The 3 Branding Mistakes That Blur Your Image

A strong brand is not built by addition but by subtraction. Yet, most companies accumulate : they add targets, multiply messages, pile up visual media. The result ? A diluted identity, impossible to remember.

Research in cognitive psychology is clear : human memory works through patterns and distinctive associations (Kahneman, "Thinking, Fast and Slow", 2011). A vague brand creates no memorable pattern. It passes through the mind without leaving a trace.

Three structural mistakes explain why some brands remain invisible despite substantial budgets. These mistakes don't stem from design or communication, but from fundamental strategic decisions. They are reversible, provided they are clearly identified.

The trap of the broad target

A design agency announces it supports "all companies, from startups to large groups, on all types of creative projects". A strategy consultant addresses "SMEs and mid-sized companies that want to optimize their performance". These formulations sound reasonable. They are, however, toxic.

Marketing positioning relies on a counter-intuitive but documented principle : specificity increases attractiveness. Byron Sharp, director of the Ehrenberg-Bass Institute, analyzed decades of consumption data in "How Brands Grow" (2010). His conclusion : memorable brands are those that occupy a precise mental territory, even if narrow. Brand recognition is built on distinctive associations, not diffuse presence.

Al Ries and Jack Trout formalized this principle as early as 1981 in "Positioning : The Battle for Your Mind". Their research demonstrates that the human mind categorizes and hierarchizes. Faced with a specific need, it immediately summons 2 to 3 brands maximum. If your positioning is vague, you never enter this mental short list.

How to build operational positioning

A target defined by behavioral criteria, not demographics. Bad example : "companies with 10 to 50 employees". Good example : "technical founders managing their first sales team and discovering they hate selling". The first describes a statistical category. The second describes a lived problem.

A verifiable and specific promise. Basecamp, the project management tool, doesn't promise to "facilitate collaboration" (generic promise). Their positioning : "We don't do daily stand-ups, all-hands meetings, or regular performance reviews. No committees. No time tracking software" (basecamp.com/about). It's a promise by negation, testable and distinctive.

An authentic differentiator, meaning anchored in the company's very structure. Costco cannot promise "the lowest prices" while distributing generous dividends to its shareholders. Their operating margin capped at 14% (versus 24% for Walmart) makes their promise credible and verifiable (Costco annual report 2024).

Clarification exercise

Test your current positioning : show your homepage to someone unfamiliar with your sector. Give them 30 seconds. Then ask : "What does this company do ? For whom ? What differentiates it ?"

If the person hesitates or gives a vague answer, the positioning needs reworking. Kevin Lane Keller (Strategic Brand Management, Pearson 2020) calls this the "brand awareness test" : the ability to spontaneously bring the brand to mind when faced with a specific need.

Contradictory signals that destroy trust

An innovation consulting firm uses classic serif typography on its site, colorful flat design icons on LinkedIn, and 2000s-era corporate photos in its presentations. Each choice is defensible in isolation. Together they create cognitive dissonance.

Brand semiotics, the study of signs and their interpretation, explains why this inconsistency is problematic. Roland Barthes demonstrated in "Mythologies" (1957) that consumers read cultural signs unconsciously but systematically. A serif font evokes tradition and seriousness. Flat design signals modernity and accessibility. Dated corporate photos suggest stagnation. These three messages contradict each other.

Jennifer Aaker's (Stanford) work on brand personality shows that a consistent brand activates the same brain areas as a reliable person ("Dimensions of Brand Personality", Journal of Marketing Research, 1997). Inconsistency triggers the same warning signals as someone whose behavior is unpredictable.

Critical dimensions of consistency

Chromatic consistency. Colors convey precise cultural meanings. Coca-Cola red (Pantone 484C) has remained identical since 1886. A shade variation, even slight, modifies emotional perception. Neuromarketing studies show that the brain processes colors before language (0.13 seconds vs 0.25 seconds, according to Color Research & Application journal research).

Typographic consistency. A brand that mixes too many different typefaces signals amateurism. Google's typographic system has exclusively used Roboto and Google Sans since 2015, declined in 18 weights. This discipline creates immediate recognition across 150+ products.

Tonal consistency. Mailchimp publicly documented its "Content Style Guide". Main rule : "Sound like a human being." Their tone remains constant : friendly, slightly humorous, never condescending. On the site, automated emails, customer support, social media. This tonal consistency builds a relationship perceived as "personal" at scale.

Photographic consistency. Airbnb only uses photos taken by their community, with specific guidelines : natural light, authentic human presence, no excessive staging. This constraint creates an instantly recognizable style (Airbnb Design System, publicly accessible).

Narrative consistency. The stories the brand tells must share a common structure. Patagonia structures all its content around "environmental problem → concrete solution → call to action". This repeated formula creates a narrative signature as distinctive as a logo.

Build a system, not a charter

Classic graphic charters fail because they are static documents. Modern design systems are living tools.

Google's Material Design (material.io) doesn't say "here's our blue". It says : "here's how our blue behaves in 47 different contexts, with automatic adaptation rules based on contrast, accessibility, and medium". It's a generative system, not a collection of examples.

The cost of strategic mimicry

Law firms all use navy blue, serif fonts, building photos, and the word "excellence". Organic cosmetics brands all opt for kraft paper, sage green, natural textures, and the vocabulary of "purity". This visual conformism is not random : it's a legitimation strategy.

Michael Porter identified this phenomenon in "Competitive Strategy" (1980) under the term "strategic groups" : companies in the same sector adopt conventions to signal their group membership. It's reassuring. It's also a guarantee of invisibility.

Theodore Levitt, in his foundational article "Marketing Myopia" (Harvard Business Review, 1960), explains that companies that define their market by their sector rather than by the needs they satisfy end up disappearing. American railroads thought they were in the rail business. They were in the transportation business. They missed aviation.

Measurable benefits of differentiation

Differentiation is not a creative whim. It's an economic decision.

A Bain & Company study on 30 years of data (2019) shows that brands perceived as "different" capture 80% of their category's profits, even with lower market shares. Differentiation allows charging a premium : Apple sells 14% of smartphones but captures 87% of the sector's profits (Counterpoint Research, Q3 2024).

The underlying psychological principle is called "the Von Restorff effect" : an element that differs from others in a set is better remembered. Hermann von Restorff demonstrated this in 1933. Contemporary neuroscience has confirmed : the brain allocates more attentional resources to stimuli that violate expectations (Unexpected Uncertainty as a Survival Advantage, Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 2013).

How to identify codes to break

Sector semiotic inventory. Analyze 30 brands in the sector. Systematically categorize : dominant color palettes, recurring typefaces, photographic choices (portrait vs product vs abstract), narrative structures, repeated keywords. You get a map of conventions. Each convention is a differentiation opportunity.

Analysis of unmet expectations. Sector conventions often reveal what the sector doesn't say. If all banks show images of security and stability, it's because they think that's what customers want. But maybe some customers want transparency and honesty about fees ? Revolut built its positioning on this non-convention.

The opposites test. For each conventional choice, test the inverse hypothesis. The luxury sector relies on scarcity ? What would happen by betting on accessibility (Sézane's strategy) ? Web agencies promise speed ? What if we promised thoughtful slowness (positioning of certain high-end design agencies) ?

Risks to anticipate

Ensure functional clarity first. A bank can differentiate aesthetically, but its interface must remain immediately understandable. Differentiation should never compromise usability. Don Norman, in "The Design of Everyday Things" (2013), insists : UX/UI conventions exist for good cognitive reasons.

Validate perceived consistency. Differentiation must be perceived as authentic, not artificial. When Pepsi changed its logo in 2008 with a 27-page strategy document explaining "gravitational" proportions, the public perceived bullshit. Differentiation must stem from something true in the organization.

Maintain over time. Differentiation only has value when repeated. Oatly maintained its irreverent tone for 20 years before becoming a global phenomenon. A one-off differentiating campaign then a return to conventions cancels the effect.

These three mistakes, vague positioning, inconsistency, and conformism, share a common root : they privilege short-term comfort over long-term building.

Saying we address everyone avoids difficult discussions about who we exclude. Letting each department create its own materials avoids imposing constraints. Following sector codes avoids the risk of being wrong.

But building a strong brand demands exactly the opposite : accepting to exclude to better serve some, imposing discipline to create consistency, taking the risk of difference to truly exist.

Brands that last have all made these difficult choices. They preferred to be loved by few than tolerated by many.

Brand clarity is not an aesthetic exercise. It's a measurable economic asset that reduces acquisition costs (qualified customers recognize themselves), increases retention (clear identity creates attachment), and allows charging a premium (differentiation justifies a higher price).

Start with just one of the three mistakes. Fix it completely. Then move to the next. Brand transformation doesn't happen by redesigning a logo. It happens by clarifying what you really stand for.