“On brand” should be a banned phrase
The majority times I’ve ever heard phrase “on brand” it has been used to shut down conversations, exclude people, and diminish work.
It’s used as if there is a clear, binary line between “on” and “off” brand. It’s thrown about as if uttering it would somehow improve situations — making designs better and code more reliable. It does not.
In my experience it’s primarily used, to be misused.
I therefor recommend that it be banned from use in professional settings. #ban-onbrand
Origins
I think the term was coined to bring to mind things that actually have proficiency and acumen:
- On point
- On key
- On topic
- On par
But marketing can’t be compared to music, dance, coherency, or even golf. If you’re in marketing, you’re not like these:
You’re closer to this:
A marketer not like Mozart, etc. Marketing is not a profession of singular exacting skills or magical artistry. It does not inspire awe or express vital concepts for life and happiness. It does not create timeless beauty. It does not create. It attempts to sell.
Marketing is sales, at a distance.
Sales is at best unsolicited information and at worst, outright lies. There’s very little in this profession that can be held up in an esteem akin to any of the previously mentioned skills.
The thing you as a marketer have to remember is: You’re not fooling anyone but yourselves. Your lineage can be traced directly back to snake oil and propaganda. You’re the profession that gave us cigarette cancer for women, that trained children to nag their parents, and catapulted sugar water to becoming the best known health and ecology risk on the planet. Marketing is pop-up hell, banner ads, junk mail, commercial interruptions, human billboards, robocalls, spam, spam, and more spam.
I know this about you because I have worked in your department. I have enabled you.
Hypocrisy
It could be slightly more respectable if there was at least some originality between most branding but for the most part there just isn’t. The majority of attempts I see at current branding or rebranding efforts all boil down to a “modern, savvy, slightly hip, and down to earth — but not quite conversational” tone and look which is most often exemplified by a Siri/Alexa/Cortana type of voice attached to a young, stereotypically attractive secretary-like cisgender, white, non-threatening woman leading a television show lifestyle. It’s all the same formula. The only things that change are the actual industry and color palette.
“But our accent color is THIS shade of blue!”
Guidelines, if they exist, tend to contain either the same practices (or trends) as everybody else or just short-sighted limitations that only work for the materials being made while the guide was compiled.
So when you’re sitting in a meeting or responding to an email thread that’s showing some new designs— remember what your chosen profession really is. Remember that 9 times out of 10, your usage of “on brand” or “off brand” is mostly about whether you personally like or dislike something enough to publicly praise or shame the person who made that something. Remember that when you see and approve designs that clearly bust out of the current branding but look great anyway (in a way that you or others just like) — you’re not only being a sleazy used car salesman — you’re also being a shameless hypocrite. Remember that your brand is 90% the same as the core of every other domestic brand.
Remember that the real reason you’re saying this phrase is because you want to eliminate any further conversation. It functions as if you’d say “Yes” or “No” quickly followed by “aaaand shut your mouth.”
Just imagine if that was being said to you. Not many people would appreciate that… but that’s what is being done in hundreds of companies every day.
Devil’s advocate
You might be asking: “Wait though, what about that 1 time out of 10 or the 1% occasion when it’s just about actual mistakes?”
Yes, that does happen too and sometimes I’ve heard on/off brand used for occasions when the wrong font was used or a color matching attempt had failed — but it’s been rare. Usually other words are used to describe those errors anyway, so the banning of on/off brand wouldn’t impede those situations at all.
What to say instead
So let’s say you read this and sell yourself on the idea that — yes — this is a problematic phrase to use and other language should be utilized. That’s great. Here’s a few examples for different situations.
You still want to shut down the conversation:
- “I’m not willing to approve this as is. I don’t know what the best solution is but I look forward to seeing another iteration.”
This takes ownership of your decision, your role/expertise, and leaves the door open for further work. - “I don’t think this what we’re going for, because of ______. That needs to be closer to our previous work/goals for me to move this forward.”
This gives more specific feedback (which is often more helpful), suggests a direction for the next version, and again takes ownership of the decision not to agree with the proposal.
You actually want to just point out something you feel could be improved:
- “On a scale of 1 to 10, I think this is an 8. I like the use of space and photo chosen. What would make it a 10 for me is if the call to action was more clearly THE thing to do on this screen.”
This is actually a protocol called the Perfect 10 method. It mixes honesty with praise, then gives a single specific thing to change (either immediately or otherwise). It can be repeated throughout members of any size group until consensus is reached. It can also be used just once to get the more key piece of feedback to address for next time. - “I think our audience will react well to the message in this form, since it’s incorporating all the interview feedback. It looks to me like the color within the gradient doesn’t match our guide. I also see that you’re using the latest illustration that tested well.”
This can be called a Praise Sandwich, placing the critical feedback within two positive statements. This particular sandwich is not based on personal bias but is instead basing decisions on previous research and a particular style guide detail. That makes it more fair, discuss-able, and specific.
#ban-onbrand
