Comments on: Unique Brand Identity Has Failed In Social Media http://kylelacy.com/unique-brand-identity-has-failed-in-social-media/ Social Media Training and Consulting Sun, 12 Feb 2012 16:01:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: moosh in indy. http://kylelacy.com/unique-brand-identity-has-failed-in-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-907 moosh in indy. Sun, 21 Sep 2008 01:43:09 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=192#comment-907 As a self proclaimed packaging whore, I believe it has gone too far. When your logo has nothing to do with what you do? It gets questionable for me. The latest example is Plurk. A pig in the logo, and the world Plurk. *sigh* Twitter is maybe the only one that makes an iota of sense to me. While the logos and branding may be "cute," when everyone is doing the same kind of "cute" originality is lost, and cute is pointless. As are the babytalk brand names. As a self proclaimed packaging whore, I believe it has gone too far.
When your logo has nothing to do with what you do? It gets questionable for me.
The latest example is Plurk. A pig in the logo, and the world Plurk. *sigh*
Twitter is maybe the only one that makes an iota of sense to me.
While the logos and branding may be “cute,” when everyone is doing the same kind of “cute” originality is lost, and cute is pointless. As are the babytalk brand names.

]]> By: Mark J http://kylelacy.com/unique-brand-identity-has-failed-in-social-media/comment-page-1/#comment-895 Mark J Wed, 17 Sep 2008 02:36:01 +0000 http://kylelacy.com/?p=192#comment-895 Kyle- Interesting post. I guess I would define what you are debating more as a "logo" or "mark" than a "brand identity". That's at least what I'm gathering from what you're asking. If this is the question then I would say I agree with you that Web 2.0 is ignoring good design, but for good reason. The one thing these companies/brands need you to remember is their URL, nothing more. In my opinion it is too risky for these brands to try and get fancy with their logos potentially having the URLs get lost in them. While a URL is secondary with most brands, with Web 2.0 it's front and center most important. They need to keep it simple. Kyle-

Interesting post. I guess I would define what you are debating more as a “logo” or “mark” than a “brand identity”. That’s at least what I’m gathering from what you’re asking. If this is the question then I would say I agree with you that Web 2.0 is ignoring good design, but for good reason. The one thing these companies/brands need you to remember is their URL, nothing more. In my opinion it is too risky for these brands to try and get fancy with their logos potentially having the URLs get lost in them. While a URL is secondary with most brands, with Web 2.0 it’s front and center most important. They need to keep it simple.

]]>