Heinz Ketchup recently introduced ketchup lovers to a new way to enjoy their product. Their latest innovation is packaging that allows the choice of dipping or squeezing. While their press release claims this to be a monumental achievement, I do feel this is a great example of reintroducing a product that itself (the ketchup) hasn’t changed much since 1876. In order to keep advancing the brand’s image, these innovations can be very effective in staying in the minds of the consumer.
Some people sit and stare at a blank screen until their eyes hurt. They just can’t put down the first word or draw the first line. Why? They’re afraid of getting it wrong. Well, guess what? We all get it wrong.
Designers don’t just design. They try something, then they try again, and again, often a dozen times or more. They aren’t seeking perfection. Their goal is organization, refinement and the discovery of new associations.
I read the other day a comparison of art and design. There are definitive shared characteristics, from their creative nature to relying upon the visual senses for interpretation. Both entertain. Both connect with their audience. But the author, John O’Nolan, worked very hard to point out their differences. Art inspires and is interpreted, while good design motivates and needs to be understood in a universal way. Makes sense.
A brand is the gut feeling you have when you think about a product or service. It’s not the product itself. Thus, a great product or service must come before a great brand. A magnificent identity and an elegant website won’t save the day when someone buys from you and is disappointed.
What’s it take to stand out in a crowd today? Besides a stepladder.
Bombarded by media messages from the moment we awake until our last text or tweet before bed, it’s become increasingly difficult to be noticed. Years ago, hippies and radicals used shock as their primary tactic. Some animal-rights groups still do. But what about today’s start-up companies and service providers? They need customers, not confrontation.
They need creativity.
Put Eddie Murphy’s name on the marquee and you’ve got a blockbuster, right? That’s what Hollywood used to think. Remember “The Adventures of Pluto Nash?” Few people do. The outer space comedy cost $100 million to make and market – and earned $8.9 million worldwide. Ouch. Probably why they tried to strip Pluto of planet status.
A big name doesn’t equal a big hit. It takes an engaging plot, strong writing, compelling photography, etc. If all the ingredients aren’t there, no amount of clever marketing can save it.
Does everything have to be new to be effective? It doesn’t work that way with symbols. Pretty much everyone recognizes a red octagon atop a post at the intersection of two streets. Same is true with the male and female symbols that differentiate between restrooms.
But what about websites? Should every link look the same? Should every symbol, nationally and internationally, indicate the same thing? Is it an effective use of the visual? Or is it another indication of the “dumbing down” of the masses? I wonder how the folks at Apple and Microsoft would answer.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but that isn’t the path most traveled by creative thinkers. Straight-line thinking is too restrictive, because there is no template for innovation.
Of all the sins Tiger Woods may have committed, add to the list his failure to take control of the story. From behind the walls of his gated community – patrolled by security forces who ride in, ironically, golf carts – he severely underestimated the power of the news media, the Internet and social media.
Call ‘em vintage, retro or just plain old, I’m talking about logos that have worn out their welcome. Designs of the times, they’re no longer deemed hip or representative. A few get updated, like Apple computer’s current monochrome logo that took over for its original rainbow with a bite. But others are tossed aside in favor of bold redesigns, like Kraft Foods’ new corporate logo, or Holiday Inn’s slashed and shadowy new H.
| previous |
| next |