That article I highlighted the other day got me thinking… essentially the revelation about ‘dynamic and changable’ is not really a revelation at all, particularly in the ‘logo’ context, as is cited with google etc. Marty Neumeier flagged this up years ago in the Brand Gap talking about ‘avatars being preferable to icons’ and different clothes for ‘different’ occasions, and on reflection I’m surprised that so many graphics folk seem to be getting so excited about this.
The interesting things really start to happen when a brand itself (rather than its 2D visual representation) becomes dynamic and changable, retaining some coherance, but throwing consistancy on the scrapheap where it belongs. I think people may at last be waking up to the empty promises of a consistency driven brand approach, but we’ve yet to see anyone really doing anything interesting with a dynamic and changable approach to what a brand ‘does’ (apart from the constantly interesting Do brand)…