"Depends what space you're in, but the general answer to that, I think, is to try and create the work in such a way that if someone else copies you, it's incredibly obvious that they've copied you. And so therefore it has a signature. The example I used [in my talk] was the Nike and the On websites. I don't think they can argue they're copying them because both of them are just quite simple, and so use a style that's very well established."
"I think more recently when we think about some other things that we've done, it's about trying to be the best in that category. With Call of Duty, someone could copy the typeface, but it's not Call of Duty - we were lucky enough to work with the leading game, and we created assets that really celebrated that and built that around that. I think people will always naturally think of the market leader."
"I think both are still valid. I think it really depends upon a number of factors. Like one, how that brand's doing. We definitely have some UK brands that are tired and I think whether you're thinking about brands like O2 or Sky, I feel like they haven't changed and they haven't moved with the times. And I think customers can feel that."
Design that contains a unique, recognizable signature makes derivative work immediately apparent. Simple, widely used styles offer little protection, exemplified by the Nike and On website examples where the style is easily replicated. Distinctive identities like Airbnb’s produce copies that feel obviously derivative. Creating category-leading, celebratory assets around a market leader, as with Call of Duty, reinforces association and resists indistinguishable copying. Brand evolution can be either a refresh or an overhaul depending on performance and context. Some established brands that fail to evolve, such as O2 or Sky, appear tired and disconnected, which customers can perceive.
Read at Creative Bloq
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]