Dynamic Identity
Historically, brand identities (logos, color, typefaces, copywriting, uniforms, and liveries) remain constant while marketing campaigns ebb and flow around them. When brands make changes to their identity it's often in big swings. Designing or re-designing an identity well could take a year or more. That time is required to consider every touch point, rule, and refine every element so it is “set it and forget it” ready. The Guidelines will be written and thou shalt not break the guidelines!
This approach is traditional and fine, but it is of a time when brand identities were built on one logo, one font, and one or two colors. Designing identities and changing them could be very costly and time-consuming. We can do that more easily now. In particular, when a brand has a team of in-house designers, but let’s think about the advantages and disadvantages:
Consistent Identity Advantages
- Elements remain recognizable to customers
- Avoids upsetting customers with change
- Easy to work with once rules are established
- The design can become a cultural icon
Consistent Identity Disadvantages
- Can feel too corporate or lifeless
- No authority for improvement
- Can become dated
- Can restrict creativity; no fun
All this considered, I prefer a different method for most brands. Rather than chasing timeless and restrictive perfection, I encourage embracing the reality of imperfection to launch sooner with the freedom to build upon and upgrade over time. That might sound like permission to launch an identity that is half-baked or not well-considered but it is not the case at all!
My preferred approach is kind of like building a Formula 1 race car. You work for a time developing the car, testing it and all the parts, then having the big reveal for the new season ahead. As the season goes on, engineers keep working on the car and bringing upgrades to make it faster. The car is never finished, it is always a work in progress.
For brand identity, this method allows for new creative ideas and new knowledge to be applied at any time. And forget the guidelines! I’m not a fan of restrictive Guidelines. They should be fluid— a starting point, not a religious text. Don’t forget that whoever makes these brand rules can also change them. I call this “dynamic identity”.
Dynamic Identity Advantages
- Permission and ability for constant improvement
- Changes are exciting and quickly address new needs
- Can move quickly into new trends or away from dated ones
- Inspires creative ideas and experimentation
Dynamic Identity Disadvantages
- Risk having mismatching elements or old design still in use
- Many files and touchpoints to update
- Risk making identity too trendy
- Can become too complex
It might be best for brands to consider the downsides to dynamic identity first. If they feel those can be managed then I imagine the upsides to be very enticing. They certainly are for me and are how I have designed the identity for Moore Creativ. It would also benefit any brand to consider if this approach is valuable to their customers. I don’t think anyone wants this from a toothpaste product, but maybe it works for a restaurant.
Two things I recommend to keep the downsides of dynamic identity in check. 1) Be more conservative with changes to a primary logo. 2) Have a strong brand concept that every decision is driven by.
The above examples are from the Moore Creativ brand guidelines 2 years apart. Dynamic identities work very well for small studios and designers because as you learn and grow, you can apply your better knowledge and eye to your identity and you don’t need anyone else’s permission to make a change. Sometimes it's as simple as finding a better version of a typeface you have been using.
Nike is a great case study in dynamic identity. The way Nike presents itself is constantly in flux, hiring new artists with distinct styles to bring their own thing to the brand. The swoosh logo doesn’t change, but there seem to be no rules as to what can be done with it.
You find a lot of identity dynamism in sports. Teams rarely change their logo and uniforms but most will present multiple campaigns a year, each with a different spin on the identity. Even if those campaigns are consistent each year (draft, schedule releases, throwback games) the identity and design supporting them evolve from year to year.
Soccer teams are great to study because even for a mega brand like Barcelona, they don’t shy away from evolution in their kits. American sports are much more stationary in their uniform design.
No one could argue whether consistent or dynamic identities are better than the other, but I would argue that dynamic ones are a lot more fun. That might be a good place to start if considering which direction to go in. How playful and evolving should a brand be? For Oregon football, it’s perfect. For the Dallas Cowboys, not so much. For a boutique business, it might work. For a huge corporation, it's not feasible. That sort of perception plays a part in this too. Do you want people to see that you’re able to keep your brand in flux, or is it a big corporation with too much red tape to update a font?
