WEEKLY WHINE

The importance of visual identity

Branding is everywhere. Even GoobNet has a brand. Well, sort of. After all, when was the last time you saw our world famous slogan, “Way Out”?

And don’t say “on an exit sign”. Those things are totally ripping us off.

Take a look around you the next time you are anywhere. Everything is branded. For instance, if you are in the London underground, the signs always use the same blue, red, and white, and always the same font. If you are in the New York City subway system, the signs always use the same black and white, and always the same font. If you are watching television and the programme displays a tweet from a viewer, it is always in the same blue and white, and always the same little bird logo.

Even though branding is everywhere, it is not consistent. Some organisations have a complete visual identity guide that defines colours, fonts, logo versions, and even how much white space to place around a logo. Some organisations have a logo and a few preferred colours. Some organisations don’t even have a consistently defined logo.

So what is visual identity? Why does it matter? How can it work for you? Let us now take a moment to answer these questions.

What is visual identity?

Visual identity is a set of rules about how a brand wants to represent itself in graphics.

Is visual identity important?

No.

Wait. I was just reading an article about how important visual identity is.

That article was erroneous.

But there are a lot of other articles out there that say the same thing.

That’s precisely the point. If visual identity actually was important, wouldn’t it be easy to explain why it is? Would there be a need for hundreds of articles to explain why it is?

But don’t I want people to associate things I produce with my brand?

Yes.

So visual identity is important.

No it’s not.

But if it’s how people associate things I produce with my brand, isn’t that important?

No.

Are you saying that it’s not important for an organisation to have a consistent appearance?

Yes.

That’s awfully hypocritical of you. How would you like it if every GoobNet page was in a different colour scheme and had a different logo at the top?

We would hate it.

See?

And yet, somehow, life would go on.

What are you talking about?

Would it really be the worst thing ever for different pages on a website to be in different colour schemes?

It would be hugely disorienting. How would you know if you were still looking at the same site?

From the URL.

But if a website actually did that, it would confuse and irritate people. Ultimately it would drive them away.

Most likely, yes.

And that just proves again that visual identity is important.

No it doesn’t.

How can you say that? We’ve just established that not having a visual identity can drive people away.

Correct.

So how can you argue that visual identity is not important?

You seem to be taking for granted the premise that it is important not to drive people away from an organisation.

It is.

If people stopped visiting GoobNet, who would lose out?

You would.

What about society as a whole? What about humanity? Would we really be worse off as a species if GoobNet went out of business?

That’s true. I mean, I wouldn’t give a shit.

Exactly.

But everybody who works there would be out of a job.

Correct.

Isn’t it important to you to preserve your job?

You have just used two important words.

What words?

“To you”.

What do you mean?

Your question was “Isn’t it important to you to preserve your job?”. The answer to that question is yes. However, consider an alternate question, “Isn’t it important to preserve your job?”. The answer to that question is in the long run, not really.

That doesn’t make sense.

Think about it. Coke is often recognised as having a good visual identity: everything from the colours and fonts to the shape of the bottles. Now ask this: What would happen if Coke suddenly went out of business?

All of the people it employs would be out of a job.

Yes. And?

What do you mean and? Millions of people would lose their jobs instantaneously. That would have huge ramifications all throughout the world.

You mean like lower childhood obesity rates?

Don’t try to turn this into an anticapitalist rant. Visual identity helps firms remain in business.

Correct.

And it helps avoid a cluttered world where it is impossible to distinguish different types of content.

Does it?

Yes.

Our world currently has quite a lot of visual identities in place. And it is also a cluttered world where it is impossible to distinguish different types of content.

That’s not true. It’s easy to distinguish advertisements.

Is it?

Sure. You can always tell where the advertisements are on television or in a magazine, because they’re in a different visual style.

But the shows and articles themselves are also full of advertisements. For example, on Sportscenter on ESPN, nearly every segment has a sponsor: the “Ultimate Highlight” segment, the “Sunday Conversation” segment, and the “Cold Hard Facts” segment. Even the “Not Top Ten” segment, a blooper reel shown on Fridays, has a sponsor. What sort of organisation would sponsor a sports blooper reel?

The sort that doesn’t know if its mascot is a gecko, a pig, or a caveman?

Correct.

But the fact that you know that those segments are sponsored shows that it is easy to distinguish advertisements.

Yes, apparently it is easy to distinguish advertisements, because everything is an advertisement.

That’s not what I’m saying.

No, it’s what we’re saying.

Look, what is the point? Even if you take a pessimistic, nihilistic view of things and claim that visual identity doesn’t affect the fact that we’re all going to die someday, aren’t you basically admitting that visual identity is at least important to the brand itself?

Yes.

Then can’t we just end things there?

Sure.