I see this question being asked in logo and branding discovery phases. Anyone want to weigh in as to why this is?
1
-
1Graphic design IS marketing. To think any differently, you’re just doodling– richerimageFeb 20, 2019 at 23:56
Add a comment
|
2 Answers
Fast moving consumer goods (FMCG) are sold to consumers, and one of the fundamental principles of marketing is the market segmentation. Companies offer various products for the various segments based on their income level. So in order to target a certain audience, you need to know the average income.
A premium-looking product will appeal to a different audience than a cheap one, and the branding is part of that experience.
-
9@Tetsujin Except it really isnt comparable. Android versus iPhone are really different products. But in grocery goods its perfectly possible that the exact same product (sic) is sold at different prices. So its more like a iphone vs iphone (in brown bag) comparasion.– joojaaFeb 20, 2019 at 10:53
-
3@Tetsujin yes but logo has much more relative value in a box of cereal than in iPhone/Android where features are different. But in the cereal it may in some cases be ONLY the branding. So it is a queation of x% vs 100%. And no i dont think iphone vs android is even close to the same.– joojaaFeb 20, 2019 at 11:21
-
11There are more expensive (and elegant) Android Phones than Iphones. The comparation has no sense. Android is only the operating system, not the full product.– RafaelFeb 20, 2019 at 13:08
-
1Given an equivalent iPhone and and Android phone, the iPhone is probably more expensive - so it's perfectly comparable. Feb 20, 2019 at 15:13
-
1@Tetsujin iPhone vs Android is more elegant vs technological. Neither is more high end (technological and wealthy are just as connected as elegant and wealthy), but the logos do sort of show a difference in design and market. The iPhone is for someone who wants something simple and just works. It hides all the complicated details. The Android device is for someone who wants more control and capability, sometimes at the cost of simplicity and elegance. I think the logos somewhat reflect this.– PatrickFeb 20, 2019 at 16:50
People which frequent "Horror" movies are generally not the same people which attend the "Emotional Drama". Both equally viable audiences, but vastly different in terms of what appeals to them.
The same general division can be found in financial capabilities. A family bordering on the poverty line are not the people purchasing luxury items. And luxury item purchasers are not the individuals shopping at the local dollar store.
Just as branding for Men varies from the branding for Women, so should the branding based upon financial capabilities vary.
Luxury brands often have a specific air about them, script type, lots of white space, ambiguous symbols, muted or pastel limited colors.
Lower-end brands typically use "louder" color, more color, bolder type, identifiable symbology or even mascots/comic type of symbology.
If a brand appears too "luxury" to more price-minded consumers, they may simply overlook the brand entirely based upon a visual snap-judgement. And the converse is also true - a brand which appears to be more "loud" or "bold" may be overlooked by luxury buyers as "not for them."
The brand should "feel" like it belongs to the audience to some degree. Stepping out of that constraint can often alienate the brand with the very audience they are trying to reach. There's a reason all the "Monster Truck Rally" advertising is loud, in-your-face, and uses a rainbow of colors. And there's a reason "perfume" ads you see are esoteric, ambiguous, lofty, monotone, and often a bit pretentious....
-
Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat.– curious ♦Feb 21, 2019 at 3:53