The problem with shock design
If attention is what you seek and attention is what you measure, it’s likely you’ll create drama. And drama is inherently short-lived.
The managing director of Jaguar said, “We’ve certainly gathered an awful lot of attention over the last few weeks.”
Choosing the word “awful” was appropriate.
Here’s the design that made Jaguar iconic:
Sixty years later, it still turns heads and fuels dreams.
And the logo that went with the car did its job as well.
It’s easy for attention-confused marketers to get distracted. They think a rebrand and a re-logo are the same thing, they’re not. A rebrand happens when you change the promise that you make, and the expectations we have for you. A re-logo is cosmetic. Rebrand at your peril, especially when the old brand is trusted, iconic, historic and connected to a basic human need. It’s a mistake to focus on clicks, not magic.
The director of Jaguar finished his statement with a sentence that is almost certainly not going to stand the test of time: “We need to make sure that Jaguar is relevant, is desirable, is future proof for the next 90 years of its history.”
There are potholes to avoid here, even if you’re not a car designer or marketer:
- Clicks are not purchase intent.
- Awareness is not desire.
- Gimmicks are not marketing.
- Social media followers aren’t following you.
- Noise is not information.
- Burning down your house draws a crowd, but it’s a lousy way to renovate.
[Whether or not I like the new design is irrelevant. This is actually about the promise a brand makes and the way it measures success. What’s the promise of the new brand? How does the design make this promise?]
Design is story telling with utility. But if the story is only noise and outrage and the utility is missing, the design, by definition, is incompetent.
The thing is, we’re not running out of noise, but we can always use more beauty.