For years, something has really bugged me about the whole Google brand. And for years I have been unable to put my finger on what it was that was bugging me...
And then, last night, it came to me... Where are all the pictures, the photos?!
There simply aren't any that come from them as part of their brand delivery mechanism. And whilst I am happy to be corrected, they appear to be the only globally successful organisation that do not appear to use photography as part of their brand enforcement strategy. And perhaps the only globally successful company that doesn't make anything physical, at all This has turned from something that was merely bugging me into something more academic. Particularly as I make a living out of creating photos to help deliver and enforce company brands and identity. I can also see this as an opportunity, the reasons for which I will come to later...
The obvious answer is along the lines that they don't actually make anything that people physically interact with on a day to day basis. But, this isn't true and in fact the total opposite. But, people do interact with it via someone else's physical equipment, so far at least. But can the answer really be that simple or is there something more fundamental and deliberate going on here. Is this actually a conscious part of their strategy?
So, let's start with Apple... As I have discussed in a previous article, if I were to show you a photo of an as yet unseen and unreleased Apple product, it's a pretty safe bet that you would know it was an Apple product, not just from its design but also the manner in which it is presented. Their brand is firmly visually embedded on the publics minds that they can instantly let you know it's an Apple product and part of the whole Apple experience.
The same ironically goes for Microsoft. They do have an exceptionally strong visual brand. It's just so different from the Apple experience that you could be forgiven for not considering a true visual brand, especially when it comes to their use of photography. But, don't forget, that style was created by them and others followed. Much like Apples is now.
The question is, do Apple or Microsoft, or any other creator of non-physical goods use photography heavily to create a style and brand identity for something that is in fact virtual and not physical? I will however take media related software out of the equation as that's just too easy...
What photography could be created or used to be sufficiently powerful and unique enough that it would be a no-brainer in adopting it as part of a businesses brand realisation and enforcement strategy (I know corporate speak, but bare with me here ;-).
Going back to Google... What could you create that would photographically say 'search' or the 'ultimate search'? What photography could you create that would always be associated with Googles spreadsheet applications and email?
So what is this opportunity?
If you can figure out a way to create photographic images in a style that is not only unique, easily identifiable and powerful. But, can also shout spreadsheet, email, search... or any other virtual non-physical application. Then, when and if it can be created, you will have created a whole new niche within our industry and one that is simply going to grow and grow and grow.
I suspect the actual reason that Google does not use photography in association with its brand in any obvious or identifiable way, is not strategic or tactical in any way. It's simply that they can't, because as yet, no one has figured out how to create a photographic style and genre that can be effectively used for something that, for all intense and purposes, doesn't exist, in the physical world at least.
Anyway, thought I'd share that and, I'd love to hear your thoughts too. Am I talking crap, or is there potentially something in this for all of us?
It's so nice to have you do all of the research for us. It makes our decision making so much easier!! Thanks.
Posted by: MBT Sandals | July 16, 2011 at 12:50 PM