Here is a brand built around the simplicity of a connecting brick. A children’s toy to unlock the imagination, Lego has been adopted by the enthusiast like almost no other toy before or since. But it, at its heart, a physical product. And like so many traditional toys, it faced a difficult future as video games and the internet stole our children away from the floor space and put them in front of the computer monitor. It would, on the surface, seem unlikely that Lego could make the transition to the digital sphere in the way more social games could and did.

Of course, Lego did exactly that, building itself around the concept of imagination and the character of those amazing Minifigs. The idea that you can build anything with Lego was seized upon and translated literally into some of the most fun video games we have today.

Even better, for me, is the new Lego Games range, extending the brand within the real world by creating fun versions of classic games. Minotaurous and Creationary are two I’ve seen and been captured by but the range is extending all the time. It’s hard to see a possibility not suitable for these dynamic little bricks.

Well done Lego. Other classic toys could learn a lot by dismantling your example.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

That morning was one of those great events. The ideas were well received and then the talk widened to take in a history of video games. The client made a comment that left the rest of us discussing how or whether it is possible to damage a brand.

Let’s put you out of your misery by revealing that comment. The client was talking about marketing back in the C64 and Spectrum days. He said that in those days you could pretty much do as you liked with huge franchises. Want to slap a Batman logo on a box? Well as long as you had that initial loose agreement with Warners then you just went ahead and did it. There were no brand guardians watching your every move. There were few or no approval processes to go through. You’d paid your money and you took your game to market the way you felt was appropriate. The client then made that comment – he just said that he didn’t think they did any harm to the brand.

Amazing? Simple? Wrong?

Increasingly it seems to be perceived wisdom amongst designers and creatives that brands do need to be protected against misuse. Style guides run into hundreds of pages, dedicated personnel stand in the way of each proposed element of creative and the process of working with licensed product can often be long and difficult. But looking at it from the heady days of the 1980′s – what if no harm was done to the licences? Did they kill any back then? No. Did Maria Whittaker live to star on another game cover – ok, maybe not. But not because the video game played fast and loose with her brand image.

Take it this way. If Superman’s brand image was jealously guarded back then how would that affect the many diverse styles and stories that have made him the icon he is today? Everything, from the famous “S” to the entire costume and even his backstory have been reinvented, reinvigorated, so many times and yet he is still an icon. Would the camp Batman of the 1960′s have made it through a post-Nolan world? It seems doubtful.

In a world that puts more and more value on spreading brand messages virally, on encouraging social ownership of your brand and on riding the whole networking vibe, isn’t it time to relax the rules a little?

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.