Audit and inventory
What you make, how often, and who makes it. This decides the size of the system more than any creative judgement does.
Creative direction · Visual identity systems · Sydney
A logo is not an identity. An identity is everything needed to make the next thousand assets look related, made by people who were not in the room when it was designed.
Grab the snowball. Give it a spin, and watch it grow as you scroll. Just like recognition.
The short answer
A visual identity system is the complete set of visual parts a brand uses, and the rules governing how they combine: the marks, the typefaces, the colour set, the graphic devices, the layout logic and the treatment applied to imagery. The word system is doing the work. A logo is one part of one part.
The test of a system is not how the presentation looks. It is whether somebody with no involvement in the project can produce a new asset that looks like it belongs, using only what was handed over. Most identity work fails that test and nobody notices for a year.
So we build systems against real assets rather than against a mood board, and we test them by making things nobody planned for. It sits inside our wider creative direction service, and because our Snowball SEO platform automates the search heavy lifting other agencies bill by the hour, more of your budget goes into the design.
The difference
Six parts. Most identity projects deliver two of them beautifully and leave the other four to be improvised later by whoever needs them first.
If the identity itself already exists and the problem is consistency of use, that is visual direction rather than a new system.
The cost
Breadth and testing. Designing marks is a bounded job. Building a system that holds across every surface a real business uses is the larger half.
Existing identity
Keeping the marks and building the missing parts, which is the commonest real need and the least often sold.
New identity
Marks, type, colour, devices, layout and image treatment, built and tested together as one thing.
Applied
The system, plus the templates and first assets that prove it works, which is what makes it survive first contact.
We quote after a free consult and a look at what you produce most often. On how the identity is then directed in use, see brand visual direction.
Identity work is presented on the exciting applications: the poster, the campaign, the hero page. Those are the assets a business makes twice a year.
The assets it makes daily are a proposal document, a social post, an invoice, a slide, a form. If the system does not work on those, it does not work, and that will be discovered by whoever has to make one at five o'clock.
So we test on the dull deliverables first. It makes for a less impressive presentation and a system that is still standing in three years.
The scope
Files your team can open, rules they can follow, and proof it works.
Primary, secondary and the small-size version, in the formats and colour spaces your team and your suppliers actually use.
A type scale with real sizes and a colour set with usage rules and contrast checked, rather than a palette and good intentions.
Grids, spacing and how much room things get, which is the part that makes unrelated assets read as one brand.
How photography and video are handled so commissioned work and phone footage can sit on the same page.
The system applied to your dullest, most frequent deliverables, as proof rather than as illustration.
Editable, organised and named, so the next designer inherits a system rather than an archaeology project.
The return
Less than a large agency will sell and more than a logo. The right size is decided by how many people make assets and how often, not by the size of the business.
The commonest waste in identity work is a business of nine people buying a system designed for a business of nine hundred, then applying about a fifth of it.
The commonest failure is the reverse: a business that has grown past its rung, where six people now make assets against rules written when one person did, and the brand is quietly coming apart.
We will tell you which rung you are actually on, including when the honest answer is that you need less than you asked for.
The process
Six to ten weeks depending on breadth, with testing built in rather than added at the end.
What you make, how often, and who makes it. This decides the size of the system more than any creative judgement does.
Marks, type and colour, developed together because they constrain each other and are usually designed apart.
The graphic devices and the layout logic, which is where a set of nice elements becomes a system.
Applied to your dullest, most frequent deliverables, which is where systems break and where breaking is cheap.
Rules with examples, written for the people who will apply them rather than for the people who designed them.
Source files organised, templates where they help, and a named owner for the awkward cases.
The brief
Identity is bought on presentation quality and lived with on whether it works at five o'clock on a Thursday.
Ask for the boring deliverables: a proposal, a slide, a social post, a form. Poster applications prove nothing about daily use.
Every system meets a case it did not anticipate within a month. Ask what the rule is then, and who decides.
Source files, organised and named, in formats your team and suppliers actually use. This is asked too late more often than any other question.
A good answer sometimes recommends less. A supplier who scales the system to the size of the business rather than to how it works is selling by headcount.
We are happy to answer all four and to audit what you make most often. On directing the system in use, see brand visual direction.
Start here
Send us the five things your business makes most often. The free consult is a working session, not a sales call, and you leave with three things whether or not you book us.
Good questions
It is the complete set of visual parts a brand uses and the rules for how they combine: marks, type, colour, graphic devices, layout logic and image treatment. A logo is one part of one of those six.
No. A logo is one element. A system is everything needed to make the next thousand assets look related, produced by people who were not involved in designing it. Buying a logo and calling it an identity is the most common and most expensive mistake here.
We quote after seeing what you make most often. What moves it is how many surfaces it has to work on, whether existing marks are kept or replaced, how much testing on real assets is included, and whether templates and first applications are in scope.
Test it on your dullest, most frequent deliverables rather than on the exciting ones. If it works on a proposal document, a slide and a social post, it will hold. If it has only been shown at poster size, nobody knows yet.
It depends on how many people make assets and how often, not on the size of the business. A founder making everything needs marks and basic rules. A team of six with external suppliers needs written rules those suppliers can follow.
Usually, and it is often the better answer. Most brands have adequate marks and are missing layout logic and image treatment, which are the parts that actually cause the inconsistency they are worried about.
Colour contrast and type sizing are constraints on the system rather than a check at the end. Designing a palette and then discovering half the combinations fail is a rework nobody budgets for.
You do, organised and named, in formats your team and suppliers can open. Ask this before the work starts rather than at handover, because it is a very awkward conversation to have late.