The word “brand” has become synonymous with hefty hundred page manuals from the likes of branding powerhouses Landor and Pentagram. In these corporate identity “brand bibles” lie numerous specifications about the brand strategy, color palette, typography, imagery, and graphical elements that the brand will be comprised of. From the lofty “voice of the corporation” to the nitty-gritty “how much white space should surround the logo” specifications, everything is comprehensively spelled out, every “i” dotted and every “t” crossed. While these documents awe the beholder with an often uncompromising aesthetic beauty, my question is: are they as valuable as they look? And, are they relevant?

What is a brand? Wikipedia states that a brand is “the symbolic embodiment of all the information connected with a product or service.” A company’s brand is usually closely tied to how the corporation wishes to market itself. What is the purpose of a brand? In a corporate sense, a brand is often times a means to an end: a brand is one of many corporate mechanisms for creating passionate users and buyers of the company’s products or services. For example, the Starbucks brand conveys a place of constance: wherever in the world you may be, Starbucks will provide a consistent experience, a sense of home.

The idea of “brand” has been around for ages. Cavemen engraved their symbols of ownership like artists signed their names. Knights created Coats of Arms while Argentinean farmers branded their cows. “Lovemarks” have been around since the beginnings of recorded time. Today, with the “liberation” of information, are paradigms shifting? And if so, is there such a thing as Brand 2.0?

The paradigm of Open Source is the talk of the times. Wikipedia (an open source encyclopedia) defines the term as “[when] the origins of a product are publicly accessible in part or in whole.” If software is open source, its source code and documentation are readily available to and modifiable by the public. In the past twenty years, what is the bygone lesson-learned from products or corporations that harness open source? A passionate user base; the same end-goal of our “brand bibles.” Except, brands alone rarely achieve a passionate user base; bad brands you say? I can’t rule it out.

If “open source” and “brand” are both means to an equivocal end (a passionate user), the challenge becomes, can “open source” and “brand” live symbiotically? Or, is there such a thing as the “Open Source Brand”?

I propose that there is such a thing as an “Open Source Brand,” but that it is hardly a Brand 2.0. What an open source brand entails is the philosophy of open source in conjunction with the art and science of brand. In other words, instead of a brand dictatorship (ie. adhering to specifications) think of the corporation as “brand host” (giving users the means to create or modify the brand as they see fit).

This open source brand concept is age old (just something that is all the more relevant to our times). When I was doing work for Harley-Davidson (a brand that has elevated its status to that of American Icon), the most interesting aspect of its brand were the riders themselves. The Hells Angels wasn’t a creation of the corporation, they were bike enthusiasts whose philosophies are now considered an equal part of the brand. They took the Harley-Davidson traditional lovemark (the Harley-Davidson shield) and added tassels, leather, rivets and sweat. Harley bars across America took the logo and replaced the words with their own names. Bikers tattooed themselves with numerous other variations. Did Harley cramp down and scream infringement? Of course not, they played “host” to their riders and often times facilitated this interaction. Harley-Davidson emanated the philosophy that the individual is the brand, that not everyone is a Harley rider, and that there is an unsaid right-of-passage. Harley-Davidson’s brand is truly open source; it’s the individual’s challenge.

Getting back to the original question, are “brand bibles” as invaluable as they look? Probably not, although I do think that they make a corporation focus on important aspects of their brand. Are they relevant? They can be if used as suggestions instead of rigorous guidelines. I suggest opening them up to the public and seeing what you get back.

That said, I would like to introduce to you, TripTie’s new logo: