Brand concept as a pragmatic text

What do designers understand by the word “concept”? It’s a complex question, and the term itself is unclear. A satisfactory answer is even more elusive. However, this question can’t be ignored, as it represents a frequent dilemma in a designer’s daily work. Every designer designs with concepts. Regardless of the project, it’s undeniable: before completing any product or service, we need—or rather, must—shape and develop a concept.

The first major challenge lies in the multiple connotations of “concept.” For some designers, it represents the brand essence, a meaning, a simple idea, or a mere thought. For others, it’s distinct from a mere idea because it’s also creative—a “creative idea.” For still others, a “concept” is the same as a “value,” or a set of them. We won’t list every possible interpretation. For practical purposes, we’ll use the term “concept.”

What is a “concept”? The answer seems simple. So simple that some designers find it hard to believe the question needs addressing. The short, most accepted answer is this: a concept is a creative idea that serves as the basis for developing a design.

This presents a circular definition: a concept is a creative idea. But what is a “creative idea”? Is it an innovative thought? And what is this thought but a creative concept? Or, ultimately, just a concept. A concept is a concept. That’s the answer so far. Additionally, it acts as the foundation of design development.

If the concept serves as the basis for design development, we can analyze what we understand by design. A design is the outcome of a designer’s project. For practical reasons, we’ll focus on Papanek’s thoughts. He says: “Design is the conscious and intuitive effort to impose meaningful order.”¹

Therefore, that which is designed is something meaningfully ordered.

But let’s pause here; this is becoming confusing. What do we mean by “meaningful order”? A graphic designer would immediately say this is nothing but produced meaning, information, or, more specifically, “signs” that carry meaning a user understands. This naiveté is obvious when we consider that graphic designers are trained in communication topics, supported by semiotic, linguistic, or even psychological and philosophical statements.

However, this approach is barely half, if not less, of what we should understand by meaningful order. When we consider the typical duties of other types of designers, such as an industrial designer, we see that “meaningful” doesn’t necessarily carry language-related problems. In this context, one might understand “meaningful order” as something useful for another person. This focuses less on the product or service’s storytelling and more on its feasibility of production, handling, and recycling. In this perspective, the materials used matter, as well as their environmental impact and production processes.

What differences can we find in these two standpoints? First, the graphic designer interprets design as a communication problem, while the industrial designer sees it as a feasibility problem. Some search for meanings; others try to understand the nature of things.

Papanek’s “meaningful order” is nothing other than the totality of things that comprise an individual’s environment.² This might be the comfort of a door handle or what opening that door signifies to someone.

One thing is clear: whether we develop compelling storytelling or create something easy to use, meaningful order brings things closer to a user.

This is Papanek’s point. Not the semiotics of engineering (though that can certainly help in design), but how someone uses the designed product through diverse functions.

That’s why he speaks of “imposing” a meaningful order; or, arranging the world so a user can fully prosper in it. We’ll later see that “imposing” might be better understood as “showing.”

But we’re digressing. What is a concept? For now, it remains undetermined. However, for the reasons above, it clearly helps us generate a design, or, as Papanek states: a whole arranged according to certain functions—a meaningful order. This order is for a user, a human being in a given environment, not for a laptop or a sack of potatoes. What does this tell us?

Why is meaningful order so closely, even intrinsically, related to a user? How much do we need a user and their world in formulating a concept? How much does a “concept” have to do with “meaningful order”? We’ll address this later.