Rich…! over at Hello World recently posted an entry on how ridiculous it is that someone could pronounce branding to be dead

Whether it matters or not, I have an opinion - If branding were dead, the world would be close to social-economic failure.

How can I say this? Simple… Branding is just personal contact formalized. If you were me, and you stopped to think about what a brand actually is, you might come up with the following:

Brands are quite simply organisational projections of personalities. How do you identify and remember a person when you meet them? By serial number? Nope. By name? Possibly, but there are many people with the same names. By what they do? Sometimes, but that’s only a sub-classification… By the colour of their shirt? Could be, but it can become iffy… Instead, ultimately, you remember someone because of their unique characteristics, otherwise referred to as their personality

A product or company, however legally and strategically constructed, is made up of people. It serves people. It was conceptualised, planned and brought to life by people. Not lifeless robots, but real, breathing people. People have emotions. Organizations and products do not.

How do we make a product or organization memorable? In other words, how do we give a product recognisability? Simple, we give it a personality. That’s all brands are, really.

Branding can’t be dead, unless we’ve all become lifeless robots.

Isn’t South Africa just beautiful this time of the year?

Sunset over Papegaaiberg, Stellenbosch, reflected in a set of windows – Photo by Heinrich.

Let me explain: I recently received an e-mail from a guy through my contact page. He called himself “Basil”, and with his permission (or without), I'd like to share it with you:

i think you are a mullet who sets out particularly lofty views of design when in fact you know so little about it (as some one who is in fact formally trained and employed in the industry) i would reccomend you keep the design mumbo limited i look at your logo and cringe d squared the two for the squared in a different font this proves in my mind that design is in fact purely a litter generating profit making misguided endevour if you had studied you might realise design has a lot less to do with marketing and more to do with developing products to suit peoples needs and one does have to consider the target market when doing this but selling it should'nt be your only focus design responsibly for fuck sakes. this logo is irritating me d2. pixel width ahh. design goes far beyond graphics and marketing think of all the producs you interact with and rely on every day ahhh man i suppose i just hate ignorant people going to the next step of philosophising about design when they can't even do it in the first place sorry to piss on your battery but i can let shit like this go on unnoticed if it means anything i probably could'nt do the html coding for a website anymore but i could (and have) design the b'jesus out of it grey is the new pink. chow

After the first sentence, I almost got pissed off… However, I continued reading, and by end of the message I was smiling broadly

With your permission, I'd like to quote myself (from my site) to point a few overlooked things out to Basil (whose real name turned out to be Stephen).

From my about page, in response to “lofty views of design”:

I can't claim to really know anything about the fundamentals of design. After all, I have no formal training in any form of design. I do however at least think I know what design is...

OK, so I don't really have any authority. Fine by me - the field of design simply interests me, and I like to share the wonder of that interest with others.

From my about page, in response to “litter generating profit making misguided endevour”.

I like designing. In fact, I like it so much that I spend substantial time and resources designing things I might never get paid for.

There are LOTS of things I could do to generate far more profit than design, but I love it too much – and besides, it's fun

From my about page (again), in response to “developing products to suit peoples needs”

design is about arranging things in a way which improves the subject / object / matter being considered. More practically, design is applicable on multiple levels. It's about making things work well. It's about making things look good. On a deeper level, it's about making people feel good about things.

You're completely right, it does go far beyond graphics and marketing. Architecture and automative design are good examples. More on the overlooked end are things like paperclips and door handles.

Anyway, I replied to this gentleman, recommending that he check his spelling, and asking him whether he'd care to recommend a different font combination for my “cringe-inducing” logo. His reply?

actually no mr hattingh i would recommend that for your own corporate identity you design an original script but then i doubt you are capable of using software outside the realm of photo editing and web design packages or in fact using a pencil and pen like the professionals.

Damn, I was afraid that he was going to say that :P. My drawing skills suck, but I tried, and here's what I came up with... What do you guys think?

On the second point, Basil, I'm afraid that you've assumed slightly wrong. The business which I'm a co-founder of is a Microsoft Partner in the Enterprise space, and I built my first PC from scratch in 1984, so sorry…

To Basil:

Design is, as you rightly mention, not just about graphics and marketing. In fact, I'd say that these elements make up a very small part of it. Design is applicable everywhere, whether a meal is being cooked (with the chef as designer), or whether you're crafting a mountain bike disc brake mount by hand. Dude, thanks once again for the laugh. I don't blame you for criticising, just check to see if you can make a positive contribution before you do. In this case, the custom font was a good suggestion….

UPDATE: Read the comments, if you haven't yet.

I’m not usually a sucker for ads, but I like to believe that I have a trained eye. After spending countless hours at varsity, I’ve formed what one could call a theory on what constitutes a good ad. Lately though, I’ve started to think differently…

The concept of advertising started in quite a simple way, really. Make people aware of your product/service and its benefits so that they are inclined to buy it. I know, this is 2004, and there are a million variables involved in when/where/how/why. I’m not here to discuss the crafts of subliminal aspirational marketing, or wax lyrical about the benefits or word-of-mouth. Nope, I’m here to point out a brilliantly functional ad, one which is (in my humble opinion) just plain textbook.

It’s the TV ad for the smart forfour.

Why do I think it’s so good?

Because it walks a tightrope, one which so many have seen their butts trying to.

It combines communicating the differentiating features of the car with damn good creative design. Easy to do? Maybe, but very seldom pulled off.

I remember a light bulb flashing when reading Michael Lanning’s book Delivering Profitable Value. Somewhere in it, he gives an example of perfect functional advertising. Advertising which communicates exactly why the product is good (or why it’s better), without wasting the consumer’s brain capacity on trying to create emotion. Simple.

Now don’t get me wrong, I rate BMW’s ad for the previous M5 as probably the best car ad ever. But, come to think of it, it demonstrated the car’s superior ability perfectly as well, although it used emotion to accomplish this.

The difference with the smart ad is that it’s different. Somehow, it caught my attention, and as it did, I took in most of the features (which I never do when wannabe feature-listing carmakers like Nissan/Mazda/Toyota do the listing thing).

• 4.8l / 100km
• Safety Cell
• Up to 910l of luggage space

And I only saw the ad once… Pretty impressive (for them, not me). Love it!

Interested person: So, what do you do?

IT dude: I’m the managing director of an IT company, it’s called Information Technology Solutions.

Interested person: Really?

IT dude: Yes, we sell IT solutions to SMEs.

Interested person: OK, let me give you a call on Monday. My company might need some server hardware and support!

(Interested person walks over to Dave – let’s just call him Dave)

Interested person: So, what do you do?

Dave: I design and build high-end websites.

Interested person: OK, so what company do you work for?

Dave: I don’t, I work on my own.

Interested person: So you’re a consultant?

Dave: Not really, I just do specialised work.

Interested person to herself: “Hmm, let’s move on to someone who’s professional…”

Interested person: I have to speak to my colleague over there. We’ll chat again!

(Interested person becomes uninterested person. Dave walks over to IT dude)

Dave: So, which specific areas do you guys specialise in?

IT dude: Well, it’s just me actually. I do all general IT related stuff.

Dave: Riiight…

And that’s a story which plays itself out many times, every single day, across the globe. A “company” is equated with professionalism. How on earth could an individual be? I mean, he doesn’t even have a secretary…

I suppose it’s not a specific, definable problem, it’s just something that’s evolved over time. We’ve created conventions, which is fine, because it lends a bit of stability in sometimes uncertain conditions. The problem is that we’ve become so dependent on them that anything out of the ordinary just freaks us out. A tattoo on his arm? Whoa, stay the hell away! Don’t let anyone like that near our beloved clients!

So, the questions are:

• Does my suit make me professional?
• Does having an office make me professional?
• Does having a registered company make me professional?
• Does wearing a beanie when its cold, and riding a mountain bike when my car’s in for repair make me unprofessional?

Nope, sorry.

In the world of individual experts, Google takes all.