No doubt, we are living in the age of information, which means that all of us are constantly under the bombardment of messages. And as communicators and designers, we are the ones that create these messages.

Of course, what we try to do is communicating with others whether they share our aim or to win the competition for ourselves or on behalf of our clients in the eyes of possible customers.

As a communicator, and a designer who specializes in branding projects, I try to see and analyze examples as much as possible. Because, the world has billions of examples regarding the things I should consider doing or things I must avoid, literally.

But let me tell you this: What I see, both as a person under bombardment and as a creator is disappointing because most of the people who create messages who visualize them are obsessed with aesthetics rather than messages and their stories. To them, what they consider as beautiful gets the job done. But is it really the case?

Those who think that designers should aim for the beautiful outcome should (actually, must!) reconsider. But, why?

A) Beauty is in the eye of the beholder

Beauty is a subjective issue. Tens and thousands of works have been created over what is beautiful and what is not, and the issue is not a new one. Do not expect me to define beauty or tell what should be seen as beautiful, because let’s face it: I won’t be able to put forth a definitive work in a content that will be consumed in a matter of minutes (that’s what separates me from other writers, ‘know-it-all’s as you might call). Plus, no matter how we define a subject, people, or let’s say the ones that we are trying reach via messages we create, will find a variety of things beautiful. Therefore, designs that might seem beautiful or aesthetic may not be perceived as such by them.

OK, this does not mean that you must listen to your client who insist on making the logo a bit bigger or Windows blue (whatever the f*ck that means (oops!)). You should of course work on your own design, but after learning the story, history, expectations and examples from your clients.

Gap’s logo. Iconic on the right, newly designed on the left (retracted a week later)

Gap’s new logo (which they have ditched in a week due to unexpected and extreme backlash) is a good example on this, because what you see here, ladies and gentlemen, clearly demonstrates what is right and what is not. The new one was considered beautiful by company executives and designers who were working on the logo. However, besides the fact that it is horrible and result of a process conducted by lazy designers (sprinkled some Helvetica here and there, huh?); it was terrible in terms of function: Consider that you are running a clothing company that is world famous because of its name and branding strategy which is putting its name on clothes and using its customers as mobile billboards, and yet you accepted (and someone designed, I’m not sure which one is worse) a logo that has a gradient, which is impossible to embroider (not sure if that’s the correct use, any comments?). Yes, that’s genius.

Now, what you should do is to watch Yorgo Tloupas’s talk: “The art of (re)branding”. Don’t panic, this article will be here when you get back and I already marked the point that I want you to watch, so the video will start from there (if not, go to 6:28 mark).


Yorgo Tloupas talks about rebranding. Brilliant. Just watch.

B) Without function, beauty alone does not cut it

Think about Philippe Starck’s Juicy Salif (there should be a picture below). With its metal body that looks like a spaceship came to life out of Star Trek, it makes me wanna buy one. But it is just a juicer. A juicer that is not able to separate pips and pulps of oranges and lemons, that is not fit for using with glasses that are higher than certain level, and an expensive piece thanks to Starck’s fame. But still, I want to buy one just for its display while knowing that I will not be using it after second or third time.

Starck’s Juicy Salif. Source: Fitzu Fun

I’m not defaming Philippe Starck, I still think that he is a brilliant thinker, but we should all keep in mind that he designed some fetish objects and as the ‘superstar of design’ as he was once called, the price of things he is associated with doubles, triples and so on.

How do I know it? I live in Istanbul, right next to a housing area that is supposedly designed in cooperation with Philippe Starck. Houses on that worth millions, easily surpassing others (double, triple, quad…) despite they are not that luxurious or well-designed. But hey, that’s my opinion.

Would you want to pay more for a thing that lacks functionality, does not present any exclusive advantages just for the sake of beauty? To me, the issue is simple as that.

A logo design that is not recognizable, too intricate to be printed on a variety of surfaces, created superficially or a UI design that hinders you from choosing options, bombards with pop-up, burns your eyes or makes you squint due to improper contrast levels or a poster design that is too complicated to give information or lacks crucial information, designed with gradients while could not be printed at the equipment at hand, thus presents a sea consisting of tone waves…

Function is key.

So?

So, you should look for the story or create the story and think about what should be done in relation to areas of use, what it lacks, symbolizes, possible responses (or ask others), whether there are similarities with any other works and it is original enough.

I’m not suggesting you to make up a story, but it makes the process easier if you look for beforehand and/or collect information on-the-go.

I’m going to finish this article with two things: First, a TED Talk given by Sagi Haviv, one of the partners of Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv (hands down the best branding agency ever, outlining stories of a number of logo designs, while answering a question: “What makes a good logo?”

The entire speech is a must-watch.

I’d be happy to be an intern at Chermayeff & Geismar & Haviv, and I’m 30 years old. Watch the video to learn why.

Secondly, here is my own design and its story:

A few years back, I decided to advance in the field of graphic design. To keep myself occupied and develop my skills, I decided to enter contests. I created an account on one of the famous design-contest platforms and tried to come up with concepts everyday.

One day, I stumbled upon a concept that is created by some folks who are designing a social media platform. The brief was simple:

From 99designs: Simuntu is a niche social network. It is a place where members of the southern African community living in the diaspora (mostly based outside the continent of Africa) can read the latest African news, shop for african goods, share music, find local events (such as african festivals, music gigs) and expand their social network. The word ‘Simuntu’ loosely translates to “we are the people”.

Plus, they wanted a mascot.

So, I started to make a research. I was searching for culture, people, colors, animals etc. Since the aim was to come up with a mascot, I was focusing on animals. Then it happened: My research directed me to one of the cutest animals of the planet, meerkats. Endemic to the country of South Africa, known as one of the cutest and most social animals of the world, what could be better than a meercat?

While I was the only person to use a meercat among 2,163 designs while most of them were elephants and giraffes), my logo was not selected, even though included a thorough explanation. The story of the logo continued after the contest but still, even though it was not selected, it became one of the works that I am proud of, because: The logo had a backstory, it does not have a flaw, it is easily recognizable, it could be used on a variety of products, it was unique among more than two thousand entries and it was unique not because I was trying to create something unique for the uniqueness but it had a meaning and relation to the brief.

Note: Originally published on Medium.com on July 10, 2019.