There is no point to spending money on advertising if those experiencing it don’t understand who’s communicating about what brand, right?
So, as drivers quickly pass by this attractive roadside billboard sign, how do they know who put out the ad? There must be a brand signature, right?
Certainly there can be no signature or source-identifying quality in the largest and most visible word, especially since it is entirely lower case, laudatory, and purely descriptive: delicious.
One has to strain while studying or staring at the sign to notice the smallest and most complete depiction of the brand that is responsible for this elegant ad: Coca-Cola.
Assuming typical passers by don’t study this billboard as if it were a work of art displayed in a gallery (like I do), and further assuming they don’t notice the miniature Coca-Cola reference in barely legible script, do they know the famous Coca-Cola brand is behind the ad because of: (1) the particular shade of red dominating the ad, (2) the three and a half incomplete letters in white script on a red beverage label, (3) the contour of the beverage container chilling on ice, or (4) some or all of the above?
Another page from the well-executed chapter called “Bits and Pieces of Brands = Trademarks?”
In answer to my question about the brand psychology behind using bits and pieces of brands to communicate, one of the designers who I trust a lot explained it is more evocative and romantic, but what do others think?