Manchester United posted the above image last week. As soon as I got the free time I needed to have fun with it, I made my wife and myself a part of the team by throwing our faces over the blank image. Here’s how they turned out:
Do you want to #playfor Manchester United? Leave a comment below and I will get in touch with you about sending me a photo to get in the MUFC kit.
“Why did you change it again?”, “It liked how it was before!”, “It was fine.” It may have been “fine” before, but that’s exactly what I appreciate about innovation; you can something that was fine before and make it better. Better than what? Better for what? Everything has an agenda, a particular image to portray. If you or what represents you doesn’t seem to be doing it’s job well it may be time to find something that will do it more appropriately.
Needless to say, I wasn’t satisfied with the visual representation of this site. I felt uneasy about something. It may not have seemed like a big deal to many, but to me is was a beam in the eye aesthetics. The background was outrageous and distracting. It drew attention, but not to the proper things. Backgrounds are supposed to add by bringing the audience’s focus to the intended object of attention, the article or posting.
A recent discussion with Marcie, a valued peer, and a story about Steve Job’s attention to detail brought to my attention the need to be OK with innovation, even if (and especially if) that means forward movement means reevaluating/ redesigning/ restructuring.
Here’s a walkthrough of my “rebranding” thus far:
v1.0My first attempt at creating my “brand.”
v2.0A temporary design to hold the fort while I created a “true brand.”
v2.1 My first attempt at my new “brand.” Not terrible, but it never felt good.
v2.2Where we are today. A much cleaner, less distracting site. My current “brand” image. I like it; always open to scrutiny, however.
With all of that being shared, I’m interested to know your take on this topic. How do you define your brand? Why?