According to the Dutch public, the eagle emblem has overtones of the Third Reich in it.
The bank's emblem predates the Nazi regime by 230 years. World War II ended in 1945. So it's taken 62 years and the hope of a merger of gargantuan proportions to evoke this controversial consideration. Comments the UK's Daily Express, “Analysts said dropping the eagle showed how far Barclays was prepared to go to trade its heritage for effective control of the Dutch bank.”
But that's a topic for another day.
What interests us here is the power of symbolism across different markets and communities. To the thousands of Barclays employees, the eagle – originally derived from the legendary bird of Ordin which features in the German coat of arms – means one thing; to ABN Amro's tribe, it means something quite different.
While the two organisations' mutual association with the bird is without mutual allegiance to each other, here is a bank that is willing to overhaul its centuries-old identity because a single new market has sensitivities around the meanings it associates with its primary symbol. It's a real sign of globalisation.
And who's to say who's right? Who are the winners, who are the losers – and at what cost? Symbols are repositories of meaning. Whose meaning exactly is debatable and it all boils down to subjectivity.
Subjectivity is one of those corollaries of democracy. A logo can't be all things to all consumers. Which brings me to the second incident that is making waves, also originating on British soil.
The new 2012 Olympics logo has yielded unprecedented public response and fervid debate, not least in the local brand fraternity here – some in favour but far more overwhelmingly not so. I exercise my right to remain impartial for the time being. Because that's exactly what we should do. For the time being.
Presently the Wolf-Olins-designed 2012 logo is being judged at face-value, without any of the merits of its strategy or intent being taken into consideration. The logo that was released to the public on 5 June 2007 is merely the uppermost visual layer of a composite identity, void of substance. The supporting narrative has yet to be unveiled and to take root. To be fair, this is not yet available. And so the debate at this stage is just premature ejaculation. How can one have an opinion?
But it's my opinion that all outspoken negative industry commentators should be branded myopic and shortsighted; while the street-side consumer can be forgiven, operatives in the branding industry should know better. Consumers build association with brands through usage and meaning is created over time. If the critics do not understand this, they frankly don't get the business we're in.
Brands need time to percolate, develop and take shape. We need to allow for the impact of time. In the case of Barclays, a meaning has developed over centuries wider than was originally planned for.
Over its 317-year existence, Barclays has refreshed its identity six times to remain relevant to its consumers and it now has to factor in another potential consumer base with all its symbolic subjectivities.
Time can build or erode a brand, but most important of all is timing. Brand owners need to get the timing right: the release of the 2012 logo was hopelessly off. Instead of limiting the release to a logo, it should've been presented to the world as a story, as a pitch to its client – the world's public. The logo was undoubtedly brave, and if it were not brave in its design, it'd be merely drawing on and confining itself to people's obvious and existing associations with the city of London. It's being judged on the now versus where it should be.
Brand custodians need to better manage the unveiling of their design to control perceptual outcomes. Only then can it mature from a logo to an identity.
