Who You Callin’ a BHAG? Or, Why You Need The Dictionary of Brand
by Guest Author, (8 comments)
by Marty Neumeier
Your new client sends you a breathless email: “Our CBO is building an IMT to reorg the brand architecture from the bottom up. We’re deciding on a BHAG this week, and as soon as we refine our backstory, we’ll probably need an avatar. What do you think?”
You could respond in several ways: 1) “What’s an avatar?” 2) “I’m not really an architect.” 3) Could you please translate that into English? 4) “Don’t call me a beehag.”
None of these answers is likely to raise your client’s confidence in your brand savvitude, especially after you sold yourself as an expert. However, if there were a copy of The Dictionary of Brand on your shelf, you could look these terms up and give her a knowledgeable response.
The Dictionary of Brand
The design was done by Ann Willoughby and her staff in Kansas City, recycled paper was donated by Smart, the book itself was produced by Metropolitan Printers in Vancouver, and the editing was led by yours truly. To help me compile the terms and regularize their various definitions, I pulled together an all-star advisory council of top authors and practitioners from a variety of brand disciplines, then leaned heavily on my fellow members of the Brand Experience board for additional guidance. Our goal was simple: to make the book available to every designer and client who wants one, at a low price, through Amazon and selected AIGA events.
Why do we suddenly need a dictionary of brand? Because, at least in my view, brand is rapidly becoming the lingua franca of marketing and design. It provides a level playing field for all the people who contribute to the building of a business, whether they’re marketing executives, strategists, graphic designers, researchers, advertising agencies, PR firms, or Web designers. Today all designers are brand designers—the only question is where we fit in the system. (See my articles, Survival of the Fittingest and Who’s Afraid of the Big Brand Wolf?, both accessible in Voice: AIGA Journal of Design, at aiga.org.
Now, back to your client and her email. This time, before replying, you grab for your brand dictionary to refresh your memory. Instead of blurting out, “Don’t call me a beehag!”, you respond with savoir professionnel: “Well, of course we could explore some avatars—maybe even take a look at some icons—but shouldn’t we consider an earcon as well? First we’ll need to meet with the metateam and agree on a zag, then we can put together a perceptual map.” If she seems a little confused, just send her a copy of the brand dictionary.
Marty Neumeier serves on the national board of the AIGA, as well as on the board of the AIGA Center for Brand Experience. He is author of The Brand Gap
Comments (8)
Nate Voss said:
Marty, that sounds excellent, and it could not come at a better time for me. I’m beginning work Monday on a brand-refresh for a new client. I’m the young man on my team, and while I can hold my own on the design front, strategic thinking on branding is something I am still working on. I read The Brand Gap at least once a year, and my copy of The Dictionary of the Brand will be arriving on Wednesday. Great to have you on the site.
nv
Posted on October 30, 2005
Adrian said:
I guess a dictionary is a good tool to help us understand the new catchphrases of brandspeak, but I think we shouldn’t glaze over the downsides of inventing our own language. A couple minefields that I can think of:
People latch on to catchphrases so they can sound intelligent, and raise their noses higher than those who don’t speak that language.
The average person has no idea what you are talking about.
People learn the words but don’t really know what they mean. Obviously the Dictionary of Brand helps in that regard.
Things get more complicated than they need to be. That leads to inefficiency.
Someone has to translate anyway, so why not just use english in the first place?
These are problems all groups face whether they are churches, corporations, governments, etc. I just read an article that said that the Department of Homeland Security made a mandate that police and firefighters no longer use the 10-4 type of jargon on their radios when they respond to emergencies. By speaking in plain english misunderstandings can be avoided. As good communicators, shouldn’t designers be striving for this as well?
While I think that The Dictionary of Brand is valuable, I think we should emphasize the importance of using words that everyone can understand rather than making it easier to learn a new language.
Posted on October 30, 2005
Nate Voss said:
Yes, we should all use English: The most inconsistent and difficult language possibly ever. I’d also like to throw in a vote for 12-year-old internet speak: LOL ;-) POS !—o PÒWNED!!11!
Posted on October 30, 2005
Bennett said:
Adrian, It is not really inventing a new language as much as it is informing the design public what the rest of the brand community already uses. If designers expect to sit at the table with the major players, they need to know how to communicate within the existing brand lexicon.
Nate, English is tough, but I don’t think it holds a candle to the complexity of Chinese (especially in written form).
Posted on October 31, 2005
clinton carlson said:
The thing I’m excited about is that this book may help create consistency in language and terminology. It seems like many of these terms are not (1) understood, and (2) used consistently from setting to setting. This will be a nice resource that might add to the exchange of ideas. Adrian, I share your dislike for inventing new words that are only understood by a few. It seems like there are times where that is necessary, but too often it isn’t, and does exactly what you suggest. And it seems that concepts are often reinvented (rebranded?) every few years, where the only thing that changes is the trademarked new name for the same old idea or concept or process.
Every profession faces the challenge of “technifying” their language so that they create a distance and a mystery to their work. But, on the other hand it is often essential to create new multifaceted words that speed communication between people with shared knowledge.
Posted on October 31, 2005
felix sockwell said:
I wonder if words like BrandEquity (owned by Landor) or BEES (Sterling) can be used / are seen in the book. Is this part comedy? If so, I’d buy it.
Posted on October 31, 2005
Chris Rugen said:
I agree with Adrian and Clinton. Esoteric language is great for shorthand conversations amongst professionals, but I’ve seen it get mutilated by uninformed hacks to dazzle clientele. My rule: if you use a buzzword, define it immediately afterwards. Clients appreciate it. However, I try to side step the issue entirely by speaking clearly, effectively, and persuasively about my work rather than trying to mystify and misdirect.
Though this might be a good resource to have so I can untangle the dense brandspeak of others I’ll have to interact with.
Posted on November 1, 2005
Nate Voss said:
I believe the purpose of this book may be to inform the hacks, actually.
Posted on November 1, 2005