Re-branding: Narrowing The Focus
August 25, 2004 | 
24 Comments
Summary: I’m studying all about branding and in the process I’m going to re-brand Asterisk. This post talks about what I’ve been doing and where I plan to go with it.
I’ve been interested in online branding for awhile and over the last year or so I’ve played around with trying to establish Asterisk as a legitimate, if personal, brand. My experience with branding up to this point has been from a purely tactical standpoint and I’ve got a real desire to understand the strategic part of branding.
It’s a learning process with no real goal except to further my knowledge and experience with online branding. I’ve come to learn that branding is largely about competition (war?) and becoming “the best” in a particular brand category. This is decidedly not something I’m looking to do. After all, I’m not really selling anything and this site isn’t a business. I just want to try my hand at building a solid personal brand and gain some valuable experience I can pass on to my customers who are selling something.
I might be setting myself up to fail, but, what the hell?
Tactically I’ve tried to do establish the “Asterisk brand” with design, content, style and tone. I’ve got no clue how successful I’ve been, and at this point that’s not important. I’ve learned quite a bit about my site, my audience and myself along the way.
It’s been educational, but I want to know more.
Why re-brand at all?
I came to the realization that I needed to re-brand Asterisk with something a bit more original, and something a bit more “me.” After all Asterisk is the personal site and blog of an individual.
My only goals in this are to learn some (lots) more about branding and refresh Asterisk’s brand to something a bit more original and reflective of what I’m all about and what I want this site to be.
I’ve done a lot of studying, a lot of research and a lot of planning, and I’m ready to get going. I plan to share with y’all what I’ve learned and what I’ve done. So let’s get started with my first step — narrowing the focus.
Branding: More than just a logo
I’ve defined and redefined what Asterisk is all about many times. When I first started thinking about how to brand Asterisk, I was thinking about it in a very tactical manner. I knew I needed a logo, a nice typeface, etc. I already had a signature background, a good name and some good building blocks, I just needed a better design.
So I redesigned. But I’ve since learned there is much more to a great brand then design elements and a logo. The good news is I’ve got a nice foundation and I’ve got lots to work with.
Defining the focus
Through it all I’ve never been able to pin down what Asterisk is all about. I’ve changed the focus, added to it and blurred it beyond all recognition quite a few times. I decided the first thing I needed to do for this re-branding exercise was to solidly define (and probably narrow a bit) the primary focus of this site.
This is something I put lots and lots of thought into. I asked myself what I was good at and what Asterisk was good at. I thought about why people read my site, commented and sent me e-mail. I asked myself what my passion was.
The answer was design, with a primary focus on the Web.
The answer was Web design.
I’ve often thought about where I want to go professionally and how I want to use my site to further my professional goals. I’ve held many job titles and I’m sure I’ll hold many more, but just about all of those titles could fall within the realm of “Web designer.” So that is where my focus, and the focus of Asterisk, will lie. It just fits. Type “Web design blog” into Google and you’ll see what I mean.
I took a detour, thinking Web design was to generic, too broad and too dull. I’ve since realized that was kind of silly and now it’s time to bring the focus back.
Does that mean I’m not going to talk about information architecture, blogging, online branding, usability, interface design, music, books or movies? No. Many of those topics live right alongside “Web design” and I would still consider them relevant. Either directly or as sources of design inspiration.
One focus, many offerings
As well, while I’m narrowing the focus as far as the brand is concerned, that doesn’t mean I’m going to limit my “offerings” to Web design. Look at Starbucks. They’ve got a very successful brand. Their focus is coffee.
Sure, most people go to Starbucks to get coffee, but you can also buy coffee accessories, food, music, reading materials and more. Coffee is the focus yet there is more to Starbucks than coffee. So it is with Asterisk.
I want my readers to think of Asterisk as primarily a Web design focused site, but to know that there is more to be had here.
In order to do this, and maintain the focus as well, I plan on trying to stick to a publishing schedule a bit more strictly. I already do this a bit, but I really want to try and move the non-Web design stuff to specific days. I’m still working that out, but I will share it with you as soon as I’ve nailed it down.
I also don’t plan to lose site of the fact that this is a personal site as well as professional. In fact, that personal aspect is key to my re-branding and something I’ll be talking about in forthcoming posts about Asterisk’s re-branding.
More to come
So, I’ve started this re-branding exercise and it should be a fun one. I plan on being as transparent as I have time to be and my hope is that y’all can learn, and help me learn, quite a bit along the way.
To get things started, I thought I’d give those who made it this far a little sneak peak at what I’m doing visually. It’s pretty far along conceptually (not that I’m changing much—it’s not a redesign), and some of my design and color choices will be explained later, but for now feel free to let me know what your initial reaction is.
Filed under: Marketing and Branding
Comments
1. Seth Thomas Rasmussen said:
It sounds like you’re aiming for the type of branding I can actually respect, and it’s refreshing to see that.
Much of branding indeed is about competition, as you cited. It’s also based on a very narrow, linear perspective like much of business in general.
What annoys me most though is that for most, branding is about convincing people of something that is irrelevant to the product or service being branded, or about dishonestly embelishing said product or service. I just saw an ad for lipstick the other nite: Celebrity spokesmodel, plethora of over-the-top, bullshit phrases implying things like “having it all” with this lipstick.
I know a lot of that is innocent enough in theory, but it’s not in practice. It’s a competition, again, and often competition breeds predation, and that’s what I see in a lot of branding and advertising: how can we prey upon misconceptions, assumptions, and even blatant fabrications all in the name of MORE, LARGER, and other such byproducts of such a narrow, linear approach.
Again, I’m on board with approaches like yours that seem concerned merely with solidifying an identity for something concrete: who you are and what you provide for content on this site. You don’t tell people they’ll be top web designers for reading your site, or that they’ll get hot women that want to drink swill like Mike’s Hard Lemonade with them.
Don’t let me down… ;)
Posted on August 25, 2004 10:40 AM | #
2. Mike P. said:
Hey Keith, I like the new colors and the funky ‘A’. I find that those colors compliment each other a bit better than the current ones.
I’m not sure about dropping the asterisk, however (in the header). For me that has been a unique and recognizable symbol from as long as I can remember visiting this site. Perhaps you are dropping that and adding the long-tailed A as a replacement?
Posted on August 25, 2004 10:40 AM | #
3. Britt said:
Hey Keith,
As part of your rebranding, have you thought about a new URL? When I first came across your site a great many moons ago, I remembered the name, but having not bookmarked it, couldn’t remember the URL. I know asterisk.com is taken, so what would you do to highlight the brand name but have a better URL?
Posted on August 25, 2004 10:52 AM | #
4. Keith said:
S.T.R. – I’ll try not to, and yeah, the competition part of branding isn’t really relevant to what I’m trying to do. You pretty much get the gist of what I’m trying to do here, just help define and focus the Asterisk identity and brand.
Mike – I dropped the “asterisk” (the star thing) because it wasn’t “mine”, it’s part of a stock font set. I really wanted to come up with a bug of my own, even if it’s not as strong. I realize that people might associate me with the current one, but it’s just not original. Someone else created it and I really want to make my brand my own.
Posted on August 25, 2004 10:55 AM | #
5. Keith said:
Britt – dkeithrobinson.com is my new url. Part of me wishes I didn’t change it (for mainly technical reasons) but 7nights.com doesn’t really mean anything. Again, it’s about making my brand my own, you know?
Posted on August 25, 2004 10:56 AM | #
6. Derek Featherstone said:
I’ll agree with Mike P. on the colour choice.
However, my favourite change might seem subtle, but I think it is best representative of what you are trying to do, and perhaps it is the most important.
Changing your “tagline” from “Pretentious Tagline Goes Here” to “Real World Web Design Talk” nails it for me. While the current version is a bit tongue in cheek, the new version is very clear and gives that focus you are aiming for. Nice.
Posted on August 25, 2004 10:56 AM | #
7. Mike P. said:
Missed that, nice catch Derek. I like it too. Hard sounding. I hear in my head in a Jim Rome kinda tone…
Posted on August 25, 2004 11:05 AM | #
8. Britt said:
Do you feel it is not worth it, brand-wise, to have a unigue URL for Asterisk rather than using your name?
Do people ever ask you for a “complete ready-to-fit knee protection system?”
Posted on August 25, 2004 11:12 AM | #
9. chuck said:
I read your site everyday and look forward to seeing what the asterisk brand has in store. I think it has a lot of potential.
I’m assuming there’s more to it than what the sneak peak indicates, right? Here’s a couple suggestions that can be either kept or tossed:
1) I know purple and orange are complimentary colors (is that the right term for you color theory experts?), but that shade of lavender and that dark orange don’t really do it for me.
2) I’d love to see more whitespace
3) work the new brand into the details of the site, like the little widgets that separate each entry, the nav scheme and the titles for your sidebar
4)somehow incorporate the word “asterisk” with the new logo
5) lose the tan bg on the sidebar
ok, those are my thoughts … you may already have those on the plate to be worked in, and if so, then you can delete my comment …
I’m intrigued by your quest for more branding knowledge and look forward to hearing more about it! I agree with your comment about content helping define your brand. You’ve definitely got that covered.
Keep it up. /cm
Posted on August 25, 2004 11:19 AM | #
10. Britt said:
Keith: the reason I keep harping on the URL is that many times, when a client has a product that is already named, they want a URL that reflects the brand. Most times, the URL is taken. My questioning is getting at how do you use the brand to work out a domain name that is easy to remember and adds to the name?
For example, if you were using asterisk as part of your URL, what would you add to it since you cannot use the brand name alone? Asterisk-web.com?
Posted on August 25, 2004 11:24 AM | #
11. nick said:
web branding is a tricky beast.
in the non-internet world, you have a logo/typography that define you/your business (at least this has been the general trend for a long time - perhaps the brick & mortar world is also turning…)
online, it’s not just a logo, but usually more importantly, a look. Something people are used to and relate to the product/content that’s within the look & feel of the site.
hicksdesign is talking about a rework of his site. he’s been met with passionate ‘love’ for the leaves he uses as part of his design. it’s his look, and people know/love it.
I think a logo is less likely to change, while a look/feel, or branding is more likely to be the frequent target of our creative outlet.
while it’s fun to redo everything (maybe that’s just me being a sadist), it can throw the casual viewer/visitor off.
my thought (as I commented on hicksdesign) is if you’re going to drastically change your branding/look & feel, then you should at least keep an archive of the site design that’s viewable through some part of the website.
We archive our posts, why not our markup as well?
ok, so maybe I’ve confused myself at this point…I swear I had a good idea/point in mind when I started typing this!
Posted on August 25, 2004 12:08 PM | #
12. Keith said:
Chuck – thanks for the comments. You’re right, I’m far from done, but don’t expect any huge changes. A few quick responses:
The colors are set. I’m sure some people won’t like them, but, hey, they work for me. I call the scheme “sunset” and it’s based of a photo. I spent quite a bit of time coming up with something I like and felt was unique and original.
Part of the reason for the new colors is to add some semblance of differentiation between me and my colleagues.
A do plan on working in many more details, such as getting rid of the tan background, replacing the icons and such.
I don’t plan on working the word Asterisk into the logo. It’s not really a “logo” in my mind anyway, just a signature “bug” – I thought about doing a whole logo/type face, but I figured I’d rather just re-set the type, create a new bug and leave well enough alone.
One thing I’ve learned about branding is that simple is usually better.
Britt – I’m not changing the URL again. It’s risky to do so and frankly I couldn’t find anything that worked well. If I could have got “asterisk.com” I’d have done it, but I don’t want some hyphenated mess.
To be honest I don’t think this has a significant impact on the brand, but I could be wrong.
Posted on August 25, 2004 12:13 PM | #
13. Keith said:
nick – I agree with you, that is why I’m not doing a total redesign. Hopefully the changes won’t be too different. I’m not really changing the “form” at all, just the details and visual representation. More like a new, re-branded skin.
I also plan on keeping this old stylesheet around…. ;)
Posted on August 25, 2004 12:16 PM | #
14. chuck said:
cool. If you’re ok with the colors, then that’s whats important … its your site, right? I do like the idea of trying to do something different than all rest out there… I respect that.
I think I see the photo you used to base your color scheme … good idea.
I agree - simple is best.
Posted on August 25, 2004 01:32 PM | #
15. Geoffrey said:
FYI: Marty Neumeier’s book “The Brand Gap” is a great resource for, as he calls it, the 30,000 foot overview of what branding is all about. One of the great points he brings up is that a brand is a person’s gut feeling about a product, service, or company. It’s not what YOU say it is. It’s what THEY say it is. Another great way to begin building your brand is to ask yourself three questions: 1.WHO ARE YOU? 2. WHAT DO YOU DO? 3. WHY DOES IT MATTER? The first two are easy, the last one gets a little trickier, that’s what your brand is all about.
Anyway, it’s a good book. Short and to the point. Check it out.
Cheers.
Posted on August 25, 2004 06:40 PM | #
16. Keith said:
Geoff – “The Brand Gap” is next on my list. Mike P. actually sent me a PDF presentation based on the book. Seems like a good resource.
Reading “The 22 Immutable Laws of Branding” right now. It’s pretty good, short, covers the basics…
As to the 3 questions:
1. I’m a designer.
2. I design. (Mostly Web sites and interfaces.)
3. Because design matters.
Posted on August 25, 2004 06:47 PM | #
17. s t e f said:
OK, here’s my branding problem of the moment, let’s see what you lot think about it.
As you may have already seen, I’ve signed all my online contributions, either blog posts, comments, emails, etc, with s t e f, and some people are kind enough to recognise me with it only.
Now as I’m getting more and more involved in serious matters (open-source projects, evolt.org content management group, etc), I’m tempted to reuse my real name, Stéphane Deschamps, as a proof of seriousness, mainly.
(ironically enough, as a side note: my web site comes first in google.fr when you search for my name, although no page on it features my real name, funny, eh?)
The problem is that it’s a very common name in France, a John Doe-ism, so to speak. There is a well-known music journalist who wrote books and who goes by this name, not to mention scientists, etc. You want them you name them, more on google every day.
What do you think I should do? Create a new signature entirely (a “nom-de-plume”), keep using a name that is not even indexable in search engines (which is the other reason why I’d like to find something better than four spaced letters), etc.
I would be interested if y’all would share your thoughts about it.
Posted on August 27, 2004 02:48 AM | #
18. Matthew Pennell said:
Ooh, tough question, stef/Stephane. :)
One thing to bear in mind is the sphere of influence in which you work/will be working. While there may well be hundreds of Stephane Deschamps in France and elsewhere, how many of them are likely to be commenting on web standards/design blogs or working on those other projects you mention?
Within the standards-blogosphere, I can only remember one instance of name-clashes, where a regular commenter self-identified as “The Other Dave S”. There are also two Mikes around, but a simple “Mike D” or “Mike P” is enough to help the rest of us know who is being referenced.
If though, as you allude to, you are after high search results for people Googling your internet ‘call-sign’, how about initials (got a middle one? SJD?) I think though that you under-estimate the power that a standards-based design and strong content (and therefore incoming links) will have on your search rankings, even if you do have a common name - look at people like Andrei and Zeldman, who place high on searches for just their first name!
Posted on August 27, 2004 05:49 AM | #
19. s t e f said:
Food for thought, Matthew, food for thought :)
Actually I’m not really after good google ranking (although, in a way, aren’t we all?), but really after unique recognition.
Once I was threatened on the phone because people had mistaken me for the music journalist, imagine that!
The trouble is that in FRance we don’t use middle names.
Mmmh. I’m more and more towards “Stéphane Deschamps (nota-bene.org)”, but it seems a bit too much full of vanity for my taste, though. Don’t you think so?
It’s a real puzzle, isn’t it ;)
Posted on August 27, 2004 07:15 AM | #
20. Anderkoo said:
I follow you mostly via RSS, so a lot of your “branding” work goes under the text bridge, so to speak. I just had one comment: Starbuck’s core brand really isn’t coffee, it’s a “lifestyle” that happens to involve coffee, and that’s why they’ve been able to branch out beyond their original core product. It’s about the-kind-of-people-who-go-to-Starbucks. (That yuppie couple w/ Parker Posie in Best in Show pretty much nailed the Starbucks brand when describing how they “read catalogs”). Er… not sure how that is responsive to your general point, tho, more a footnote.
Posted on August 27, 2004 03:44 PM | #
21. Stephane Deschamps (nota-bene.org) said:
Hi again, people.
I’ve thought a lot about re-branding my name, and here is the first weblog on which I’m using my new one (the ‘s t e f’ thing lasted something like five years, so it’s quite historical, mind you).
Just in case anyone’s interested, I’ve tried to sum up the thought process on Nickame or not? A recurrent question.
Thanks Keith for waking me up on the question, and Matthew for “narrowing the focus” (heh) and making the question easier to deal with.
Posted on August 28, 2004 11:32 AM | #
22. Keith said:
Anderkoo – The visual elements are just a part of my over all branding. As Nick said, branding online is tricky and different. What I want to do is use my content to help focus my branding, and you’d get that.
Don’t worry I think quite a bit about RSS. It’s one of the reasons I offer full posts as well as summaries. I want to give folks a choice.
My conversational style, the fact that I allow and respond to comments…things like that are just as important than my logo and colors. I really want to do the best I can in many areas.
As far as the Starbucks bit, you’re right. I guess when I said their focus was Coffee I should have said their main product was coffee. As well, keep in mind I’m still learning this stuff. But I do get that Starbucks really is selling the brand itself (or lifestyle) more than they are the actual product of Coffee or whatnot.
It’s all very interesting…thanks for the comment.
Posted on August 30, 2004 11:06 PM | #
23. Phoat said:
In my opinion, branding for your purposes is not neccessary. People come here to read what YOU write about. We are loyal to you, D.Keith Robinson, not Asterisk. You dont even need your own website really. You could write articles and your thoughts on various different websites and we’d still follow along.
You are your own brand, don’t forget that.
Posted on August 31, 2004 02:44 PM | #
24. Keith said:
Phoat – I see your point, but part of this is about branding “me” and using “Asterisk” to do it. As far as not needing my own Web site, yeah, but I like to be able to do and say what I want, when I want, you know?
Thanks for the kind words and feedback!
Posted on August 31, 2004 03:25 PM | #
Comments are now closed