Seeking differentiation and share of mind is no easy task. We live in an increasingly complex world of technology and multi-channel communications that make cutting through the noise difficult for even the most skilled brand manager.

I choose the word ‘noise’ carefully because so often we find ourselves readily identifying with the visual identity of a brand and of course we know just how much attention and care is paid to the graphic elements of companies of all shapes and sizes. One would only need to pick up the guidelines of most organisations to see the overemphasis of the brand in a static visual application. I’ve written about this before but, as designers, do we still really need to guideline vans, mugs, toilet roll etc as a means of justifying fee income on a guidelines project. No doubt that the logo is the king of the branding world.

In recent years there has been an increasing maturity towards treating the verbal identity with more and more respect. Inspired by the likes of Innocent, an understanding of the power of tone of voice has made a significant impression on rebranding programmes of organisations of all shapes and sizes.

So to more effectively communicate what the brand stands for, we’re starting to exploit not just how we look, but also how we sound, which brings us to a whole new territory. That of sonic branding. There is nothing new here, look at how Intel and Apple have created unique sounds that are so readily identifiable with these iconic brands (click the logo).

But so many brands are blissfully ignorant of the possibilities, moreso given the fact we now typically interact with brands in places where sound is an obvious output. A newspaper ad couldn’t make a noise but an I-pad app certainly can. Sound can pervade the senses of an audience not even looking at your brand. So why does it figure in so few brand manager’s briefs?

Aural stimulation is immensely powerful and emotionally engaging but is typically considered more intrusive than other forms of sensory interaction. How often do we hit the mute button on a website that just starts to blast some noise at you without a second thought? So yes, the annoyance threshold is potentially reached sometime before a tired logo can have the same effect. But for me, this is down to a lack of sophistication in approach and a poor understanding of the audience. And usually because it’s not brand-led.

Obviously when we are talking about a sonic brand, we mean much more than a simple ad jingle or even on-hold telephone message marketing. These may very well be actual applications but the sonic brand should help articulate and define these outputs. The alternative is silence…is this what we want in 2010? It’s certainly something we are considering here at Studio North as we are currently paying attention to our own brand ahead of 2011 planning.

I just think that there is much for brand managers and our ilk to learn here. How can we create an appropriate yet subtle sonic brand that complements the visual main course. Much like developing colour palettes and image libraries can we develop sounds that reflect the brand’s values.

Our prediction is that, though to date, only very recognisable and premium type brands have paid much attention to their sonic brand, the mass market will follow very soon, leaving no stone unturned in an attempt to brand build and find that point of difference.

Tags: intel, noise, sonic branding

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 10th, 2010 at 12:02 PM and is filed under Opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.