Clever logo… (well I thought so anyway)

Pure undiluted branding Genius from the combined genius of Tony Wilson, Peter Saville and Rob Gretton

I am getting rather bored.

well just stop posting FFS – I assume no one’s holding a gun to your head?

you are clearly never going to convince everyone about whatever it is you’re trying to say makes you different to the other 8 billion people on the planet when it comes to brand recognition and association so why not just give up?

And I forgot the wonderful Island records logo, as seen on many great albumen sleeves.

Sorry.

Rusty Spanner.

That’s good, not ‘lol’ good but ‘nice one’ good.

I have never said

completely impervious and it definitely never having any influence

Yes you did.

You said repeatedly throughout this discussion that it has no influence at all on you. Many people, including me, have queried you on that and asked you how it can possibly have NO influence.

In fact you’re opening gambit was that you “pity anyone who believes in all this stuff and who wastes their life and / or money doing it.” – which rather implies that you don’t believe in it and it is a waste of money because it has no influence.

The branding for MDMA was genius….

discuss..

No Graham I did not. Look I just pointed out to you where in the space of two lines you took a qualified statement of mine and turned it into an absolute. 🙄

not that bored then.

True yunki, ‘Despair’ doesn’t have the same ring to it as ‘Ecstacy’.

No Graham I did not. Look I just pointed out to you where in the space of two lines you took a qualified statement of mine and turned it into an absolute.

Are you really saying that you didn’t say this?

I pity anyone who believes in all this stuff and who wastes their life and / or money doing it

Skim read 23 pages so sorry if already mentioned but if branding is so meaningless how does Apple sell its expensive products over often technologically superior equivalents?

‘Cos Steve Jobs is a nice guy?

Influencing behavour in a crisis by asserting authority:

Well, that’s obviously the main reason but after that? 😉

skim read 23 pages so sorry if already mentioned but if branding is so meaningless how does Apple sell its expensive products over often technologically superior equivalents?

Ouch!!! Suddenly the level of bollox being spouted ascends to a whole new level!!

In fact Apple is another case in point – it’s possible to spend your lifetime comparing specs of different computers, but when you buy an Apple product you know pretty much what you will get, so the Apple brand communicates the values of the company in a concise and effective way.

start listening to what I have said?

quite honestly you don’t say it clearly enough or choose to answer only certain aspects of questions or discard them wholly that is actually impossible to converse.

id like to further enlighten TJ about branding…………..

– by branding him on the forehead.

for those that are genuinely interested – this is a good watch, and sort of related

For 24 hours this has raged. I had to come back and catch up. Awesome thread, even if its led to me having 40 omelettes.

The claim by anyone (who’s in a position to comment on a web forum) that they are utterly, categorically impervious to branding is naive. Branding has shaped, and continues to shape, the very world in which we all live. Even those completely impervious to the ever-alluring messages of the super brands still live in a world shaped by branding.

As this is STW, I feel it is my duty to bring to this thread that which, despite it’s biblical length, has bizarrely been so far lacking. I will make huge and very tenuous pseudo intellectual leaps so as to involve both Thatcher and the Nazis. I think you’ll all agree, from whichever side of the fence you stand, that this is the correct thing to do at this juncture. So here goes:

The Nazi party was successful for many reasons, but part of its strategy for success was to brand itself very well. We don’t know how much of an effect the brand had on the success of the Nazis, but the potential benefits of it meant it was a worthwhile consideration at the time. We went to war with the Nazis. Thousands lost their lives. That world war had a profound effect on the world we now live in.

Branding has therefore had an effect on TJs life.

The capitalist idea, so beloved of Thatcher among many others, that handing the nation’s reigns to the free market economy is the best way to run a society has led a generation of politicians into kowtowing to big business. Big businesses therefore hold significant sway over the governance of our nation. Big businesses get where they are by marketing and branding themselves well.

Branding has therefore had an effect on TJs life.

But aside from that, rather more seriously:

The products that are on the shelves now are generally there because they’ve been successfully branded and marketed. The few new items Jeremy does objectively choose to buy are only those from that list. Therefore the objects he gets to buy are only available to him because they are successful brands.

Branding has therefore had an effect on TJs life.

Thatcher: Check.
Nazis: Check.

Eggs.

DrJ, I rather thought that was the point I was trying to make! Apple doesn’t sell a product it sells a “user experience”.

900

so the Apple brand communicates the values of the company in a concise and effective way.

And more importantly the lifestyle associated with owning an Apple product.
Which I imagine is young/professional/successful and with significant disposable income.
But the thread is about logos.
What does this convey?

What does it say about the company? Not what you know now, but what the image conveys.

The ‘smiley face’ is made up of the T, U and I in a very abstract manner.

Clever.

It’s all been eggstreemly interesting.

No Graham I did not. Look I just pointed out to you where in the space of two lines you took a qualified statement of mine and turned it into an absolute.

Have you been having an entirely different discussion for the past day and a half then TJ???

Maybe you need more Red Bull™ because many, many people have repeatedly said to you that it is impossible to escape the influence of logos, brands and marketing.
Myself included.

And you have repeatedly told us off for claiming that what you claim to do is impossible. In fact you just did it again in our previous exchange.

That has been pretty much the entire thrust of our debate.
In fact I would summarise the debate as:

You say: brands are meaningless. Design is meaningless. It’s a waste of money. I pity the foos.
We say: you can’t escape the influence of brands.
You say: I can.
We say: You can’t. You can try to dismiss it if you choose, but it is still an influence.
You say: please stop telling me what I can’t do. I dismiss it entirely and base my choices purely on the inherent Buddhist nature of an OBJECT and I am entirely unmoved by the BRAND.
We say: well, you try, but what about A, B, C…
You say: no I am the Zen master of ignoring brand influence, you are all gullible little sheeple.
We say: okay, well what about X, Y, Z…
You say: those are trick questions
etc etc etc etc

Fair point

What does this convey?

Isn’t that the apple that Alan Turing ate to commit suicide when he saw that all his hard work would be used to facilitate pointless stupid arguments?

Very interesting indeed Bunnyhop, but the whole thing has scrambled my poor brain.

Influencing behavour in a crisis by asserting authority:

Actually, I’d heard this morning that the Keep Calm and carry on Poster was never used. It was supposed to be used in the event of a German invasion

Does any of this really matter?

This thread is about logos and how they have been intelligently formed to convey more about the business or (which I find more amusing) are inadvertently inappropriate.

and some awesome ones on use of negative space….
http://webdesignledger.com/inspiration/clever-examples-of-negative-space-in-logo-design

You keep accusing folk of not listening to you or putting words in your mouth TJ so here is your own petard once again:

Branding means nothing at all to me. I buy based on what things are not on the branding

some of us see the object for what it is not for what it is branded as.

I buy for what things are not for what they are branded / marketed as.

some of us do this. we buy for what things are

there is another way of thinking and working that involves actively discounting the branding and looking beyond that at what it is

I am aware of the marketing techniques – I chose to ignore them.

i don’t own branded goods.

marketing only works with the gullible

How can you possibly read that lot back and then say you were not claiming to be impervious to the influence of branding and marketing????

That is exactly what you were claiming. I’m not sure how it can be read any other way.

Perhaps if you had liberally sprinkled the word “try” over that, rather than being so absurdly absolute, then you would have been far closer to the truth and no one would have claimed that your position was impossible.

Go Graham, Go Graham, Go Graham… you can do it!! I have absolute faith that you will win this one, keep it up! You will get there! 😀

You say: brands are meaningless. Design is meaningless. It’s a waste of money. I pity the foos.
We say: you can’t escape the influence of brands.
You say: I can.
We say: You can’t. You can try to dismiss it if you choose, but it is still an influence.
You say: please stop telling me what I can’t do. I dismiss it entirely and base my choices purely on the inherent Buddhist nature of an OBJECT and I am entirely unmoved by the BRAND.
We say: well, you try, but what about A, B, C…
You say: no I am the Zen master of ignoring brand influence, you are all gullible little hens.
We say: okay, well what about eggs, Y, Z…
You say: those are trick questions

FTFY…

we all know what TJ was getting at.. what he meant.. and that what he meant was just and good..

it’s just a bear baiting thread again..

wholesome

it’s just a bear baiting thread again..

I can’t bear bear baiting!

It’s even worse when they are exposed and naked

we all know what TJ was getting at.. what he meant.

all of us except TJ

I buy for what things are not for what they are branded / marketed as.

I think this is saying that he is aware of brands and this do not affect his purchasing as he uses other criteria than the branding/ marketing to influence his purchasing. I am not really sure why people have chosen to take this as controversial tbh.
i doubt he is alone in this tbh.

marketing only works with the gullible

Anyone bought a powerband yet? Why not impervious to their branding and marketing are we?

I’d heard this morning that the Keep Calm and carry on Poster was never used. It was supposed to be used in the event of a German invasion

you heard this Today 😉

It’s not bear baiting, it’s trying to educate him, and also to get him to accept that we’re not all pitiful gullible fools. Which is quite clear to me from the excellent and deeply knowledgeable and intelligent contributions from many of the protagonists.

Logos, brands and marketing mean much less and are much less effective than those in the industry claim

So, where’s your evidence for this?

You do realise that if TJ actually admits defeat he will immediately vanish and be replaced by something equally incomprehensible?

Just saying like….