Modern Tribes

In the course of last few weeks ago, I had learnt quite a bit about myself. My best friend and co-author of this blog decided to hold a movie screening party at her place. All we had to contribute to this party was booze and a choice of our two favorite movies. Two favorite movies. How the hell am I going to choose two favorite movies, show it to a group different individuals without being called crazy or anything equivalent to that. Movies, music, book choices implicitly or explicitly defines you. My favourtie malay movie of all time is Putri Gunung Ledang. The love song I am going to serenade my future wife is True Companion by Marc Cohan. My current song choice is Chasing Cars by Snow Patrol. And I quite like The Stars are Blind by Paris Hilton. I am currently reading The Tenth Circle by Jodi Picoult.

Apart from songs, movies and books, which undeniably we know, defines us, we now live in an age where the things and brands we own, does the same, whether we like it or not. We treasure our individuality yet at the same time we yearn to belong to a group. A tribe of like-minded people that have the same aspirations. These contradictions gave to rise of players like iPods and bags like Birkins. Now, instead of saying I like my iPod, we say my iPod is like me. And we belong to that group of inspired and design conscious people who too, owns iPods.

Belonging to a tribe is so imbued into our nature, that some of us even buy fake branded goods to pretend to belong to a certain tribe. Some might argue that buying imitation is a matter of cheaper prices and not to satisfy the need to belong to a tribe. If that is the case, then why buy an imitation at all. There are many, unbranded (or at least, lesser known brands) to purchase, yet imitation remains popular. The need to belong is human nature, and good brands know how to take advantage of that.

The popularity of certain brands are so pertinent, they influence other brands. iPods inspired Microsoft to create its Zune player - both has the jog wheel that the iPods made popular. Louis Vuitton has spurred Bonia to design almost similar looking bags. However, brands that are trying to imitate other brands seldom get to have the cult like fans the original has. That's because the imitation brand fail to fulfill the other need of humans. While we yearn to belong to a tribe, we also value individuality. And we see brands that are copycats to undermine that individuality.

While brands have the power to influence and define people, people too seems to have the uncanny ability to define brands. Brands are owned by people and hence the people that own those brands define it. And if brands are uncontrolled, they become defined beyond the original brand direction. Take KY Jelly, the famous (or infamous) lubricant. When it first came out, it was never advertised, or positioned to be a sexual lubricant. In fact it was created for the medical community. Even right now, the medical community uses KY as lubricant. I was a medic in the army, and when truck loads of KY Jelly order came in for the treatment room, we would still smile cheekily at each other.

About a week ago, I had to pay a friend of mine a visit. He needed help with his costumes and make-up for a certain performance at a certain club. As I entered his room, I accidentally had a glanced into his sister's room. There, in that peach scented room, is an iMac on a glass table, perched beautifully like a white canary. It was designed in a way that the 20" screen looked like it was floating. "You use a mac?" I asked almost excitedly. "Nah." my friend replied. "My silly sister does. Macs can't play games." I felt a little disappointed that my beloved computing platform is dismissed so easily and ignorantly. After helping him with the costumes and makeup, I made my way out of his room, passing the living room, and that was where I saw his enlightened sister. "Hello." I said casually. "I'm a mac user too." I added almost intuitively. "Really? WOW." she replied. Her eyes glimmered with enthusiasm, excitement and acknowledgment. We didn't say anything more but we both knew, we belonged to the same tribe.

Technorati Tags: Brands, Culture, Business

Ownership of Design

I was recently involved in a logo identity project that I happily jumped into. It was all dandy but unfortunately the project was suddenly shelved. Apparently the clients had to reminiscent with design nostalgia – they loved their old logo a little too much. I was a little disappointed, but continued working on the project. I had invested quite a deal of my creative energy and I felt that it would be a waste to just shelve the efforts. Of course it would be delightful if my designs were used, but I digress. Without a client to answer to, it felt that I was creating art. I was responsible for all aspect of the project, from the ideas to the production. It felt like I owned the design.

The idea of designer owning design is rather absurd. While the designer creates the product, the idea and the message belongs to the client he is working for. Even the designed product eventually belongs to the client. The client being the owner of the design is ultimately responsible how she uses it. After the production phase, the designer usually has no longer influence or control over the design.

While leaving that sad little fact as it may, never had I met a graphic designer who truly believes that he never owns the design. The reason we become graphic designers is the appeal of creating a mark that we can call our own. It doesn’t matter if that mark is the identity for a major brand or if it’s a small little price tag for designer pots. Graphic designers created the look and feel of that mark, and hence own it.

Some would argue that to own design, is having control and responsibility over both the medium and the message. While designers have influence over the medium, rarely do the designers have any say in the message. As designers, it seems that our role are to be the conveyer of other people’s ideas and intentions. While that doesn’t sound too be bad, and make us at least the owner of the medium of how the message is communicated, it becomes increasingly difficult when the client too seem to own and have influence over the medium.

In an ideal world, graphic designers would work with bold and visionary clients who would challenge the designer creatively and give him the freedom to create. The client would not ask the graphic designer to make disastrous changes like making the headline bigger, more colorful and like shiny chrome.

But unfortunately it is not an ideal world. While designer seldom questions the message that he has to work with, the client usually never hesitates to give her opinion on design choices, no matter how absurd it sounds. The designer would often be deflated when the client questions his font sizes and color choices. The demand for petty changes is often harder to swallow than outright rejection. Such demand for changes hit us where it hurts the most – our frail sense of design ownership.

Ultimately design ownership is matter of perspective. Designers must understand that we are hired help. Clients have their concern, and such concern should be addressed. Clients on the other hand, should understand that she hired a Graphic Designer. An expert in his field, and seldom will he implement design solutions without reason. He is not an implementer of the client’s design whims. He is a Graphic Designer, not a Graphic Waiteress.*

*This is a quote by a rather famous designer whose name I seem to have forgotten. Ooops...

Technorati Tags: Graphic Design, Design, Culture, Business

Design Nostalgia

When I am not busy writing blog entries, designing, looking for work and doing other, you know, important stuff, I would be busy cleaning up my room. Tidying things up and making everything looking prim and proper. And often, I would not only be rearranging books and the various knic knacks I have, but also be throwing out old clothes, bits of paper and stuff that I don't need. I was never one to appreciate nostalgia. I was never fond of old things. I love new things. New books smell better than old books. New white shirts look better than yellowed stained ones. So when there was an uproar about the demolition of the old National Library, I never quite understood why the roar was a loud one. The proposed design for the new National Library was outstanding. I loved it. The old must give way to the new, I say.

Buildings and even trees with heritage and historical value are protected because they are a critical part of Singapore history. Preserved to ensure the future generations could enjoy part of our history in its full glory. Not through books or pamphlets, where the information could be changed and rewritten. Preserved to ensure the future appreciates what was appreciated then.

In my quest to understand the meaning and value of the old, I stumbled upon information that was quite startling. Apparently not only was the Old National Library demolished, but its old logo was redesigned too. And it was changed way before the Old National Library was destroyed. I never seen the old logo, nor was I successful in finding one on the internet. It was as if, the old logo too, was demolished. Forever destroyed and never to be seen again by the public. Was there an outcry when the logo was changed, replaced with a stylized book with flipping pages that transits from bold solid pages to pixels. Was it changed for the better? Is the old logo as important as the building of the Old National Library?

The outcry and protest of the old national library demolition came not from architects or builders, but the general public. The old national library was not only appreciated for its design or architecture, but the memories associated with it too. The memories of the first books borrowed. The memories of perhaps the first crushes teenage boys had in library halls. So naturally, when it was proposed that the National Library be demolished, people with memories of the old library protested. But what about the old logo? Is the old logo part of any memory? Or is it forgotten because it is just a logo? An insignificant little graphic design of a librarian.

Graphic Design as prominent as it is in the world around us, leaves no footprint or memory when they are lost. Indeed they are probably printed somewhere in a bounded design annual. But what if they are not? What if they, for whatever reasons, are not preserved in those books? Stories from that logo would be lost forever. What was the librarian thinking when he/she designed it? Was he/she payed? Did he/she did it out of love? What inspired he/she? How did he/she designed it? Was the logo at that point of time loved?

There are museums in the US that hold collection of graphic design works of great designers which includes Paula Scher, Milton Glaser and Michael Bierut. Permanently kept in collections to be appreciated by the design and art enthusiasts, while the world moves on with progress and fresher graphic design. But what of the general public? Will they go to these museums to appreciate Paula Scher typographic genius or Milton Glasser timeless posters? Is graphic design only beautiful to graphic designers? To me, it appears so that way, and it is sad.

As countries and corporations progressed forward, it seems that the easiest thing to do to reflex such progress is to change the graphic design. Redesign the logo to project a sense of friendliness. Rebrand to show the world that you are fresh and not lagging behind. But many a times, such changes never did really changed anything. But amidst the cloud of rapid change, something gets lost. DBS is soon to undergo a ten million dollar branding exercise that would reflex its asian sophistication. Perhaps they would change their logo and they would become more asian. We would only know later. The world never blinks an eye when old logos are redesigned and identities that had served for years are revised. Graphic design changes so fast, that it is no longer valued. Its original intent lost.

Sometimes I wonder who is to blame for the general public lack of concern for graphic design. The CEOs who chair board meetings, government officials looking down from their ivory towers or the graphic designers who are enthusiastically redesigning logos so that they are fresher, shiner and more colorful, complete with drop shadows and gloss. I am all for progress, but sometimes, a little slowing down could do us some good.

Technorati Tags: Singapore, Nostalgia, Brand, Identity, Design, Graphic Design, Business

The Branding of the Lion

It appears that the Singapore Government has been bitten by the branding bug. It is not enough that we are Uniquely Singapore, the Garden City and the Hub of Everything. It was reported in the Straits Times (2nd September 2006, Saturday, Article Titled: Wanted a Single Brand for Singapore) that the Government of Singapore has decided Singapore needs One Unified Universal Brand. A brand flexible enough to promote Singapore in the Tourism Arena and gets scientist to work in our Life Sciences labs.

Branding is a multi-billion dollar industry. No surprise. Brands inspire loyalty and association. It becomes a statement. It is a mark of credibility. One buys an iPod because an iPods says that you are hip and design conscious. One goes to Starbucks not just to drink coffee, but to be part of a culture of laid back chic cool. Brand does that. It becomes a powerful message that people believe.

But brands are successful only if what it represent is successful. No amount of branding can save an ailing company. Brands are to be viewed in context. Creative Technologies spends millions on advertising and yet its brand is a distant from the shining iPod maker Apple. People go to Starbucks not to just drink coffee because they have position themselves that way. They may not have the best coffee, but they have great music, ambience and friendly young staffs. One feels chic and relax in a Starbucks. And it takes persistence for brands to work. Mac Donalds rebranding of themselves as a young, hip and healthy establishment is working slowly, but surely. Soon, the youth in years time is going to be chanting I'm Lovin' it when they order their healthy, less calories grilled chicken fold-over.

Singapore is a nation that has the economic means to have many aspirations. Singapore wishes to be a gate for the West into ASEAN. Singapore wishes to be the economic hub of the world. Our MM LKY even aspires that Singapore becomes the Paris of Asia - a country whose night life and culture is alive and thriving. As such, branding becomes an important tool to ensure people view Singapore the way the governments wants it.

But, should who ever is going to get the Three Million Dollars (Yes, three million dollars with a capital 'D') contract to design the brand, design it in the way the government wants it to be. Yes the government is paying them, but is the government vision appropriate for a national brand - a national identity. Whose voices and ideas should be consulted? Multi-million corporations that fuel the nation's economy. Arts and cultural groups that had given Singapore the artistic soul she desperately needs. Government agencies that would most probably be using the brand as a marketing tool. The citizens of Singapore that are crying to be heard. Or other countries that are going to be exposed to the brand and be compelled to invest in our island? We must remember, that the branding of the nation is being funded by tax-payers money. In other words, tax-payers should have a say.

And what is this new national brand going to change? Is the government going to change their processes? Is the government going to change their attitude towards liberalization, should the new brand requires that to happen? Should nothing is going to change, than what the brand really is just a new tag line set in a fancy font. The brand is going to change nothing. Branding is more than just design. Fancy artwork and organic design didn't make Starbucks the chic and relax place that it is. The staff, the food, the ambience, the interior design - in other word, the whole package made that happen. Brand is the whole package.

Singapore with all of its global aspiration is really being held back by her conservative rulers. No amount of branding can save an ailing company, the same goes for a country. No amount of branding can erase the fact that Singapore doesn't have a free press. No amount of branding can erase the fact that the Singapore government has the capabilities to arrest anyone and put them behind bars without a trial. No amount of branding can erase the fact that the Singapore government has actively sued its critics.

A free democracy is a prerequisite for globalization, and to be taken seriously. Yes. The Singapore government has done Singapore good. We are the 22nd largest GNP in the world. They must have done something right. Yet, a nation whose aspiration is only to make loads of money is not a nation worth being proud of. Yes a successful brand must be profitable, but brands is never about just profits. You don't buy an iPod because Apple is profitable.

Branding seems to be a way to solve image problems. Analyst have suggested that the US government rebrand themselves for all the backlash and unpopular foreign policy the Bush administration had introduced. Rebrand themselves? Shouldn't they solve the problem that has brought about the problem with their image? Shouldn't the Bush administration relook and rethink their foreign policy, especially with the Muslim nations and the Middle-east. Brand is a powerful tool. But not powerful enough to erase mistakes. Not powerful enough to erase mistakes that has caused unnecessary wars and lives.

It is important that whomever is going to get the contract of branding Singapore, understand that a nation's brand isn't about marketing. It isn't about four million smiles. It isn't about being unique. It isn't even about being a hub to everything. A national brand is a direction and a collective aspiration of a country. Lets hope that they do not confuse a country's aspiration, with the government's aspiration.

Technorati Tags: Singapore, brand, identity, design, onebrandsingapore