There is an interesting post at Nine Rules that suggests bad design can actually help a brand. The chosen example is myspace.com, a site that has recently been purchased by Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation.
It's an interesting question to answer and it revolves around understanding the early adopters of the brand. These were hip LA club goers who wanted to feel that the environment was uncontaminated by corporate interests and felt like it was homemade and came from the culture. The rough edges on the design gave it character.
The lo-fi aesthetic in this case is a compelling turn-on to people who were probably over exposed to over-design in their every day lives. In this world, myspace.com became a "break", a naive and innocent space, unencumbered with the trappings of polished aesthetics. A place that wanting to be discovered, a neighborhood.
So the design fitted the brand mission and goals; it was on brief and a perfect fit.
Clearly the design needs to fit the brief, but there's sometimes a temptation to over-design, when under-design would be better. It's all become a little predictable. It's almost become too easy and expected.
It seems harder to strip it away to the design to the core essence of the brand, without the props and the dazzle. In a world where consumers are seemingly demanding more authenticity, can you strip away the superfluous fluff to show who you really are and what you really do?
