Studio Brief 01 - Interim Critique

Having spent the first week of Studio Brief 01 gathering in-depth research into the complex hierarchy of HSBC, it's available services, heritage, and future goals - I noted down three questions prior to the critique I felt I needed answers for from my peers before I progressed with the development and production of my re-brand logotypes.

The three questions and responses are documented below:

Question 1:

Do you think the new re-branded HSBC identity needs to maintain a connection to the previous aesthetic via the use of the colour red?

• "It depends on the re-brand, and how much impact you want it to have."
• "No, I would say Red was the wrong colour for a bank all together. Doesn't 'being in the red' mean you're in debt?"
• "Not necessarily."
• "Choose a colour that works best for the new name of the bank."

Question 2

Should establishments such as banks refrain from using hand-rendered type?

• "I think it would depend on how hand-drawn it looked. It would still need to look corporate and professional."
• "It might be nice to produce a more personalised identity using hand-rendered type."
• "It depends of the style of the lettering."
• "You'd have to try it out to see if you could make it work."

Question 3

Do you think that the re-branded identity needs to feature a "UK" specification in the name? 

(as HSBC are introducing 2018)

• "No, changing the name would be enough to make a difference."
• "I don't think so, it would seem unnecessary."
• "No, just change the name."
• "It might be restrictive."

Having received feedback to my three significant questions, I feel I am now able to progress onto developing logotypes, using my research and feedback from today's critique to inform my practice.