use logos to identify brands, they don’t seek the brand’s history or philosophies that should supposedly be incorporated within a logo.

A professional will of course have the wisdom to know which rules to follow. Things like relevance, scaling without losing detail, working well in one colour and so forth.

The fedEx logo worked very well, some people still fail to see the arrow in created by the negative space, but the brandmark still does it’s job well.

More important than a logo having meaning, is finding a look and feel that has the tone that fits the desired brand image, brand message etc.

Great design is useless in this context if it doesn’t have any brand strategy behind. And on the other hand, a great brand strategy is easily suffocated by bad design.

It’s the uniqueness and relevance that makes a logo, not the meaning behind it.

It is the brand that will give meaning to the brandmark.
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/psst-meaningless-logos-too-can-get-the-job-done/feed/ 1 http://mokokoma.co.za/psst-meaningless-logos-too-can-get-the-job-done/ The impact of ‘the race card’ on visual communication http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/mokokoma/~3/wHe0OeGuG4Y/ http://mokokoma.co.za/the-impact-of-the-race-card-on-visual-communication/#comments Thu, 18 Mar 2010 09:01:13 +0000 mokokoma http://mokokoma.co.za/?p=3819



In a communication process, the most important thing is how the receiver decodes and understands the message, and not what the sender is trying to communicate.

I always say that it is the responsibility of the speaker as to how the spoken to, understands the spoken.

People see things differently and that affects what they make of what they see.

The best attempt to leave no room for a misunderstanding, is for the sender to make their message as simple as possible. But at times even the simplest straightforward message communicates different things to different people.

Let’s take the ad for a newspaper below as an example:

What you and I make of this ad is likely to differ with how the next person interpret the ad and the overall message that they get from the it.

It’s almost safe to assume that the man’s race doesn’t really come up in your interpretation of the ad. In fact, you are likely to even overlook his gender in your attempt to make sense of the ad.

All that you see is a gorilla, a razor and a person.

I’ve edited the original ad to illustrate the effect race has:

robert mugabe gorilla race racism ad advertI know it’s hard to look at it as though you’ve never seen the original ad, but would you have interpreted this ad (edited) the same way that you did with the original, if the person used in the ad was black?

Would it have been fair to shout “racists!” should the creatives have decided to use a black person instead?

Looking at the edited ad: is the message that you now get reduced, increased, distorted or changed completely?

If you think that racism would have been the first thing to come to your mind, would you still get the same message of racism if you were told that the ad was actually done by a black person?

In such communication that is prone to racial uproars, is the message that the intended receiver gets dependent on the receiver’s awareness of the sender’s skin colour?

Usually when one sees a white person in an ad, we see, well, a person. Race doesn’t really come to mind. But when one sees a black person in an ad, race is usually brought to mind, even in instances where it’s not necessary or intended by the visual communicator.

When we as a people see a black person in a communication vehicle, do we see a black (then) person or do we see a person that happens to be black?

Is the misunderstand of what you get excusable? Would this have been another uproar of racism?

Has the widespread of racism shaped the way we interpret messages we consume?

Is such a risk of unintentional political incorrectness a privilege reserved for black visual communicators?

Is the pursuit of political correctness a hidden part of a white visual communicator’s brief?

That is the end, but I have two questions regarding this writing:

Would this writing come across as an excuse for racism should it have been authored by a white colleague? Does the fact that I’m black make it easier to digest?
Related Writings:
]]> http://mokokoma.co.za/the-impact-of-the-race-card-on-visual-communication/feed/ 0 http://mokokoma.co.za/the-impact-of-the-race-card-on-visual-communication/