Combine all of these needs and communication breakdowns, and it’s suddenly much easier to realize why web refresh projects, large or small, bog down. Thus, the requirements laid forth in a business meeting aren’t always found in the final digital project. Thus, the artistic layout created by an external party (typically disconnected from the rest of the process) can not be applied to the chosen technology infrastructure in the manner it was designed. And, in the end, the content stays confusing, the navigation isn’t clear, and users still jump out to use Google to find pages on your site instead.

If this situation sounds familiar, it’s because most people involved in any marketing or general web redesign project have seen these issues time and again. This most happens when the process is purely internal and led by a few people with a specific agenda to address their personal needs. This unknowingly overlook concerns or people who need to be involved–people and issues which someone outside the organization could instantly recognize as crucial to the process.

The only way around this impasse is to bring key people from all groups involved early in the process together and discover whether the core working group is capable of communicating clearly. Business, marketing, design and technology can work together. But each role unconsciously assumes the others have an understanding of their operations and only certain details need to be remarked upon. In reality, a much more robust information sharing needs to happen. Technologists are often the worst in this respect, and many in our field must work hard to overcome this deficit.

And if the internal project group can’t do that, punt early and bring in outside help.

Printer spreads. Image size. Resolution. System fonts. Color mode. There are a multitude of factors that can be controlled during the design and prepress process that will greatly improve a design’s usability in the real world. These rules vary for print and Web design, and it is important to learn them for both mediums. That being said, it is equally important to realize that a designer rarely gets exactly what they want. Sometimes visual perfection is not possible. There are always going to be compromises to be made, but a smart designer knows how to carefully weigh each factor and make an educated decision that benefits the design.

Part two of this blog will focus on “Ensuring your Print Design Can Be Realized in the Real World”.

1. Create your initial logo as a vector file.
“Vector” logos, or logos built in Postscript, allow for maximum usage. You can scale the size of vector files greatly without loss of quality or sharpness. This means that the same logo file that looks great on a business card will also look great on a billboard­. Also, vector graphics are small in file size. This makes them much easier to manage and share. The bottom line—for print design, a vector logo will always look and act best. Your design agency will typically start with a vector logo, but can provide Web-friendly files from this format also.

2. Design your logo in black and white – at first.
It is best to avoid color while in the first round of logo design. If you design a logo that works without color first, you can avoid the possibility of the logo relying on color for its visual impact. This is important because most logos end up being displayed in black and white at some point­—in a newspaper or on a fax or copy. Once you do add color, it is best to limit it to two if you can. Too many colors can confuse the eye rather than helping to focus it. Limiting your colors will also save you money during the printing process. Since there is no limitation to color usage on screen, many companies shave been tempted to overuse color in their Web design. Bad design, however, is bad design in any context.

3. Simplify. Simplify. Simplify
Overly complicated logos are often difficult to read and understand. This is true even at a large scale, but especially so when reduced in size. And since these complex logos are difficult to really see, they are almost impossible to remember or recognize. Companies often mistakenly perceive their logo as their entire brand platform. Thus, they try to communicate everything about their company in the mark, instead of the essential, overarching qualities. You do need to put a lot of complex thought into your logo behind the scenes, but you do not want the viewer to see that in excessive detail work, color, or font usage. It is best to communicate a company’s brand attributes with a clean, simple logo design.

4. Always consider your logo’s size and ratio.
As a rule, logos should be recognizable and readable at a quarter inch. At some point, most logos will need to be reproduced at a very small size—on a plastic pen, key chain or usb drive. It is also best if your logo is not overly horizontal or vertical. Most logos will not be a perfect square, but a conservative width to height ratio is ideal. A balanced mark is adaptable, making it easier to successfully place in a variety of layouts.

The Masters has been around since 1934, so it’s a longstanding brand with a cherished history. How do they (and Augusta National Golf Club, where the tournament is played) protect this history? By keeping the Masters brand pure — free from distractions or affiliations with any other brands that may not have as great a reputation.

At the tournament, the Masters brand is front and center. Every available food item is Masters-branded (see the photo of the Masters crackers). You can order cola (which happens to be Coca-Cola), sports drink (which happens to be Powerade), or peanut butter crackers (Lance crackers). There are very few sponsorships of any kind, and the ones that are there are done very tastefully. You won’t see anyone handing out samples of chewing gum or headache powder.

At the Masters, it’s all about the golf and the history of the game.

How does this relate to you? Be careful how you promote your brand. Be careful of affiliations with your brand. It may not be realistic to completely isolate your brand in the same way the Masters has done, but there is something to be learned about the care with which they have protected theirs.

Branding should come first, and for several reasons:

1. It’s all about the big picture. And it’s the big picture from the client’s perspective. Why are we even doing this merger at all? Set the tone right from the start.

2. Because branding is about the big picture, it encourages you to think clearly about high-level topics, instead of focusing on the small details that are often complicated and hard. So, set the big things first.

3. Branding is very important because it’s your customer-facing image. Chances are, you’re performing the acquisition because there is some real benefit to your clients (if you are just doing it for financial reasons, branding does not matter very much for a holding company). And you’re likely trying to get new clients, in which case you need to think very clearly about why it is they do what they do. Why would a client find the new products or services interesting or compelling? What do they care about? Branding answers these questions.

So, when you are doing your acquisition, don’t forget the branding. It will determine whether you’re successful or not in the market place.

The brand is important. But not as such. The brand should be a transparent medium whereby customers come to know and understand the product or service. Think of the brand as a well-placed, well-decorated window display. The point is not to see the display itself, the point is to see what is displayed. Good branding opens up a window, not just a clear view, but also the right perspective on the right objects.

In this sense, the goal of branding is to be invisible. When it’s working, no one even notices it. But, when it’s not working, it becomes immediately noticable. Think of the display window. If it’s clean, you hardly see it. But, if it’s dirty or cracked, you see it immediately. I would go so far as to say that if customers are truly engaging directly with your brand (as such), then something is wrong. The less they see the medium, and the more they see the message, the better the branding.

This sort of risk is primarily external. That is, this risk depends on what your customers will do. But, there is an internal risk, too.

Changing your brand means that you are changing how your product or company is perceived, and that means you’re also changing how you perceive yourself. With different perceptions come different expectations of yourself. And with these changing expectations come different ways of working. This can range from cultural shifts (away from casual dress, for example) to overhauling operations (to make products cheaper, for example).

Whatever the change, what started as a “simple” re-branding can create major upheaval inside your company. Re-branding is not just a whitewash, it’s deep reconsideration of your company’s meaning and existence.

So, before you rush into that re-branding, take a minute to listen to an expert brand strategist, one who understands the importance of managing change outside as well as inside your company.

It seems that many companies assume (deep in their hearts) that marketing and branding is really just a whitewash. Thus, even with a marketing and branding overhaul, nothing really has to change in their operations. It’s like buying a new suit. You just put it on and you look better.

But, marketers and branders (the good ones) know better. To go to market with a new brand promise and identity is alter who your company really wants to be. And to go from who you are to who you want to be is often a difficult, painful process.

This sort of unintended consequence is becoming more and more common. Companies recognize that they need to step up their marketing and branding to compete and thrive. What they don’t realize (at first) is that this will also involve a big change in how they operate. It’s easy to hire a company like Synaxis to improve your marketing and branding. What most companies don’t realize is that they need to improve their operations at the same time. This is something we advise clients about, but I don’t think they really believe it. Again, they think that marketing and branding is just about visual changes.

The trouble happens later on. Eventually, it dawns on the company that all the things they said and promised in the marketing and marketing and branding will have to be done. And very quickly they realize that they don’t have the staff, processes, salesforce, delivery team, etc. to do the job. (And that’s if they are lucky. Most don’t ever realize their shortcomings.)

Without operational improvements they can never take full advantage of their new marketing and branding. When improvements don’t arrive, then they usually think they wasted their money on the marketing and branding.

And, in a way, they did. To do good marketing and branding is to do good business. Marketing and branding is just the central force of engaging your market. You still need to do the work.

To the contrary, I think that the situation described means that brands matter *more* now. The overwhelming nature of micro-communication and hyper-targeting content make it increasingly difficult to evaluate messages on their own merit. Shorthand communications like brands are essential to filtering and examining the content.

In this way, brands can stand in for whole conversations….conversations that don’t have to had anymore. Why re-communication your brand promise with every communication? Isn’t it easier to have your brand do that for you?

It sure is easy for the purchaser. They don’t have the time or attention to constantly re-learn who you are. Shorter, more direct communication is always better, and good branding makes that possible.

Brand equity is usually the amount of value that your brand has. It represents savings in communication expenses because a good brand pre-communicates information about your company.

The brand is the character of your company. And I don’t mean identity. Your company identity is just the visual representation of the brand.

Brand equity usually comes up when re-branding is contemplated. Because brand equity is built up over time, you don’t want to squander the value of your brand when you re-brand. That makes sense as far as it goes. When you’re trying to preserve brand equity, all new brand work tries to fit in with the current brand and build on it.

But, there is a situation when this doesn’t make sense. If the price of trying to “work with” a brand exceeds the brand equity, then we say that your brand is totalled. Just like a car that’s not worth fixing, some brands are not worth saving. This can happen in 2 situations.

The most common occurs when there is a lot of work relating to a medium-value brand. Because of the volume of work, it quickly exceeds the value of the brand. Only a very strong brand can withstand the expense of a large amount of work.

Another situation is when the value of the brand is almost worthless already. Even small projects quickly become expensive only for the purpose of preserving the illusion of brand equity.

In all cases, the solution is to reconstruct the brand from the ground up. This destroys most of the equity, of course, but it also saves a good deal of time and money that would otherwise be tied up in “building on” that brand. In these cases, don’t be afraid to give up on your brand equity. Many brands are just not worth the trouble.