Microsoft seem unable to commit

Now you see it, now you don’t. Microsoft released their new branding device and company tagline yesterday.

And then withdrew it.

It drew the usual polarised opinions on Twitter and then, just a few hours later, was taken down. The tagline was for real but the logos, which showed the Microsoft product family, were not, in fact, new logos. Rather, they were an example of “a standalone treatment to show the flexibility of joined brands” (Engadget).

The opinions, the polarisation, the hate, all of these are de rigeur for any new brand these days. When opinions (such as mine) can be released and propagated within seconds, it’s inevitable. What’s interesting, to me at least, is that Microsoft chose to withdraw them.

Brand design is such a personal art. You either love the logo or you don’t really care. Even the haters will continue as usual once their bile has sunk back again.

So why would Microsoft back down?

When it comes to creating logos to reflect brands, many companies, large or small, want to please everybody. They want something that (as Steve Jobs once proposed) becomes a jewel. Everybody loves jewels. They sparkle, attract our attention and are worth a fortune.

What’s more, we love them instantly.

Open the box and what do you see? That’s right, treasure. And desire plays out upon our faces. It’s the reaction beloved of companies.

When that reaction is lessened, for whatever reason, a company can be thrown into turmoil. They sense a lack of love and fear that will reflect upon their business.

It’s easy to see why Microsoft would do the same.

With Apple being the… ummm… being so well loved by consumers, Microsoft feel threatened. Witness the constant faltering and self doubt over many of their product launches lately. They get buzz but then lose it through the self doubt and inaction. Apple announce a product and then release it. Apple love themselves, Microsoft don’t.

They need to realise that many people are happy with what they produce. It might not be passionate, it might not be vocal.

But they show commitment nonetheless. They should understand that self doubt is infecting their brand more than any perceived criticism.

A little self-love would inspire far more confidence than the efforts of analysts and graphic designers.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.

Rules exist for a reason. Whether you agree with them or not. Whether you like them, or not – they arose for a reason. Whilst Health & Safety and Political Correctness are easy targets for those seeking popular fervour, even those have arisen out of certain and definable need. And sure, rules are there to be broken, but only if you know them in the first place.

When I was studying creative writing back in 19(cough cough) we were introduced to a whole dictionary of new words, scansion, metre, caesura, conceit… the list went on. Poetry relied upon them to help the writer shape intention into meaning and the only reason we have writing workshops in the first place is because there are recognisable rules for writing detective, horror, “literary” and other genres of fiction. Language itself, is one big set of rules. Melvyn Bragg in his book The Adventure of English, talks about how Carribean English is a complex adaptation of English, not a misuse of it.

And so we come to design. For the past few hours I’ve been trying to fit a number of logos into a design and it got me thinking about those rules. In most of the logos I was using there was precious little evidence that the designer knew the rules to begin with. The logo looked very slick with a 3D finish to it. It followed the style of so many logos out there that, at best, look bright and sparkly on a website at a certain size but which loses all definition when reduced. And that’s just on a practical level. Design ability, trained designed ability, has to force us to consider every place a logo will be used. But of course there is so much more. A logo is a design problem. It needs to convey a strategy and be understood by the public. Some sites enjoy poking fun at companies who swallow eighteen pages of explanation to support a dumb logo design and right they are too.

Recently, on Twitter, someone asked if we knew of places to see “great” corporate logos. The person had looked but it appeared to be the case that most corporate logos were “just” type styles. That sums it up really. If that attitude is common in design thinking then we really have entered a time when usage of the tools outweighs understanding of strategy and design. Just because I can make a copy of 3D Studio push out photo-real objects doesn’t make me an artist and just because someone can use Illustrator doesn’t make them a logo designer. After all, communication is more complex than the ability to speak.

©2012 HEAD BLOG. All Rights Reserved.