JKR

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication, as that there Da Vinci noted. Less is more has become such a cliché that it’s easy to forget its power. Having recently stumbled on the 1940’s poster work of Niklaus Stoecklin I thought I would share it, because it proves how timeless and powerful simplicity can be. Here is a product that explains its use in a charming and memorable visual shorthand. And that makes the pack the star of the show, rather than something plonked onto the main idea. Isn’t it beautiful? Doesn’t it turn something potentially humdrum into an object of desire?

Below are a few more of his pieces. They are known as ‘Object Posters’ or Sachplakat in German. They were great examples of the skill of the illustrator, and exploited the then cutting edge precision in printing techniques. As one poster site notes, “The iconic beauty of the everyday object became the mission of a group of artists in Basel, who made the Sachplakat the leading Swiss style in the’40s and early ’50s. Laced with humor and stunning visual impact, these posters represent the last great period of the lithographic poster, which high cost and long production cycles was soon to eliminate.”

I offer this as a little Friday inspiration about the power of doing less. And I will add this quote by British writer Saki, from the Edwardian age, which also offers a fresh slant on their modern yet timeless design principle: “When baiting a mousetrap with cheese, be sure to leave room for the mouse.” In other words, leave enough room to allow the audience into the communication.

Happy Friday, I encourage you to spend it doing very little.

Time was when American comics followed in the fine traditions of ‘penny dreadfuls’. They were pulp entertainment, printed cheap, and while fantastically popular did not give themselves too many airs and graces as ‘brands’.

Above is the latest incarnation of DC comics’ identity. Like any new prominent identity work it will get a good pounding, probably doubly so given the passion of the comics’ fan base.

To declare a prejudice (and my age) I always thought of DC as a bit vanilla compared to their great rival Marvel back in the seventies and early eighties. Personally I found the conflicted characters in Marvel’s titles to be a much more grown up bunch of men in tights. Oh, yes.

It’s easy to track Marvel’s identity developing from a publisher to a brand over the years. Now it looks very grown up, which will help with its multi-multimillion dollar deals in Hollywood, and its appearance on those pricey ‘graphic novels’ that cater to the permanent adolescents who don’t want to feel unsophisticated in their choice of reading material.

Not having bought a DC title for about 35 years, I had a little catching up to do. In my mind they still had the old roundel that was as American (and thus exciting) to me as the medallion on a dollar bill. So that went, and now we have a rather smart corporate mark. I will leave it to you to be the judge of if the vignette peel back looks in keeping with the general vernacular of superhero comics. The ‘peel to reveal a hidden costume’ idea is neat. But doesn’t it look grown up? (just like Marvel?)

I guess my observation is a slightly bittersweet one – it’s great to see this art form still flourishing. But why must everything in life become more sophisticated, more stylish, more grown up? Is there some law of physics I am missing? For me the old graphics from either title were more likely to quicken the pulse of a kid looking for a few cheap thrills. The new identities look like part of an entertainment industry, and that feels a little less thrilling. As The Joker puts it, “why so serious?” I guess the answer is to boost revenue, but wouldn’t it be refreshing to see a re-brand that went merrily, classily and powerfully down market rather than worthily up town?

However, all this said, the film titles for Marvel productions are really rather cool I think, combining the best of the comic language with something of stature…

The letter below is currently doing the rounds in the marketing world. It doesn’t matter whether it’s real or not, either way it’s a good point well made.

The idea of brands involving their audience is not a new objective of advertising. It’s just that historically it only required them to keep watching the screen or keep reading the copy until the brand resolved the story. Technology now enables brands to ask for a whole new level of involvement from their audience. But just because they can, it doesn’t necessarily mean they should.

So, does this have implications for design? Probably not, because design is all about attraction not interaction. At its very best it asks nothing of its audience – it simply gets noticed and chosen.

It’s all about colour. Crayola took a memorable name and framed it with a memorable design. The early packs were things of typographic beauty, the simple green and yellow livery creating an impact. The dynamic chevron shape of the design’s ‘architecture’ has also endured. These days things might be a little less elegant (or simple), but the basic design formula has remained consistent.

All this is a great lesson in ‘if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. Sticking to a template has ensured that its visual equities now have a symbolic power – Crayola defines its category and represents a particular time and place in all our lives. As parents, we remain loyal because Crayola is familiar from our own formative creative play. Being con­sistent with the graphics also liberates the brand to do what it has always done brilliantly – endlessly innovate and evolve, while remaining recognisably itself. By respecting its past, Crayola is rewarded with the best thing branding can generate – trust. It ensures we give it the benefit of the doubt even with some of its more glitzy product lines.

The heart of the brand, crayons, were a perfect design for their purpose: simple, attractive, affordable, the right size and beautifully distinctive. Today, Crayola steers clear of innovation that requires too much instruction or ‘set’ use of the products. It enables, rather than controls, creativity in the young. Every great design champion probably started out using Crayola and benefiting from this ethos, which is reason enough to praise it.

By Silas Amos, Creative Director, jkr.

Are some brands for us, and others for ‘them’? The ‘them’ in question being the growing, lower income, developing world urban population.

Andy Warhol is often portrayed as a bit vacuous in person – a bit ‘gosh, wow’ about the world. But he said some very sharp things. Here he is on Coke, brands and America:

“What’s great about this country is that America started the tradition where the richest consumers buy essentially the same things as the poorest. You can be watching TV and see Coca-Cola, and you know that the President drinks Coke, Liz Taylor drinks Coke, and just think, you can drink Coke, too. A Coke is a Coke and no amount of money can get you a better Coke than the one the bum on the corner is drinking. All the Cokes are the same and all the Cokes are good. Liz Taylor knows it, the President knows it, the bum knows it, and you know it.”

I quote this because I believe in its sentiment that brands are (or should be) essentially classless. And because I have just read about a supposed trend for 2012 that flies in the opposite direction (and that got up my nose).

Trendwatching has noted a hot topic for this year: “Bottom of the pyramid; Driven by extreme urbanisation on a global scale that will not slow down in 2012, expect more BOTTOM OF THE URBAN PYRAMID (BOUP) consumers than ever (the hundreds of millions of Citysumers who don’t have middle-class salaries to spend) to demand innovation tailored to their unique circumstances, from health issues to lack of space to the need for durability.” Which is reasonable, even if the labels seem like a twee way of saying ‘underclass’. Trendwatching helpfully added “And remember, (these) consumers have materialistic and aesthetic desires too.”

Now, one cannot really blame Trendwatching for pointing out that there is a general movement to city living, and that particularly in the developing world this involves very low income. These are just facts. But one of their examples of a smart answer to this reality nagged at me. Here is their copy and image:

“PepsiCo India is test-marketing two products: Lehar Gluco Plus, a beverage with electrolytes and glucose and Lehar Iron Chusti, a fortified iron snack. Both are aimed at consumers at the bottom of the pyramid — in urban (and rural) areas (Source: Economic Times, June 2011).”

I think what unsettled me is that this copy assumes that certain folk need to be segmented and ‘aimed at’ at the bottom of the pyramid. I guess this is just a stark reality – we all read design codes that make things look ‘budget’ or ‘premium’, but here there is a socio-economic dimension rather starkly revealed. I guess for me, if I have to choose between this philosophy of branding and Warhol’s, I’d rather live in Andy’s world. Thinking of some people as living ‘at the bottom of the pyramid’ seems needlessly pejorative and subjective, and a rather reductive way to view the egalitarian potential of brands. Nobody wants cheap brands. They want great brands cheap. And in the ‘global village’ we are supposedly moving towards, why would anyone want to be patronised with design that assumes they are unsophisticated? Or is it me who is being naïve?