A discussion about branding
quad damage
Hi everyone.
Yesterday I found myself thinking about branding, as a game artist.
Obviously we know our online identity is basically a brand, being the type of artist that we are in the modern age. Consistency is important, and so it usability/readability, especially in relation to our websites, but also avatars, and things like that.
That being said, it isn't just about having a good brand/consistent design elements. There are preferred styles, and not falling into line can either make you more appealing, or a major turn off, depending on how it's executed, and on who's viewing.
An example of unique branding, that is executed really well, is Marie-M Pepin's website. It's clean and classy, and very different than most portfolio designs for game artists. It's an absolute favorite of mine, branding wise. But I imagine some people dislike the serif logo font, and the pure white background (which to me, are the most defining elements of it.
So here's the thing; how adventurous can we get with our branding before turning people off? Is a white background admissible, if the design is good, and if your work isn't super dark, and therefore hard to view by contrast? Or do some people see white, and just immediately complain? And is it ok to alienate people like that, for the sake of a good, unique, and consistent brand?
And as someone who has a strong view about design, and a unique taste; is it better to go with the crowd, when designing your website (i.e. Design by committee), or to do what brings you the most joy, and what you feel is most consistent with who you are, and how you want your website and branding to be?
TL;DR: Is it more important for your website and branding to be agreeable to the most people, or unique/true to who you are?
And also, if your work is amazing, do you have more flexibility in this regard than someone who is good, but not great?
I'm curious to hear people's thoughts. Thanks for reading.
Yesterday I found myself thinking about branding, as a game artist.
Obviously we know our online identity is basically a brand, being the type of artist that we are in the modern age. Consistency is important, and so it usability/readability, especially in relation to our websites, but also avatars, and things like that.
That being said, it isn't just about having a good brand/consistent design elements. There are preferred styles, and not falling into line can either make you more appealing, or a major turn off, depending on how it's executed, and on who's viewing.
An example of unique branding, that is executed really well, is Marie-M Pepin's website. It's clean and classy, and very different than most portfolio designs for game artists. It's an absolute favorite of mine, branding wise. But I imagine some people dislike the serif logo font, and the pure white background (which to me, are the most defining elements of it.
So here's the thing; how adventurous can we get with our branding before turning people off? Is a white background admissible, if the design is good, and if your work isn't super dark, and therefore hard to view by contrast? Or do some people see white, and just immediately complain? And is it ok to alienate people like that, for the sake of a good, unique, and consistent brand?
And as someone who has a strong view about design, and a unique taste; is it better to go with the crowd, when designing your website (i.e. Design by committee), or to do what brings you the most joy, and what you feel is most consistent with who you are, and how you want your website and branding to be?
TL;DR: Is it more important for your website and branding to be agreeable to the most people, or unique/true to who you are?
And also, if your work is amazing, do you have more flexibility in this regard than someone who is good, but not great?
I'm curious to hear people's thoughts. Thanks for reading.
Replies
We have some good info here about branding. I don't want to repeat it all, trust me it's worth reading.
http://wiki.polycount.com/wiki/Portfolio
However ... for the sake of being productive, If I may take your own site as an example I think you may have gone overboard with font/text use. There is no real need to cover your own art with text to a point where it ends up breaking the careful compositions you have spend hours crafting. It almost looks as if someone else took you art and added text on top and around it to distract from it, and this is unnecessary. I think your portfolio layout needs to breathe much more - at the moment it feels on the cramped side, and very dark.
I hope this makes sense !
I don't have much experience with freelance / a large online following through.
When there's 40 applicants to look through, good branding is nice; however, ease of navigation and quick image loading are the most important factors.
The website should be clean, no loaders. The very first page should tell your public what you do without having to read. The real name of the artist should be in full at the top of that page. For example http://pioroberson.com/wp2014/ That takes care of white.
Having said that write text and include descriptions in your site to help SEO
Target your work and site to the people you want to sell to. That takes care of style.
If your work is stellar you can get away with a free blog and as your work sells itself the rules above dont apply. However great artists always have their name prominently displayed. That takes care of geniuses!
Your website will not sell itself and if you are of middle ability then you should use all the other social platforms and personal networking to point to your professional self. It's quite a bit of work but these days I think its necessary.
Cheerio
Another thing to consider is the platform your website will be viewed in. When I was at Uni I HTML coded my own website and, as a result, you could only view it on google chrome because if you tried anything else it was broken. I then switched to Squarespaced (which is the platform Marie-M Pepin is using) for my website and that basically sorts out all of the coding for me and my site works on every platform.
Some people like to make logos and stuff like that but I now just prefer to have my name, what I do and then my artwork (which is what is most important).
Ultimately I think a critical aspect of portfolio branding is how you "brand" the images. I personally have all of my images on my website branded with my name and website link. Imagine someone likes your work, saves it to their desktop and after a few months they want to get hold of you but don't know where or how to do so. Brand your images
To get picky I would look into consistency. Same fonts, sizes, colours, spacing, CV in style with website and all that will help to give an overall good impression. You show that you have taken consideration into how you present yourself and that is also noted.
Oh, and I prefer dark value to light value as I think it frames the image better, but that's just personal opinion
Thank you all for the thoughtful replies; this is exactly what I wanted to get going. A discussion on branding, so we can see a little more about it, from personal perspectives. I know a lot of the things people "generally agree upon" get boiled down into a kind of gospel, and as such, I find it can be a little simplistic and one-sided at times.
But I think the individual ideas here in this thread so far show how diverse the opinions can truly be.
kanga , while I like the idea of the full-name domain name, I find it's pretty difficult, unless you want to tack on other words. Take my name, for instance: Andrew Leslie. AndrewLeslie dot com is taken by a photographer, and AndyLeslie dot com is taken by a website that's blocked on my work computer for mature content. I think I made the logical choice here, which I've seen many make: if you have a username you've used forever, and it's not taken, it can be a good domain name, as well. It is, after all, your brand. But I definitely agree about having your full name, writ large, on your website's header.
Beefaroni, you're right, for sure. Speed of loading and ease of use are absolutely most important. I think there is really no argument to say otherwise. No use having a beautiful website if no one ever sees it.
And Pior, thanks for the feedback on my own site. I certainly see its flaws, and get the urge to redesign it regularly, haha. But it's unfortunately not a natural talent of mine, and I'll probably switch over to a premade solution at some point.
You're a game artist mang.
Work on some projects and make a bunch of cool stuff.
Then work on some more projects and make some cooler stuff
I don't even put a name on my work it's just an email in the corner.
But regardless good work would still be needed.
But including your website address or something, somewhere small on the image, can only make it that much easier to find you and your work. Even if it isn't the dealbreaker it used to be.
I mentioned above that I only put my email on my work and I've gotten emails from people who found it on pinterest, most of them only emailed me after they tried searching for it online first. Unfortunately my old work isn't online anywhere (posted by me anyway) so reverse searching it just yields a bunch of pinterest and tumblr reposts.
I agree with Amsterdam that it probably isn't critically important, but considering the trivial shit people get focused on when talking about portfolios (domain names for example....) I think watermarking is definitely in the realm of demonstrably providing real value.