Brand semiotics
Posted by brandmaster on February 29, 2008
The semiotics of brand communications should be simple – the signifier and the signified. But I was sitting in on a ‘rebranding’ presentation the other day when a graphic designer was presenting some new logo designs, and I realised that in the conversation between the designer and client the distinction between the signifier, the new corporate signature, and the signified, the actual brand itself, were being blurred.
There was an unspoken dimension that somehow changing the brand identity would somehow change the brand itself – the signified. It only takes a moments thought to realise that this is not the case – the visual image is only ever a symbol for wht the brand represents.
This statement of the obvious led me to think that if the client were not to spend what would be a six figure sum on the new identity an its implemetation – the signifier – is there somwhere the money could be spent on the signified, to actually materially improve the brand and its performance? In this particular case there was – putting the money into training for it’s client-facing staff.
This is not an argument against new brand identities, far from it, but it could be a useful mental exercise to ask, “If I don’t do it, is there a something we can do with the budget to really add value to the brand?”
withoutthought said
Is semiotics ever this simple? Very interesting post but I would imagine that the two issues are symbiotic. After all, the signified and the signifier all make up the symbol. Surely one cannot exchange one without first addressing the other. As you say, the power of the signifier all depends on its context within the diachronic (signified) but the choice of signifier is crucial for creating the dissonance that completes the symbol. You cannot successfully have the one without the other.
brandmaster said
I do agree, but the worrying point is that many place far too much importance on the signifier assuming that somehow they can change the underlying signified. We have all seen the government departments that try to repackage an ailing system with a new brand name or logo, while not addressing the service fundamentals.