I’m with the Bland: How generics became cool again. Millennial Minimalism Movement, Naming Paradigm, History of Generics, The Great Generic Paradigm

Amanda and Kim spice up the trending dialogue around Blands! A concept being gossiped about regarding VC backed disruptor brands who share monotonous san-serif “blanding” across identity, voice, naming, logo and visuals.

Kim gets into the backstory of Blands causing quite a stir in the industry particularly in 2020’s Bloomberg article by Ben Schott Welcome to Your Bland New World - “Why do disruptive startups slavishly follow an identikit formula of business model, look and feel, and tone of voice? Because it works, sort of.”

Following the success of Warby Parker - it seems that VC kids demanded more, more, more (of the same, same, same) causing the blandification of the market and brands therein. 

Kim makes some very valid points however about this concept:  

1. This isn’t a new concept. The chatter started 2018 with a Fast Company article: “The hottest branding trend of the year is also the worst - Is your made-up name rendered in a sans-serif type, with thiiiiiiiis much white space? Congratulations! You are a bland.”
2. Minimalism has been trending hardcore for well over 10 years - and when these original VC disruptor trends started Minimalism was actually fresh and new to the Millennials these brands were geared toward. Coined here as the Millennial Minimalism Movement.
3. Branding Agencies develop the most of the branding for these Blands - and its usually the same agency - actually 3 VC backed agencies: Gin Lane, Red Antler and Parters & Spade that specifically cater to that precious Millennial look and have built billion-dollar businesses over and over again. As Gen Z continues to grow to have more spending power we will start seeing a shift in aesthetics to cater to this much different demographic (think the rise of unique and maximal brands). 

What makes a Bland a Bland?
Well, first things first - gotta go with the NAMING! Blands names are notoriously carbon copy namers and rely on similar naming tropes (as described from the Bloomberg article): 

• Quirky or Naive names: Judy, Floyd, Billie, Henry, Maude) or “studiously cool” like the Jack Kerouac based Warby Parker. 
• Portmanteaus: Hungryroot, Baublebar, Tracksmith, Trubrain, Classpass, Platejoy
• Color+Noun: Blue Apron, Black Milk, Purple Carrot, Green Chef
• Monoliths: Public Goods, Ministry of Supply, Primary Goods, Modern Citizen
• Vowelessness: RMDY, MVMT, DSTLD, HVMN, TRNK, MNDFL
• Ampersands: Tuft & Needle, Frank & Oak, Hook & Albert, Loom & Leaf
• Quirk: Lemonade insurance, Kangaroo home security

But for anyone who hasn’t named a brand - Naming is super tricky and kinda a science. Beyond just liking a name there are logistical reasons behind some of the naming decisions behind brands.

• First - registering for a trademark is really hard - so usually the name has to be very original and why you see so many made-up names. 
• Second - SEO - your name has to stand out - and you don’t want to compete in search ranking.  Like you start a Sneaker company and want to call it Runner’s Club - try googling that! The same goes for registering for a website! Hence the trend behind other domain names than .com becoming normalized (i.e. thedepartment.world)- it’s really hard to get a website unless you have a very original name. 
• Listen in for a very special discussion about the White Claw name as well! 

Once the name is settled - ditch the logo - Fonts and Typefaces are all you need (san-serif if you please) .

Bland logos are confident but cute, utilizing an array of tweaks and twists to provoke the all-important “smile in the mind.”

Then move onto visuals - which is described as rather neutral, simple and looooooots of white space. They are generic for the sake of inclusivity.

Which is understandable why - these VC backed companies don’t want to alienate anyone and remain neutral for the sake of acquiring the largest market share. It is a commercial approach and It is a safe approach. But it makes them particularly generic  - because there isn’t much of a point of view. 

How do brands avoid become Bland Casualties? 

• Easiest one? Minimal Branding OUT - Maximal branding in!  
• Risk it to stand out
• Cultivate a true Point of view
• Engage with an outside the box or newer branding agency 
• Niche but make it nice

Amanda takes us back to simpler times and discusses the evolution of the generic 1970’s supermarket brand that has evolved over the years. In particular, No Frills grocery store founded in 1978 that took a page from the French generic brand Carrefour who saw extreme popularity in their minimal branding approach to discount and value groceries. At No Frills nothing was branded (although it could be argued that No Frills and their No Name was essentially a brand) with plain canary yellow packaging and simple san serif font spelling out the contents of the packaging. No Frills took a stand:  forget the brand, focus on what’s inside, and save lots of money. Their quest for minimal packaging came from the concept that it conveyed a sense of thriftiness and value...that a savvy shopper might not have a lot of money but knew that it was what was inside the package that counted. 

Listen and learn

99% Invisible ︎︎︎
No Frills Podcast Episode

Ian Sevenious wrote a great essay a few years ago taking on Apple as part of this idea of minimalism being an aesthetic owned by the wealthy.  The basic premise was: poor people can’t afford to be minimalist because they need stuff to survive.

Power to the Pack Rats