Invisible Branding
As a resident of Vancouver, I see a lot of umbrellas. Back when I lived in California or at school, I’d see umbrellas but they were generally plain or I wouldn’t be paying attention to them. However, here in Vancouver, I see a lot of umbrellas with some sort of company or organization logo on them.
Clearly a company put a serious amount of cash into this venture (a quick search online reveals prices range from about $10 to $20 per unit) and the products were likely given away to employees. Perhaps other places, like the Vancouver Public Library (I don’t believe they carry umbrellas, but we will use them for the sake of example), might print an umbrella with the library name as a fund-raising attempt. Either way, personalized umbrellas are expensive.
As I walk down the street, I see tons of different logos and names to the point of habituation. I just stop caring what the logo is or the brand on the umbrella is; it is just an umbrella. As a design student, I try to make myself take a second look as I am interested to see what the company or organization is as well as looking at their logo. It is interesting to see what a company uses to represent itself. However, I’d imagine the average person would simply ignore logos after a time. In a lot of cases, the logo doesn’t even have a company name attached or there is no explanation of what services a company actually provides. So is the entire point just to get one’s logo out there and make people more familiar with a company’s brand name even if they don’t understand anything else about the company?
As I understand it, the inherent idea behind such a venture is to spread awareness and subconscious recognition of a brand name or logo. Say you are presented with a choice of 5 companies to pick from. If one had seen, even passingly, one logo more than the others, one might be more inclined toward that product as they feel more “comfortable” with that company. My question, though, is if this sort of advertising is really effective? However, I suppose given the price-point of billboards or other sorts of advertising, umbrellas are quite a cheap way to, at the very least, increase recognition of a company or a logo. Still, I feel that there must be a better way to advertise.
February 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
so would it not be smart to make the umbrella ‘an sich’ as a trademark for your company? here you go: http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2320293876441227019
February 27th, 2007 at 9:20 am
That’s a great commercial Nu. What kind of services does the company offer (i’d guess insurance)?
My point up above was not to say that umbrellas are an inherently bad choice for marketing, just that they are overused by companies as a vehicle for spreading a logo or brand name; especially in rainy weather climates.
Using an umbrella for a company trademark is excellent. Pretty much everyone understands what an umbrella does and how it can help protect you. Thus the commercial makes a lot of sense even though I can’t speak the language. That, I believe, is the key to a good trademark. If your trademark speaks for itself above without any help, you’ve got a strong idea that people would associate with your company.
February 27th, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Creating a powerfull image is a thing that most advertising people only dream off but only few manage to create. My point is that umbrella’s, car’s, coat’s, dogs and so on are a bad choice to put your brand or logo on. But I guess that’s what happens if you fail to make a quality message…you mask it by exposing it as much as possible on whatever surface!
And you are right about the company…insurance!
February 28th, 2007 at 6:03 am
While I agree with your point for the most part, there is one case in which putting a logo on random things is a good idea; that being for a nonprofit organization. I worked as an intern at a non-profit music festival last summer and we sold items that simply bore the logo of the music festival. Some examples were baseball caps, tote bags and postcards. The organization needed the financial support of selling the items (most were sold for a gain too) as well as using them to give away as gifts to contributers as a “thank you.” The third purpose was to spread the word about the music festival (and associated classical music institute) around the US and the world. As a small organization, the brand depended stronger on word of mouth than a good advertising campaign. Thus, someone might see the logo, be curious about it and ask the person bearing the logo about the event.
However, indeed in the world of corporate advertising, such things are overdone.