# Branding Anti-Patterns

Approaches that seem like good brand practice but undermine identity strength and coherence.

---

## 1. The Democratic Logo

**What it looks like**: Putting logo options to a vote. "Let's see what the team prefers." Choosing based on popularity rather than strategy.

**Why it seems good**: Inclusive. Everyone feels heard. Reduces conflict.

**Why it fails**: Most people aren't qualified to evaluate logos strategically. Votes go to "safe" options that offend no one but also excite no one. Group preferences trend toward generic. Best logos are often polarizing at first.

**What to do instead**: Strategy defines criteria, experts evaluate against criteria, decision-maker decides. Stakeholder input on strategy, not on solutions.

---

## 2. The Meaning-Heavy Logo

**What it looks like**: Logos designed to communicate everything about the company. "The three points represent our three values, the circle represents unity, the gradient represents growth..."

**Why it seems good**: Feels deep. Makes logo presentation impressive. Justifies design choices.

**Why it fails**: Audiences don't read logos—they recognize them. Meaning doesn't scale to small applications. Complexity undermines memorability. The explanation becomes more important than the impression.

**What to do instead**: Simple marks that feel right. Recognition over explanation. The Nike swoosh doesn't "mean" anything—it just feels like Nike.

---

## 3. The Perfect First Impression

**What it looks like**: Rejecting logos because "people won't get it at first." Expecting instant love from stakeholders.

**Why it seems good**: First impressions matter. Don't want to launch something people dislike.

**Why it fails**: The best logos grow on people. Familiarity breeds recognition, not contempt. Distinctive marks feel weird before they feel right. Stakeholder discomfort isn't user discomfort.

**What to do instead**: Evaluate against strategy, not gut reaction. Give unfamiliar marks time to sink in. Test with real users in context, not stakeholders in presentations.

---

## 4. The Complete Guidelines Syndrome

**What it looks like**: Waiting until guidelines document every possible scenario before launching. "We can't use the brand until guidelines are perfect."

**Why it seems good**: Thoroughness. Prevent misuse. Professional approach.

**Why it fails**: Perfect guidelines take forever. Brand sits unused while guidelines are perfected. Real applications reveal needs better than speculation.

**What to do instead**: Core guidelines that cover 80% of needs. Launch and learn. Expand guidelines based on actual questions and issues. Living document, not finished product.

---

## 5. The Rigid Grid

**What it looks like**: Complex construction grids and precise mathematical relationships in logo design. Golden ratio explanations. Pixel-perfect geometry.

**Why it seems good**: Scientific. Professional. Justifiable.

**Why it fails**: Construction grids often don't improve the actual logo. Optical adjustments matter more than mathematical precision. Grids become retroactive justification for intuitive decisions.

**What to do instead**: Design for visual balance, which is perceptual, not mathematical. Use grids as starting points, not constraints. What looks right trumps what measures right.

---

## 6. The Distinctive-At-All-Costs

**What it looks like**: Prioritizing uniqueness so highly that the brand becomes alienating. Invented words that are unpronounceable. Visual identity that feels foreign to the category.

**Why it seems good**: Differentiation is the goal. Stand out from competition.

**Why it fails**: Too different reads as "not for me." Category conventions exist for a reason—they signal belonging. Distinctiveness within the category, not alien to it.

**What to do instead**: Distinctive yet belonging. Different enough to notice, familiar enough to trust. Convention on most things, distinctive on key things.

---

## 7. The Borrowed Identity

**What it looks like**: "We want to feel like Apple" or "Make it look like Stripe." Copying successful brands' aesthetics.

**Why it seems good**: Proven approaches. Clear reference. Aspirational quality.

**Why it fails**: You're not Apple. Their identity serves their strategy. Borrowed aesthetics without borrowed substance rings false. You'll always be a copy, never the original.

**What to do instead**: Understand why their identity works. Extract principles, not executions. Develop your own authentic expression of your strategy.

---

## 8. The Perpetual Revision

**What it looks like**: Constantly tweaking identity. Logo adjustments every few months. Color updates. Typography changes. "We're always improving."

**Why it seems good**: Iterative. Responsive. Never settling.

**Why it fails**: Recognition requires consistency. Every change resets equity accumulation. Teams can't keep up with versions. Signals instability.

**What to do instead**: Commit and live with it. Minor refinements, not constant changes. Refresh cycles measured in years, not months. Consistency is a feature.

---

## 9. The Beautiful Guidelines

**What it looks like**: Brand guidelines that are gorgeous to look at but impossible to follow. Emphasis on inspiring imagery over practical guidance.

**Why it seems good**: Impressive. Sets high bar. Shows what's possible.

**Why it fails**: Guidelines exist to enable consistent application. If they're not practical, they're not followed. Beautiful shelfware helps no one.

**What to do instead**: Guidelines for use, not display. Clear rules, practical templates, common scenarios covered. Functional beats beautiful.

---

## 10. The Controlled Reveal

**What it looks like**: Elaborate brand launch with "big reveal." Secrecy until launch day. Surprise reveal to team.

**Why it seems good**: Dramatic. Exciting. Makes a moment.

**Why it fails**: No buy-in because no involvement. Surprise reactions may be negative—and now you've launched. Missed opportunity for pre-launch feedback.

**What to do instead**: Involve key stakeholders in process. Build understanding before reveal. Save drama for external launch, not internal reveal.

---

## 11. The Research Trap

**What it looks like**: Extensive focus groups and testing before any creative work. "Let's validate the direction before designing."

**Why it seems good**: De-risking. Data-driven. Customer-centered.

**Why it fails**: People can't imagine what doesn't exist. Research on descriptions isn't research on experience. Analysis paralysis before creative work begins.

**What to do instead**: Strategy research yes, design direction research minimally. Create options, then test. React to real work, not hypothetical descriptions.

---

## 12. The Sub-Brand Proliferation

**What it looks like**: Every product, feature, and initiative gets its own brand. Sub-brands multiply. Each with its own logo, colors, identity.

**Why it seems good**: Distinction. Tailored identity. Autonomy for teams.

**Why it fails**: Dilutes master brand. Customers confused. Identity inconsistency. Exponential maintenance burden. Often reflects organizational ego, not customer need.

**What to do instead**: Strong master brand, minimal sub-branding. Descriptive product names under master brand. Sub-brands only for strategically distinct businesses.
