A good pragmatist look at nameing organisations – the logic and process from Wellington design firm DNA:
Creativity, clarity on the brief and objectives count with naming of course, but the process of selecting in order to protect and execute a name matters almost more.
We’ve found that there are often two lists, names you love, and names you can actually execute. Creating a list is relatively easy, getting a name you can use (protect) is often the hardest part.
Naming is a critical component in building a successful brand/service/experience. Following a well proven process and methodology will ensure delivery of a unique, relevant and realisable name – be it for a product, service, company or place.
Naming as a process is about having defined, ordered and robust logic behind what the consumer will experience. A name is only ever part of a brand, but its often where the process starts. Consequently, naming development relies on reaching agreement on a criteria for decision making, in order to ensure you get a result.
In addition there are types or groups of names; the most common are literal or descriptive names, which we believe are the most potent types to consider first off when developing product/brand strategy and naming. The first step in any naming exercise (be it evaluation or development) is to define which of these directions or types will best suit the project at hand.
Read the full article on the DNA website
Sometimes you have to ignore the brief, says renowned designer and artist Paula Scher. With a dry wit, Scher takes us behind-the-scenes on four landmark projects — from revamping MoMA’s identity to reinvigorating a Pittsburgh neighborhood through design — to illustrate how asking questions, pushing into uncharted territory, and doing something you’ve never done before leads to great work.
The US federal government doesn’t stray too far from a few familiar topics when it comes to its agenda: the economy, health care, national defense, immigration, reproductive rights. But for roughly a decade not long ago, good graphic design was a national priority—and the story of how it became one is a forgotten chapter of design history.
In the 1970s, federal agencies and departments like the National Park Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Postal Service, the Department of Transportation, and NASA overhauled their visual identities and communication systems. Suddenly, famous designers like Lella and Massimo Vignelli, corporate identity pioneers Ivan Chermayeff and Tom Geismar, wayfinding guru Lance Wyman, and Raymond Lowey all had an expanded influence at the national level. And they welcomed the challenge.
Read the full story on fastcodesign.com
Thanks: Karl Kane
Best bits to watch [6:30-22:00]
Jim Bull is worried about the future of design and thinks you should be too. Co-founder and Chief Creative Officer of Moving Brands, Jim dissects an industry where design is judged by the number of its likes and shares, where the focus is on efficiency rather than brilliance, and where one or two companies set the design standard for the globe.