Different perspective of Diseases

Comments (0) Wellness

In the office between the various speeches it has happened to ask ourselves the value of the brand when it comes to diseases and there seemed right not avoid discussing with you issues of primary importance although clearly not too pleasant. Theme annoying to be treated from the investment point of view emotional and precisely for this probably needs more attention than others, attention that from the point of view of branding instead are never given.
If somehow, however, you can be useful, even just as comparison, or stimulus to thought, we believe it is worthwhile to throw your heart over the obstacle and make a couple of questions. Ask ourselves a few questions for this article does not want just give, as we usually do, an idea and a clear point on an argument, but rather let’s put some ideas to starting to think about a very important subject: it is d ‘ help the brand in the battle to disease? Yes, no, why? How should be treated brands in the cases of diseases?
The creation of a brand, around a company o enterprise, has several purposes and contrary to what many people think is not only used to charge things more, not less, branding also exists for non-profit organizations that are not looking for money, exist brands of public institutions that are themself subsidized and branding can also things that are neither products nor services, or companies.
But now, to make you understand which one is the point of contention and on which we want together with you put a little ‘light we must start from “how works and why” the brand in the market for profit.
Branding the products is beneficial in the market to make recognizable the products of company, convey the values of the same and to create a brand perception that reflects then also an economic value, value given by all work done to achieve this perception, “all work” understood even what does not directly affects the branding.
The task of those who work in the branding is to make this perception pertaining to the values of the company and easy to remember as much as possible; which in the branding process passes necessarily through the creation of naming and logos effective, that combine content and design, meaning and significant.
That said, let’s to one of the consequences of this work, very useful in the brand-customer relationship and one of the ultimate goals of branding: customer loyalty to the brand through a relationship that becomes of intimate friendship.
Now we wonder: but this friendly relationship, of closeness, which is established between the logo and the person, is a value when it comes to disease or is a defect in the branding process? Make become the logo of a disease very common to the public, makes people most active to make efforts in the battle to disease or causes a slowly habit at the sight of the logo and in that way people are not more attracted from it?
We do not underestimate the destructive power that can have the habit, we know that a disease is always a disease, but unfortunately there are countries where it has become an habit see people die before the forty years e before again.
Habit is a coin with two very different faces and conflicting values. If, for a brand, make become a habit for its public the use of its products and services, is the most that can be asked, if the sight of the brand becomes an habit, viz a symbol that is part of some culture (Barilla for Italy or NBA for the United States) means that the brand has enormous value given by a brand awareness of enormous size and this is an excellent thing.
The flip side though is that this habit does not play a good role when you want to make a sensation, when you want to stir the conscience, when you want to break the routine to draw attention to something that would otherwise goes unnoticed. The disease is certainly one of them. No one wants to think about the sicks routinely, unless the working face.
When a brand tries to enter a saturated market and wants immediately to have good sales results, the first thing it does is to create a brand of rupture, with naming and logo that somehow unhinges the visual routine of that market.
When we treat brands of diseases, what should we do? Is it better create something that does not disturbs too much the sensitivity of the audience to bring them near the problem or is it better create something breaking, that instead disorders the routines and habits so as to draw attention to the problem?
Here’s an example of what is surely the most famous disease: AIDS. Already from the name begins its branding process, because the “long” name of the disease is Aquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome caused by HIV, that is the Human Immunodeficiency Virus.
You understand that the two names are already very different and using the acronym makes more familiar and less frightening the disease. Say Immune Deficiency Syndrome or say AIDS is very different.
Just do an images search on the web with the keyword AIDS and you will see that will appear various written in red and the symbol of the disease, the red bow. Conversely, if we do an images search labeled Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, we will see images of viruses, tables with numerical data of infections of, deaths etc…
Here, what we have set in this article is to make an attempt to understand whether it is actually better explain to people what is AIDS (or other disease) through logos or symbols (such as the red bow) and acronyms, or if it would better “hit them”, building brands less “nice” that break the construct of the daily routine of the people forcing them to a realization almost forced.
The game is done in a delicate balance between respect for the sick (that with a heavy and hard brand they would be seen as lepers) and communication effectiveness. We have the hard task to say the things that disturb, unfortunately, you know, have a capacity to attract quick and easy, while the things that do not disturb take longer to get noticed, but have the beautiful virtue of not to disturb.
The question is whether it is right in this case disturb the peace or gently fit within the construct of the visual culture, trying to attract attention in a calm way convinced that the “good manners” in the long run they always win.
For clarity it is better to understand, what is the utility of a branding of a disease, at least as regards the logo, a base of color and lines of design chosen.
The brand of a disease and its communication have to be useful to attract attention for fundraising, for communication on preventive, lenitive and curative activities, for the science divulgation and for the mass sensitizing.
Excluding the communication of lenitive and curative activities, for all other communication goals to be achieved, you are forced to focus on research of attention of the audience that would otherwise (understandably) tend to think of anything else.
This is the fundamental problem: attract attention on something that people (we reiterate understandably) tends to think of anything else.
Precisely for this reason we always try to create events that relieve pain that even just the think about the disease gives us. In the end, for the law of the opposite, we raise money for diseases and plagues, doing magnificent Gala and we use flowers and plants in the streets to try to raise money for diseases that often have little to do with the sweetness of a flower, this is reality.
The question, especially from the point of view of the image, is similar to that for which it was discussed a few years ago about the written against smoking that had to be put on packages of cigarettes: was better a written on paper or an image that show how are reduced the lungs of a smoker? He won the first and on the fight against smoking the effectiveness is almost nothing, especially on the younger ones, but actually we do not know how it would go differently.
The problem ultimately we believe it is in the diversity of function that the brand must carry out in these cases. Switch from the fund raising, at the social sensitizing, passing through the science divulgation, would require projects of communication and brand totally differents.
In fact, the strange case of branding disease is that they have virtually the same value (50-50) from the point of view scientific-biological as social-psychological, making it difficult to determine where it should go the branding.
There are cases in many areas of the market where the brand has two “faces” so to speak, one of these purely institutional, unknown to the public, used to communicate with the experts and another instead used for mass communication.
The idea of ​​creating two faces could be a way to make more powerful the brand depending on the occasion of use, but often people are lost in the transition between one side and the other, risking of make confusion and come to believe they are two different things.
From our point of view, branding the diseases, is one of those cases that do jurisprudence, where it has to find an ad hoc solution through the construction of a hybrid brand.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This blog is kept spam free by WP-SpamFree.

Skip to toolbar