Jeff, I will comment on both the mindmap and the below posting on your brand campaign "BIAGRSIV" in this comment posting.
I think your mindmap speaks volumes. It feels inclusive on words like "believe, trust, network, exhibit, enlighten, educate, promise, understand, bold, articulate, control, freedom and refreshing" to name a few.
In my opinion, your current selection for your brand name, "BIAGRSIV" doesn't hold a candle to what you have come up with in your mindmap which is much more complex and inclusive. Your name "BIAGRSIV" only reminds me of your coach who was yelling at you at the top of his lungs to "be more agressive."
If you are sure you want to stick with this word "BIAGRSIV", then I would consider the word "bi" (stands for double, or dual) which is very different from the word "be" which you say is what you want to communicate in the below statement.
I understand your feedback, and the wordplay can be a little confusing to those if they don't grasp the concept. Those things need to be resolved. I know the text in that proposal showed up kind of small on the blog so if you weren't able to see my full explanation of my "suggested" brand identity, I could explain briefly here. The "BIA" is actually a mythological God of force, power and might.. from what I've discovered through my research. "AGRESIVE" is obviously degenerative spelling for the actual word. Does that provide better explanation? Or was that legible enough to read from the blog and you don't feel like that title would present itself properly?
Jeff, it was hard to read you proposal, but I did read it. And I did get the part about the "BIA", but the "bia" gets lost in the "agressive" due to the fact that we don't know the word "bia" but we do know "agressive." And because we don't see "bia" we read it as "bi" and that is the premises of my comments. A mindmap makes connections that we are not aware of. That's why it's so important, because it doesn't just feed into what we want to think about things, it brings our what we do think about things. That said, if you really dislike the outcome of your mind map, I would do it again with more focus on the words you want to work on.
On another note, if your brand is for the general public, personally, I don't find anything positive about the word "agressive". You may want to do some research (ask 5 people per age group) about what they think of the word "agressive" and see what the outcome is. (Also look at other "role models". Is nike one of them? Is rebok another? these do not in anyway actively say 'agressive.'
Looking at the word "bia" might be more helpful?
I would definitely ask for feedback from not only your classmates, but also different age groups like I said above. I hope this clarifies things. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
There is a big difference between 'agressive' and 'athletic'. You can develop that interpretation through advertisement, but the brand is not producing 'aggression' for purchase. The brand's name is a name. It is not onamonapia.
4 comments:
Jeff, I will comment on both the mindmap and the below posting on your brand campaign "BIAGRSIV" in this comment posting.
I think your mindmap speaks volumes. It feels inclusive on words like "believe, trust, network, exhibit, enlighten, educate, promise, understand, bold, articulate, control, freedom and refreshing" to name a few.
In my opinion, your current selection for your brand name, "BIAGRSIV" doesn't hold a candle to what you have come up with in your mindmap which is much more complex and inclusive. Your name "BIAGRSIV" only reminds me of your coach who was yelling at you at the top of his lungs to "be more agressive."
If you are sure you want to stick with this word "BIAGRSIV", then I would consider the word "bi" (stands for double, or dual) which is very different from the word "be" which you say is what you want to communicate in the below statement.
I understand your feedback, and the wordplay can be a little confusing to those if they don't grasp the concept. Those things need to be resolved. I know the text in that proposal showed up kind of small on the blog so if you weren't able to see my full explanation of my "suggested" brand identity, I could explain briefly here. The "BIA" is actually a mythological God of force, power and might.. from what I've discovered through my research. "AGRESIVE" is obviously degenerative spelling for the actual word. Does that provide better explanation? Or was that legible enough to read from the blog and you don't feel like that title would present itself properly?
Jeff, it was hard to read you proposal, but I did read it. And I did get the part about the "BIA", but the "bia" gets lost in the "agressive" due to the fact that we don't know the word "bia" but we do know "agressive." And because we don't see "bia" we read it as "bi" and that is the premises of my comments. A mindmap makes connections that we are not aware of. That's why it's so important, because it doesn't just feed into what we want to think about things, it brings our what we do think about things. That said, if you really dislike the outcome of your mind map, I would do it again with more focus on the words you want to work on.
On another note, if your brand is for the general public, personally, I don't find anything positive about the word "agressive". You may want to do some research (ask 5 people per age group) about what they think of the word "agressive" and see what the outcome is. (Also look at other "role models". Is nike one of them? Is rebok another? these do not in anyway actively say 'agressive.'
Looking at the word "bia" might be more helpful?
I would definitely ask for feedback from not only your classmates, but also different age groups like I said above. I hope this clarifies things. Please let me know if you have any other questions.
There is a big difference between 'agressive' and 'athletic'. You can develop that interpretation through advertisement, but the brand is not producing 'aggression' for purchase. The brand's name is a name. It is not onamonapia.
Post a Comment