Li Edelkoort predicts a new boldness for the future

by elayneread

 

Planning and designing brands inevitably involves trying to work out what imagery and values will have currency months or even years from now.

That’s why we religiously make our biannual pilgrimage to hear what trends forecaster Li Edelkoort has to say about imagery, texture and colour in the medium term future.

Last week at the Lumiere cinema in South Kensington, it was gratifying to hear her build her argument using not one but two themes from our own Visual Futures presentations.

She opened her analysis with the observation that with the world in crisis for the sixth year running, it’s time to “dream and give into absurdity and excess, to embrace the grotesque and exaggerated, to enter a new world of hyper form and strong colour”.

This echoes the same sentiment we expressed last year in our Visual Futures presentation Reality Sucks, where we talked about people wishing to escape the awfulness and embracing alternative realities and absurdism. (more…)

by Tim Smith

by Tim Smith

Beautiful people earn more. Do beautiful brands?

by Alex Benady

Academic studies suggest that beautiful people earn between 10 and 20 per cent more than people with just average looks -even though there is absolutely no difference in their working performance. Could the same be true of brands?

The reverse is certainly true of what you might call ugly people, according to Lucy Kellaway writing in the Financial Times. Discussing the (comparatively) new field of biological economics which studies the relationship between human biology and economics, she reported research by New York University which found that a one per cent increase in body mass results in a 0.6% fall in income.

In his 2012 book ‘Beauty Pays: Why Attractive People Are More Successful’ Daniel S. Hamermesh suggests beautiful people tend to do better than their aesthetically-challenged counterparts. He explores whether a universal standard of beauty exists.He  illustrates how attractive workers make more money, how these amounts differ by gender, and how looks are valued differently based on profession.

Other findings include the fact that US chief executives with deeper voices tend to run larger companies, get paid more and last longer in the job; the finding that bearded men are trusted more, that Fortune 500 CEOs are on average 2 and a half inches taller than the average man, that blonde women earn seven per cent more than brunettes and CEOs with more ‘powerful faces’ tend to run more powerful companies.

You might wonder how this is relevant to brand design? The answer is that like behavioural economics, biological economics is further proof that the rational, predictable model of ‘homo economicus’ that underpins much of conventional economic and consumer theory, is woefully incomplete.

If even chief execs of the world’s largest companies are being bought at least in part on the basis of their looks, not on conscious but on instinctive measures, then why would the same not be true for lesser purchases –such as baked beans, yoghurts and soap powders?

Behavioural and biological economics reveal that people make decisions based not on a full assessment of the all the facts, but on rules of thumb that they aren’t even aware of. It’s clear that the human brain considers the surface a reliable indicator of what is going on beneath the surface.

That’s true of people, packaging, strategies, ideas and relationships.

Hence the power of beauty. At the risk of sounding pretentious, you could say that beauty is an outer sign of inner grace. Which is why we believe that beauty is a serious commercial issue.

Put bluntly, if beautiful people can earn 20% more than the average, wont the same be true of brands?

 

by Tim Smith

by Tim Smith

Why has the old passing off debate reignited?

by donnatrist

There’s a lot of crime going on in the supermarket aisles but it’s not shop-lifting says Which magazine. Yes the old ‘passing-off’ debate about the extent to which supermarkets copy brands reared its head again last week after lying dormant for more than a decade.

As we work for both brands and retailers it’s a debate we are especially interested in and one which we witness from both sides.

The survey by Which accused supermarkets of bamboozling consumers into buying their own-label products by copying the packaging of better known branded equivalents. The investigation looked at 150 own-label products and found that a fifth of those questioned had accidentally bought a supermarket copy of a brand, at least once. 18% had deliberately bought an own-label product because it resembled the branded equivalent. 60% of these shoppers did so because it was cheaper, 59% wanted to see if it was as good.

The question of passing off or “intellectual property theft” as brand owners called it, first came to prominence in the early nineties when retailers realised they could grow sales and margins of own-label products if they improved the quality and made them look more like established brands.

The problem was how do you do that? On the one hand every category has its conventions. Disobey them and you aren’t in the category. One the other hand if you use too many of the conventions, -especially colour cues, packaging shape and type face, its easy to imply a connection with the brand that doesn’t exist or trick consumers into mistaking your product for the branded leader. No wonder the brand owners called it “parasite branding”.

Certainly some of the examples of own label shown in the Which report were so close to their branded rivals they were almost funny. But you have to wonder why the issue has returned now?

It seems that the main driver is likely to be economic downturn. With consumer confidence down and many real incomes falling, own-label is taking a larger and larger share of supermarket turn over. The temptation for retailers is to sail as close to the brand leader as possible because, according to the British Brands Group, a lookalike pack can boost sales by fifty per cent or more.

We know that retailers are especially interested in own-label at the moment because in the last couple of years we have received briefs from two retail giants who both wanted help transforming their own-label into own brand.

So are they deliberately copying established brands? We know for a fact that our clients aren’t. One the other hand we also know that at least one very major retailer (not our client) actually told its design agency to “get as close as you can legally.”

That’s not only dishonest, it’s a mistake. The reason being that it suggests a lack of confidence and undermines your ability to build your own brand.

The best way for brands to deal with this problem is to create strong unique and distinctive visual properties. Of course anything can be copied. But if your visual language is truly distinctive it is harder for plagiarists to argue they are merely using category conventions.

For retailers the challenge is to marry these conventions with your own distinctive brand personality and design language. The result is almost certain to be uniquely and distinctively yours but recognisable within the category.

by Tim Smith

Packaging with zero waste is in sight.

by Alex Benady

It’s a difficult truth for a company like ours, but no one really wants packaging. Retailers need a way of distinguishing and managing products. Manufacturers need a way of transporting their products and making them stand out. Consumers just want the products inside. For all of them, packaging is a means to other ends. It is a distress purchase.

That explains why so much of it is thrown away. According to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, we generated around 10.8 millions tonnes of packaging in the UK in 2009. Although an impressive two thirds was recycled, 3.5 millions tonnes weren’t – wasting resources, clogging up landfill, polluting water courses and turning the oceans into a rubbish dump.

In the US the problem is worse. The country generated 250 million tons of waste in 2010 according to the Environmental Protection Agency, and nearly a third of that, about 76 million tons, comes from packaging.

So the prospect of packaging that simply disappears leaving little or no environmental impact is as alluring as it sounds unlikely. But designer Aaron Mickelson, of the Pratt Institute New York, may just have cracked it. (more…)

by Tim Smith

This blog is about all the things that inspire us as we make brands beautiful: insights and ideas, points of view, fabulous work, nascent trends - all the things that excite us and help us to see new possibilities for the brands we work on. So please enjoy, add your comments, forward the link, and come back and see us. We’ll be posting regularly.