Essay

Attempting to connect with Week 11’s task and was uninspired by the desire to examine another news story or alternatively, critique a brand. This lack of interest prompted me to ask the question as to what responsibility do we have as designers when contributing to the design process and, more importantly, the role of a designer as a brander within the context of how we engage and communicate with society.

Stories and myths are necessary to construct social orders, and within these social orders comes the requirement to create symbolic representation. Throughout history, this is seen from the early branding of bodies (which gave rise to the term branding from the etymology of the word brand ‘to burn) to the establishment of merchant marks. This feeds into Martin Hosken’s idea – that a message is received rather than sent. In the modern age, this extension of the message sent is seen from the Christian Church through the omnipresent use of corporate ad lifestyle branding (Nike, McDonald’s, FANNG) and everywhere in-between.

What has transpired is that as branders, we have learned to commodify all forms of symbols and information and created a world whereby we signify ownership and status first, and then once that is established, only then do we look to inform. As designers, we strive to create quality, authenticity, and identity for our clients, yet our branding, trademarks, and signifiers still operate within the confines of the Thorsten Veblen logic that status is linked to wealth desirability to price. This creates an indelible link between identity marks, desire, and the more profound human need to serve our egos, creating a world where aspiration has been sold as an identified marker of human life worth and solidified the entire relationship between story and myths marks and economic models of prosperity.

So what can we do? Do we walk the status quo path and continue to create a design that promotes the brand without giving voice to the viewer and understanding the social implications of our branding work? This continued focus aligns with the modern aspiration economy (present collapsing post-covid), where communities do not necessarily know each other but share tastes, aesthetics, and interests. Out of this, an opportunity arises where the designer no longer looks at a logo or brand guideline as a functional quality (simply marking a product or service) but instead looks to establish how branding interacts with modern culture and environment, focusing on the sociology of things than people.

Unfortunately, this process of enclosure still looks at branding as a sales opportunity. As branders and designers, we need to look at how we can control and shape that narrative as a more holistic way of seeing, which means we need to educate ourselves on economic, social, and political targets and look at our branding opportunities as a way to enhance community, generosity, and social improvement — basically using a brand to change our self-perception and the perception and behaviour of others to create a more selfless, responsible, and kind environment and align with the economic needs of modern companies that look beyond shareholder value. We should look to hold ourselves accountable and move past millennial pinks and avocado greens, circumnavigating current distinct DTC aesthetics and look to root brand aesthetics into brand purpose, focusing less on the symbols used to signify and instead on a tone of voice and interaction that is unique to the brand and its community. 

Through this way of looking, we can then reposition our branding narratives and, more importantly, ourselves less as the tool of economic consideration and more as the will of socially conscious engagement.

→ (604 words)