Can a brand system be too flexible? Along with Frontify, we ask three studios for their hot takes

Welcome to The Shift, a series presented in collaboration with one of the world’s leading brand-building platforms, Frontify. Here, we’ll dive deep into the realm of flexible, dynamic branding. We’ll be tapping into the sharpest minds in design – from visionary studios to leading independent designers – to understand what it takes to build a dynamic identity. But, is it possible for a brand to be too flexible? For part two of this series, we’re looking at the sliding scale of brand fluidity, and how designers can strike the right balance between fixed and flexible assets within brand identity frameworks. What components should be consistent, and what should evolve over time? Drawing upon insights from their own flexible client projects, Studio Koseda, Snøhetta Design and JKR share their thoughts. In the post-war years of globalisation and international commercial expansion, a company’s identity was often entrusted to a memorable logo alongside a fitting wordmark and key colour – think of Margaret Calvert’s 1964 logo for Glasgow Airport, or Franco Grignani’s 1964 logo for Woolmark. Designed for recognisability and universal comprehension, these simple systems were straightforward yet profoundly effective. Before now, a brand identity system was constrained by the ease of reproduction on different surfaces or at various scales (from a van livery to company stationery). A static brand mark was the brand, deftly encapsulating the entirety of the enterprise in a few lines and shapes.