Should a brand always be consistent?
This post will look at 2 distinct brands, MTV and British Airways, who in their past have displayed similar strategies. Both employed an element of freedom, MTV in its ever changing logo and British Airways who in 1997 used different ‘fine art’ designs on their plane tails. Hower for one company the strategy has proved successful, for the other, not so much. So why is this?
This post follows the release of the new MTV ‘brand refresh‘. Since 1981, MTV have built their brand on flexibility, on a logo that changes. This is obviously quite unusual for a logo which is usually kept as consistent as possible.
The MTV brand has been revolutionary since it first launched in 1981, with no colour or strict identity guidelines issued. Instead it was designed to be flexible. The logo almost stood as a frame or a blank canvas to be played with, and played with, and played with. It has appeared in many different forms, covered in fur, to dripping with blood and made out of frozen ice.
The new logo, which rather than a logo is described as a brand refresh, still follows this philosophy. Visually it is not much different, with just the rather long legs given a trim. What this does however is make it more TV dimensionally sized, in a more horizontal format than previously.
Conceptually it follows the same theory. It is still a blank canvas. Now however, the concept is to put photos inside it, much like a TV again. Thats not to say that it can’t still be used with dripping blood, just that it is suggested to be rather, a container for images. This follows other logos, not least of all, the concept behind the controversial, london olympics logo by Wolf Holins
So the logo is still about freedom. But is it actually more free than previously? To me it feels more constrained. I liked the fact previously the logo stood by its shape, and its skin could be redrawn. I suppose you could argue this fact still has not changed, but then why re-do it in the first place. To me the format, now suits image and video cropping so I presume this was the reason.
But lets take a step back for a moment. Is this a good idea for branding. The idea of branding is usually to be recognised for consistently giving the same message, both visually and other. So if MTV have previously had success with a logo that looks different on a daily basis, what is technically correct way from a branding strategy point of view?
Where MTV have had success with a changing brand others have failed. OK, so its not a logo, but British Airways attracted contraversy in the late 1990’s for changing the design of the plane tails. The idea was to use fine art designs by different artists to move away from the ‘arrogant‘ feel of the previous tails showing a flowing union jack flag. Obviously this would not be as recognisable as one symbol and the idea was instead that you would know it was BA as it was not recognisable. Even more contraversy followed as the differen’t designs were said to confuse air crew controllers who could not tell whose plane it was. Whilst this was happening Virgin Atlantic fuelled the fire by refreshing their own brand with the union jack displayed on the front of the plane. So why was this such a branding mishap, and yet the flexibility of MTV a success?
Of course, ultimately good branding all depends on the client. For a edgy brand such as MTV a logo that changes is perhaps a reflection of a diverse audience. The brand works over so many different programmes, so it is right is should be adaptable. You could also argue that because of its foundation as a television channel, people always know what they are looking at.
With British airways and the different tail designs, it was the most recognisable part of the plane. So that was all people saw and therefore could not tell what plane it was in a crowded sky or airport. With MTV, chances are, somebody knows what channel they are on, and therefore make the connection with the logo.
Also, we must look at the essence of the brand. With British Airways it was almost its Britishness which was its selling point. Someone once said to me they thought people liked the idea of an old school pilot who speaks in a posh accent, wears a tightly trimmed moustache and only ever dresses in uniform. That they felt safer with this image. I think this is what British Airways stood for. Almost a slice of British History still existed in one company. So therefore the idea to move away from the ‘arrogant’ feel of this was probably incorrect. People who chose to perhaps pay extra in order to fly BA probably liked it. It made them feel like they were getting quality.
To conclude, of course there is no single right way, but only the right way for a particular client. As we have seen, what was right with MTV was completely wrong with British Airways. One brand embodied creativity and the other quality. Any branding brief must first get to heart of the client, what does their brand represent? From this, in most cases it should grow outwards and not to change too drastically.