Standards manuals for corporate collateral fit someplace between utopia
and purgatory. Designers spend a great deal of time crafting the look and
feel for a company, and even stratagize how a transition could take place
after the release of a new logo (take UPS
for example). Once a priceless image is created, it can be applied to a wide
range of communication media. In the end, designers release everything for
implementation and hand a book to the client for them to carry on the work.
I just don’t buy it.
Standards manuals demonstrate how a company’s visual elements are applied
to advertisements, websites, printed stationery, posters, presentations,
coffee cups, signage, and more. They’re intended to be easy to follow
recipes for those working on the communications after the design agency completes
their work. The idea being that the designers did all of the leg work—all
the grunt work—now it’s up to the institution to move forward. Leaving them
a style guide gives them a blueprint of sorts. When I’ve been involved in
a branding, rebranding, or retooling of an institutional image, they take
the style guide, flip through the book, and say Thanks. Well, nothing’s
going to guarantee that they’ll follow the directions, just like nothing
guarantees you won’t substitute margarine for butter when baking a cake.
The three to five pages of logo don’ts will eventually be done
by an entry level designer or administrative assistant, who wants to do something
creative.
Following up with the client will happen over the course of a year. Oftentimes,
they’re handling things very well on their own with the help of the standards
manual. I won’t see the logo placed in an ellipse or rhombus. But eventually,
they get sloppy. Usually, this happens with the very best of intentions with
time, money, or staffing as excuses. “We left you the style guide for help,”
I tell them. “Oh. That’s right, sorry,” they reply.
Unless the institution places value on your work and their own image, a standards
manual is nothing more than a book waiting to be shelved and collect dust.
Institutions that have deep pockets, and utilize an agency of record (or
their own in-house studio) will perpetuate a unified and holistic image using
the standards manual. Sometimes, they make great advances.
It’s rare that you see Kellogg’s, Coke, FedEx, or Nike veer from their standards.
But when they do, you’ll notice it—and notice it big—because it’s not a mistake.
They aren’t cutting costs. They veer from standards and style guides to reinvent
themselves. To other institutions who wander outside of the type specs, color
standards, and application procedures, shame on you for sending that useful
standards manual we worked so hard on into limbo.
As the pseudo-head of a much downsized head of a corporate deisgn department, I can say for three-years we worked with and grew the standards. I look at these manuals as living documents that give a firm a roadmap to follow but as all living things are too change with the times. That being said, I find the design firm that created a 11x17" spiral bound manual a little overzealous in creating a 20lb. monstrosity that was not only a pain to work with, but heavy as hell and didn't fit neatly onto anyone's bookshelf.
Our second series of 'design' standards were so inept, and the Global Head of Branding resigned right after they were released, that we worked internally on creating new standards that worked better for our audience and the regional differences are different entitites faced. How those standards have fared globally is another story but in at least in the US we have stuck to them and allowed them to grow and strengthen as well.
So, I guess it all depends on how your present the information to your client. And you are right, it's up to them to either work with it or ignore it.
On May.07.2004 at 09:39 AM