Brand Blab

Design Futures – Managing Change

As a branding and design consultant I am highly aware of the pressures forcing us all to keep ahead of changing market trends. Some areas of design are potentially becoming a commodity with everyone it seems providing ‘design’, whether printers or shopfitters, for example, and more accessible technology enabling individuals to design their own web sites, create their own brochures, etc. Designers need to constantly re-evaluate what they offer and how to stay relevant to fast changing client needs.

Design means change but surprisingly some designers, agencies and consultants find this difficult when the issue is applied to themselves.

One example is the way we design. The trend for increasing internet retailing and digital media is changing the way designers need to think about concept visual development. The era of translating static corporate identities, visual design signatures and branded environments to web communication and screen technology is now potentially in reverse. Designing for animation and the dynamic morphing of visual brand concepts can now become the leading design idea and key brand touchpoint. How this translates to static print, signage and environments then becomes the secondary priority.

This creates interesting challenges for designers trained in classic corporate identity and branding, steeped in the nuances of script, typefaces, graphics and interior design. The next generation of future designers born with a screen in their hand and reared on dynamic imagery from birth must change traditional ways of thinking and designing. The same is happening for marketing professionals coming to terms with the challenges of social media, which is transforming the roles of advertising agencies and the media spend priorities of corporations grappling with the age of instant access and engagement.

The world of design covers a vast range of skills and disciplines with the common link of creativity and innovation. Commercial design, by definition, must meet strategic business criteria. Unfortunately too often ‘creatives’ are seen as the cosmetic guys - dealing with the ‘soft’ emotional and un-measurable aspects of modern business life whether in marketing and communications, or the more tangible design area of architecture, environment design, graphics, corporate identity and product design.

Ultimately design is measured by ‘fitness for purpose’. As an architect I was educated in the ‘form follows function’ school. I still believe this but the functions become more complex. Meeting emotional needs of image, taste and pleasure and the operational criteria of efficiency, cost and time is the true test of any design. Unfortunately in the business world the comfort zones of management tend to be the ‘measurable’ aspects of cost and time. While most managements acknowledge the need to develop their products and services as ‘brands’ and differentiated ‘brand experiences’ they have difficulty in dealing with the creative world of agencies and consultants who sell ‘branding’. I have some sympathy as the conflicting advice and services of branding and design specialists is so often based on the education discipline of the individuals concerned and can typically range from
advertising agencies to management consultancies.

I would like to believe architects should be seen as prime movers in change management. Designing buildings, public spaces and creating relevant places that people want to use, experience and enjoy is a key function of good design. This means change ideally to better solutions, environments and activities. Changing the way people think and act however demands the best skills in communications and combination of emotional and rational intelligence.

An increasingly vital aspect of modern business life is creating a positively differentiated internal company culture. I am increasingly asked to provide talks on the importance of Employer Branding – developing the reputation and image of a company as a ‘first choice’ place to work. In terms of measurability the true costs of staff turnover, loss of management experience, the sheer inefficiency of department silo mentality and de-motivated employees are potentially enormous. The calibre and attitude of customer facing staff is now a key differentiation factor for companies. The effect on sales and the overall company brand equity cannot be overestimated.

In a competitive world of uncertainty, mergers and acquisitions, changing offers and job functions it becomes critical to attract and retain the best staff. Staff centricity should be as important as the standard corporate mantra of customer centricity. Management culture in some developing (as well as so-called developed) markets can be dire but the potential for creating a synergy between external marketing and services and internal communication and environments, is starting to be understood.

The shortage of qualified experienced staff in BRIC economies means poaching is endemic and creates management ambivalence to an investment in training. There are signs that indicate this vicious circle is ending and we see the development of differentiated brand cultures becoming a key future trend and management priority.

The creative sector should be in the forefront of these new aspirations given the need for innovative workplace environments and effective communication across increasingly diverse organisations and working patterns. Workplace design should reflect the company ethos and locality particularly for international operations. Setting a corporate look that must be the same worldwide immediately ignores the fact different cultures, markets and countries look and feel differently about design, colour and imagery. Capturing a company essence and translating to a local mindset is a fascinating challenge but worthwhile to avoid a cloned corporate look disseminated from a remote head office. However, these emotional criteria need to be balanced with practical operational criteria to be cost effective, easily implemented and managed to achieve appropriate consistency and quality. So design functionality needs to meet both the emotional requirement to reflect local mindsets, aspirations and achieve engagement together with the need for satisfying all department agendas, HR and
marketing as well as real estate and finance directors!

Designers by definition should be constantly embracing change and new roles but can be reluctant to move on from the comfort zone of their original training. Today, more than ever, a consistent reality for anyone involved in design in the future is that the winners will be those who recognise and are ready to meet the challenges of managing creative change. A key attribute will be the willingness to embrace and collaborate with a range of like-minded expertise to ensure optimum solutions in order to meet and exceed all expectations.

 

Clive Woodger

January, 2012

‘Wow Relationships’

Branding terminology will frequently refer to the importance of creating ‘relationships’ with  audiences and users.  The danger of words are the underlying assumptions involved.  Relationships come in many forms and levels from relative ambivalence to steamy passion and undying loyalty.  Brands that think they can get themselves into the upper passion spectrum level tend to be premium luxury emotional offers such as high end cars, jewellery and top fashion.  The sad reality for most offers – the more common utility end of the market, is that relationships are based on the less exotic attributes of convenience and familiarity.  Trust must be a given, as are good ethics and sustainability credentials. 

Loyalty cards aim to tip the balance – if you have to get petrol or food you might as well get some ‘points’ if the accessibility, offer, price and general hassle are about the same.  This puts increased pressure on ensuring every possible brand ‘touchpoint’ can result in a positive experience however minor in terms of reinforcing and ideally improving company’s image.   Tesco’s ‘every little helps’ is a brilliant encapsulation of such a ‘customer centric’ approach - another easily said retail generic, but difficult to always achieve!

It is particularly worrying when we are told a branding initiative must achieve a ‘wow’ factor.  By definition a ‘wow’ reaction is not sustainable in the true sense i.e. from an initial resource investment viewpoint but more importantly maintaining long term impact, relevance and freshness.

Not many relationships however passionate can be sustained if depending on a perpetual ‘wow’ factor.  The best long term relationships depend on consistency and care – not taking the other for granted and keeping a relationship fresh.  Surely a good mantra for marketers and lovers alike. 

Retail Design Rebranding – the added value of ‘service’.

Once again I heard a politician talking about innovation and design and inevitably shuddered at the cliché’s on its importance, lack of investment, etc.  Politicians and public services have tried to show their awareness of acting in consumer interests since discussions on market forces and customer choice became acceptable mantra for such bodies and institutions.   

This has provided opportunities for the design industry and the concept of service design in various forms has developed accordingly.  Companies have carefully re-branded their design methodologies despite the fact that ultimately there are clearly generic processes in solving any design challenge and solution development.  However, reading different company’s approaches and philosophies, you are led to believe you have clearly missed something in assuming a good experienced all round designer could help in most cases.  Apparently you need to use specialists in service propositions.  

The design industry has always been adept at recreating itself and repackaging its services.  Originally it was easy, you had specific disciplines defined by an individual’s training.  Whether a product, graphic or interior designer, everyone was clearly labelled to describe their role across different sectors - furniture, print, retail, hotels, residential, exhibitions, etc.  Other creative disciplines such as architecture and advertising equally defined their services with differentiated sector skills and specialisms.  However, market demands and opportunities saw the specific sectors increasingly determining the designer role as a collective offer.  Retail design, for example, became a catch-all expertise demanding a range of skills working together across different disciplines to provide a coordinated offer involving typically physical, digital and communication media creativity.  

Consulting disciplines have become increasingly blurred as the concept of branding as a multi-disciplined organisation activity has developed from its original packaging roots.  Today management consultants, architects, advertising and design agencies can all claim to provide branding consultancy.  Clearly they do but obviously with a limited perspective based on their core skills.  Management consultants are comfortable with figures and measurements of brand equity and potential sales values.  Architects take on graphic designers and claim they then can offer ‘branding’ services to their building developments.  Advertising agencies are comfortable with the marketing and profiling of companies and products but will offer environment design by taking on an interior designer.  Designers similarly offer strategic services, audits and research to enhance their offer.  Corporate identity is an example of a profession which is having to adjust to a changing market.  Some companies still try to market it as a sacred expensive art form and link with other often dubious skills like naming which is often presented as a pseudo scientific process backed up by research processes to provide management insurance policies.  Clients just need to know what they are getting and whether this will be ultimately good for their businesses and organisations, consumers and users.  

All the disciplines - advertising, design, management consulting and architecture inevitably protect their territory by offering the vital generic ‘strategy’.  Unfortunately the use of ‘strategy’ has sometimes become as devalued as the ‘designer’ label prefix to many pretty average products by its inappropriate overuse.  By definition, good commercial design must be strategic, i.e. fulfilling defined functions – practical and emotional.  There is still a stereotype image of design being a more ‘lightweight’ profession given its inability to talk and persuade with pure figures.  Measuring quality, style, image and values is tough for finance directors, councillors  and public services justifying their existence.  Accordingly ‘design’ has been surrounded by lots of strategic words and apparent added value services to provide more credibility.  But ultimately, if the key requirement is to coordinate the wide range of influences that form an ‘experience’ for the customer, user or stakeholders, the essential core skill must be customer centricity – the basis of good retail design.  Balancing the conflicting criteria of branding and operations, image and cost, for example, should be an intrinsic skill to ensure a retailer’s survival and commercial advantage.  

With multi-channel retailing, a broad approach to physical, digital and print design together with human and technical interactions combine to create a wide range of ‘touchpoints’ – those moments of truth that can make or break an image and reputation.  The resulting ‘brand experience’ is the basis of good retail design and yet retail designers are not, it seems, first choice for the new ‘service’ sector clients despite the fact service has become the key differentiator for retailer brands.  This is surprising as Banks have looked to retail and subsequently retail designers to help them become more consumer focused.   Banks discovered they had ‘customers’ rather than accounts some years ago and many embarked on creating a more retail driven philosophy – ‘stores not branches’ was a classic positioning.  Trying not to be a bank has been an interesting trend, just like the estate agents who look more like wine bars than property offices to entice and stroke their customers.  Whether consumers are convinced by such policy is a matter of argument particularly now when banks need to be easy, efficient and trustworthy. More than ever they need to go back to fundamentals and achieve the basics of trust, convenience and ease of use before embarking on perhaps unconvincing charm offences and visit ‘experiences’.  Surely a lesson for some service bodies.  The key point is understanding consumers, and who better than those who have had to do this from day one?  i.e. retail designers.   

In the UK retailers have been using design as a key component in their aim to differentiate their offers for many years.   UK designers have therefore been in demand in countries where such retail skills have become relevant in new economies.  At the same time the service component in design has equally been an integral part of the retail design process through providing appropriate environments and staff support facilities.  This entails the combination of physical design and effective communication creating real and coordinated service across retail channel offers – stores, web sites and now increasingly social media messaging.  So, the apparent late discovery and perception of government and public bodies that services need a specific branch of design consultancy seems odd and frankly misses the point.  Good retail design principles and skills when applied effectively surely provides a core depth of knowledge which does not need such ‘re-branding’.   

But, maybe that’s the point.  People are always attracted to a new packaged solution even if it really is just a new formulation of key ingredients that are already available.  Clearly retail designers need to consider some ‘strategic’ re-labelling to compete and get some equal shelf space to their ‘service’ cousins.