One question we received about our branding discussion is “what about uniformity?”  There’s a value, goes the argument, in having things that are sacred in all contexts and channels (beyond the core values of the organization we argued are the point of a brand).  And there’s something to be said for being in a different country, not speaking the languages, and seeing the golden arches that say what’s inside.  Or the Apple apple or the Google four-color logo.  Such brands got where they are by having consistency, right, thus the need for brand standards?

Not really.  We talked previously about all the changes big brands have made in their logos.  But even with iconic logos, there’s room for some playing around.  Here’s what McDonald’s did for International Women’s Day:

Apple has changed the core (rim shot) color of its logo five times in the last 20 years.  And Google is known more for its logo doodles than its standard logo:

You might correctly argue back these are large brands who used brand consistency for years to get to a place where they can afford to play around a bit.  This is largely true, but it also assumes we have perfect recall of even the most iconic logos.  We don’t as we discussed previously.

Plus, different takes on a brand still support the core brand.  What do these actors have in common?

• Robert Downey Jr.
• John Cleese
• Joaquim de Almeida
• Benedict Cumberbatch
• Ian McKellen
• Yuko Takeuchi
• Roger Moore
• Will Ferrell
• Johnny Deep
• Christopher Plummer

They, along with scores of others, all have played the most portrayed human character in all of film: Sherlock Holmes.  Henry Cavill – aka Superman – will be portraying him next year, perhaps out of jealously that Iron Man, Doctor Strange, James Bond, the Doctor, and Magneto have already done it.

Any brand standards you could have for the character are honored more in the violation.  He’s British, unless he isn’t.  He works with Dr. Watson, unless he doesn’t.  He’s a man, unless she isn’t.  He’s a pacifist or an underground fight club participant.  He’s a drug user, pipe smoker, or nicotine patch user.  He’s in Victorian London, present-day, or anywhere or anywhen in between.  He’s a brilliant scientist, a buffoon, or a façade for another person (or rat in Disney’s Basil of Baker Street)

Each portrayal or new book series (I’m a fan of Brittany Cavallaro’s series about the teen descendants of Holmes and Watson, interested to read Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s next Mycroft Holmes novel, but stopped reading Laurie R. King’s about an aged Holmes taking on a teen girl apprentice (because of where it goes – no spoilers here)) adds to the overall Holmes mythos.  Thus, it’s likely that the canon will sustain where other less flexible canons will not.

So too is it with us.  We can get fundraising results when we allow users to play with our brand and logo.  And we can get fundraising results when we allow our brand to mean different things to different people.  As Roger talked about originally on brand from Adrian Sergeant and Harrier Day’s research, we do best when brand is a servant, not a master.

Nick