# Branding Decisions

Decision frameworks for identity development, management, and evolution.

---

## 1. Logo Type Selection

**Context**: What kind of logo to create for the brand.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Wordmark** | Distinctive name, typographic flexibility, no icon needed | Can't use icon alone, name-dependent |
| **Lettermark** | Long name, initials memorable, corporate feel | Less distinctive for new brands, abbreviation confusion |
| **Icon + Wordmark** | Need both symbol and name, maximum flexibility | More to manage, lockup complexity |
| **Abstract mark** | Universal meaning, global reach, unique symbol | Takes time to build recognition, meaning must be learned |
| **Pictorial mark** | Clear metaphor, instantly understandable | Limits evolution, can be literal |

**Decision criteria**: Name length, application needs, category conventions, global considerations.

**Red flags**: Lettermark for unknown brand, complex icon for small applications, abstract mark when clear metaphor exists.

---

## 2. Color Strategy

**Context**: How many colors and what role each plays.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Single color** | Strong distinction, simplicity, consistent recognition | Limited palette for variety |
| **Color pair** | Primary + accent, flexible yet simple | Pairing must work across contexts |
| **Multi-color system** | Diverse applications, category needs variety | Consistency harder, recognition diluted |
| **Black + accent** | Sophistication, versatility, works everywhere | Less distinctive, common approach |

**Decision criteria**: Application variety, distinctiveness needs, production constraints.

**Red flags**: Multi-color without clear system, colors that don't work together, ignoring accessibility.

---

## 3. Typography Approach

**Context**: Custom vs. existing typefaces.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Custom typeface** | Large brand, budget available, ultimate distinction | Expensive, time-consuming, needs maintenance |
| **Modified existing** | Distinction needed, moderate budget, some uniqueness | Still recognizable as base, licensing complexity |
| **Commercial typeface** | Quality focus, budget constrained, good selection exists | Not unique, others can use same font |
| **Open-source typeface** | Maximum budget efficiency, web performance | Limited selection, may lack character |

**Decision criteria**: Budget, distinctiveness needs, application variety, technical requirements.

**Red flags**: Custom typeface for startup budget, open-source for premium luxury brand.

---

## 4. Brand Architecture Model

**Context**: How to structure multiple products or lines.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Branded house** | Single business, all products related, brand strength | Products can't escape brand associations |
| **House of brands** | Diverse businesses, different audiences, risk isolation | No master brand leverage, expensive |
| **Endorsed brands** | Middle ground, sub-brand identity with parent connection | Complex, potentially confusing |
| **Hybrid** | Mix of above based on strategic needs | Hardest to manage consistently |

**Decision criteria**: Portfolio diversity, target audience overlap, cross-selling potential.

**Red flags**: House of brands for resource-constrained company, branded house for conflicting audiences.

---

## 5. Naming Convention

**Context**: How to name products and features.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Descriptive** | Clarity priority, SEO matters, simple explanation | Generic, hard to trademark |
| **Invented words** | Distinction priority, trademark-able, unique | Meaning must be learned, pronunciation risks |
| **Real words (evocative)** | Meaning + distinction, memorable, emotional | May have existing associations, availability |
| **Alphanumeric** | Technical products, versioning, category convention | Cold, hard to remember, commodity feel |

**Decision criteria**: Audience expectations, trademark goals, explanation burden.

**Red flags**: Invented words for commoditized product, descriptive names for premium differentiation.

---

## 6. Guideline Comprehensiveness

**Context**: How extensive brand guidelines should be.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Minimal (core elements)** | Early stage, small team, rapid evolution expected | More questions, more inconsistency |
| **Standard (common needs)** | Established brand, moderate application variety | May miss edge cases |
| **Comprehensive (all scenarios)** | Large organization, many creators, strict consistency | Expensive to create and maintain |
| **Living (continuously updated)** | Fast-moving brand, digital-first, frequent additions | Requires ongoing investment |

**Decision criteria**: Organization size, creator diversity, application variety, budget.

**Red flags**: Comprehensive guidelines for two-person startup, minimal guidelines for global enterprise.

---

## 7. Refresh vs. Rebrand

**Context**: How to approach updating an existing identity.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Refresh (evolution)** | Brand has equity, strategy unchanged, needs modernization | May not go far enough |
| **Rebrand (revolution)** | Strategy changed, negative associations, M&A | Discards existing equity, expensive |
| **Restore (heritage)** | Lost way from strong original, nostalgia value | May feel backward-looking |
| **Extend (additions)** | System works but incomplete, new needs arise | Complexity increases |

**Decision criteria**: Existing equity value, strategy change magnitude, negative associations.

**Red flags**: Rebrand when refresh would suffice, refresh when fundamental change needed.

---

## 8. Logo Application Flexibility

**Context**: How much variation to allow in logo use.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Strict (no exceptions)** | New brand building recognition, few touchpoints | May not fit all contexts |
| **Responsive (defined variants)** | Many contexts, planned flexibility | More versions to manage |
| **Flexible (principles-based)** | Experienced creators, creative culture | Consistency risk |
| **Adaptive (dynamic identity)** | Digital-first, generative systems | Harder to recognize, complex production |

**Decision criteria**: Application variety, creator skill level, brand maturity.

**Red flags**: Flexible guidelines with untrained creators, strict rules that prevent legitimate use.

---

## 9. Brand Asset Investment

**Context**: What level of asset quality and variety to develop.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Minimum viable** | Early stage, limited budget, testing product-market fit | May look amateur, limits application |
| **Standard kit** | Established product, typical needs, reasonable budget | Covers most needs, some gaps |
| **Comprehensive library** | Large organization, many touchpoints, brand-led growth | Expensive, maintenance intensive |
| **On-demand creation** | Unpredictable needs, dynamic business | Slow, potentially inconsistent |

**Decision criteria**: Budget, application volume, brand maturity, growth trajectory.

**Red flags**: Comprehensive library for pivot-stage startup, minimum viable for enterprise launch.

---

## 10. Verbal Identity Ownership

**Context**: Who develops and maintains verbal identity.

| Option | When to Choose | Trade-offs |
|--------|----------------|------------|
| **Brand/creative team** | Holistic identity ownership, integrated development | May lack copy expertise |
| **Copywriting/content team** | Writing expertise, practical application knowledge | May not align with visual identity |
| **External agency** | Specialized expertise, objectivity | Ongoing relationship needed |
| **Collaborative** | Best of both, balanced perspective | Coordination complexity |

**Decision criteria**: Internal capabilities, integration needs, budget.

**Red flags**: Split ownership with no coordination, verbal identity as afterthought.
