Visual Identity and the Flavor Layer
Visual Identity systems without a flavor layer are destined for vanilla. How does your brand’s design language hold up?
I’ve been thinking about this for years, and putting it into practice subconsciously since design school — but without any definition or framework to guide me. This is my attempt to put some structure to the concept of a ‘flavor layer’ in visual identity systems, to define and explain what it is and why it’s important. Starting with the name itself — I think I’m drawn to the idea of a ‘flavor’ layer because the culinary parallels line up nicely. A world-class dish separates itself from similar pretty-good dishes by cultivating flavors and flavor relationships on the plate in ways that the competition could never produce. In design, the flavor layer brings a level of aesthetic creativity and expression to the design system that sets the brand apart, undeniably, from everyone else in its space.
A brand’s visual identity is so much more than just the logo. In many ways, the logo is the easiest element to forget. The way we bring the identity to life around the logo — the visual language, design system, artistry and flavor—these are the things that can be owned by your brand, and this is where brands win or lose through design.
It’s worth noting early on that this isn’t about being fancy or overly complex for the sake of fancy complexity. It’s about being unique and crafted and different. It’s the antithesis of minimalism, which isn’t a design language or brand advantage for anyone — it’s a lack of flavor. Imagine a minimalist trend in the culinary arts that was defined by the deliberate omission of actual flavor? No thank you.
In brand identity design, the flavor layer pushes past the foundational requirements of a system to give brands undeniable uniqueness, deeper connections with customers, and a complexity and sophistication that can’t be matched or replicated. It’s the extra effort from the design team, after the obvious details are set. It’s the texture (figuratively and literally) in the way creative work is composed, layered, woven together, sautéed.
A typical visual identity system
Brand identity designers know this drill. The output of the typical design process includes the mark/logo/logotype, the primary color palette, the secondary color palette, the typographic system, maybe some photographic guidance. For most businesses, even the big ones, this is the expected profile of a visual identity system. The designers creating this foundational work know that there will be more elaborate executions and creativity that flows from this starting point, but for a number of reasons, they tend to stop here:
Fear
If the designer adds more style, sophistication, nuance, then their safe (likely to be approved, or approved already) design becomes less safe. It’s a fear of blowing it by adding layers that aren’t specifically required or necessary, and muddying the waters. And/or, it could be that the client and the project brief are rife with fear, and an adventuresome designer never gets the chance.
The Minimalism Crutch
Often designers find it easier to hide behind ‘minimalism’ as an aesthetic. But unless minimalism is done really really (really) well, the aesthetic can be fairly described as an absence of aesthetics. And lots of other brands are trying this same approach.
Subjectivity
The flavor layer is art. Art is subjective. If the designer builds artistry into the visual identity system, it’s more likely to trip up on subjective push back from the client, from creative directors, from the public.
Time/Budget
Good enough is often all the budget can afford. If we had 3 extra weeks to build out some flavor, we could nail it and make it awesome, but the hours are maxed and the budget is spent. When adding flavor isn’t part of the process, it’s an afterthought at best.
Philosophy
Can’t argue too much with this one, but some designers think the brand system must be inherently simple. The more elaborate work should happen on a campaign level, changing over time, always refreshing. For some companies, I’m 100% on board with this approach. For most companies though, it’s likely there isn’t endless budget to run campaigns (media costs, ongoing creative costs), and the opportunity to stand out at the first impression is too critical. Uniqueness can’t be a campaign-level add-on later — it needs to be a part of the core system.
Does it always need to be included in the process?
Yes it does. If you don’t want your design work, and the client’s brand, to look like everything else that’s out there, this is essential.
What is is, or should be
The flavor layer can take many forms — custom textures, custom patterns, custom typography, graphic constructs and styles, custom holding shapes. Intentional repetition of the word ‘custom’ here. Adding these things to the system without customizing for the unique qualities of the brand equates to a more elaborate exercise in looking like everyone else. You can be lazy and buy stock textures that look cool, or you can create custom textures that are smart and tie to the essence of the brand. If it’s stock, it’s not yours, and the brand can never truly own it. It could (and probably already does) belong to the lazy brand systems of other companies. Maybe even your direct competitors.
It could be music, animation styles, video, voice. It must be unique in your industry (it should be unique across all industries really), and it must be controllable and repeatable so multiple designers and creatives can replicate the system over time. It should align conceptually with the brand’s positioning or product or service — visual whizbang without a conceptual hook falls flat every time.
These elements are often driven by trends, but occasionally they’re just straight up graphic design artistry. The farther you go down a path with a crafted and flavor-ful visual system, the more likely you are to reach a place nobody has ever reached before. Controlled and repeatable complexity is very very hard to copy, and if a competitor does, they’ll be called out for me-too-ing within minutes on social channels.
Why it matters
This is about standing out and seizing unclaimed mental space for your brand in the minds of your customers and prospects. From the first point of contact. If everyone in your competitor set has a crazy dense pattern on everything they put out, then your flavor layer may need to focus on big shapes and open air. Sometimes — oftentimes — a reduction of design elements is more powerful than the overzealous addition of visual stuff to the mix. The less you’re working with, the more sophisticated you need to be. And I suppose the same goes for the more you’re working with. Always push for sophisticated, because most brands don’t. Not really.
The more intricate and unique you make your flavor layer (intricately simple or complex), the more you guarantee that no one else will do the same thing. Most design teams don’t go that deep, don’t make art. So you get a system built with the same default tools that every other rushed designer is using. With the amount of work being created, and shared, around the globe every day, it’s easier than ever to look like everyone else. But that also makes it easier than ever to stand out, if you’re paying attention.
There’s more value in a visual identity when it has something that the rest of its competitors don’t have. We’re tasked with creating value through design — an ROI on the investment of the design engagement. We can spin hours making and delivering the minimum, or we can push further, and through more sophisticated design, create more value for our clients.
Ego check — It’s not about the designer
Be careful that this aspect of a visual identity system isn’t an ego outburst by a designer looking to promote their style. This is still about design in the service of brands. Not about a creative who thinks their go-to style is right for everyone. There are a lot of those designers out there — mostly they haven’t figured out how they can balance their artistry with their creative service offerings. There’s a fine line there, and brand managers need to be wary of any style that’s been developed outside of their project. It’s pretty much a guarantee that it’s not right for you, simply because it was created and re-purposed by your designer for another (several other) brands before you.
Marketers
Demand this of your agency and your designer/s. Ask them where these considerations sit in their process. It should be akin to web QA. Once the work has been created, hammer it for holes by comparing to competitors, side by side. Sure the new stuff looks cool, but has it gone far enough yet? Is there strong rationale? Is it tied to the essence of your brand in smart and striking ways? Is anybody else operating in the same conceptual space? If there are holes, patch them. If there are lots of holes, build a new boat. Somebody missed the mark, either on your team, or on the agency’s design/strategy team. You are ultimately the head chef, but the whole kitchen needs to be pointed in the same/right direction.
Agencies
Insist on going deeper as part of your process. Serve your clients better by ensuring that you’re not presenting a superficial system. Time/budget are tight? When are they ever not tight? Work your magic and your time management to make sure you do your best work, and give your clients their best chance at a truly unique presence in their marketplace. Revisit competitor audits throughout the creative process, and refine your trajectory each time.
