Today I want to address a very personal topic that has significantly shaped my design career. Time and again, I have asked myself how guidelines can function effectively, how people can interact successfully with brands, and how brands can have a more tangible impact. This is not just about clear results like hard selling and a focus on capital, but also issues like exploitation and market saturation.

I am particularly interested in how brands can inspire companies to act in the best interest of our planet, yet also in their self-interest. How can brands contribute to creating meaningful initiatives, establishing a dialogue, and ideally also bringing joy?

This brings me to the theory that we as designers carry a significant responsibility. In recent weeks, I have engaged in a dialogue, specifically with artificial intelligence. I would like to share the results of this collaborative reflection on my work process and thoughts with you in this essay.

But what exactly is this about?

In today’s capitalist environment, many creatives tend to rely on proven methods and stay in their comfort zone. However, methodical branding and design are much more diverse.

In this article, we will explore the significance of bold and disruptive design approaches for more responsible design in the context of capitalism and consumerism, relying on psychological and sociological theories to support our argument.

In today's capitalist era, method and creativity are often the keys to new approaches. Yet, many brands and creatives responsible for branding seem trapped in a comfortable safety zone. They follow standardized methods and mainly create brands using traditional elements like logos, colors, and fonts. However, methodical branding requires more than that. It requires courage to leave the usual path and explore new ways.

Psychologist Abraham Maslow coined the term "self-actualization" to describe how people reach their full potential. Courageous branding can be seen as an act of self-actualization, where creatives surpass their own limits, helping to create brands that are not only commercially successful but also hold deep social and ecological responsibility.

Methodical and disruptive branding encourages pursuing unconventional paths and challenging the status quo. It means deliberately swimming against the tide to explore new horizons and expand the boundaries of what's possible. In a world where markets are continually evolving and consumers are becoming more discerning, courage is a valuable asset for creatives and brands.

Austrian social psychologist Erich Fromm argued that the pursuit of individual freedom and authenticity is an essential part of the human being. Courageous, methodical branding allows brands to emphasize their authenticity and set themselves apart from the crowd. By escaping conventional norms, they can create a unique identity and resist social influences.

This kind of methodical design also opens the opportunity to break free from rigid rules and enjoy creative freedom. Creatives can boldly explore new derivations and approaches without being constrained by traditional expectations. This freedom fosters fundamental creativity, can shape work practices in our community, and encourages the creation of brands that are not only successful but also bear deep social and ecological responsibility.

The psychology of design plays a crucial role in bold branding. It's about how visual elements, messages, and emotions influence the perception and response of the target audience. Bold design decisions can help create a strong emotional connection between the brand and its customers, leading to higher customer loyalty and a greater willingness to identify with the brand.

In the next section, we will examine more closely why limiting branding to logos, colors, and fonts can dilute the brand and how methodical design overcomes these boundaries.

A narrow perspective in the development of brands consists of focusing solely on visual elements such as logos, colors, fonts, and possibly icons. This often leads to superficial brands that may be visually appealing but offer little substance or potential for identification.

To understand this phenomenon, we can turn to the Social Identity Theory, developed by social psychologists Tajfel and Turner. It suggests that people tend to identify with groups that share similar characteristics or values. When we apply this theory to branding, it becomes clear that more is needed to establish a deeper identification between a brand and its target audience.

Holistic branding assumes that a brand is more than just a visual appearance. It embodies values, visions, and stories and provides a psychological space where the target audience can identify with the brand.

A classic example of this is the brand Patagonia, which is marked not just by its logo and colors, but also by a clear message of environmental protection and sustainability. Those who wear Patagonia do so not just because of the design but because they identify with the brand's values and want to contribute to the environment.

Holistic branding goes beyond visual elements and urges creatives to create a comprehensive brand identity based on strong values and messages. It encourages viewing a brand as a narrative that goes beyond the visual, striving to establish a strong emotional connection with the brand by telling stories that speak to and touch the target audience.

Design is a powerful tool to convey these stories and create a visual language that reinforces the brand’s message. It should not be considered the sole means, however, but as part of a broader approach based on the principles of Social Identity Theory aimed at establishing a deeper connection between the brand and diverse target audience segments.

In the next section, we will delve deeper into the Cognitive Dissonance Theory and explore how disruptive branding attracts attention by deviating from expectations.

The theory of cognitive dissonance, developed by Leon Festinger, describes the internal conflict people experience when their beliefs or expectations do not align with their actions or reality. This conflict creates discomfort and motivates people to seek coherent information to resolve the imbalance.

In the context of branding, the Cognitive Dissonance Theory can help understand why disruptive and bold methods in branding that deviate from expected norms attract attention. When a brand decides to go against the flow and not limit itself to established visual elements, it can trigger a conflict in the minds of the target audience. People might wonder why the brand is different and what sets it apart from others.

This conflict leads people to actively think about and engage more deeply with the brand. They seek information and stories that can resolve the apparent contradiction. Bold branding offers the opportunity to actively use this process of cognitive dissonance. A kind of "theater piece" can be staged, generating a narrative arc in various "acts" and setting milestones in the brand journey.

This type of methodical disruption in branding harnesses human curiosity and the drive for consistency, prompting people to engage more intensely with the brand. It challenges the target audience to ask questions and seek answers, ultimately leading to a deeper connection with the brand.

In the next section, we will explore how bold branding counters social influences and creates a unique brand personality.

In a world where social norms and conventions often dictate the course brands take, bold and disruptive design methods can help break this flow. But how exactly does this impact branding?

The Power of Social Influence

• Social psychological theories such as Solomon Asch's conformity theory or Muzafer Sherif's information social influence theory illustrate how strongly people are influenced by others in their decisions and preferences.

Conventional Branding and Its Consequences

• Social influence can lead brands to conform to already established conventions, resulting in structurally similar brands that fade into the background.

The Power of Disruptive Branding

• Methodical disruptive branding encourages brands to swim against the social tide and create a unique brand personality. It aims to capture the target audience's attention by deliberately deviating from expectations and norms.

An Example of Bold Branding

• The brand "Ben & Jerry's" focused on social and political activism instead of relying on conventional advertising methods. This unconventional approach led to an engaged following that identified with the brand's values.

A Message for Change

• Disruptive branding opens the possibility of creating a strong social connection by appealing to people who share similar values and beliefs. It strengthens individual self-confidence and identification with the brand, turning it into an ambassador for change and transformation.

In the next section, we will explore how this type of method can become part of the individual self-concept and why people identify with bold brands.

Branding as Part of the Self-Concept: Why People Identify with Bold Brands

Theories on self-concept developed by psychologists like George Herbert Mead and Russell W. Belk suggest that an individual's self-concept consists of the ideas and beliefs they hold about themselves. This self-concept can be shaped by belonging to certain groups and through consumer choices.

Bold branding provides the opportunity for a brand to become an integral part of the individual's self-concept. When people identify with a brand, they integrate it into their personal identity. This process is often unconsciously triggered when people form strong emotional connections to a brand.

An example of this is (as often proclaimed) the brand Apple. Even though Apple's image and product quality are now more scrutinized, it has succeeded in garnering a loyal following that feels like part of a community, not just customers. People who identify with Apple products see the brand as part of their self-concept. They consider themselves "Apple users" and highlight their preferences and beliefs to show their identification with the brand. When we think of the early days of Apple’s great design era, we see truly bold design decisions that no one believed in at first. Example: UI/UX then showing no buttons with iOS 7, but only letting users tap on text.

Bold branding can reinforce this identification by conveying powerful messages and values that resonate with the target audience. When a brand takes a clear stance on issues like environmental protection, social justice, or innovation, users who share similar values can become more closely tied to the brand.

Identifying with a brand then goes beyond mere product choice. It is an emotional bond that motivates consumers to actively support the brand and feel part of its community. This bond can lead to strong customer loyalty and increase the willingness to advocate for the brand. It encourages brands to tell stories and convey values that touch and inspire people. In this way, a brand can become an integral part of the individual self-concept, eliciting deep identification in the target group.

In the next section, we will look at the conclusion of the article and highlight the importance of bold steps for a responsible future.

Conclusion: Bold Steps for a Responsible Future

In a world of consumerism and capitalism, where brands play a central role, bold branding stands at the forefront of a responsible and future-oriented design philosophy. Bold branding encourages brands and creatives to go beyond traditional boundaries, explore innovative paths, and take responsibility towards society, the environment, and consumers.

In this article, we highlighted the significance of bold design methods for branding, drawing on psychological and sociological theories to support the argument. We have seen how bold branding can foster innovation by encouraging creatives to expand creative boundaries and explore innovative paths.

We also discussed why limiting branding to visual elements like logos and colors is not enough. Brands need to create a comprehensive identity based on strong values and messages to achieve deeper identification with the target group.

The Cognitive Dissonance Theory showed us how bold branding can capture attention by deviating from expected norms, triggering an internal conflict in the minds of the target audience. This conflict leads people to engage more deeply with the brand and seek information.

We also examined how bold branding can counter social influences by encouraging brands to swim against the social tide and create a unique brand personality. Bold branding opens the possibility of creating strong social connections by appealing to people who share similar values and beliefs.

Finally, we found that bold branding can help make a brand an integral part of the individual self-concept. Identification with a brand goes beyond mere product choice, leading to a strong emotional bond between people and brands.

In an era where capitalism is often criticized for its wasteful nature and negative impacts on the environment and society, bold branding is a way to bring about positive change. It encourages brands and creatives to take responsibility and blaze innovative pathways for a more sustainable and socially compatible future.

The world of branding and design is evolving. Bold branding is the key to a more responsible and proactive future design. It opens the possibility not only of marketing products and services but also ideas, values, and visions. It encourages brands to take a clear stand and advocate for the issues that matter to them.

The path may be challenging, but it is worth it. Bold branding not only inspires creatives but also motivates consumers to make more conscious choices and support brands that drive positive change. It is time to take bold steps and make branding a driving force for responsibility and innovation.

In this spirit, we invite all creatives and brands to join this discourse and use bold design methods to shape a responsible and proactive future in capitalism and consumerism.

• Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from Freedom. Farrar & Rinehart.
• Maslow, A. H. (1943). A Theory of Human Motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.
• Sherif, M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. Harper.
• Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, 33(47), 74-90.
• Belk, R. W. (1988). Possessions and the Extended Self. Journal of Consumer Research, 15(2), 139-168.
• Aaker, D. A. (1997). Dimensions of brand personality. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(3), 347-356.
• Kotler, P., Kartajaya, H., & Setiawan, I. (2010). Marketing 3.0: From Products to Customers to the Human Spirit. Wiley.
• Fournier, S. (1998). Consumers and Their Brands: Developing Relationship Theory in Consumer Research. Journal of Consumer Research, 24(4), 343-373.
• Keller, K. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, Measuring, and Managing Customer-Based Brand Equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1-22.
• Solomon, M. R., Bamossy, G., Askegaard, S., & Hogg, M. K. (2016). Consumer Behaviour: European Perspective. Pearson.