Decades go by –almost a century– and in professional trademark design milieus (not to mention academic circles) we keep hearing amazing assertions, openly contradicted by fact. In large sectors of the discipline, work keeps being ruled by hard-to-eradicate myths: preconceived ideas, by their own nature, don't listen to reason or fact. See here twelve classic examples of professional mythology:
Every trademark must refer to the organization activity or its product identity.
FALSE: yes, in some instances; no, in an ample majority.
Every trademark must include a symbol to complement its logotype .
FALSE: in some instances the symbol is essential; in others, superfluous; in a few, optional.
Every trademark must be unique, not answering to conventional graphic codes.
FALSE: in some instances the trademark should be unique; in others, absolutely conventional.
In every trademark, the logotype must be manipulated, or the lettering or its correlation between them should be altered.
FALSE: in some instances, transgression of typographic or calligraphic norm is helpful, and in others, harmful.
Every trademark must be amiable, informal or colloquial.
FALSE: only in some instances the informality of the trademark can coincide with its best organization or product profile.
Every trademark must be modern, adjusting itself to contemporary graphic standards.
FALSE: inherent to current «contemporary style» is its diversity; and some trademarks should be truly «classic» o, even «retro».
Every trade mark must adhere to the latest graphic trends.
FALSE: only trademarks of ephemeral organizations could adhere to ephemeral languages: obsolescence is rarely beneficial.
Every trademark must be «renewed» periodically.
FALSE: its redesign can only be justified when low quality or a loss of competitivity is detected.
Every trademark must be «dynamic» or be designed to modify its form.
FALSE: it only should be «declinable» when the diversity of activities calls for articulate sub-brands.
Every trademark must adjust to the public profile.
FALSE: The trademark should reflect its owner's profile (the organization or the product) and their offering is what should be palatable for its «targets».
Every trade mark must be «sales-inductive».
FALSE: trademarks with advertising claim function can only be found in some impulsive buying instances.
Every trademark must be synthetic and a crier.
FALSE: it must be in many instances; when fast reading and comprehension are a must. In other cases, such a requisite is superfluous.
Graphic mark professional design is always specific, not subject to supposedly universal norms or prescriptions. It must be handled according to each case: it should detect the particular alternatives arising from the strategic profile and specific communication conditions. In all twelve preceding hypothesis, its falsehood comes from the word «every», that is, the presumption of universality to the respective norm.
IMPORTANT: This article does not express the opinion of the editors and managers of FOROALFA, who assume no responsibility for its authorship and nature. To republish, except as specifically indicated, please request permission to author. Given the gratuity of this site and the hyper textual condition of the Web, we will be grateful if you avoid reproducing this article on other websites. Instead, we suggest and value a partial reproduction, also including the name of the author, the title and the source (FOROALFA), a link to this page (https://foroalfa.org/articulos/every-trademark-must-be) in a clear and visible place, inviting to complete the reading.
Muy buen artículo, sin embargo me genera dudas, cómo se aplica varios de los ejemplos dados a marcas nuevas. Por ejemplo una marca nueva basada en una tipografía simple, sin añadrle algún icono podría llamar la atención o destacar? Por otro lado, muchas de las marcas usadas de ejemplo, son marcas posicionadas y son muy exitosas, que pasa con marcas que intentan establecerse pero para eso deben pasar por varios rediseños, es esto algo erróneo?
El 15 agosto de 2014, a 100 años de su natalicio, IBM recordó al inolvidable Paul Rand, su diseñador insignia.
Un homenaje dedicado: un minucioso ejercicio de diseño gráfico y un divertido paseo por la Ciudad Maravillosa.