Responding to the “responsive branding” farce

I was at the Creative South conference last week listening to Bill Gardner give an exhilarating rundown of logo trends. One of the trends really got my attention, “responsive branding.” At first my interest was piqued, so I did some research (read: i googled it) and came across this article on Huffington Post that defines “responsive branding” as “a framework of consistent voice, persona, values, look and feel that allows for a high level of customization and success. … it’s a framework not a system.”

However, what I saw in the presentation was a drastically simplified version of this larger theory. What I saw was a suite of logo designs. Cue the look of confusion and frustration on my face.

As creatives we love a good name/label and a catchy phrase. We can’t stop ourselves. That’s okay when the name describes something that actually exists. “Responsive design” is one such label that makes a lot of sense. It describes a method of thinking and approach in a concise, easy to understand manner. Responsive design is a thing. It’s a tangible workflow. Bloating this concept into brand thinking makes a lot of sense. A brand should be dynamic and agile enough to optimize its experience based on outside influences like a more detailed audience definition, shift in consumer focus, etcetera.

What I saw was not “responsive branding.” Instead, what I saw was a perpetuation of an all too prevalent misconception.

Dear Creative World, “Branding” is NOT a logo nor is it identity design. That’s only a fraction of true branding.

I’m constantly perplexed as to why so many designers misuse the term “branding.” Is it derived from an honest lack of understanding, a byproduct of unchallenged emulation, or sheer laziness? No matter what the root cause, the truth remains: There is a clear, important difference between “branding” and brand identity design. Mixing the two for any reason is negligent.

“Responsive branding”, a relatively new term, is being used to describe the process of designing a suite of logo variations optimized for multiple size restrictions. That means a company’s core logo alters and morphs to fit size constraints found in different media. There’s an entire website dedicated to it already.

This is exactly what the discipline of good brand identity design already is. Designers SHOULD think through variations of size for an identity suite. The core brand logo should alter based on constraints and that alteration should be by design. From a full combination mark to a reduced monogram, brand mark, or even company abbreviation — a brand’s identity is already dynamic and responsive when created by designers who understand what “identity design” actually means.

So what’s different about “responsive design?” The only thing I can see is now there’s a cute label for something that already exists.