For those with long memories there was a time when the word ‘brand’ was used just to denote consumer products – think Coca-Cola, Heinz, Persil. Not anymore. Today ‘brand’ may refer to businesses, political parties, charities, universities or football clubs, not mention entire nations and even individuals. Anything or anyone can be a brand now, as we well know.

For the world of business, maintaining the saliency of your company’s brand can be critical to its success, but it has taken 50 years for this to be universally recognised. If we track back to the early 1970s, we can see the beginnings of the modern brand revolution.

It was a revolution in which designers rather than marketing or advertising professionals took the lead. Based less on consumer appeal or sales, the design view was broader. It was formed around building coherence and consistency of expression across every aspect of a business. Designers began to show clients how a well-designed product or service delivered with well-designed packaging and sold through well-designed environments, and so on, could make a bigger impact and build a stronger reputation. The totality was important, not just the individual parts.

What we have learned
There are lessons to be learned from 50 years ago, and maybe indicators for the next 50.

One brand we must surely be able to learn from was famously launched from a garage in Los Altos, CA. That was in 1976. Today it is the world’s most valuable brand. Yes, you’ve guessed it – Apple. From the start it did things differently from established competitors – looking at computing from a more intuitive perspective, getting inside the heads of users and reverse-engineering its technology. As it transitioned from desktops to laptops to tablets and smartphones, Apple stuck with that basic premise – make it easy for the user and ideally make it simpler and more beautiful. This attitude has sustained its innovative philosophy and its brand over the decades.

Reflected in its logo and messaging, the Apple brand has steered a course of remarkable consistency. Though much copied, the essentially minimalist Apple aesthetic has largely avoided fashionable trends while occasionally indulging in playfulness. So, the brand is both serious and relatable. Like any major corporation Apple has its detractors and will need to guard how it operates in a world that now cares much more about sustainability and about purpose beyond profit. History suggests Apple may be able to steer this course successfully, but it will be a challenge now it is in the top spot chased by hungry competitors.

What we can learn from Apple is not just the value of difference, user-first focus, and consistency, but about the nature of its ‘purpose’.

Purpose gives meaning to a brand beyond market differentiation and a value proposition. It asks a basic question – why are we here? This notion of something beyond achieving customer satisfaction, profit and shareholder value is not new, but is now more than ever relevant to success. Implicit in defining purpose is how employees and all stakeholders are treated, how the business operates in relation to the planet and to people generally. This in turn reflects the brand’s values – what do we believe in? Ideally a brand’s values never change.

These are fundamentals, and it’s likely that they will consistently underpin the successful brands of half a century hence. As far as the brand’s expression is concerned things may be very different.

Trends and patterns
Over recent years we have seen brand names, like logos, go through phases, especially following mergers, acquisitions, or changes of direction. New Latinate constructs such as Aviva or Accenture were conceived to signal modernity or a more global outlook. By contrast, Standard Life Aberdeen chose to consolidate its brand into the vowel-free abrdn, reflecting a ‘clarity of focus’ according to its management, but seen as a farcical attempt to appear ‘cool’ by some observers.

Names based on initials are a convenient but frequently undistinguished solution, such as RSA (Royal Sun Alliance), or BT (British Telecom). Occasionally initials have staying power, as with IBM (International Business Machines) and GE (General Electric) whose names, though generic, have allowed them to change course without the need to change name. After all they are still in the same businesses – broadly speaking.

Increasingly we see names that provide some flexibility as a business develops rather than being associated with a particular offer. Amazon has allowed itself some room by choosing a name that can continue to fit as its services change and develop. Others, like J.P.Morgan, stubbornly continue to identify themselves by the name of their founder over a century later, perhaps providing reassurance in a volatile financial world.

Likewise, with logos, trends are inevitable but can be dangerous in the longer haul. Sometimes a great idea can be kept relevant and expressive for centuries. The Lloyds Bank black horse dates back to the 1670s when it was a sign over a coffee house, and today continues to feature prominently in the bank’s identity and marketing. This suggests that sometimes it’s best not to tamper too much with historic assets. Longevity and authenticity are prized elements in branding. Levi’s and Harley-Davidson still resonate with baby-boomers because of their stories of authenticity and origin.

Looking to the future
So, what will still resonate with younger generations 50 years from now?

One possibility is that brands may be doomed to ever shorter lifespans as the world accelerates towards the future. Whether created on the back of an envelope (will we still have such things?) or by generative AI, brands might become more fluid, constantly in a process of change and transformation. More sophisticated data analysis will help brands track their own performance and respond faster to shifts in perception. We may be witnessing the emergence of ‘chameleon brands’ which adapt rapidly to their environment, shapeshifting in response to whatever the current situation demands. Technological innovation increasingly allows brands to implement changes faster across channels and media.

The criteria that will favour a brand’s survival must surely include how it responds to, or harnesses, the challenges of climate change, societal benefit, and emerging technologies.

Brand survivors may be the ones we least expect. In a world favouring sustainable vegetable products, could a brand like Marmite survive? It needs no refrigeration and lasts for years. Or, perhaps counter-intuitively, Shell. The company that once pivoted from exporting seashells to oil extraction might do it again and find itself a new net zero sector.

Or simply, be a brand that operates in a sensory business that is as old as the hills. Fragrance, for example. A fair bet for such a survivor might be Chanel, although its timeless brand packaging is currently being closely imitated by China-based upstart Shein. Of course, another candidate must be NASA, if only because of its mission, track record of innovation and focus on the future – the first brand on Mars?

The chances are that we will experience a combination of ways for brands to remain successful and resonant. Brands that feel individualistic, mindful or hand-crafted may appeal to niche markets, while other larger players who hang on to their purpose and values will continue to flex and bend in the struggle to stay ahead.

Jim Northover
Jim co-founded Lloyd Northover and has played a pioneering role in the world of design and branding. He joined Industry as a start-up, served as its chairman for ten years, and is now devoting more time to consulting, writing and making art.